I've got a question for the pb tories, I suspect until you're able to answer it the party will continue to flounder.
Whether or not I agree with Corbyn I know exactly what he stands for: what does Mrs May's Conservative Party believe in?
Serious question.
I like boring and serious government with fiscal prudence.
+1.
I'm 'conservative' in the small-c sense. That does not mean we don't have any change, or that we hark back to ye good olden days. It does mean that we change things that need changing, but only after carefully looking at a problem and coming up with a sane and rational policy to address it.
I've got a question for the pb tories, I suspect until you're able to answer it the party will continue to flounder.
Whether or not I agree with Corbyn I know exactly what he stands for: what does Mrs May's Conservative Party believe in?
Serious question.
I would say normally Conservatives are for lower taxes, supportive of business and property rights, minimal welfare for the undeserving (ie not the elderly) and generally pragmatic and unideological in people's pursuit of making money. They have mixed messages on welfare now. The rest, apart from property rights, have been blown apart by their position on Brexit.
You must have missed the campaign. And certainly you did not see the video which Carlotta regularly updated us on how many people had viewed it. Last count was 5m.
Yes, and how many people saw the Momentum videos trashing Theresa May?
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
I agree with this but to restate my point below that others disagreed with, Sir Martin Moore-Bick should convince the residents that he's on their side and being on their side means getting to the truth. Lawyers have a tendency in my experience of not seeing the wood for the trees. A lot of their work revolves around close interpretation of texts, so it's not surprising. Public inquiries are typically the establishment's expensive and showy way of being seen to address an embarrassing problem while not assigning blame to any individual. This inquiry might be different of course.
How can he get them on his side, when some of them (and those representing them) aren't even giving him a chance? He was criticised the moment his name was announced.
The only conclusion is that such people don't want a fair inquiry.
I think you're far too cynical about inquiries. The second Francis report into Stafford only occurred because Francis himself (a QC) criticised the terms of reference of the first inquiry he was given. That second report was excellent.
I could also point you at Lord Scarman's report into the Brixton riots back in ?1981? that told some very uncomfortable truths. I daresay there are many other excellent examples.
A technocrat might be able to produce a very good report into the technical failures (then again, a technocrat might have vested interests). He would be much less able to look into the other areas.
According to the BBC report the main response at Sir Martin Moore-Bick's uncomfortable meeting with residents was one of scepticism than of outright rejection. That scepticism is understandable and possibly justified. It's up to Sir Martin to prove them wrong. You could argue Sir Martin is their best and only chance of getting to the truth. It's in the residents' interest to go along with it.
Indeed some public inquiries do get to the bottom of the problem. Let's hope this is one. Again that's up to Sir Martin. Unfortunately most are mainly for show.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Boris tops the poll amongst all voters in early Tory leadership polls, Hammond has fewer negatives than Boris in those polls but also far fewer voters who are positive about him either.
I have just offered a bet for 200 euros that Corbyn will never be Prime Minister. I'll go to 400 that Boris won't.
That is a terrible bet from your perspective, Roger.
The only way you can collect is when Boris kicks the bucket.
I've got a question for the pb tories, I suspect until you're able to answer it the party will continue to flounder.
Whether or not I agree with Corbyn I know exactly what he stands for: what does Mrs May's Conservative Party believe in?
Serious question.
I like boring and serious government with fiscal prudence.
+1.
I'm 'conservative' in the small-c sense. That does not mean we don't have any change, or that we hark back to ye good olden days. It does mean that we change things that need changing, but only after carefully looking at a problem and coming up with a sane and rational policy to address it.
Evolution, rather than revolution.
A good test for a statement such as this is... Would anyone reasonably propose the opposite? If the answer is no... Then it's just platitudes.
I don't think anyone is in favour of insane irrational policy made up without looking at problems carefully. Or in favour of leaving things that need changing as they are.
Low taxes is fine. Some people want high taxes. Personal responsibility is fine. Some people want collective responsibility. Etc.
Sometimes there's a mood among the electorate and today's mood is that they're bored with austerity. There was very little mention of the Debt or deficit - no ticking clock at the back of the BBC presenter showing the Debt spinning ever upwards.
I've no problem with adopting the Scandinavian model of high benefits, but Labour will never mention the other side of the coin ... high Scandinavian taxes. I've no problem with bashing the bankers or making rich people pay more tax, but that would need International action to be truly effective.
There's a feeling of "Lord of the flies" from some of the younger voters. Loss of innocence is sad, but it's going to happen.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
No. Since Armagh is not in Britain.
Armagh is in Britain (which is an official synonym for the UK); it is not in Great Britain. No doubt some fraction of its inhabitants would prefer it were in Ireland.
You must have missed the campaign. And certainly you did not see the video which Carlotta regularly updated us on how many people had viewed it. Last count was 5m.
Yes, and how many people saw the Momentum videos trashing Theresa May?
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
The Tory campaign was akin to a side that's 3-0 up at half time and has come out to defend. That's understandable in a way, but they were defending way, way too deep, and never adapted when the opposition got two quick goals early in the second half.
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
To the extent it was negative, that made a virtue out of necessity. Saying "Tories can't be trusted on the NHS and schools" unites the Labour tribes... if they'd added "but John McDonnell can - he's got a ten year plan about it" that would've potentially got tricky.
Sometimes there's a mood among the electorate and today's mood is that they're bored with austerity. There was very little mention of the Debt or deficit - no ticking clock at the back of the BBC presenter showing the Debt spinning ever upwards.
I've no problem with adopting the Scandinavian model of high benefits, but Labour will never mention the other side of the coin ... high Scandinavian taxes. I've no problem with bashing the bankers or making rich people pay more tax, but that would need International action to be truly effective.
There's a feeling of "Lord of the flies" from some of the younger voters. Loss of innocence is sad, but it's going to happen.
Morning all. I think there is, alongside the anti austerity vibe, a rather anti interventionist feeling especially amongst the youth. We are war weary, and there is a feeling out there that the misfortunes of terrorism are to an extent worsened by our interventions abroad much as Corbyn suggested. The absence of the cold war has exacerbated this, there isn't a nation state to fear and defend ourselves from. People, especially young people, appear to want to live peacefully with good public services, they don't want to be part of great global war games or to see what influence Brtain has in the world. They would appear to prefer to invite the world here to party. China is no longer seen as the yellow peril, Russia is scary, but not in the international communism sense of the word. They'd rather Trump stop poking the bear. Indeed, divorce yourself from the special relationship and the world's issues, or rather the response to the same, lies properly somewhere between Trump and Putin, not exclusively closer to Trump either. Ludicrously sentimental, but I think there's a genuine and growing desire to give peace a chance.
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
Admittedly, not being of the demographic myself, I'm going on second-hand reports from nephews and nieces; this whole campaign was on Facebook and other social media channels, and was largely under the radar of people here on PB and of the mainstream media. I'm not even sure how much of it was done by the Labour Party officially, and how much by Momentum or simply individuals creating and sharing videos. That whole question of the use of social media in the election is crucial to understanding an important part of what happened.
I've got a question for the pb tories, I suspect until you're able to answer it the party will continue to flounder.
Whether or not I agree with Corbyn I know exactly what he stands for: what does Mrs May's Conservative Party believe in?
Serious question.
I like boring and serious government with fiscal prudence.
+1.
I'm 'conservative' in the small-c sense. That does not mean we don't have any change, or that we hark back to ye good olden days. It does mean that we change things that need changing, but only after carefully looking at a problem and coming up with a sane and rational policy to address it.
Evolution, rather than revolution.
A good test for a statement such as this is... Would anyone reasonably propose the opposite? If the answer is no... Then it's just platitudes.
I don't think anyone is in favour of insane irrational policy made up without looking at problems carefully. Or in favour of leaving things that need changing as they are.
Low taxes is fine. Some people want high taxes. Personal responsibility is fine. Some people want collective responsibility. Etc.
There are loads of reactionary, ill-thought out or insane policies. As an example: 50% of youngsters to go to uni.
Plenty of people want revolution; many more read about a scandal in the paper and screech: "Something must be done!"
It's good politics to give them what they want. It's good governance in holding back a little, except in extreme cases, and working out what really needs doing, if anything.
You must have missed the campaign. And certainly you did not see the video which Carlotta regularly updated us on how many people had viewed it. Last count was 5m.
Yes, and how many people saw the Momentum videos trashing Theresa May?
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
The May-killers were the Liar Liar song and the Cassette Boy mashup, neither ostensibly momentum productions I do't think.
It was me posting updates on the Corbyn video (8.2m views, https://order-order.com/2017/05/27/corbyn-ira-attack-ad-hits-1-million-views/). I was right that it is an amazingly effective bit of cinema, but I drew the wrong conclusion that it was damaging to Corbyn when what it actually does is showcase his charisma.
Corbyn has successfully managed to capture the anti austerity, anti financial sector mood and the revival of the populist left in the West in a delayed reaction to the 2008 Crash. It is not impossible that by July 2022 PM Corbyn could be meeting President Sanders and President Melenchon at the G20 summit to plot the biggest economic shift to the left in half a century
I'm not a fan of long term bets, but if I was I would go with Melenchon and Macron in R2 of 2022 for sure. Since the election he has been all over the TV much more than MLP or the 2 old parties. He's done a good job of portraying himself as the true opposition to Macron, and his lot are buoyant while the FN seem listless and dejected.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
No. Since Armagh is not in Britain.
Armagh is in Britain (which is an official synonym for the UK); it is not in Great Britain. No doubt some fraction of its inhabitants would prefer it were in Ireland.
A little education is needed here.
It is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a reason.
I agree with this but to restate my point below that others disagreed with, Sir Martin Moore-Bick should convince the residents that he's on their side and being on their side means getting to the truth. Lawyers have a tendency in my experience of not seeing the wood for the trees. A lot of their work revolves around close interpretation of texts, so it's not surprising. Public inquiries are typically the establishment's expensive and showy way of being seen to address an embarrassing problem while not assigning blame to any individual. This inquiry might be different of course.
How can he get them on his side, when some of them (and those representing them) aren't even giving him a chance? He was criticised the moment his name was announced.
The only conclusion is that such people don't want a fair inquiry.
I think you're far too cynical about inquiries. The second Francis report into Stafford only occurred because Francis himself (a QC) criticised the terms of reference of the first inquiry he was given. That second report was excellent.
