politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s Brighton exuberance over Corbyn isn’t supported by hi

Hello?

Wow. Seems to be a first.

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

Off topic, but the Vietnam War documentary on BBC 4 right now is looking very good so far. Comprehensive and informative 10- parter.

https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/911702922987220992

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

It was the leadership ratings, or rather the collapse of Mrs May's ratings/the rise of Mr Corbyn's ratings that made me worry that the Tory majority was at risk, from the final weekend before election day.





http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

It was the leadership ratings, or rather the collapse of Mrs May's ratings/the rise of Mr Corbyn's ratings that made me worry that the Tory majority was at risk, from the final weekend before election day.





http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/

But, she still led 43/39 (MORI) or 44/35 (Opinium) at the end. Both numbers would give a Conservative majority.

Casino_Royale said:

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

How very pleasant

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

May was just ahead of Corbyn in popularity by the election and she just won. Indeed the collapse in her ratings was more pronounced than the fall in the Tory support which was fairly static and ultimately misleading. I think Mike is right to pay attention to the leader ratings but I am not sure he is right to say Labour have nothing to be pleased about.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

It was the leadership ratings, or rather the collapse of Mrs May's ratings/the rise of Mr Corbyn's ratings that made me worry that the Tory majority was at risk, from the final weekend before election day.





http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/

I still can't believe the lack of proper planning and inattention to detail there was in the Conservative campaign.

But a lack of proper planning and an inattention to detail have been endemic in UK politics for over a decade.

And I'd say they were also much more widespread in general life as well - have we become a society where people think they can just bullshit their way through life ?

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

May was just ahead of Corbyn in popularity by the election and she just won. Indeed the collapse in her ratings was more pronounced than the fall in the Tory support which was fairly static and ultimately misleading. I think Mike is right to pay attention to the leader ratings but I am not sure he is right to say Labour have nothing to be pleased about.

If the Tories had been ahead by 4-9% (like the leader ratings) they'd have won 327-349 seats. But, polls were probably understating Corbyn at the end.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

I made a few Tories shit themselves on election night when I told them that they should be mentally prepared for Corbyn as PM.

The exit poll was disappointing, but there was never a point during the night where I could see Labour winning enough seats to form a government. They weren't breaking through in the Midlands or Northern marginals.

This was before any Scottish results, but for Ruth Davidson, we might have Corbyn as PM as head of a very unstable coalition.

The first Scottish Conservative gain, Ochil and South Perthshire, came in early. Once a 10,000 majority was swept away, it was plain that Scotland would be good for the Tories.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

I made a few Tories shit themselves on election night when I told them that they should be mentally prepared for Corbyn as PM.

It was Alastair Meeks who made me need to go to the launderette a second time.

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

I made a few Tories shit themselves on election night when I told them that they should be mentally prepared for Corbyn as PM.

The exit poll was disappointing, but there was never a point during the night where I could see Labour winning enough seats to form a government. They weren't breaking through in the Midlands or Northern marginals.

Some of the constituencies had big swings to the Conservatives - there were some very contrary results in adjacent constituencies, High Peak and Derbyshire NE for example.

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

It was the leadership ratings, or rather the collapse of Mrs May's ratings/the rise of Mr Corbyn's ratings that made me worry that the Tory majority was at risk, from the final weekend before election day.





http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/

I still can't believe the lack of proper planning and inattention to detail there was in the Conservative campaign.

But a lack of proper planning and an inattention to detail have been endemic in UK politics for over a decade.

And I'd say they were also much more widespread in general life as well - have we become a society where people think they can just bullshit their way through life ?

Yes.

May thought she'd stroll to victory. If you don't plan meticulously, and pay attention to detail, you suffer.

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

It was the leadership ratings, or rather the collapse of Mrs May's ratings/the rise of Mr Corbyn's ratings that made me worry that the Tory majority was at risk, from the final weekend before election day.





http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/

I still can't believe the lack of proper planning and inattention to detail there was in the Conservative campaign.

But a lack of proper planning and an inattention to detail have been endemic in UK politics for over a decade.

And I'd say they were also much more widespread in general life as well - have we become a society where people think they can just bullshit their way through life ?

The 2015 Tory election campaign had been planned by Sir Lynton Crosby since 2013.

The 2017 Tory election campaign was planned by Sir Lynton with a few days notice.

