Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 5.8% increased CON GE17 vote share would’ve been a big dea
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 5.8% increased CON GE17 vote share would’ve been a big deal if only LAB hadn’t gone up 9.8%
It has started. Senior Tories at their conference in Manchester such as Liam Fox trying to gloss over TMay’s loss of majority on June 8th by arguing that the party increased its vote share by 5.8% at the general election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In a recession/house price deflation scenario, those properties would suffer the biggest % falls IMO.
In any case, this is a party conference. Of course silver linings are being talked up.
Who'd want to be a Conservative Party member? You have to pay £25 a year, you're not respected by CCHQ, you won't have an input on policy, you might not get to pick your parliamentary candidate, and you might not get to vote for the leader either.
Yet you're subject to endless requests for money, leafleting, door-knocking and raffle tickets.
Unless you want to socialise at bridge evenings with the elderly, or network the contacts to become a candidate, what's the point?
I suspect neither Labour nor Tories will be able to get many more votes than previously - they will both be looking to squeeze votes out in key places and hold what they have...
Scotland seems crucial to me - if SNP slide continues who will take those seats?. Similarly would a Lib Den recovery help or hurt Labour?
But, a huge amount could change in the next 4.5 years.
It is real chutzpah to vehemently resist moves to proportional representation while citing an increase in vote share as being anything other than academic interest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722
1) Do the Conservatives think that they can get more votes next time? If so, from where?
2) Do the Conservatives think that Labour can get more votes next time? If so, from where?
3) Do the Conservatives think that Labour's appeal has peaked? If so, why?
The Conservatives' big strategic problem is that it isn't easy to see how they can get more votes next time, given the challenges ahead. If they're losing votes, which seems much more likely, that would in all probability be to the benefit of Labour.
How does that help the Tories?
The Government needs to buy land, grant itself planning permission and build homes *now*.
There has to be a material impact before the next election.
Housing isn't particularly a party political issue, and the success or failure of policy here will have a strong effect on perceptions of competence. This seems designed to fail.
Former accountant, qualified pilot with no criminal record living in a retirement community. Then carefully plans a mass shooting by booking a room with perfect view and takes 8 guns and erects a platform within the room.
Seen through that prism, maybe the election result should not have been such a surprise.
CAA seem to be doing a very good job of getting people home. Attention should now turn to the many employees who have just been laid off. There’s plenty of jobs around for pilots and hosties (as Ryanair are discovering) but a lot of the back office people will find it much more difficult to sort themselves out.
1. Dunno
2. Dunno
3. Dunno
Perhaps a more useful set of questions is: what can we do to nudge the answers towards Yes, No and Yes?
The pilot’s licence means he will have a regular medical, so he’s not going to have a long history of depression, and the profile doesn’t suggest Islamic terrorism. Maybe just a man with a grudge against someone, ex-wife maybe?
I don't see why this isn't startlingly obvious.
It must be being discussed in CAs with every MP up and down the land.
I think the next election is very much for Labour to lose
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html
All it did was cement his position as leader of his party.
The system works. It is quick, efficient and gets the land used very quickly. It stops developers sitting on land and removes the long lag between the purchase of the land and the householder moving in. Of course it also allows for the local authority to pay a building firm to build social housing which they retain control of based on their needs.
This is the sort of thing that civilians are allowed to play with in Nevada: .300 Gatling gun that sends 50 rounds a second down range. Oh, and Kari Byron, just because
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/monarch-profits-nosedive-35pc-toughest-year/
They can skip to steps 2 and 3.
Because they do.
Edit. See glw has made the same point.
Though in this country those people largely have homes.
We need to build a load of terraces. Or decent tenement style housing.
Even the Telegraph have finally dropped Boris from the top of the front page.
The loss in 2016 was only 5%
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/914834212234113024/photo/1
Edit: I see @rkrkrk got there first
A great effort from the organisation that most pilots usually refer to as the Campaign Against Aviation due to their legendary bureaucracy.
https://monarch.caa.co.uk
(Apart from your first point: what really matters most is who ends up in office).
You'll be endorsing Corbyn next
If the gov't is going to intervene in the housing market, surely a better route is to take measures that put more bricks and mortar on the ground rather than blowing up the baloon so to speak.
http://www.hbf.co.uk/media-centre/news/view/housing-pipeline-help-to-buy-q2-2017/
Seriously, I don't know anyone who has ever flown monarch. Are they a northern phenomenon?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/12/22/test-11/
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
I have once. Put it this way, Ryanair are preferable.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.