I could also point you at Lord Scarman's report into the Brixton riots back in ?1981? that told some very uncomfortable truths. I daresay there are many other excellent examples.
A technocrat might be able to produce a very good report into the technical failures (then again, a technocrat might have vested interests). He would be much less able to look into the other areas.
According to the BBC report the main response at Sir Martin Moore-Bick's uncomfortable meeting with residents was one of scepticism than of outright rejection. That scepticism is understandable and possibly justified. It's up to Sir Martin to prove them wrong. You could argue Sir Martin is their best and only chance of getting to the truth. It's in the residents' interest to go along with it.
Indeed some public inquiries do get to the bottom of the problem. Let's hope this is one. Again that's up to Sir Martin. Unfortunately most are mainly for show.
"Unfortunately most are mainly for show."
Citation required.
Scanning the short list of inquiries listed in the Wikipedia article, I would pick out Leveson, Hutton, the Rosemary Nelson inquiry, the Scottish parliament building inquiry. The last was a supreme example of the art. Mistakes were made (in the passive). No-one was to blame.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
No. Since Armagh is not in Britain.
Armagh is in Britain (which is an official synonym for the UK); it is not in Great Britain. No doubt some fraction of its inhabitants would prefer it were in Ireland.
A little education is needed here.
It is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a reason.
Yes -- and for the umpteenth time you have ignored the difference between Britain and Great Britain. Britain is a synonym for the UK; Great Britain is not.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
No. Since Armagh is not in Britain.
Armagh is in Britain (which is an official synonym for the UK); it is not in Great Britain. No doubt some fraction of its inhabitants would prefer it were in Ireland.
A little education is needed here.
It is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a reason.
We've been through that:
Peter_the_Punter Posts: 3,708 9:39AM logical_song said: » show previous quotes OK, I'll now attempt to out-pedant you difficult though that may be ;-) Britain could be taken as shorthand for the British Isles in which case.....
Shall we call this a draw, before we bore everybody to death?
There are loads of reactionary, ill-thought out or insane policies. As an example: 50% of youngsters to go to uni.
Plenty of people want revolution; many more read about a scandal in the paper and screech: "Something must be done!"
It's good politics to give them what they want. It's good governance in holding back a little, except in extreme cases, and working out what really needs doing, if anything.
I would agree with everything you wrote and we have completely different views. So as a statement of belief... It's not great.
The only disagreement I would potentially have is on university. I don't think it's insane to have 50% going... I do wonder whether that's more than we really need but I'm pretty relaxed about it for now.
My first post on here, I think, since 9th June. Things have moved on...!
I do think Tories need to hold their nerve, and it seems the MPs and activists are minded to do just that in the main. When Vince takes the helm of the LDs, then I am sure the Left vote largely all now with Corbyn will start to split and some drift back to the LDs. I do think the Tories are in a decent position all things considered, even if 38% in YG yesterday is more reflective than the 40-41% they have generally been getting recently. Given the leftie outrage over the DUP deal and NI money tree, coupled with the typically abysmal response by May to Grenfell, and the oddity of the post-election "winner's bounce" being felt by the perceived winner Corbyn not May, I do think it is not a bad position to be in.
Ditching May and having a leadership contest to replace her with one of the current leading Cabinet players, even Boris, would look self indulgent and risk a further Tory slump. Let's not forget, May does still edge Corbyn in the Best PM stakes - that counts for a lot. I do think the Labour surge reflects a sense of some Tory voters not being very happy with the dismal election campaign/result and giving them a kick for it.
Question Time last night quite illuminating. Felt like a lot of warmth for Rees-Mogg compared to Burdon and Lucas, surprisingly perhaps. There's a lot of voters out there, not only Leavers, who are repulsed by Labour/Corbyn.
The Tories need to look for a fresh and voter friendly face to replace TM in around 2020 - JRM may be an off the wall choice, or someone like Heidi Allen if she was to be quickly promoted (which I know won't happen as she's a rebel voice and usually off message, but she seems far more in tune with the public mood and values than any other leading candidate).
You must have missed the campaign. And certainly you did not see the video which Carlotta regularly updated us on how many people had viewed it. Last count was 5m.
Yes, and how many people saw the Momentum videos trashing Theresa May?
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
Tax Bombshell ? You mean when Theresa May refused to rule out a tax increase but McDonnell said there will be a tax increase for anyone earning more than £80k and even more so for someone earning more than £123k. Plus Corporation tax rate will be increased to 26%.
If I were earning £70k , I would know that under Labour my taxes will not increase. Under the Tories, my taxes will increase because they did not rule it out.
Corbyn/McDonnell played a better game than your lot did. Simple. The fact is [ as per post election surveys ], Labour actually got more votes than the Tories in the 18 - 55 age group, i.e. most taxpayers. It is the Tories who lost out in taxes.
You must have missed the campaign. And certainly you did not see the video which Carlotta regularly updated us on how many people had viewed it. Last count was 5m.
Yes, and how many people saw the Momentum videos trashing Theresa May?
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
If I were earning £70k , I would know that under Labour my taxes will not increase. .
Yes, and how many people saw the Momentum videos trashing Theresa May?
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
Have to say I don't often agree with you and this is another example.
I'd make two points - first, Corbyn was vilified in the media from the moment he was elected Labour leader. On here you had all the usual Conservative activist suspects coming on and saying every interview was a car crash, every reshuffle a disaster and how good it would be for the country (and especially the Conservative Party) if Labour was humiliated at the polls.
Behind the apparent largesse was the simple desire to see Labour beaten and one can only imagine the gloating there would have been had May won her expected landslide.
I'd also say posters are old hat at least on public billboards.
Second, this election was entirely the responsibility and decision of the Conservative Party. This is your fault, it's your mess so take some responsibility. There was no need to call an election and it was just a hubristic desire to lord it over everyone else. The truth was the Conservative Party campaign was an unmitigated disaster because as soon as the veneer of "trust Theresa" was stripped away, the cupboard was bare.
Corbyn was as vilified in the media and elsewhere as Kinnock, Miliband, Brown and Clegg. The Conservatives thought that would work - it didn't. That's worth some serious thought.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
No. Since Armagh is not in Britain.
Armagh is in Britain (which is an official synonym for the UK); it is not in Great Britain. No doubt some fraction of its inhabitants would prefer it were in Ireland.
A little education is needed here.
It is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a reason.
Yes -- and for the umpteenth time you have ignored the difference between Britain and Great Britain. Britain is a synonym for the UK; Great Britain is not.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Boris tops the poll amongst all voters in early Tory leadership polls, Hammond has fewer negatives than Boris in those polls but also far fewer voters who are positive about him either.
I have just offered a bet for 200 euros that Corbyn will never be Prime Minister. I'll go to 400 that Boris won't.
That is a terrible bet from your perspective, Roger.
The only way you can collect is when Boris kicks the bucket.
My first post on here, I think, since 9th June. Things have moved on...!
I do think Tories need to hold their nerve, and it seems the MPs and activists are minded to do just that in the main. When Vince takes the helm of the LDs, then I am sure the Left vote largely all now with Corbyn will start to split and some drift back to the LDs. I do think the Tories are in a decent position all things considered, even if 38% in YG yesterday is more reflective than the 40-41% they have generally been getting recently. Given the leftie outrage over the DUP deal and NI money tree, coupled with the typically abysmal response by May to Grenfell, and the oddity of the post-election "winner's bounce" being felt by the perceived winner Corbyn not May, I do think it is not a bad position to be in.
Ditching May and having a leadership contest to replace her with one of the current leading Cabinet players, even Boris, would look self indulgent and risk a further Tory slump. Let's not forget, May does still edge Corbyn in the Best PM stakes - that counts for a lot. I do think the Labour surge reflects a sense of some Tory voters not being very happy with the dismal election campaign/result and giving them a kick for it.
Question Time last night quite illuminating. Felt like a lot of warmth for Rees-Mogg compared to Burdon and Lucas, surprisingly perhaps. There's a lot of voters out there, not only Leavers, who are repulsed by Labour/Corbyn.
The Tories need to look for a fresh and voter friendly face to replace TM in around 2020 - JRM may be an off the wall choice, or someone like Heidi Allen if she was to be quickly promoted (which I know won't happen as she's a rebel voice and usually off message, but she seems far more in tune with the public mood and values than any other leading candidate).
QT was remarkable: JRM heard in silence when admitting to being inordinately rich, Burgon given a much-applauded kicking as an inhabitant of the Westminster bubble who knows nothing about running a small business. I think there was respect for JRM saying he has never claimed a penny of MP's expenses (and quite right too, because free money still looks pretty attractive no matter how rich you are. The contrast with Dave getting his wisteria fixed by the taxpayer speaks volumes). The cheering for the beleaguered small businessman also shows what a dumb idea it was on spreadsheet Phil's part to mess about with their NI contributions.
You must have missed the campaign. And certainly you did not see the video which Carlotta regularly updated us on how many people had viewed it. Last count was 5m.
Yes, and how many people saw the Momentum videos trashing Theresa May?
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
Tax Bombshell ? You mean when Theresa May refused to rule out a tax increase but McDonnell said there will be a tax increase for anyone earning more than £80k and even more so for someone earning more than £123k. Plus Corporation tax rate will be increased to 26%.
If I were earning £70k , I would know that under Labour my taxes will not increase. Under the Tories, my taxes will increase because they did not rule it out.
Corbyn/McDonnell played a better game than your lot did. Simple. The fact is [ as per post election surveys ], Labour actually got more votes than the Tories in the 18 - 55 age group, i.e. most taxpayers. It is the Tories who lost out in taxes.
On Facebook a couple of days before GE I saw a sponsored link in my feed to a Labour Party tax calculator. As I earn >£80k, I put my details in just for fun, to be told I'd pay something like £3.50 a week/£180 a year more, but the message was couched in polite and progressive language telling me they think I'm in a better position than many to pay a little more for better schools, services, railways, etc etc and ease the burden on those less fortunate etc - I didn't buy it, and of course, someone like me would be paying a damned sight more than £3 a week for a Corbyn govt for sure, but it didn't immediately alienate me and may have caused even a few people earning over that level to think voting Labour may be "the right thing to do".