Plus in 2015 he was given complete control by David Cameron, in 2017 he had to deal with Nick Timothy.

Surely the major parties should have a general election plan on hand and regularly updated ?

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

May was just ahead of Corbyn in popularity by the election and she just won. Indeed the collapse in her ratings was more pronounced than the fall in the Tory support which was fairly static and ultimately misleading. I think Mike is right to pay attention to the leader ratings but I am not sure he is right to say Labour have nothing to be pleased about.

Those falls in leader ratings are simply staggering though.

There's part of me that still can't believe that actually happened.

Just over a month before the elections she was supposedly polling higher than Thatcher or Blair at their peak.

another_richard said:

Surely the major parties should have a general election plan on hand and regularly updated ?

They do but Mrs May's narcissism screwed the Tories.

I have never seen a party leader 'Ratner' themselves the way Mrs May did.

I think she and her team got high on their own product, somebody I know and trust said Mrs May and her team were looking to top Tony Blair's majority of 1997.

Recidivist said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/911702922987220992

Is that self rated knowledge?

It was assessed by a set of factual questions about politics like "does the Chancellor set interest rates?". As such it reflected the biases of the question setters as to what constitutes being knowledgeable. The more interesting bit was a clear difference in voting patterns between people who get their information from the main stream media - who were more likely to vote Tory, and those who researched it themselves on the internet who were more likely to vote Labour.

Of course, I remember now, I was part of the yougov panel!

dixiedean said:

stevef said:

Everytime people see scenes of people singing the ridiculous/sinister Jeremy Corbyn song, it damages him a little more. The cult of personality is so alien to the British culture, so reminicent of fascism/Stalinism, it damages Corbyn's chances.

Is it ridiculous or sinister? It would be difficult to be both. My take is that it is a football chant, and therefore entirely in keeping with British culture.

No, it's sinister.

glw said:

Recidivist said:

The more interesting bit was a clear difference in voting patterns between people who get their information from the main stream media - who were more likely to vote Tory, and those who researched it themselves on the internet who were more likely to vote Labour.

I'm guessing that by "researched it themselves on the internet" you don't mean reading things on the ONS site (an excellent resource), but believing the drivel that circulates on social media.

The paper doesn't go into that detail. But the drivel that circulates on social media is still preferable to the pigswill that Fleet Street produces.

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

May was just ahead of Corbyn in popularity by the election and she just won. Indeed the collapse in her ratings was more pronounced than the fall in the Tory support which was fairly static and ultimately misleading. I think Mike is right to pay attention to the leader ratings but I am not sure he is right to say Labour have nothing to be pleased about.

Those falls in leader ratings are simply staggering though.

There's part of me that still can't believe that actually happened.

It was probably the early votes that saved the Tories. If the election had run another week, Jezza would have won.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

I made a few Tories shit themselves on election night when I told them that they should be mentally prepared for Corbyn as PM.

The exit poll was disappointing, but there was never a point during the night where I could see Labour winning enough seats to form a government. They weren't breaking through in the Midlands or Northern marginals.

But, had Ruth Davidson only picked up the 4-6 seats that the balance of opinion expected her to do, then this Government would have been hyper-unstable.

Yes, but one should assume that there'll be over, and under- performance, throughout the country. As a rule of thumb, if you aren't winning places like Nuneaton, North Warwickshire, Sherwood, you don't win.

Recidivist said:

The paper doesn't go into that detail. But the drivel that circulates on social media is still preferable to the pigswill that Fleet Street produces.

I'm no defender of the newspapers, which are on the whole a shadow of what they once were, but there is an enormous amount of utter BS about pretty much everything that circulates on social media, and seemingly almost no way of countering it. And I don't mean "fake news" which I think is a somewhat exaggerated issue, but the problem of every idiot on Earth having a megaphone.

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

It was the leadership ratings, or rather the collapse of Mrs May's ratings/the rise of Mr Corbyn's ratings that made me worry that the Tory majority was at risk, from the final weekend before election day.





http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/

I still can't believe the lack of proper planning and inattention to detail there was in the Conservative campaign.

But a lack of proper planning and an inattention to detail have been endemic in UK politics for over a decade.

And I'd say they were also much more widespread in general life as well - have we become a society where people think they can just bullshit their way through life ?

