politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the first time since GE2017 consecutive polls have Corbyn’
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the first time since GE2017 consecutive polls have Corbyn’s Labour behind
Two Westminster voting intention polls in the past 24 hours have both got the COM in the lead and of course LAB in second place. This is the first time since the general election that consecutive polls have showed this.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I went to my first Corbyn rally over the summer (don't worry I didn't inhale any socialism) and in a 25 minute speech which was very polished as he'd done it so many times on the campaign trail, Brexit wasn't mentioned once. It was all anti-austerity.
I still maintain a large part of the polls' non-movement is pretty normal for the post-election period (people are usually too stubborn to admit they got their vote wrong so soon afterwards), but to the extent that Labour aren't making the most of potential, I don't think it's anything to do with Brexit, and certainly nothing to do with the "Venezuela" bollocks. It's more with regards to economic issues I think - specifically, the lingering fear that people still have that, although Corbynomics is very desirable, it's not realistically achievable, at least not without "maxing out the credit card" or "crashing the economy".
Do not believe this fake news. Prime Comrade Chairman Corbyn is the undoubted champion of the proletariat, and the tawdry trappings of capitalist democratic office cannot besmirch his glorious dungarees!
In your eyes, Mike. In reality if Labour jumped that way they would lose a chunk of Leave voters in seats like Don Valley.
Facing both ways at once seems to be pretty sensible short-term tactics (and was the key reason they did so well in June). Of course, the Lib Dems' experience shows us the long-term perils of this approach.
Plus the YouGov only has the Tories ahead because of a comedy Scottish subsample.
*innocent face*
Technically we are not yet in midterm.
Tories 37%
SNP 34%
Lab 21%
Lib Dem 4%
So why would Labour benefit from taking a clear position?
The LibDems under Kennedy were slated, at the time, for their stand against the Iraq war. Yet, in the medium term at least, it delivered them significant benefit, as well as having been the right thing to do.
I suspect it has skewed the overall GB figures somewhat.
#worsttakeyourdaughtertoworkdayever
The Tories led Labour by just 2 on the weighted sample (520 v 518) and of the total weighted sample of 1,680, the weighted Scottish sample was 146,
I know we've discussed this before, but still.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/21/peter-cushing-rogue-one-resurrection-cgi
My view at the time is it ok if the actor was already starring in the film, like Oliver Reed in Gladiator, or Philip Seymour Hoffman in Hunger Games series.
At no time did Peter Cushing give his consent to star in Rogue One.
I'm almost certain Boris would've performed worse than May in the North, for example.
I remember that Laurence Olivier's image and some recorded vocal material was used for a film called Sky Captain about 15 years ago - however, that didn't involve anything new being created.
They screwed up, it is showing Wednesday night at 9pm.
I has my tickets.
https://twitter.com/channel4/status/940200462090940416
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/04/yippee-ki-yay-the-british-public-say-die-hard-is-not-a-christmas-movie/
.....
In her Florence speech Theresa May indicated she wants the benefits of the more comprehensive and extensive Norway system, while being bound by the more limited obligations specified in a Canada style treaty. A form of having cake and eat, maybe,
Article 50 phase 1 agreement referred to regulatory "alignment" between the UK and the EU in the context of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). This was seen as a fudge. It cannot remain so. By the time we get a permanent trade deal the EU and the UK will agree a treaty which will set out the rules - either follow the system rules (Norway) or follow these specified rules (Canada). If the rules aren't specified one way or the other, we won't be bound to do anything different. It becomes clear only Norway can be regulatory "alignment" - when the EU rules change so do ours. With Canada they are fixed for all time. That's one reason Canada is necessarily more restricted than Norway.
Regulatory alignment is a big issue for the EU, apart from the GFA. This suggests to me the EU will be pushing hard for us to have Norway style rule taking. It could be the opposite of what Mrs May wants - the greater obligations of Norway tied with the lesser benefits of Canada.