I was bombarded with this sort of thing from Labour during the GE, including stuff shared by my mostly leftie friendship circle. I got sweet FA from the Tories other than scaremongering about Corbyn and bland repetitive messages from TM about strong and stable leadership and not being JC.... - i'm amazed in the scheme of things they actually came so close to getting a majority....
I wonder if in a few years we'll look back at this election and think despite the result it was the correct decision by the Tories.
A 5 year term with a potential extra 3 years post Brexit may well be a lot more beneficial than going to the polls just 1 year after Brexit. The small majority obviously means the Tories are more hamstrung but if they do go the distance a 73 year old Corbyn won't be leader in 2022 and it will force Labour into another divisive battle to pick his successor.
The importance of those potentially extra 2 years could be huge, especially knowing there will be a different Tory leading the party into the next election.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
No. Since Armagh is not in Britain.
Armagh is in Britain (which is an official synonym for the UK); it is not in Great Britain. No doubt some fraction of its inhabitants would prefer it were in Ireland.
A little education is needed here.
It is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a reason.
Yes -- and for the umpteenth time you have ignored the difference between Britain and Great Britain. Britain is a synonym for the UK; Great Britain is not.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
No. Since Armagh is not in Britain.
Armagh is in Britain (which is an official synonym for the UK); it is not in Great Britain. No doubt some fraction of its inhabitants would prefer it were in Ireland.
A little education is needed here.
It is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a reason.
Yes, but Ireland is one of the British Isles. Great Britain is merely the largest of the British Isles. Britain is often used interchangeably to mean either Great Britain or the UK. It could also in theory be used to refer to the entire group of islands, but that has dropped out of usage for the obvious reason of annoying the Republic of Ireland.
Oddly, "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" neglects a large number of smaller islands which are neither in Great Britain nor Ireland, but are certainly in the UK.
You must have missed the campaign. And certainly you did not see the video which Carlotta regularly updated us on how many people had viewed it. Last count was 5m.
Yes, and how many people saw the Momentum videos trashing Theresa May?
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
Tax Bombshell ? You mean when Theresa May refused to rule out a tax increase but McDonnell said there will be a tax increase for anyone earning more than £80k and even more so for someone earning more than £123k. Plus Corporation tax rate will be increased to 26%.
If I were earning £70k , I would know that under Labour my taxes will not increase. Under the Tories, my taxes will increase because they did not rule it out.
Corbyn/McDonnell played a better game than your lot did. Simple. The fact is [ as per post election surveys ], Labour actually got more votes than the Tories in the 18 - 55 age group, i.e. most taxpayers. It is the Tories who lost out in taxes.
It's the way you tell 'em! I believe that the living standards of virtually everyone will be badly impacted by a Corbyn majority government over the medium term, the majority will be clobbered even in the short term. Unemployment up, interest rates shooting up, taxes up for many not just the few. Investment down and confidence destroyed. On top of a difficult Brexit it would be an unprecedented post-war crises.
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
Admittedly, not being of the demographic myself, I'm going on second-hand reports from nephews and nieces; this whole campaign was on Facebook and other social media channels, and was largely under the radar of people here on PB and of the mainstream media. I'm not even sure how much of it was done by the Labour Party officially, and how much by Momentum or simply individuals creating and sharing videos. That whole question of the use of social media in the election is crucial to understanding an important part of what happened.
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the election and it became clear that 1) they were all going to vote; and 2) to a man and woman they were going to vote Labour. This had nothing to do, as far as I could see, with enthusiasm for Corbyn; more a feeling (quite understandable in my view) that they as a generation had been stitched up by Brexit, unaffordable house prices and tuition fee debt. Rather sweetly, one young woman approached me quietly to ask about much time she'd have to allow - how long the queue would be. She'd been thinking she'd have to get up an hour earlier than usual. In hindsight I should have used this to inform a few bets on Labour performance in London, but I didn't.
You must have missed the campaign. And certainly you did not see the video which Carlotta regularly updated us on how many people had viewed it. Last count was 5m.
Yes, and how many people saw the Momentum videos trashing Theresa May?
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
What election were you watching? The Conservative campaign was entirely negative. Attack-dog Mr Fallon was brought out at every opportunity. Banging on about Corbyn's past indiscretions and Abbott's ineptitudes were wholly legitimate but no one noticed that this was having limited effect. Negative campaigning worked brilliantly in 2015, but after the Brexit vote the writing was on the wall that people didn't necessarily believe negative focussed politicians.
Labour had every right as the opposition to question the incumbent's record, that is their function. I would argue the Labour campaign was by and large positive. It was after all offering free magic fairy dust to everyone who wanted it.
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
Admittedly, not being of the demographic myself, I'm going on second-hand reports from nephews and nieces; this whole campaign was on Facebook and other social media channels, and was largely under the radar of people here on PB and of the mainstream media. I'm not even sure how much of it was done by the Labour Party officially, and how much by Momentum or simply individuals creating and sharing videos. That whole question of the use of social media in the election is crucial to understanding an important part of what happened.
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the election and it became clear that 1) they were all going to vote; and 2) to a man and woman they were going to vote Labour. This had nothing to do, as far as I could see, with enthusiasm for Corbyn; more a feeling (quite understandable in my view) that they as a generation had been stitched up by Brexit, unaffordable house prices and tuition fee debt. Rather sweetly, one young woman approached me quietly to ask about much time she'd have to allow - how long the queue would be. She'd been thinking she'd have to get up an hour earlier than usual. In hindsight I should have used this to inform a few bets on Labour performance in London, but I didn't.
100% agree with both those posts. I certainly picked up the hostility pre-8th June and posted about it on here.
Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
Why won't he? He's a vote garnering machine and the Labour won't ditch him until he drops dead.
Yes... the Lib Dems are about to elect a leader who is today already older than Corbyn will be in 2022!
There have been doubts in the past over whether Corbyn enjoys it sufficiently. At times since 2015, he's seemed to be having a miserable time - snapping at journos, moaning about the workload, and generally looking dismal.
Just now, however, why wouldn't he be having fun? He's gone from being an old has-been speaking to a dwindling band of Trots who wished Tony Benn had been available instead, to headlining Glastonbury. It must be exhilarating, frankly.
Whether that will last, who knows. But, for now, I don't see any reason for him to shift voluntarily.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Boris tops the poll amongst all voters in early Tory leadership polls, Hammond has fewer negatives than Boris in those polls but also far fewer voters who are positive about him either.
I have just offered a bet for 200 euros that Corbyn will never be Prime Minister. I'll go to 400 that Boris won't.
That is a terrible bet from your perspective, Roger.
The only way you can collect is when Boris kicks the bucket.
I'll have to take more notice of his obesity!
Boris has been having too many cakes? And eating them?
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the election and it became clear that 1) they were all going to vote; and 2) to a man and woman they were going to vote Labour. This had nothing to do, as far as I could see, with enthusiasm for Corbyn; more a feeling (quite understandable in my view) that they as a generation had been stitched up by Brexit, unaffordable house prices and tuition fee debt. Rather sweetly, one young woman approached me quietly to ask about much time she'd have to allow - how long the queue would be. She'd been thinking she'd have to get up an hour earlier than usual. In hindsight I should have used this to inform a few bets on Labour performance in London, but I didn't.
100% agree with both those posts. I certainly picked up the hostility pre-8th June and posted about it on here.
Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
I'm currently working on the premise that the only way labour will fall now in popularity is for their policies to actually be enacted and to meet reality,
It's a no brainer than 'spending more on public services' is popular, or 'tax the rich bastards and corporations is'. It's only when the consquences of those actions are seen that the pendulum will swing back the other way.
We had clear Labour leads during the 2010-2015 Parliament under Ed Miliband.
Tories shouldn't panic - the next election is a long way off - but, as TSE says, the issues go beyond the leader.
To win again, they will need to generate a wholesale renewal whilst in Government.
Tough ask.
At most it is less than 4 years 10 months away. To put it another way we are as close to May 5th 2022 as to September 9th 2012 - a month after the end of the London Olympics. The latter still feels pretty recent to me!
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the election don, but I didn't.
100% agree with both those posts. I certainly picked up the hostility pre-8th June and posted about it on here.
Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
I'm currently working on the premise that the only way labour will fall now in popularity is for their policies to actually be enacted and to meet reality,
It's a no brainer than 'spending more on public services' is popular, or 'tax the rich bastards and corporations is'. It's only when the consquences of those actions are seen that the pendulum will swing back the other way.
Of course the biggest way to boost the Tories is for Corbyn and McDonnell to get elected and actually have to implement what they have promised
... I'm currently working on the premise that the only way labour will fall now in popularity is for their policies to actually be enacted and to meet reality,
It's a no brainer than 'spending more on public services' is popular, or 'tax the rich bastards and corporations is'. It's only when the consquences of those actions are seen that the pendulum will swing back the other way.
You may be right. On the other hand, I think the hardcore anti-Corbyn vote is quite a bit higher than the hardcore Corbyn vote. At the moment Labour have a lot of soft support but will it be there at the next election under circumstances which we can only guess at?
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
Admittedly, not being of the demographic myself, I'm going on second-hand reports from nephews and nieces; this whole campaign was on Facebook and other social media channels, and was largely under the radar of people here on PB and of the mainstream media. I'm not even sure how much of it was done by the Labour Party officially, and how much by Momentum or simply individuals creating and sharing videos. That whole question of the use of social media in the election is crucial to understanding an important part of what happened.
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the didn't.
100% agree with both those posts. I certainly picked up the hostility pre-8th June and posted about it on here.
Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
Momentum certainly won't have much love for workers at a corporate law firm following a Corbyn win
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
Admittedly, not being of the demographic myself, I'm going on second-hand reports from nephews and nieces; this whole campaign was on Facebook and other social media channels, and was largely under the radar of people here on PB and of the mainstream media. I'm not even sure how much of it was done by the Labour Party officially, and how much by Momentum or simply individuals creating and sharing videos. That whole question of the use of social media in the election is crucial to understanding an important part of what happened.
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the didn't.
100% agree with both those posts. I certainly picked up the hostility pre-8th June and posted about it on here.
Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
Momentum certainly won't have much love for workers at a corporate law firm following a Corbyn win
If the young urban graduates vote in a Corbyn / McDonell govnermnet then it will be an example of tremendous self sacrifice, even if unintended.
[snip] If I were earning £70k , I would know that under Labour my taxes will not increase. [snip]
LOL! Exactly, you have put the point better than I did - the Tories allowed that completely absurd line by McDonnell to be left unchallenged. It seems that some people even believed it (but not you, surely?)
Corbyn has successfully managed to capture the anti austerity, anti financial sector mood and the revival of the populist left in the West in a delayed reaction to the 2008 Crash. It is not impossible that by July 2022 PM Corbyn could be meeting President Sanders and President Melenchon at the G20 summit to plot the biggest economic shift to the left in half a century
I'm not a fan of long term bets, but if I was I would go with Melenchon and Macron in R2 of 2022 for sure. Since the election he has been all over the TV much more than MLP or the 2 old parties. He's done a good job of portraying himself as the true opposition to Macron, and his lot are buoyant while the FN seem listless and dejected.
Yes Melenchon is now the main opposition to Macron, as Corbyn is to May and Sanders is to Trump
On topic, ditching May certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it would improve the Tory rating in the polls (assuming that the right candidate replaces her). That said, simply 'improving' the polling wouldn't necessarily generate a Con lead never mind the 20+ leads we saw in April.
The election campaign has done catastrophic damage to the Tory standing with a lot of people. In the absence of a coherent policy programme and clear values for the public to latch on to, all that sticks in the mind is the social care charging, the winter fuel allowance and so on. Added to the continuing divisions over Brexit (still largely behind closed doors so not really visible to the general public who aren't paying close attention), and you don't have a vision of a confident party being well-led to a place that people want to go.
Against which, with Labour, there is at least that kind of vision and a policy platform to support it. It's a crap vision - of state bungs left, right and centre, to many people who don't deserve them and don't need them and of perverse incentives; of the creation of an appalling level of debt for the future, which would likely produce such a chilling effect on an already slowing economy that it would probably tip it into outright recession - but it's a vision all the same and in the absence of an alternative, and the absence of an adequate challenge (and to be able to make the challenge, you need to both have the arguments and the credibility to make it), Labour will continue to get far too much of a free pass.
the 20% leads were in the polls, not in reality.
No, they were in reality. Results like Copeland or winning the Teesside or WMids mayoralties don't happen unless the poll leads reported were real.
Back on topic, the saying goes, oppositions don't win elections; governments lose them. Maybe the Conservatives are just not very good. Embarrassingly they are less coherent, less competent and have a lower will to govern than the Labour Party led by an IRA sympathiser, believer in money taps, who has voted more often against his own party than some Conservative MPs.
No political party ever has campaigned on unsound govt..
Ha, we just saw a political party do unexpectedly well on exactly that platform.
It was an overwhelming mandate for unsound government, conservatively they got 82.3% between them. Not convinced the voters will like it when they get it though...
My first post on here, I think, since 9th June. Things have moved on...!
I do think Tories need to hold their nerve, and it seems the MPs and activists are minded to do just that in the main. When Vince takes the helm of the LDs, then I am sure the Left vote largely all now with Corbyn will start to split and some drift back to the LDs. I do think the Tories are in a decent position all things considered, even if 38% in YG yesterday is more reflective than the 40-41% they have generally been getting recently. Given the leftie outrage over the DUP deal and NI money tree, coupled with the typically abysmal response by May to Grenfell, and the oddity of the post-election "winner's bounce" being felt by the perceived winner Corbyn not May, I do think it is not a bad position to be in.
Ditching May and having a leadership contest to replace her with one of the current leading Cabinet players, even Boris, would look self indulgent and risk a further Tory slump. Let's not forget, May does still edge Corbyn in the Best PM stakes - that counts for a lot. I do think the Labour surge reflects a sense of some Tory voters not being very happy with the dismal election campaign/result and giving them a kick for it.
Question Time last night quite illuminating. Felt like a lot of warmth for Rees-Mogg compared to Burdon and Lucas, surprisingly perhaps. There's a lot of voters out there, not only Leavers, who are repulsed by Labour/Corbyn.
The Tories need to look for a fresh and voter friendly face to replace TM in around 2020 - JRM may be an off the wall choice, or someone like Heidi Allen if she was to be quickly promoted (which I know won't happen as she's a rebel voice and usually off message, but she seems far more in tune with the public mood and values than any other leading candidate).
QT was remarkable: JRM heard in silence when admitting to being inordinately rich, Burgon given a much-applauded kicking as an inhabitant of the Westminster bubble who knows nothing about running a small business. I think there was respect for JRM saying he has never claimed a penny of MP's expenses (and quite right too, because free money still looks pretty attractive no matter how rich you are. The contrast with Dave getting his wisteria fixed by the taxpayer speaks volumes). The cheering for the beleaguered small businessman also shows what a dumb idea it was on spreadsheet Phil's part to mess about with their NI contributions.
Just finished watching the Jacob Rees-Mogg show, was pleasantly surprised at the audience not being entirely composed of the Jeremy Corbyn Fan Club. Good to hear applause for the idea that JRM doesn't want to leave his children with a massive public debt burden, and contrasting the annual debt bill with the NHS staff budget.
Yes, but Ireland is one of the British Isles. Great Britain is merely the largest of the British Isles. Britain is often used interchangeably to mean either Great Britain or the UK. It could also in theory be used to refer to the entire group of islands, but that has dropped out of usage for the obvious reason of annoying the Republic of Ireland.
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
Admittedly, not being of the demographic myself, I'm going on second-hand reports from nephews and nieces; this whole campaign was on Facebook and other social media channels, and was largely under the radar of people here on PB and of the mainstream media. I'm not even sure how much of it was done by the Labour Party officially, and how much by Momentum or simply individuals creating and sharing videos. That whole question of the use of social media in the election is crucial to understanding an important part of what happened.
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the didn't.
100% agree with both those posts. I certainly picked up the hostility pre-8th June and posted about it on here.
Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
Momentum certainly won't have much love for workers at a corporate law firm following a Corbyn win
If the young urban graduates vote in a Corbyn / McDonell govnermnet then it will be an example of tremendous self sacrifice, even if unintended.
Indeed, once they get power the hard left will see it as a mandate to 'tax the rich until the pips squeak' all over again, the fact that many of the young urban 'progressives' would be amongst those being squeezed would be rather amusing!
Admittedly, not being of the demographic myself, I'm going on second-hand reports from nephews and nieces; this whole campaign was on Facebook and other social media channels, and was largely under the radar of people here on PB and of the mainstream media. I'm not even sure how much of it was done by the Labour Party officially, and how much by Momentum or simply individuals creating and sharing videos. That whole question of the use of social media in the election is crucial to understanding an important part of what happened.
I think it was Mike Cernovich or some Twitter Trumpist who was saying this the other day but the side that's winning is the side that's having the most fun.
It can't help to have a leader who announces halfway through the campaign that one of the main problems the country faces is that there's too much freedom on the internet, and promises to take control of it.
Corbyn has successfully managed to capture the anti austerity, anti financial sector mood and the revival of the populist left in the West in a delayed reaction to the 2008 Crash. It is not impossible that by July 2022 PM Corbyn could be meeting President Sanders and President Melenchon at the G20 summit to plot the biggest economic shift to the left in half a century
I'm not a fan of long term bets, but if I was I would go with Melenchon and Macron in R2 of 2022 for sure. Since the election he has been all over the TV much more than MLP or the 2 old parties. He's done a good job of portraying himself as the true opposition to Macron, and his lot are buoyant while the FN seem listless and dejected.
Yes Melenchon is now the main opposition to Macron, as Corbyn is to May and Sanders is to Trump
I wouldn't like to put money on Trump or Sanders being the candidates in 2020.
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
.
100% agree with both those posts. I certainly picked up the hostility pre-8th June and posted about it on here.
Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
I'm currently working on the premise that the only way labour will fall now in popularity is for their policies to actually be enacted and to meet reality,
It's a no brainer than 'spending more on public services' is popular, or 'tax the rich bastards and corporations is'. It's only when the consquences of those actions are seen that the pendulum will swing back the other way.
Apart from the unmitigated disaster that a Labour party in power is, the first announcement by John McD would be that the books are in a much worse position that they thought and unfortunately, as a temporary measure all taxes would need to increase. This would be reversed when the country's finances return to stability that is - never.
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the election and it became clear that 1) they were all going to vote; and 2) to a man and woman they were going to vote Labour. This had nothing to do, as far as I could see, with enthusiasm for Corbyn; more a feeling (quite understandable in my view) that they as a generation had been stitched up by Brexit, unaffordable house prices and tuition fee debt. Rather sweetly, one young woman approached me quietly to ask about much time she'd have to allow - how long the queue would be. She'd been thinking she'd have to get up an hour earlier than usual. In hindsight I should have used this to inform a few bets on Labour performance in London, but I didn't.
This was also my experience in the weeks before the vote. Apart from on here, every conversation in my life was wall-to-wall Jezza.
However, I made a few assumptions: namely that my social media bubble / real life bubble was unrepresentative of the public at large, that the torrent of stuff I was seeing on Facebook was limited to the usual middle class metropolitan lefty types and, secondly - that despite the torrent of Facebook posts, none of this lot would vote, as so many hadn't in 2015 or 2016.
My theory now is that it's not the age of the person that determines when they start voting, it's how many elections they've missed.
I think most people need to miss one or two votes before they realise their vote does actually count. In normal times, that could take ten years or more before a person heads to the polling station. This time we've seen two close votes in two years. There was a big fear of missing out this time.
I also agree that the 'underground' campaigns like the Momentum one and other unofficial JC4PM pages were far, far more effective than the official Labour campaign - which was only ever half-heartedly for JC.
My first post on here, I think, since 9th June. Things have moved on...!
I do think Tories need to hold their nerve, and it seems the MPs and activists are minded to do just that in the main. When Vince takes the helm of the LDs, then I am sure the Left vote largely all now with Corbyn will start to split and some drift back to the LDs. I do think the Tories are in a decent position all things considered, even if 38% in YG yesterday is more reflective than the 40-41% they have generally been getting recently. Given the leftie outrage over the DUP deal and NI money tree, coupled with the typically abysmal response by May to Grenfell, and the oddity of the post-election "winner's bounce" being felt by the perceived winner Corbyn not May, I do think it is not a bad position to be in.
Ditching May and having a leadership contest to replace her with one of the current leading Cabinet players, even Boris, would look self indulgent and risk a further Tory slump. Let's not forget, May does still edge Corbyn in the Best PM stakes - that counts for a lot. I do think the Labour surge reflects a sense of some Tory voters not being very happy with the dismal election campaign/result and giving them a kick for it.