The 2015 Tory election campaign had been planned by Sir Lynton Crosby since 2013.

The 2017 Tory election campaign was planned by Sir Lynton with a few days notice.

Plus in 2015 he was given complete control by David Cameron, in 2017 he had to deal with Nick Timothy.

Surely the major parties should have a general election plan on hand and regularly updated ?

But to be fair the Tories did rather spring it on themselves this time!

williamglenn said:

That has its drawbacks too. New Labour were so paralysed by the fear that it wouldn't last that they wasted the first term continuing to act like they were in opposition, and then overcompensated in the second.

Thank God they did, at least as regards the first term. It meant that they didn't start wrecking the economy until around 2002.

Mind you, they got round to wrecking financial regulation with remarkable alacrity; a pity that they weren't more paralysed by fear in that respect.

glw said:

Recidivist said:

The paper doesn't go into that detail. But the drivel that circulates on social media is still preferable to the pigswill that Fleet Street produces.

I'm no defender of the newspapers, which are on the whole a shadow of what they once were, but there is an enormous amount of utter BS about pretty much everything that circulates on social media, and seemingly almost no way of countering it. And I don't mean "fake news" which I think is a somewhat exaggerated issue, but the problem of every idiot on Earth having a megaphone.

The newspapers were always crap. I'd much rather take my chances with Twitter or Facebook.

glw said:

Recidivist said:

The paper doesn't go into that detail. But the drivel that circulates on social media is still preferable to the pigswill that Fleet Street produces.

I'm no defender of the newspapers, which are on the whole a shadow of what they once were, but there is an enormous amount of utter BS about pretty much everything that circulates on social media, and seemingly almost no way of countering it. And I don't mean "fake news" which I think is a somewhat exaggerated issue, but the problem of every idiot on Earth having a megaphone.

Broadcast media having to be neutral is a big plus and useful counter to biased press and fake-news social media. It would be a sad day if we let that go.

Recidivist said:

Recidivist said:

glw said:

Recidivist said:

The paper doesn't go into that detail. But the drivel that circulates on social media is still preferable to the pigswill that Fleet Street produces.

I'm no defender of the newspapers, which are on the whole a shadow of what they once were, but there is an enormous amount of utter BS about pretty much everything that circulates on social media, and seemingly almost no way of countering it. And I don't mean "fake news" which I think is a somewhat exaggerated issue, but the problem of every idiot on Earth having a megaphone.

The newspapers were always crap. I'd much rather take my chances with Twitter or Facebook.

And there are plenty of forums where you can find first class information.

Here

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

It was the leadership ratings, or rather the collapse of Mrs May's ratings/the rise of Mr Corbyn's ratings that made me worry that the Tory majority was at risk, from the final weekend before election day.





http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/

I still can't believe the lack of proper planning and inattention to detail there was in the Conservative campaign.

But a lack of proper planning and an inattention to detail have been endemic in UK politics for over a decade.

And I'd say they were also much more widespread in general life as well - have we become a society where people think they can just bullshit their way through life ?

Yes.

May thought she'd stroll to victory. If you don't plan meticulously, and pay attention to detail, you suffer.

As you said, a mistake New Labour never made.

They'd punch you in the head repeatedly, even if the polls said you were already pinned to the ground.

That has its drawbacks too. New Labour were so paralysed by the fear that it wouldn't last that they wasted the first term continuing to act like they were in opposition, and then overcompensated in the second.

I think the second term changed fundamentally especially on foreign policy ,when Blair was about to speak to the TUC and was told what was happening in New York on 9-11.

Benpointer said:

The newspapers were always crap. I'd much rather take my chances with Twitter or Facebook.

I think social networks are generally terrible for keeping informed. The nature of social networks is that most people follow like-minded people and sources, and so they tend to reinforce their views rather than challenge them. There is also the problem that the opinions of some half-witted comedian has a parity with a source like the New York Times.

We have far more sources of information that ever before, and it's more open, and some would say more democratic. But I don't believe that on average we are better informed that the era when most people got their news and information from a daily newspaper, and the BBC and ITN.

another_richard said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

I made a few Tories shit themselves on election night when I told them that they should be mentally prepared for Corbyn as PM.

The exit poll was disappointing, but there was never a point during the night where I could see Labour winning enough seats to form a government. They weren't breaking through in the Midlands or Northern marginals.

