Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s most successful election winner the latest to question w
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s most successful election winner the latest to question why Corbyn’s party isn’t further ahead
Tony Blair: 'Labour should be 20 points ahead in polls' https://t.co/DS8q4dkCM6
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And then spit.
How much contact had he with Joseph Mifsud, the Russian intelligence cut out who was a player in the Trump-Russia linkage?? Passing? Once? or more?
Mifsud knew about the Clinton email haul that the Russians had before a lot other people, impressive for an academic.
He's even wearing a poppy in the article from July 2015.
Lock him up! Lock him up!
And I've yet to see anything to suggest the polling companies are any more accurate now, after getting every important vote wrong for the last three years. Labour could lead by more than the polls are saying for all we know, or they could actually be behind. We're building our understanding of current politics on polls when we have no idea whether they're trustworthy.
Two questions, did UK IC actually flag this guy. If so, was it ignored?
One meeting at some event can pass, multiple contacts one to one do not.
I wish someone would do more research into this. I suspect social media probably has a lot to do with it.
But when faced with the facts you have to be pragmatic. I'd prefer a moderate Labour party pursuing mild reforms. But sometimes you have to compromise your principles if you want your party to be in power.
I agree, research would be handy, particularly if such volatility during elections has become more common,
Seems to me there are a lot of Labour MPs who have compromised their principles in recent months. It may yet end their careers.....
It might also have something to do with voters being far less rooted to political ideology, but perhaps more swayed by political fashions.
Yet, I still bet on a clear majority right up until the exit poll came out.
There's a bunch of complacent Tories who think the Tories will win the next election by having a new leader and not having the dementia means a Tory victory really boil my piss.
Additionally, people do reassess, but might then come to a similar conclusion, rightly or wrongly. So for instance I thought Labour would win most seats in 2015, that they would do better than predicted. I was wrong. I took that into consideration and still came to the conclusion they would do better than predicted in 2017, and that time I was right (if wrong about the extent of how well they would do, like most people). A case of a stopped clock being right twice a day, perhaps, but an example that someone can have called things wrong, reassess but end up with a similar conclusion, and be right next time.
What's the alternative? 'I was wrong last time therefore I should make no predictions'? 'I was wrong last time therefore people who were right last time must be right this time too?' Neither are guaranteed to be right, and so the mere fact the same people who were wrong last time are saying something now is not enough to dismiss the view, so long as we think they have sufficient justification.
Yesterday's YouGov gave Corbyn a 29% lead over Mrs May on net well/bad ratings.
Mrs May is on minus 24, Corbyn is on plus 5
https://tinyurl.com/yafvp6jt
The referee Ben Toner has been taken off Blackpool’s League One match against Portsmouth, days after the majority owner, the Oystons, were found by a high court judge to have operated an “illegitimate stripping” of the Lancashire club.
Given the findings against the Oystons, Toner’s name had caused some amusement on social media. However the EFL said he had been replaced by a more senior official only because of the “increased scrutiny” on the match at Blackpool.
If Jezza is good at one thing, it is campaigning.
If there is one thing that May does worse than governing, it is campaigning.
At the election, he piled up votes in seats that Labour already held which meant that Labour won on 40% of the vote, about the same number of seats that Labour won under Gordon Brown in 2010 on 29%
Corbyn cannot win marginals, and he and his cronies more than any other factor are ensuring power well into the future for the Tories.
That 40% in June was despite Corbyn not because of him and it was an anti Brexit vote.
No opposition in history has ever won a general election without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. And if Corbyn Labour cannot be 20 points ahead after the last two disastrous weeks for the Tories, it wont be.
But there were people in Labour who disliked Corbyn's policies and style and objected to him on that basis. And then there were those who could support any Labour leader, they just thought he would lead them to electoral disaster and may have not voted, or worked less hard as a result. To the latter group, he now looks very credible, and they will desperately beg forgiveness. (and, as noted, literally sing his praises).
The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.
It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.
The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.
A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.
1. Whoever the next leader is.
2. How Brexit is going.
A good leader and a modest Brexit would put the Tories back in the game.
The only thing preventing Canadians from working cash in hand in low-wage jobs in California is desire, not the immigration system, and unless you are proposing to introduce tourist visas for EU citizens, you will not prevent this kind of activity from springing up.
Seems like in this day and age, those they lost when they went into coalition are not interested in anything other than backing the least bad of the big two, and for those people that will always be Labour. I don't see how that works as a rebuttal frankly - Canterbury and Westminster were not marginals (nor did he win Westminster), but he also failed to win a bunch of places that were (or used to be) marginals, places like Copeland, Nuneaton, Swindon South. Probably still swings to Labour in most of them, but far far smaller than elsewhere, so while stevef might well not be right either, just because Corbyn can win Canterbury does not mean for certain he can win marginals. Indeed, the very fact it was not a marginal might suggest the conditions are not replicable to the same degree elsewhere, as this was provably the case
And Corbyn is going to stop all that and sweep to victory on the basis of tiny three point lead in the polls during one of the worst fortnights of a Tory government in living memory?
There is little appetite for centrism at present, it has been discredited by Blairism then Cameronism. Both of those will look different in time, but not for years. At the moment people want to drink more intoxicating beverages. Centrism appeals in less turbulent times.
The current party is too fixated on its middle class anti-Brexit message to appeal to its traditional rural constituency. As for all parties, the activists are more fanatical and monomaniac than the voters.
Cable's coronation wasted the opportunity to have a real debate on future policy. In addition he is too tired and tainted by his choices in coalition, particularly on student fees.
We will revove, but not for a generation.
People now believe he could win, whether they like that idea or not. Whether those who would not support him when they thought him a loser but will now, outnumber those who only supported the party as they didn't think he could win but do now? Well, we shall see.
So much time for 'events' to change everything.
I think the Tory vote was pretty darn high in June (if not as high as many of the polls suggested), it was just that Labour's was surprisingly high as well, and it's a question of will either party manage to rise next time, or are they holding out for the other side decreasing?
Leading a protest movement is very different to presenting yourselves as a government-in-waiting.
Tony Blair speaks out on Armistice Day.
Very appropriate not
However, if he IS still around, which is the comfort blanket most PB Tories seem to be clinging to, they need to remember that how effective a campaigner he proved to be, albeit against a very poor Tory campaign, when he enjoyed less biased coverage in the media that comes with a General Election period. He had momentum and if the campaign had been another two weeks longer, he might well have won most seats. And next time, he will have a much more united party behind him.
If I were PM, I would have a couple of researchers whose duty would be to research, for any question which arose, how the 50 most organised countries in the world dealt with it, and submit to me one paragraph summaries of the best 10 solutions. The savings in wheel-reinvention would be massive.
California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration.
The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León, the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20170916-story.html
The Guardian - a comfort blanket for remainers
The Express - a comfort blanket for leavers
Where is a there an independent voice with no agenda and able to make sense out of the untruths and coercion on both sides
Maybe it was ever thus
The Russian approach is to sow chaos and discord to weaken their political rivals. They habitually fund both (extreme) sides of a particular issue to try and create destabilising flash points.
But you learn a lot this way. I thought until 10 minutes ago illegal immigrants to the US were almost all Mexicans, and you just had to shove them back over the land border. It is not that simple: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
But, the Conservatives need to believe in themselves in again, if they expect the electorate to do so next time.
I do agree about the Tories believing in themselves, but right now we have a PM that doesn't believe in herself.
I suspect it's a rhetorical tool, but politics (and our understanding of it) can change radically overnight, as the last 3 years has shown.
It would be good to remember that in June Corbyn achieved more votes than Blair in 2001 and 2005, with only 1997, in which Blair rode on the coat-tails of 18 years of built-up discontent with the Tories, marginally topping his total.
Face it, everything you thought about Corbs was wrong. The sooner you and fellow Lib Dem Blair get over it, rather than looking increasingly loopy and bitter, the better.
https://twitter.com/DroooPeacock/status/929393854217940992
I would call it a delusional level of self belief, laden with hubris, but self belief it is.