So we could say, in that case we want the benefits of Norway too. It's also easier to negotiate. The treaty essentially exists off the shelf as a forty page document, while a Canada style deal requires extensive and detailed negotiation. The Canada agreement runs to 1600 pages. We could say, we don't want any agreement, but I don't think that's a realistic outcome. One thing Mrs May has done for the Conservatives in the last week is to create the assumption of a deal. Mainstream Conservative MPs, who don't seem to enjoy talking about Brexit, breathed a big sigh of relief this week that it hasn't yet blown up in their faces.
But if curtailing Freedom of Movement is the be-all-and-end-all, you could have limited Canada trade benefits with Norway style rule taking on trade, business and the environment and a concession on freedom of movement Would that ultimately be acceptable?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42324485
Nothing's Agreed Until It's All Agreed.
(I know, I know, clutching at straws - but surely it has to wind up TSE!)
Give a girl a flower to marry her? How strange. I thought it was that you had to marry if you deflower her...
The Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement is a single agreement that is fixed next Autumn. The interim agreement that will probably be endorsed by the EU Council on Thursday is just that - an interim agreement. The actual agreement will contain the points from the interim agreement, adjusted and made into specific terms, an (assumed) "transition" arrangement for immediately after March 2019 for possibly two years, and on the same terms as EU membership and an (assumed) outline proposal for a long term relationship.
The long term relationship will NOT be agreed when the rest of the Withdrawal Agreement is made into treaty obligations, including exit fees etc.
Which doesn't make you seem any kind of improvement on the government you're trying to dislodge.
In lieu of repeating myself (which doesn't stop most people on here in all honesty), it's hardly surprising the avalanche (or blizzard if you prefer an alternative winter analogy) of triumphalist pro-May and pro-Government sentiment over the weekend has had an impact.
Yes, we have a deal and to be honest a lot of it could have been concluded without the theatrics and the melodramatics but politicians are meant to be actors and entertainers so we shouldn't be surprised.
The detail of the "Triumph" needs a bit more investigation and may chip away at the euphoria a little. We are still going to pay at least £40 billion and possibly a great deal more and will remain to all intents and purposes in the EU until April 2021.
For those concerned about immigration, EU citizens will be able to bring spouses and extended family members to the UK and, I believe, the right of re-entry will exist as well. In addition, access to child benefit and other benefits will continue. The Irish border question has been kicked down the road like an empty can of Guinness with everybody re-assured by contradictory comments and aspirations.
Is it better than walking away without a deal ? Possibly, possibly not, there's a long way to go. For pro-Government supporters stung by weeks of bad news, it's welcome short-term relief but much as Cameron's "flounce" achieved short-term popularity for little or no medium term benefit it remains to be seen how progress will translate into the harder questions.
As for Labour, why do they have to take a firm position ? They aren't the Government. My take on Corbyn is, like most people, there are things he likes and is interested in and things he isn't and while I'm sure he has a view on the generality of the EU he may be less engaged in the specifics. That's why he has Starmer and his team and if I'm being honest I suspect there's very little in the agreement with which Starmer (or indeed any proponent of a "soft" Treaty) could argue.
For those advocating not leaving and for those advocating walking away without a deal (vociferous minorities dealing in implausibilities in truth), it's a set back. The picture of our future relationship with the EU suggests more semi-detached than detached at this time which perversely may please no one but be the best outcome - that's often how it is in negotiations and compromises.
Would Corbyn be doing better if he was championing one EU position? I don't think so - it would give one good story but unless it was at one extreme ("stay in at all costs" or "get out at all costs"), as events develop he'd need to keep adjusting it, just as the Government does. It's sensible to stay flexible and react as specific proposals evolve. I do agree that a more effective attack on the generally chaotic approach should be possible. His bias to issues over personalities may be getting in the way - he is simply unwilling to say, for instance, "Boris is useless" even if most people agree.
If what you say is true, then it would be electoral suicide for TMay to sign up to that (once it was widely understood).
If it's a two year transition then the payments will apply for two years.