But, had Ruth Davidson only picked up the 4-6 seats that the balance of opinion expected her to do, then this Government would have been hyper-unstable.

Yes, but one should assume that there'll be over, and under- performance, throughout the country. As a rule of thumb, if you aren't winning places like Nuneaton, North Warwickshire, Sherwood, you don't win.

The Conservatives won a majority without winning any of those three in 1992.

The key battlegrounds are always changing and we've seen the motorway exurban constituencies swing to the Conservatives and the urban areas swing to Labour.

Back in 2007 I was ridiculed for saying that Morley & Outwood would be won by the Conservatives the next time they won an overall majority - in 2017 the Conservatives had nearly 51% of the vote there.

Some years ago, there was a very prescient article from OGH about how different voting patterns were emerging between places where the locals depended on cars, and where public transport was so good the locals didn't need cars.

Hence, the Tories are competitive in small to medium urban areas, but not huge urban areas.

Ishmael_Z said:

Casino_Royale said:

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

That was without question the single most valuable and informative post in the history of PB. And we responded by thinking he'd been hacked.

False consciousness.

williamglenn said:

Yorkcity said:

I think the second term changed fundamentally especially on foreign policy ,when Blair was about to speak to the TUC and was told what was happening in New York on 9-11.

Yes, wasn't he due to make a speech in favour of joining the Euro?

I was not aware of that , however his mindset changed from domestic affairs to be dominated by world events . Brown became dominant on the domestic front especially the economy .

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.

On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.

Plainly, other things are at work.

May was just ahead of Corbyn in popularity by the election and she just won. Indeed the collapse in her ratings was more pronounced than the fall in the Tory support which was fairly static and ultimately misleading. I think Mike is right to pay attention to the leader ratings but I am not sure he is right to say Labour have nothing to be pleased about.

Those falls in leader ratings are simply staggering though.

There's part of me that still can't believe that actually happened.

Just over a month before the elections she was supposedly polling higher than Thatcher or Blair at their peak.

In 2010 after the first leaders debate Nick Clegg was the most popular politician since Churchill, how are the mighty fallen!

steve_garner said:

steve_garner said:

Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.

They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.

Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell

Ishmael_Z said:

Casino_Royale said:

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

That was without question the single most valuable and informative post in the history of PB. And we responded by thinking he'd been hacked.

Not all of us.

FPT: An interesting post by @justin124:

justin124 said:

That is a big exaggeration. I cannot see them wishing to renationalise BT or British Airways . Nor would the Top Income Tax revert to 75% never mind 83%. I have also yet to see any proposals to bring back the National Enterprise Board - though I live in hope.
There should be reversal of the Tory Anti- Union laws , but no way will they do away with Strike Ballots or bring back the Closed Shop. The pendulum has swung too far against the interests of the workforce and some redressing of the balance is to be welcomed. The Arbeit Macht frei wing of the Tory party will ,of course, disagree!

Taking those in turn:

- Maybe not British Airways, but :

Asked if his plan was to "nationalise the existing cable broadband network," Mr Corbyn said: "We have an open mind about the ownership issue. We will be discussing that"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-open-minded-nationalised-8734620

- The highest rate of tax on income is already 71%, which can cut in at £100K (40% + 20% withdrawal of allowance + 2% employee's NI + possible 9% student loan tax). Even for people not subject to student loan tax, that's the highest income tax band in Europe - and that's without adding in the 13.8% Employer's NI, which realistically should be included since it's income tax in all but name, and didn't exist in the 1970s above a fairly low threshold. So why would a 75% or 83% rate be so surprising, given everything McDonnell and Corbyn have stood for during their entire careers, and the fact that they need to raise countless billions, apparently (if you are naive enough to believe them) without anyone earning less than £85K paying any more tax?

- Reviving the spectacular failure of the National Enterprise Board is absolutely Corbyn's aim. He calls it the 'National Investment Bank'.

- On unions, Ed Miliband today was advocating compulsory union membership. And that's one of the relatively sane Labour figures

- As for your last sentence, it is so vile that it needs no further comment other than to draw attention to it.

HYUFD said:

BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April

https://www.lexiconnect.co.uk/top-20-uk-websites.html

Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.