Question Time last night quite illuminating. Felt like a lot of warmth for Rees-Mogg compared to Burdon and Lucas, surprisingly perhaps. There's a lot of voters out there, not only Leavers, who are repulsed by Labour/Corbyn.
The Tories need to look for a fresh and voter friendly face to replace TM in around 2020 - JRM may be an off the wall choice, or someone like Heidi Allen if she was to be quickly promoted (which I know won't happen as she's a rebel voice and usually off message, but she seems far more in tune with the public mood and values than any other leading candidate).
From what I could see or hear, the concerns many have about the Grenfell Tower enquiry is that ultimately those who were responsible and those in authority over them will not be held accountable which means the judicial process and the threat of conviction and incarceration.
You are making an assumption that the reasons for why the fire happened and spread in the way that it did necessarily mean that someone has committed a criminal offence. Neither you nor I nor the residents know this.
That is the point of the inquiry: to find out what happened and why. And once the evidence has been collected then a determination can be made as to whether there is any basis on which criminal or civil action can be brought.
But assuming that because people have died in a fire therefore someone must be criminally responsible is putting things the wrong way round. And much as one feels for those who have lost family, friends and homes we should base our decisions on facts not emotions and not work backwards from the conclusions that some would like to have.
Harsh as it may be to say so, not every tragedy means that a crime has been committed.
I do, though, entirely agree with you that the inquiry should be wide-ranging and should be as speedy as possible. But to do an effective inquiry will take time and it does no-one, least of all the victims, any favours to pretend otherwise.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Boris tops the poll amongst all voters in early Tory leadership polls, Hammond has fewer negatives than Boris in those polls but also far fewer voters who are positive about him either.
I have just offered a bet for 200 euros that Corbyn will never be Prime Minister. I'll go to 400 that Boris won't.
That is a terrible bet from your perspective, Roger.
The only way you can collect is when Boris kicks the bucket.
I'll have to take more notice of his obesity!
Boris has been having too many cakes? And eating them?
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
Indeed - just as Thatcher was far worse than many expected.
If Jacob Rees Mogg is the Tories best hope, they really are screwed.
His performance on QT last night was impressive regardless or not whether you agreed with him. Firstly he treated the audience with courtesy and like adults and it is clear he won some of them over as a result. Secondly he has no truck with the dress down buffoons (spiritual leader J Bercow) and again people like the respect that accords them. Thirdly and most importantly he got away from the awful defensive tone the Tories have been adopting recently. You will never win your case by looking apologetic and caving in to your opponents at the first opportunity.
Speaking of social media, nobody's tweeted anything from Theresa May's Twitter for nearly two weeks: https://twitter.com/theresa_may
Can you imagine the conversations they must be having?
"We're a political party with a slender majority, we may have another election soon. We can communicate with the voters free of charge, is there anything we'd like to say?"
On topic, ditching May certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it would improve the Tory rating in the polls (assuming that the right candidate replaces her). That said, simply 'improving' the polling wouldn't necessarily generate a Con lead never mind the 20+ leads we saw in April.
The election campaign has done catastrophic damage to the Tory standing with a lot of people. In the absence of a coherent policy programme and clear values for the public to latch on to, all that sticks in the mind is the social care charging, the winter fuel allowance and so on. Added to the continuing divisions over Brexit (still largely behind closed doors so not really visible to the general public who aren't paying close attention), and you don't have a vision of a confident party being well-led to a place that people want to go.
Against which, with Labour, there is at least that kind of vision and a policy platform to support it. It's a crap vision - of state bungs left, right and centre, to many people who don't deserve them and don't need them and of perverse incentives; of the creation of an appalling level of debt for the future, which would likely produce such a chilling effect on an already slowing economy that it would probably tip it into outright recession - but it's a vision all the same and in the absence of an alternative, and the absence of an adequate challenge (and to be able to make the challenge, you need to both have the arguments and the credibility to make it), Labour will continue to get far too much of a free pass.
the 20% leads were in the polls, not in reality.
No, they were in reality. Results like Copeland or winning the Teesside or WMids mayoralties don't happen unless the poll leads reported were real.
I am sure the Nuclear issue helped the Tories a lot in Copeland and that the result there exaggerated their underlying strength. Labour did perform a fair bit better at the Stoke by election held on the same day.
If Jacob Rees Mogg is the Tories best hope, they really are screwed.
His performance on QT last night was impressive regardless or not whether you agreed with him. Firstly he treated the audience with courtesy and like adults and it is clear he won some of them over as a result. Secondly he has no truck with the dress down buffoons (spiritual leader J Bercow) and again people like the respect that accords them. Thirdly and most importantly he got away from the awful defensive tone the Tories have been adopting recently. You will never win your case by looking apologetic and caving in to your opponents at the first opportunity.
Maybe Mogg is the Tory Corbyn?
Although he is much more intelligent than Corbyn, to be fair.
Corbyn has successfully managed to capture the anti austerity, anti financial sector mood and the revival of the populist left in the West in a delayed reaction to the 2008 Crash. It is not impossible that by July 2022 PM Corbyn could be meeting President Sanders and President Melenchon at the G20 summit to plot the biggest economic shift to the left in half a century
I'm not a fan of long term bets, but if I was I would go with Melenchon and Macron in R2 of 2022 for sure. Since the election he has been all over the TV much more than MLP or the 2 old parties. He's done a good job of portraying himself as the true opposition to Macron, and his lot are buoyant while the FN seem listless and dejected.
Yes Melenchon is now the main opposition to Macron, as Corbyn is to May and Sanders is to Trump
I wouldn't like to put money on Trump or Sanders being the candidates in 2020.
I think a Trump v Sanders race is the likely outcome in 2020 but of course things can change
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the election and it became clear that 1) they were all going to vote; and 2) to a man and woman they were going to vote Labour. This had nothing to do, as far as I could see, with enthusiasm for Corbyn; more a feeling (quite understandable in my view) that they as a generation had been stitched up by Brexit, unaffordable house prices and tuition fee debt. Rather sweetly, one young woman approached me quietly to ask about much time she'd have to allow - how long the queue would be. She'd been thinking she'd have to get up an hour earlier than usual. In hindsight I should have used this to inform a few bets on Labour performance in London, but I didn't.
This was also my experience in the weeks before the vote. Apart from on here, every conversation in my life was wall-to-wall Jezza.
However, I made a few assumptions: namely that my social media bubble / real life bubble was unrepresentative of the public at large, that the torrent of stuff I was seeing on Facebook was limited to the usual middle class metropolitan lefty types and, secondly - that despite the torrent of Facebook posts, none of this lot would vote, as so many hadn't in 2015 or 2016.
My theory now is that it's not the age of the person that determines when they start voting, it's how many elections they've missed.
I think most people need to miss one or two votes before they realise their vote does actually count. In normal times, that could take ten years or more before a person heads to the polling station. This time we've seen two close votes in two years. There was a big fear of missing out this time.
I also agree that the 'underground' campaigns like the Momentum one and other unofficial JC4PM pages were far, far more effective than the official Labour campaign - which was only ever half-heartedly for JC.
Speaking of social media, nobody's tweeted anything from Theresa May's Twitter for nearly two weeks: https://twitter.com/theresa_may
Can you imagine the conversations they must be having?
"We're a political party with a slender majority, we may have another election soon. We can communicate with the voters free of charge, is there anything we'd like to say?"
"No."
May's job now is to ensure she keeps the Tories in government for as long as possible, ideally until 2022 but as she will not be leading the Tories at the next general election in all probability she does not need to bother too much about trying to appeal to the voters
On topic, ditching May certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it would improve the Tory rating in the polls (assuming that the right candidate replaces her). That said, simply 'improving' the polling wouldn't necessarily generate a Con lead never mind the 20+ leads we saw in April.
The election campaign has done catastrophic damage to the Tory standing with a lot of people. In the absence of a coherent policy programme and clear values for the public to latch on to, all that sticks in the mind is the social care charging, the winter fuel allowance and so on. Added to the continuing divisions over Brexit (still largely behind closed doors so not really visible to the general public who aren't paying close attention), and you don't have a vision of a confident party being well-led to a place that people want to go.
Against which, with Labour, there is at least that kind of vision and a policy platform to support it. It's a crap vision - of state bungs left, right and centre, to many people who don't deserve them and don't need them and of perverse incentives; of the creation of an appalling level of debt for the future, which would likely produce such a chilling effect on an already slowing economy that it would probably tip it into outright recession - but it's a vision all the same and in the absence of an alternative, and the absence of an adequate challenge (and to be able to make the challenge, you need to both have the arguments and the credibility to make it), Labour will continue to get far too much of a free pass.
the 20% leads were in the polls, not in reality.
No, they were in reality. Results like Copeland or winning the Teesside or WMids mayoralties don't happen unless the poll leads reported were real.
Yes, but Ireland is one of the British Isles. Great Britain is merely the largest of the British Isles. Britain is often used interchangeably to mean either Great Britain or the UK. It could also in theory be used to refer to the entire group of islands, but that has dropped out of usage for the obvious reason of annoying the Republic of Ireland.
So, in summary, Ireland is Little Britain?
No, because there are quite a lot of islands in the British Isles, so while the largest can be referred to as Great Britain without confusion*, it would be unclear which of the smaller islands you meant.
* actually with huge confusion, come to think of it, hence the discussion.
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
From what I understand of the way the online campaign worked with students and young people, the freebies were only a relatively small part of it. Most of it was 'kick the Tories out' stuff and personal attacks of Theresa May (which admittedly she had somewhat invited).
Admittedly, not being of the demographic myself, I'm going on second-hand reports from nephews and nieces; this whole campaign was on Facebook and other social media channels, and was largely under the radar of people here on PB and of the mainstream media. I'm not even sure how much of it was done by the Labour Party officially, and how much by Momentum or simply individuals creating and sharing videos. That whole question of the use of social media in the election is crucial to understanding an important part of what happened.
Anecdote alert. I work with a lot of bright young things in central London. It's very rare for them to discuss politics. So I was surprised a few days before the election when the talk did turn to the election and it became clear that 1) they were all going to vote; and 2) to a man and woman they were going to vote Labour. This had nothing to do, as far as I could see, with enthusiasm for Corbyn; more a feeling (quite understandable in my view) that they as a generation had been stitched up by Brexit, unaffordable house prices and tuition fee debt. Rather sweetly, one young woman approached me quietly to ask about much time she'd have to allow - how long the queue would be. She'd been thinking she'd have to get up an hour earlier than usual. In hindsight I should have used this to inform a few bets on Labour performance in London, but I didn't.
I should have known something was going on, because I saw red Labour posters going up in nice houses in posh Hampshire villages.
Which I found disgusting.
I don't want to see that. I want to see swathes of reassuring big, bold, Tory blue posters.
May's job now is to ensure she keeps the Tories in government for as long as possible, ideally until 2022 but as she will not be leading the Tories at the next general election in all probability she does not need to bother too much about trying to appeal to the voters
Assuming for the sake of argument that she won't be fighting an election, doesn't she at least have some kind of opinion about which side she wants to win it? For example, often if you're leader of the Conservative Party, you'd want the Conservative Party to win.
If Jacob Rees Mogg is the Tories best hope, they really are screwed.
His performance on QT last night was impressive regardless or not whether you agreed with him. Firstly he treated the audience with courtesy and like adults and it is clear he won some of them over as a result. Secondly he has no truck with the dress down buffoons (spiritual leader J Bercow) and again people like the respect that accords them. Thirdly and most importantly he got away from the awful defensive tone the Tories have been adopting recently. You will never win your case by looking apologetic and caving in to your opponents at the first opportunity.
On topic, ditching May certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it would improve the Tory rating in the polls (assuming that the right candidate replaces her). That said, simply 'improving' the polling wouldn't necessarily generate a Con lead never mind the 20+ leads we saw in April.
The election campaign has done catastrophic damage to the Tory standing with a lot of people. In the absence of a coherent policy programme and clear values for the public to latch on to, all that sticks in the mind is the social care charging, the winter fuel allowance and so on. Added to the continuing divisions over Brexit (still largely behind closed doors so not really visible to the general public who aren't paying close attention), and you don't have a vision of a confident party being well-led to a place that people want to go.
Against which, with Labour, there is at least that kind of vision and a policy platform to support it. It's a crap vision - of state bungs left, right and centre, to many people who don't deserve them and don't need them and of perverse incentives; of the creation of an appalling level of debt for the future, which would likely produce such a chilling effect on an already slowing economy that it would probably tip it into outright recession - but it's a vision all the same and in the absence of an alternative, and the absence of an adequate challenge (and to be able to make the challenge, you need to both have the arguments and the credibility to make it), Labour will continue to get far too much of a free pass.
the 20% leads were in the polls, not in reality.
No, they were in reality. Results like Copeland or winning the Teesside or WMids mayoralties don't happen unless the poll leads reported were real.
And she lost them all in 7 weeks.
Un-fucking-believable.
She won Copeland and Middlesbrough South and Cleveland and did better than average in the WMids, the Tories worst results were in London and the South
If Jacob Rees Mogg is the Tories best hope, they really are screwed.
His performance on QT last night was impressive regardless or not whether you agreed with him. Firstly he treated the audience with courtesy and like adults and it is clear he won some of them over as a result. Secondly he has no truck with the dress down buffoons (spiritual leader J Bercow) and again people like the respect that accords them. Thirdly and most importantly he got away from the awful defensive tone the Tories have been adopting recently. You will never win your case by looking apologetic and caving in to your opponents at the first opportunity.
Maybe Mogg is the Tory Corbyn?
Although he is much more intelligent than Corbyn, to be fair.
Yeah, that'll help. The only think more over-valued than intelligence is hard work.
May's job now is to ensure she keeps the Tories in government for as long as possible, ideally until 2022 but as she will not be leading the Tories at the next general election in all probability she does not need to bother too much about trying to appeal to the voters
Assuming for the sake of argument that she won't be fighting an election, doesn't she at least have some kind of opinion about which side she wants to win it? For example, often if you're leader of the Conservative Party, you'd want the Conservative Party to win.
That will be for the next leader of the Tory Party, most likely Boris or Davis, plus the Conservative Party Twitter feed her Twitter feed will be official PM business only now
May's job now is to ensure she keeps the Tories in government for as long as possible, ideally until 2022 but as she will not be leading the Tories at the next general election in all probability she does not need to bother too much about trying to appeal to the voters
Assuming for the sake of argument that she won't be fighting an election, doesn't she at least have some kind of opinion about which side she wants to win it? For example, often if you're leader of the Conservative Party, you'd want the Conservative Party to win.
That will be for the next leader of the Tory Party, most likely Boris or Davis, plus the Conservative Party Twitter feed her Twitter feed will be official PM business only now
On topic, ditching May certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it would improve the Tory rating in the polls (assuming that the right candidate replaces her). That said, simply 'improving' the polling wouldn't necessarily generate a Con lead never mind the 20+ leads we saw in April.
The election campaign has done catastrophic damage to the Tory standing with a lot of people. In the absence of a coherent policy programme and clear values for the public to latch on to, all that sticks in the mind is the social care charging, the winter fuel allowance and so on. Added to the continuing divisions over Brexit (still largely behind closed doors so not really visible to the general public who aren't paying close attention), and you don't have a vision of a confident party being well-led to a place that people want to go.
Against which, with Labour, there is at least that kind of vision and a policy platform to support it. It's a crap vision - of state bungs left, right and centre, to many people who don't deserve them and don't need them and of perverse incentives; of the creation of an appalling level of debt for the future, which would likely produce such a chilling effect on an already slowing economy that it would probably tip it into outright recession - but it's a vision all the same and in the absence of an alternative, and the absence of an adequate challenge (and to be able to make the challenge, you need to both have the arguments and the credibility to make it), Labour will continue to get far too much of a free pass.
the 20% leads were in the polls, not in reality.
No, they were in reality. Results like Copeland or winning the Teesside or WMids mayoralties don't happen unless the poll leads reported were real.
And she lost them all in 7 weeks.
Un-fucking-believable.
She won Copeland and Middlesbrough South and Cleveland and did better than average in the WMids, the Tories worst results were in London and the South
If Jacob Rees Mogg is the Tories best hope, they really are screwed.
His performance on QT last night was impressive regardless or not whether you agreed with him. Firstly he treated the audience with courtesy and like adults and it is clear he won some of them over as a result. Secondly he has no truck with the dress down buffoons (spiritual leader J Bercow) and again people like the respect that accords them. Thirdly and most importantly he got away from the awful defensive tone the Tories have been adopting recently. You will never win your case by looking apologetic and caving in to your opponents at the first opportunity.
Maybe Mogg is the Tory Corbyn?
Although he is much more intelligent than Corbyn, to be fair.
Yeah, that'll help. The only think more over-valued than intelligence is hard work.
On topic, ditching May certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it would improve the Tory rating in the polls (assuming that the right candidate replaces her). That said, simply 'improving' the polling wouldn't necessarily generate a Con lead never mind the 20+ leads we saw in April.
The election campaign has done catastrophic damage to the Tory standing with a lot of people. In the absence of a coherent policy programme and clear values for the public to latch on to, all that sticks in the mind is the social care charging, the winter fuel allowance and so on. Added to the continuing divisions over Brexit (still largely behind closed doors so not really visible to the general public who aren't paying close attention), and you don't have a vision of a confident party being well-led to a place that people want to go.
Against which, with Labour, there is at least that kind of vision and a policy platform to support it. It's a crap vision - of state bungs left, right and centre, to many people who don't deserve them and don't need them and of perverse incentives; of the creation of an appalling level of debt for the future, which would likely produce such a chilling effect on an already slowing economy that it would probably tip it into outright recession - but it's a vision all the same and in the absence of an alternative, and the absence of an adequate challenge (and to be able to make the challenge, you need to both have the arguments and the credibility to make it), Labour will continue to get far too much of a free pass.
the 20% leads were in the polls, not in reality.
No, they were in reality. Results like Copeland or winning the Teesside or WMids mayoralties don't happen unless the poll leads reported were real.
I am sure the Nuclear issue helped the Tories a lot in Copeland and that the result there exaggerated their underlying strength. Labour did perform a fair bit better at the Stoke by election held on the same day.
UKIP were making their last stand in Stoke, so it makes it hard to judge. There was, in fact, as Labour to Tory swing, and a further one (oddly enough) on General Election day.
I do tend to agree the leads were essentially real, albeit the fact that most final polls overstated the Tories by a few points suggests it might have been high teens rather than 20s. The by-elections, the mayoralties, the locals, the early campaign canvassing all strongly support the idea that it was a real, big lead and it was blown.
May's job now is to ensure she keeps the Tories in government for as long as possible, ideally until 2022 but as she will not be leading the Tories at the next general election in all probability she does not need to bother too much about trying to appeal to the voters
Assuming for the sake of argument that she won't be fighting an election, doesn't she at least have some kind of opinion about which side she wants to win it? For example, often if you're leader of the Conservative Party, you'd want the Conservative Party to win.
That will be for the next leader of the Tory Party, most likely Boris or Davis, plus the Conservative Party Twitter feed her Twitter feed will be official PM business only now
That's not how any of this works.
There is no general election on the horizon, the government now has a majority with the DUP and should get on with governing
On topic, ditching May certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it would improve the Tory rating in the polls (assuming that the right candidate replaces her). That said, simply 'improving' the polling wouldn't necessarily generate a Con lead never mind the 20+ leads we saw in April.
The election campaign has done catastrophic damage to the Tory standing with a lot of people. In the absence of a coherent policy programme and clear values for the public to latch on to, all that sticks in the mind is the social care charging, the winter fuel allowance and so on. Added to the continuing divisions over Brexit (still largely behind closed doors so not really visible to the general public who aren't paying close attention), and you don't have a vision of a confident party being well-led to a place that people want to go.
Against which, with Labour, there is at least that kind of vision and a policy platform to support it. It's a crap vision - of state bungs left, right and centre, to many people who don't deserve them and don't need them and of perverse incentives; of the creation of an appalling level of debt for the future, which would likely produce such a chilling effect on an already slowing economy that it would probably tip it into outright recession - but it's a vision all the same and in the absence of an alternative, and the absence of an adequate challenge (and to be able to make the challenge, you need to both have the arguments and the credibility to make it), Labour will continue to get far too much of a free pass.
the 20% leads were in the polls, not in reality.
No, they were in reality. Results like Copeland or winning the Teesside or WMids mayoralties don't happen unless the poll leads reported were real.
I am sure the Nuclear issue helped the Tories a lot in Copeland and that the result there exaggerated their underlying strength. Labour did perform a fair bit better at the Stoke by election held on the same day.
The nuclear issue did help the Tories but then the local hospital issue helped Labour. But the fact remains that in no by-election since the 19th century has a governing party won from so far behind without a disqualification or a significant change in the parties contesting the seat.
(And while the Stoke result was 'better', as you put it, the Labour share still dropped while the UKIP and Tory shares both increased - so it was only better in relative terms.
On topic, ditching May certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it would improve the Tory rating in the polls (assuming that the right candidate replaces her). That said, simply 'improving' the polling wouldn't necessarily generate a Con lead never mind the 20+ leads we saw in April.
T
the 20% leads were in the polls, not in reality.
No, they were in reality. Results like Copeland or winning the Teesside or WMids mayoralties don't happen unless the poll leads reported were real.
I am sure the Nuclear issue helped the Tories a lot in Copeland and that the result there exaggerated their underlying strength. Labour did perform a fair bit better at the Stoke by election held on the same day.
UKIP were making their last stand in Stoke, so it makes it hard to judge. There was, in fact, as Labour to Tory swing, and a further one (oddly enough) on General Election day.
I do tend to agree the leads were essentially real, albeit the fact that most final polls overstated the Tories by a few points suggests it might have been high teens rather than 20s. The by-elections, the mayoralties, the locals, the early campaign canvassing all strongly support the idea that it was a real, big lead and it was blown.
We shouldn't forget that the Tories did get a massive number of voters out for the locals in May and I reckon most of them came out again on June 8th. There were increased shares for the Tories, sometimes massively so and in the Labour stronghold places they were targeting, in loads of seats up and down the land. I was surprised to see the 17.5 point surge in the Tory share in my old hometown seat of Burnley, with 12,000+ Tory voters suddenly appearing from nowhere - it could have been another Mansfield!
The problem was that in the interim, Labour energised a vast swathe of unengaged and/or young voters to both register and vote - and boy did they. It was that unexpected tapping of an untapped vote that stopped the comfortable Tory win, not millions of potential Tory voters switching to Labour.
My view anyway, I may be proved wrong by stats....!
100% agree with both those posts. I certainly picked up the hostility pre-8th June and posted about it on here.
Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
Momentum certainly won't have much love for workers at a corporate law firm following a Corbyn win
If the young urban graduates vote in a Corbyn / McDonell govnermnet then it will be an example of tremendous self sacrifice, even if unintended.
Indeed, once they get power the hard left will see it as a mandate to 'tax the rich until the pips squeak' all over again, the fact that many of the young urban 'progressives' would be amongst those being squeezed would be rather amusing!
The rich vs poor divide is no longer salary or even class, it's whether or not you own (or will ever own) property, particularly if you're in your 20s or 30s.
I think it's why the young came out for Corbyn and I think it's why the more middle aged did too (fear of losing inheritance to dementia tax).
There is also a great element of people seeing the emerging rentier class as unfair - it breeds anger and envy.
Like it or not most of our wealth is tied up in the property market now, they're the rich who are going to get soaked.
A rentier owning half a dozen properties gets the same number of votes as a 27 year old grad living in a crappy 6 person houseshare, the same number of votes as a 35 year old teacher who wants to start a family but can't afford more than a single bedroom.
People weren't voting to 'warn' the Tories because they were home and dry and therefore voting Labour was safe. They were voting to bring the whole edifice down.
I've mentioned it before, but this ad got nearly as many views as the Tory attack ad and I think it was far more effective:
The 42% this 'lame duck' got is rather better than some of her fellow leaders got
Osborne is in full campaign mode, using the cloak of Evening Standard editor to do it. What else do you expect who devotes himself to "plotting the downfall of my enemies".
So he's not keen on evolution? Jacob's sisters Annunziata Rees-Mogg and Emma Craigie are public advocates for Steiner schools, and it was pater's former employee at the Times, Michael Gove, who started handing out government money to the Steinerite nutcases.
Rees-Mogg probably won't be the next leader, but he may well be raised to the Cabinet without having to mess about as junior minister first.
For the record, he's at the opposite end of the "candle" from Gove. He enjoys the Tridentine Mass, which he refers to as the "Extraordinary Rite". He'd be likely to be kept away from meetings with the DUP.
From what I could see or hear, the concerns many have about the Grenfell Tower enquiry is that ultimately those who were responsible and those in authority over them will not be held accountable which means the judicial process and the threat of conviction and incarceration.
For me, this is less Hillsborough and more Aberfan - the Davies enquiry took 76 days despite the obfuscation of the National Coal Board. Grenfell is our Aberfan and we need to get the enquiry done right, quick and ensure this can never be repeated.
Another day, another set of speculation over who should lead the Conservative Party and the usual side-swipes from the usual suspects about how bad Corbyn is or would be. I alluded to the analogy with Harold Wilson during the GE campaign (I'm overdoing the 60s analogies today, I think).
I'll be honest - I like Corbyn. I saw a video he did thanking public sector workers for their work at Manchester, Grenfell, London Bridge and of course Finsbury Park (in his constituency). The delivery was a little off but the warmth was such a contrast to May. Let's not forget Thatcher could do warmth (sparingly but when it was deployed it was so much more effective) and I'm sure May isn't a cold person in private and probably tells a mean "knock knock" joke but the attempts at informality don't come easily to her it seems.
I'll also be honest and admit I have my reservations about Corbyn as Prime Minister. To follow the Wilson analogy a little further, the reality of 21st Century Cabinet Government is that it's more presidential and less collegiate than in Wilson's day. I suspect "the power" will lie elsewhere.
Do I think Corbyn's leadership will turn Britain into a Venezulean-style dystopia within a few months ? No. Do I think people will be tired of the Conservatives in 2022 after 12 years of Government ? If still led by May, yes, but a 1990-style reinvention might work but it would require an unknown or someone completely disassociated from what has gone before.
I am not sure that things have changed as much since Wilson's day as you suggest. He had his own Inner Cabinet containing the political big beasts of the day - Jenkins,Callaghan, Castle, Healey , Crossman,Crosland etc - and advisors such as Marcia Williams were known to be highly influential.
I've just had coffee with a friend and I've got another name to throw into the Tory ring.
Esther McVey.
I've never been able to get past a Tory with a Liverpudlian whine but he had lunch with her and tells me she was surprising and mighty impressive.
Normally this wouldn't be worth mentioning but he's not a natural Tory and his judgement is astute
Oh Roge, this was an unspoken assumption.
You've just gone and 'damused it!
A few Labour people on here keep suggesting the Tory talent is thin, presumably in order to make them feel better about their own benches, which are not exactly thriving. But they're wrong. Coming up on the outside we have Raab, Kwarteng, Steve Baker, JRM, McVey and several others.
In the short term, Damien Green is almost being pushed forward as the John Major figure de nos jours. He is very visible currently; he is warm, and good on his feet.
I'd be backing him. Hammond, Davis and Boris are all distractions. The first doesn't want it, I'd hazard the second will retire (to a well deserved peerage, I'd hope, in 2022, and the third won't win an MP vote. He probably wouldn't be coming second, either.
Comments
I'm 'conservative' in the small-c sense. That does not mean we don't have any change, or that we hark back to ye good olden days. It does mean that we change things that need changing, but only after carefully looking at a problem and coming up with a sane and rational policy to address it.
Evolution, rather than revolution.
What we didn't get was the Tax Bombshell posters, or the Corbyn Hamas posters, or the Corbyn Cuba/Venezuela posters, or the Corbyn 'Shoot to Kill' posters, or the Corbyn 'Trident? I'll say whatever rubbish I think the audience wants to hear' posters, or the 'Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott want to abolish the security services' posters.
It was an astonishingly feeble campaign by the Tories, entirely on the defensive even on the areas where they should have been strongest. Conversely, Labour's wholly negative campaign worked very well - this really was the election which proves negative campaigning works.
Citation required.
The only way you can collect is when Boris kicks the bucket.
If the answer is no... Then it's just platitudes.
I don't think anyone is in favour of insane irrational policy made up without looking at problems carefully. Or in favour of leaving things that need changing as they are.
Low taxes is fine. Some people want high taxes.
Personal responsibility is fine. Some people want collective responsibility. Etc.
Sometimes there's a mood among the electorate and today's mood is that they're bored with austerity. There was very little mention of the Debt or deficit - no ticking clock at the back of the BBC presenter showing the Debt spinning ever upwards.
I've no problem with adopting the Scandinavian model of high benefits, but Labour will never mention the other side of the coin ... high Scandinavian taxes. I've no problem with bashing the bankers or making rich people pay more tax, but that would need International action to be truly effective.
There's a feeling of "Lord of the flies" from some of the younger voters. Loss of innocence is sad, but it's going to happen.
I'm not sure Labour's campaign was wholly negative. They also offered freebies on the basis they probably wouldn't actually be called upon to deliver them, and that was pretty effective with students etc.
To the extent it was negative, that made a virtue out of necessity. Saying "Tories can't be trusted on the NHS and schools" unites the Labour tribes... if they'd added "but John McDonnell can - he's got a ten year plan about it" that would've potentially got tricky.
Ludicrously sentimental, but I think there's a genuine and growing desire to give peace a chance.
Admittedly, not being of the demographic myself, I'm going on second-hand reports from nephews and nieces; this whole campaign was on Facebook and other social media channels, and was largely under the radar of people here on PB and of the mainstream media. I'm not even sure how much of it was done by the Labour Party officially, and how much by Momentum or simply individuals creating and sharing videos. That whole question of the use of social media in the election is crucial to understanding an important part of what happened.
Plenty of people want revolution; many more read about a scandal in the paper and screech: "Something must be done!"
It's good politics to give them what they want. It's good governance in holding back a little, except in extreme cases, and working out what really needs doing, if anything.
It was me posting updates on the Corbyn video (8.2m views, https://order-order.com/2017/05/27/corbyn-ira-attack-ad-hits-1-million-views/). I was right that it is an amazingly effective bit of cinema, but I drew the wrong conclusion that it was damaging to Corbyn when what it actually does is showcase his charisma.
It is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a reason.
Peter_the_Punter Posts: 3,708
9:39AM
logical_song said:
» show previous quotes
OK, I'll now attempt to out-pedant you difficult though that may be ;-)
Britain could be taken as shorthand for the British Isles in which case.....
Shall we call this a draw, before we bore everybody to death?
So as a statement of belief... It's not great.
The only disagreement I would potentially have is on university. I don't think it's insane to have 50% going... I do wonder whether that's more than we really need but I'm pretty relaxed about it for now.
I do think Tories need to hold their nerve, and it seems the MPs and activists are minded to do just that in the main. When Vince takes the helm of the LDs, then I am sure the Left vote largely all now with Corbyn will start to split and some drift back to the LDs. I do think the Tories are in a decent position all things considered, even if 38% in YG yesterday is more reflective than the 40-41% they have generally been getting recently. Given the leftie outrage over the DUP deal and NI money tree, coupled with the typically abysmal response by May to Grenfell, and the oddity of the post-election "winner's bounce" being felt by the perceived winner Corbyn not May, I do think it is not a bad position to be in.
Ditching May and having a leadership contest to replace her with one of the current leading Cabinet players, even Boris, would look self indulgent and risk a further Tory slump. Let's not forget, May does still edge Corbyn in the Best PM stakes - that counts for a lot. I do think the Labour surge reflects a sense of some Tory voters not being very happy with the dismal election campaign/result and giving them a kick for it.
Question Time last night quite illuminating. Felt like a lot of warmth for Rees-Mogg compared to Burdon and Lucas, surprisingly perhaps. There's a lot of voters out there, not only Leavers, who are repulsed by Labour/Corbyn.
The Tories need to look for a fresh and voter friendly face to replace TM in around 2020 - JRM may be an off the wall choice, or someone like Heidi Allen if she was to be quickly promoted (which I know won't happen as she's a rebel voice and usually off message, but she seems far more in tune with the public mood and values than any other leading candidate).
If I were earning £70k , I would know that under Labour my taxes will not increase. Under the Tories, my taxes will increase because they did not rule it out.
Corbyn/McDonnell played a better game than your lot did. Simple. The fact is [ as per post election surveys ], Labour actually got more votes than the Tories in the 18 - 55 age group, i.e. most taxpayers. It is the Tories who lost out in taxes.
I'd make two points - first, Corbyn was vilified in the media from the moment he was elected Labour leader. On here you had all the usual Conservative activist suspects coming on and saying every interview was a car crash, every reshuffle a disaster and how good it would be for the country (and especially the Conservative Party) if Labour was humiliated at the polls.
Behind the apparent largesse was the simple desire to see Labour beaten and one can only imagine the gloating there would have been had May won her expected landslide.
I'd also say posters are old hat at least on public billboards.
Second, this election was entirely the responsibility and decision of the Conservative Party. This is your fault, it's your mess so take some responsibility. There was no need to call an election and it was just a hubristic desire to lord it over everyone else. The truth was the Conservative Party campaign was an unmitigated disaster because as soon as the veneer of "trust Theresa" was stripped away, the cupboard was bare.
Corbyn was as vilified in the media and elsewhere as Kinnock, Miliband, Brown and Clegg. The Conservatives thought that would work - it didn't. That's worth some serious thought.
I was bombarded with this sort of thing from Labour during the GE, including stuff shared by my mostly leftie friendship circle. I got sweet FA from the Tories other than scaremongering about Corbyn and bland repetitive messages from TM about strong and stable leadership and not being JC.... - i'm amazed in the scheme of things they actually came so close to getting a majority....
A 5 year term with a potential extra 3 years post Brexit may well be a lot more beneficial than going to the polls just 1 year after Brexit. The small majority obviously means the Tories are more hamstrung but if they do go the distance a 73 year old Corbyn won't be leader in 2022 and it will force Labour into another divisive battle to pick his successor.
The importance of those potentially extra 2 years could be huge, especially knowing there will be a different Tory leading the party into the next election.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style#great-britain
Oddly, "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" neglects a large number of smaller islands which are neither in Great Britain nor Ireland, but are certainly in the UK.
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/a-uk-eu-customs-union-an-option-most-of-us-could-live-with/
Labour had every right as the opposition to question the incumbent's record, that is their function. I would argue the Labour campaign was by and large positive. It was after all offering free magic fairy dust to everyone who wanted it.
Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
There have been doubts in the past over whether Corbyn enjoys it sufficiently. At times since 2015, he's seemed to be having a miserable time - snapping at journos, moaning about the workload, and generally looking dismal.
Just now, however, why wouldn't he be having fun? He's gone from being an old has-been speaking to a dwindling band of Trots who wished Tony Benn had been available instead, to headlining Glastonbury. It must be exhilarating, frankly.
Whether that will last, who knows. But, for now, I don't see any reason for him to shift voluntarily.
It's a no brainer than 'spending more on public services' is popular, or 'tax the rich bastards and corporations is'. It's only when the consquences of those actions are seen that the pendulum will swing back the other way.
...
I'm currently working on the premise that the only way labour will fall now in popularity is for their policies to actually be enacted and to meet reality,
It's a no brainer than 'spending more on public services' is popular, or 'tax the rich bastards and corporations is'. It's only when the consquences of those actions are seen that the pendulum will swing back the other way.
You may be right. On the other hand, I think the hardcore anti-Corbyn vote is quite a bit higher than the hardcore Corbyn vote. At the moment Labour have a lot of soft support but will it be there at the next election under circumstances which we can only guess at?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40529770
Reduced to manufacturing a pointless fight over a statue.
Pathetic.
Go. Go Now.
It can't help to have a leader who announces halfway through the campaign that one of the main problems the country faces is that there's too much freedom on the internet, and promises to take control of it.
However, I made a few assumptions: namely that my social media bubble / real life bubble was unrepresentative of the public at large, that the torrent of stuff I was seeing on Facebook was limited to the usual middle class metropolitan lefty types and, secondly - that despite the torrent of Facebook posts, none of this lot would vote, as so many hadn't in 2015 or 2016.
My theory now is that it's not the age of the person that determines when they start voting, it's how many elections they've missed.
I think most people need to miss one or two votes before they realise their vote does actually count. In normal times, that could take ten years or more before a person heads to the polling station. This time we've seen two close votes in two years. There was a big fear of missing out this time.
I also agree that the 'underground' campaigns like the Momentum one and other unofficial JC4PM pages were far, far more effective than the official Labour campaign - which was only ever half-heartedly for JC.
That is the point of the inquiry: to find out what happened and why. And once the evidence has been collected then a determination can be made as to whether there is any basis on which criminal or civil action can be brought.
But assuming that because people have died in a fire therefore someone must be criminally responsible is putting things the wrong way round. And much as one feels for those who have lost family, friends and homes we should base our decisions on facts not emotions and not work backwards from the conclusions that some would like to have.
Harsh as it may be to say so, not every tragedy means that a crime has been committed.
I do, though, entirely agree with you that the inquiry should be wide-ranging and should be as speedy as possible. But to do an effective inquiry will take time and it does no-one, least of all the victims, any favours to pretend otherwise.
Can you imagine the conversations they must be having?
Although he is much more intelligent than Corbyn, to be fair.
Un-fucking-believable.
* actually with huge confusion, come to think of it, hence the discussion.
Which I found disgusting.
I don't want to see that. I want to see swathes of reassuring big, bold, Tory blue posters.
I do tend to agree the leads were essentially real, albeit the fact that most final polls overstated the Tories by a few points suggests it might have been high teens rather than 20s. The by-elections, the mayoralties, the locals, the early campaign canvassing all strongly support the idea that it was a real, big lead and it was blown.
It'll be even more fun than Boris.
(And while the Stoke result was 'better', as you put it, the Labour share still dropped while the UKIP and Tory shares both increased - so it was only better in relative terms.
The problem was that in the interim, Labour energised a vast swathe of unengaged and/or young voters to both register and vote - and boy did they. It was that unexpected tapping of an untapped vote that stopped the comfortable Tory win, not millions of potential Tory voters switching to Labour.
My view anyway, I may be proved wrong by stats....!
I think it's why the young came out for Corbyn and I think it's why the more middle aged did too (fear of losing inheritance to dementia tax).
There is also a great element of people seeing the emerging rentier class as unfair - it breeds anger and envy.
Like it or not most of our wealth is tied up in the property market now, they're the rich who are going to get soaked.
A rentier owning half a dozen properties gets the same number of votes as a 27 year old grad living in a crappy 6 person houseshare, the same number of votes as a 35 year old teacher who wants to start a family but can't afford more than a single bedroom.
People weren't voting to 'warn' the Tories because they were home and dry and therefore voting Labour was safe. They were voting to bring the whole edifice down.
I've mentioned it before, but this ad got nearly as many views as the Tory attack ad and I think it was far more effective:
https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesMomentum/videos/457075104637882/
It's what he does.
Esther McVey.
I've never been able to get past a Tory with a Liverpudlian whine but he had lunch with her and tells me she was surprising and mighty impressive.
Normally this wouldn't be worth mentioning but he's not a natural Tory and his judgement is astute
https://twitter.com/jakereesmogg/status/307154332476928000
So he's not keen on evolution? Jacob's sisters Annunziata Rees-Mogg and Emma Craigie are public advocates for Steiner schools, and it was pater's former employee at the Times, Michael Gove, who started handing out government money to the Steinerite nutcases.
Rees-Mogg probably won't be the next leader, but he may well be raised to the Cabinet without having to mess about as junior minister first.
For the record, he's at the opposite end of the "candle" from Gove. He enjoys the Tridentine Mass, which he refers to as the "Extraordinary Rite". He'd be likely to be kept away from meetings with the DUP.
You've just gone and 'damused it!
A few Labour people on here keep suggesting the Tory talent is thin, presumably in order to make them feel better about their own benches, which are not exactly thriving. But they're wrong. Coming up on the outside we have Raab, Kwarteng, Steve Baker, JRM, McVey and several others.
In the short term, Damien Green is almost being pushed forward as the John Major figure de nos jours. He is very visible currently; he is warm, and good on his feet.
I'd be backing him. Hammond, Davis and Boris are all distractions. The first doesn't want it, I'd hazard the second will retire (to a well deserved peerage, I'd hope, in 2022, and the third won't win an MP vote. He probably wouldn't be coming second, either.