Richard_Nabavi said:

- On unions, Ed Miliband today was advocating compulsory union membership. And that's one of the relatively sane Labour figures

I can remember when Red Ed was something of a joke. I suppose he's trying to keep up with the new leadership that freely admit to being Marxist.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

steve_garner said:

steve_garner said:

Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.

They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.

Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell

The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news".
That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant.
Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

@TSE - nah, it was David Herdson's post on here the night before.

I shat myself.

I made a few Tories shit themselves on election night when I told them that they should be mentally prepared for Corbyn as PM.

The exit poll was disappointing, but there was never a point during the night where I could see Labour winning enough seats to form a government. They weren't breaking through in the Midlands or Northern marginals.

But, had Ruth Davidson only picked up the 4-6 seats that the balance of opinion expected her to do, then this Government would have been hyper-unstable.

Yes, but one should assume that there'll be over, and under- performance, throughout the country. As a rule of thumb, if you aren't winning places like Nuneaton, North Warwickshire, Sherwood, you don't win.

The Conservatives won a majority without winning any of those three in 1992.

The key battlegrounds are always changing and we've seen the motorway exurban constituencies swing to the Conservatives and the urban areas swing to Labour.

Back in 2007 I was ridiculed for saying that Morley & Outwood would be won by the Conservatives the next time they won an overall majority - in 2017 the Conservatives had nearly 51% of the vote there.

Some years ago, there was a very prescient article from OGH about how different voting patterns were emerging between places where the locals depended on cars, and where public transport was so good the locals didn't need cars.

Hence, the Tories are competitive in small to medium urban areas, but not huge urban areas.

The new divide in politics - those who buy their bread at a supermarket and those who go to an artisan bakery.

glw said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

- On unions, Ed Miliband today was advocating compulsory union membership. And that's one of the relatively sane Labour figures

I can remember when Red Ed was something of a joke. I suppose he's trying to keep up with the new leadership that freely admit to being Marxist.

Corbyn's relative success in June means they can let their hair down.

They've always wished to destroy private enterprise, but, hitherto, have felt they had to compromise.

Sean_F said:

On another forum, I was compared to an architect of the Final Solution for defending the government's policy on asylum.

Some people feel the urge to make wildly inappropriate connections with the Nazis.

My favourite example of utter lefty lunacy was when (on another forum) I pointed out that it was unlikely that the death of Blair Peach was the responsibility of Margaret Thatcher, since she wasn't in government at the time. When I logged on the next morning I discovered that this had triggered a stream of ever more hysterical invective culminating in the bizarre conclusion that I must be a child rapist.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

On another forum, I was compared to an architect of the Final Solution for defending the government's policy on asylum.

Some people feel the urge to make wildly inappropriate connections with the Nazis.

My favourite example of utter lefty lunacy was when (on another forum) I pointed out that it was unlikely that the death of Blair Peach was the responsibility of Margaret Thatcher, since she wasn't in government at the time. When I logged on the next morning I discovered that this had triggered a stream of ever more hysterical invective culminating in the bizarre conclusion that I must be a child rapist.

Blair Peach! Now there is a blast from the past.

dixiedean said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

On another forum, I was compared to an architect of the Final Solution for defending the government's policy on asylum.

Some people feel the urge to make wildly inappropriate connections with the Nazis.

My favourite example of utter lefty lunacy was when (on another forum) I pointed out that it was unlikely that the death of Blair Peach was the responsibility of Margaret Thatcher, since she wasn't in government at the time. When I logged on the next morning I discovered that this had triggered a stream of ever more hysterical invective culminating in the bizarre conclusion that I must be a child rapist.

Blair Peach! Now there is a blast from the past.

Not for Thatcher-hating lefties.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

steve_garner said:

steve_garner said:

Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.

They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.

Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell

The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news".
That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant.
Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.

Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks

He hasn't lost anyone. No one will remember come an election and anyone bringing it up will be derided as fake news.

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

GIN1138 said:

So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?

Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?

Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit

After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.

We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.

That's how I think it'll play out.

My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.

Terrible!

A bit pessimistic, perhaps. Not least because I don't see what is in it for the EU to keep us in now - were not likely to stop being disruptive if they were to permit that, especially given their tendency toward punishment not appeasement.

glw said:

HYUFD said:

BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April

https://www.lexiconnect.co.uk/top-20-uk-websites.html

Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.

Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats