politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PB / Polling Matters podcast returns!
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PB / Polling Matters podcast returns!
As a new YouGov poll shows the Tories 4 points ahead, Keiran Pedley and Leo Barasi discuss the untold story of the recent Conservative resurgence in the polls and ask what is behind it and does it matter?
0
Comments
-
First, like Woodcock?0
-
Second....like class citizens Jews in the Labour Party.0
-
Third...rate like Corbyn.0
-
FPT:-
Yes she would - no matter how much the Opposition leader agrees with the PM on matters like this, it's only the PM who actually has the power to do stuff about it, and to be seen to be "in control" of events. The Conservatives and Democrats were fully behind Blair and Bush's responses to 9/11 (at first atleast), but it was still only Blair and Bush who reaped the benefits in the polls.oxfordsimon said:
May wouldn't have looked as 'above party politics' over Salisbury if Corbyn hadn't stuck to his anti-West lines.0 -
At a time when Jews are being killed in Europe just for being Jewish.FrancisUrquhart said:Second....like class citizens Jews in the Labour Party.
Labour are just an utter bucket of filth right now.
If I was Jewish I would be very anxious about the way things are moving right now.0 -
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
A sound analysis!Danny565 said:FPT:-
Yes she would - no matter how much the Opposition leader agrees with the PM on matters like this, it's only the PM who actually has the power to do stuff about it, and to be seen to be "in control" of events. The Conservatives and Democrats were fully behind Blair and Bush's responses to 9/11 (at first atleast), but it was still only Blair and Bush who reaped the benefits in the polls.oxfordsimon said:
May wouldn't have looked as 'above party politics' over Salisbury if Corbyn hadn't stuck to his anti-West lines.0 -
-
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.0 -
FPT
MikeL said:
Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
The exponentially smoothed moving average smooths out the MOE froth but is sensitive to underlying trends.
The big picture is that, over the last three months, the Tories have moved from 40% to 41%. Labour has stayed constant on 41%. UKIP has dropped a point from 4% to 3%. It looks as if there has been a small transfer from UKIP to Conservative.0 -
I think your analysis here is also spot on as well.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.0 -
For context, Ronny Jackson is an Admiral in the US Navy, Harriet Miers for Justice on the Supreme Court this is notScott_P said:0 -
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
One of Corbyn's USPs however, in a way that Zac's wasn't, is that he is an honest, decent, principled man. His evasion around his institutional anti-Semitism if not actual anti-Semitism will do some damage to that assessment of his character.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.0 -
I think that the rows over antisemitism are unhelpful to Labour, and will be a net vote loser, but not a big net vote loser.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.0 -
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
But, Corbyn shot himself in the foot.Danny565 said:FPT:-
Yes she would - no matter how much the Opposition leader agrees with the PM on matters like this, it's only the PM who actually has the power to do stuff about it, and to be seen to be "in control" of events. The Conservatives and Democrats were fully behind Blair and Bush's responses to 9/11 (at first atleast), but it was still only Blair and Bush who reaped the benefits in the polls.oxfordsimon said:
May wouldn't have looked as 'above party politics' over Salisbury if Corbyn hadn't stuck to his anti-West lines.
May was equally “in control” of events during the Manchester and London terror attacks last year, where Corbyn - cynically, but effectively - played the politics rather well.
He succumbed to hubris this year, tried it again and just made himself look like Putin’s sockpuppet.0 -
Bargain Booze owner Conviviality could face administration after failing to secure emergency funding.
The firm, which is also a major supplier to chains like Wetherspoons, has suffered a string of profit warnings in recent weeks and revealed a £30m tax bill.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43576991
Why would somebody the size of Wetherspoons need a middle man?0 -
-
Difficult to tell what is real and what is a spoof re White House these days.Scott_P said:
Perhaps that is the point?0 -
Not saying Labour are all over the place but....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/28/brexit-boost-theresa-may-labour-front-bencher-says-party-will/0 -
-
There is zero chance of Parliament coming up with anything like a coherent position that could form the basis of a negotiation. That is not how Parliament is supposed to work. The EU is not going to talk to Parliament to agree anything. That is why we have governments.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
I don’t think it’s hubris so much as stubbornness. Corbyn has had a certain kind of world view for decades and he’s not letting it go, no matter what sadly.Casino_Royale said:
But, Corbyn shot himself in the foot.Danny565 said:FPT:-
Yes she would - no matter how much the Opposition leader agrees with the PM on matters like this, it's only the PM who actually has the power to do stuff about it, and to be seen to be "in control" of events. The Conservatives and Democrats were fully behind Blair and Bush's responses to 9/11 (at first atleast), but it was still only Blair and Bush who reaped the benefits in the polls.oxfordsimon said:
May wouldn't have looked as 'above party politics' over Salisbury if Corbyn hadn't stuck to his anti-West lines.
May was equally “in control” of events during the Manchester and London terror attacks last year, where Corbyn - cynically, but effectively - played the politics rather well.
He succumbed to hubris this year, tried it again and just made himself look like Putin’s sockpuppet.0 -
Remember during the GE, even his supposed shift on trident renewal, he was caught out on the phone to Seamus basically say they bought all the bollocks and nothing had really changed.The_Apocalypse said:
I don’t think it’s hubris so much as stubbornness. Corbyn’s has a certain kind of world view for decades and he’s not letting it go, no matter what sadly.Casino_Royale said:
But, Corbyn shot himself in the foot.Danny565 said:FPT:-
Yes she would - no matter how much the Opposition leader agrees with the PM on matters like this, it's only the PM who actually has the power to do stuff about it, and to be seen to be "in control" of events. The Conservatives and Democrats were fully behind Blair and Bush's responses to 9/11 (at first atleast), but it was still only Blair and Bush who reaped the benefits in the polls.oxfordsimon said:
May wouldn't have looked as 'above party politics' over Salisbury if Corbyn hadn't stuck to his anti-West lines.
May was equally “in control” of events during the Manchester and London terror attacks last year, where Corbyn - cynically, but effectively - played the politics rather well.
He succumbed to hubris this year, tried it again and just made himself look like Putin’s sockpuppet.
But Jezza never lies...0 -
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.0 -
Yes, and he will either live or die by it, politically.The_Apocalypse said:
I don’t think it’s hubris so much as stubbornness. Corbyn’s has had a certain kind of world view for decades and he’s not letting it go, no matter what sadly.Casino_Royale said:
But, Corbyn shot himself in the foot.Danny565 said:FPT:-
Yes she would - no matter how much the Opposition leader agrees with the PM on matters like this, it's only the PM who actually has the power to do stuff about it, and to be seen to be "in control" of events. The Conservatives and Democrats were fully behind Blair and Bush's responses to 9/11 (at first atleast), but it was still only Blair and Bush who reaped the benefits in the polls.oxfordsimon said:
May wouldn't have looked as 'above party politics' over Salisbury if Corbyn hadn't stuck to his anti-West lines.
May was equally “in control” of events during the Manchester and London terror attacks last year, where Corbyn - cynically, but effectively - played the politics rather well.
He succumbed to hubris this year, tried it again and just made himself look like Putin’s sockpuppet.0 -
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.0 -
Re: ShawCroft
Wasn’t there a fight over her appointment? Was she the one that Momentum wanted ir the one they opposed?0 -
Do they have a majority for it? That is the question.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.0 -
Agreed. Make no mistake, Corbyn is not antisemitic.JonathanD said:
One of Corbyn's USPs however, in a way that Zac's wasn't, is that he is an honest, decent, principled man. His evasion around his institutional anti-Semitism if not actual anti-Semitism will do some damage to that assessment of his character.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
But his inability to condemn his supporters who are is damaging to his reputation.0 -
Because it isn’t within the gift of Parliament and/or the Government to reject any agreed deal in favour of further negotiation whilst not crashing out of the EU in the meantime. If you oppose the outcome of any deal it makes far more coherent sense to accept the outcome and then seek a mandate in an election for further negotiation from without the EU.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.0 -
They have had for every vote apart from one procedural (non substantive) amendment, so far.williamglenn said:
Do they have a majority for it? That is the question.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.
For rational followers of politics, that answers the question.0 -
His unwillingness to speak directly to the media to remove all doubt about his sincerity doesn't help his case that he is not antisemtic. At some point Corbyn is going to have to stop hiding behind Milne and the spinners and take questions.Anazina said:
Agreed. Make no mistake, Corbyn is not antisemitic.JonathanD said:
One of Corbyn's USPs however, in a way that Zac's wasn't, is that he is an honest, decent, principled man. His evasion around his institutional anti-Semitism if not actual anti-Semitism will do some damage to that assessment of his character.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
But his inability to condemn his supporters who are is damaging to his reputation.0 -
You seem remarkably confident that they have a majority for it, despite not actually knowing what the deal will be. Must be great to be so sanguine.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.0 -
It’s true, that is a risk for the Tories.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
They need to have a platform to get those same voters to stick with them once Brexit is complete.0 -
Well it’s possible that a rerun of 2017 could be quite successful in the context of a Labour Party coming off the fence over Brexit and not being able to simultaneously draw votes from both sides.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.0 -
,I would guess because they're Free Trade and not tied to their own Brewery.FrancisUrquhart said:Bargain Booze owner Conviviality could face administration after failing to secure emergency funding.
The firm, which is also a major supplier to chains like Wetherspoons, has suffered a string of profit warnings in recent weeks and revealed a £30m tax bill.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43576991
Why would somebody the size of Wetherspoons need a middle man?
Convivality own Matthew Clark one of the largest wholesalers in the industry that purchase and distribute alcohol from all sorts of breweries etc to all sorts of bars and restaurants.0 -
https://twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/979105679125434368Charles said:Re: ShawCroft
Wasn’t there a fight over her appointment? Was she the one that Momentum wanted ir the one they opposed?0 -
No it won't. The only thing that will move votes is giving people a positive reason to vote for us, we've already got the votes of people who don't like Corbyn, there's nothing left in the tank there.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.0 -
I
I was going to say that should have been a big red flag, but obviously that would be a good thing.Floater said:
Interesting back story on her - a big fan of Lutfur - which previously earned her a suspension.TheScreamingEagles said:
I look forward to seeing in the podcast how the antisemitism row could matter in a way I wouldn't expect.0 -
It is very rare that the government lose a vote about anything. When there has been a referendum and by then hundreds of related votes in favour of Brexit, it isn't exactly difficult to have a strong degree of confidence that the final substantive vote will go the same way.Anazina said:
You seem remarkably confident that they have a majority for it, despite not actually knowing what the deal will be. Must be great to be so sanguine.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.0 -
How do you know?Anazina said:
Agreed. Make no mistake, Corbyn is not antisemitic.JonathanD said:
One of Corbyn's USPs however, in a way that Zac's wasn't, is that he is an honest, decent, principled man. His evasion around his institutional anti-Semitism if not actual anti-Semitism will do some damage to that assessment of his character.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
But his inability to condemn his supporters who are is damaging to his reputation.
I know you want to believe he’s whiter than white, and it’s just his supporters that are the problem, but the evidence for that isn’t conclusive.
A fish rots from the head. I can’t think of a political party leader in my lifetime who wouldn’t have steered clear of commenting on a mural like that in a million years, except Nick Griffin.0 -
I think HMG will end up making a small number of concessions to the Lords.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.0 -
Floater said:
Interesting back story on her - a big fan of Lutfur - which previously earned her a suspension.TheScreamingEagles said:
That, I think, is a fair point. It's an extension to the old idea of 'would I be ok with an opponent doing this?' , being 'would i be offended if it was another group?'FrancisUrquhart said:
What I find the most incredible is just how right on, easily offended on others behalf, non-platformy, everybody else is a bigot, so many of Jezza's most vocal supporters are.Floater said:
Its almost like ... they have no problem with it because they are ok with it.FrancisUrquhart said:
No problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party....they did an investigation and everything.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/979100827095916551
Witness the e mail released today
If there was even a whiff of this kind of bigoted behaviour towards say the LGBT community, they would be protesting like mad and trying to shut down anybody involved from going about their daily commitments.
But instead they find all sorts of excuses why Jezza hanging out in 5 different Facebook groups dominated by antisemitic conspiracy nutters is nothing to do with Jezza.0 -
Which would be? You can kiss goodbye to austerity, for a start. The Mansfield Tories: the eurosceptic anti business party that will take you out of the common market, stop the furriners coming in and let the deficit rip. Tony Benn in Union Jack boxer shorts.Casino_Royale said:
It’s true, that is a risk for the Tories.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
They need to have a platform to get those same voters to stick with them once Brexit is complete.0 -
The speadsheet tax error spin does seem rather implausible.Philip_Thompson said:
,I would guess because they're Free Trade and not tied to their own Brewery.FrancisUrquhart said:Bargain Booze owner Conviviality could face administration after failing to secure emergency funding.
The firm, which is also a major supplier to chains like Wetherspoons, has suffered a string of profit warnings in recent weeks and revealed a £30m tax bill.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43576991
Why would somebody the size of Wetherspoons need a middle man?
Convivality own Matthew Clark one of the largest wholesalers in the industry that purchase and distribute alcohol from all sorts of breweries etc to all sorts of bars and restaurants.0 -
I think a small peel off of some Labour votes to Green/LD and NOTA could occur from it.MaxPB said:
No it won't. The only thing that will move votes is giving people a positive reason to vote for us, we've already got the votes of people who don't like Corbyn, there's nothing left in the tank there.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
I agree the Tories need to move the story on from austerity and Brexit only.0 -
What I don't understand is how turning down the deal (whatever it is) is going to change anything. Will the EU stop the A50 clock & open up with more concessions because of a vote in the UK parliament?Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sounds a bit like ordering the tide not to come in, to me.-1 -
In other words, they have always commanded a majority except when they haven’t.Mortimer said:
They have had for every vote apart from one procedural (non substantive) amendment, so far.williamglenn said:
Do they have a majority for it? That is the question.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.
For rational followers of politics, that answers the question.
For rational followers of logic, that answers William’s question.
0 -
Floater said:
Interesting back story on her - a big fan of Lutfur - which previously earned her a suspension.TheScreamingEagles said:
That, I think, is a fair point. It's an extension to the old idea of 'would I be ok with an opponent doing this?' , being 'would i be offended if it was another group?'FrancisUrquhart said:
What I find the most incredible is just how right on, easily offended on others behalf, non-platformy, everybody else is a bigot, so many of Jezza's most vocal supporters are.Floater said:
Its almost like ... they have no problem with it because they are ok with it.FrancisUrquhart said:
No problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party....they did an investigation and everything.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/979100827095916551
Witness the e mail released today
If there was even a whiff of this kind of bigoted behaviour towards say the LGBT community, they would be protesting like mad and trying to shut down anybody involved from going about their daily commitments.
But instead they find all sorts of excuses why Jezza hanging out in 5 different Facebook groups dominated by antisemitic conspiracy nutters is nothing to do with Jezza.
It's not as though it has been taken as gospel that it would. A lot have said it should, or could, but I don't think there's been any sort of consensus it would.TheScreamingEagles said:So all this stuff about anti-Semitism hasn't harmed Labour.
0 -
I know that. It’s more likely this has been used to settle old scoresScott_P said:
https://twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/979105679125434368Charles said:Re: ShawCroft
Wasn’t there a fight over her appointment? Was she the one that Momentum wanted ir the one they opposed?0 -
Good to see the heat on GaukeScott_P said:0 -
It's not going to be substantial enough to get us a majority.Casino_Royale said:
I think a small peel off of some Labour votes to Green/LD and NOTA could occur from it.MaxPB said:
No it won't. The only thing that will move votes is giving people a positive reason to vote for us, we've already got the votes of people who don't like Corbyn, there's nothing left in the tank there.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
I agree the Tories need to move the story on from austerity and Brexit only.
It's not just austerity and Brexit. It's being something other than "not Corbyn". It didn't work last time, just as being "not Trump" didn't work very well for Hilary.0 -
I'm not opposed to anything to avoid a no deal, but if the deal is voted down what our parliament wants might be too late to matter, surely?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
To be fair to the Lords (well, sort of), past behaviour indicates that they know that if the unelected upper chamber try to outmanoeuvre not only the elected chamber but also go against the referendum, then the PM will have every justification to flood the chamber AND introduce legislation to fundamentally reform the house.Casino_Royale said:
I think HMG will end up making a small number of concessions to the Lords.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.
I suspect there will be no concessions at all to the Upper House.0 -
A balanced approach to public spending and tax restraint from good stewardship of the economy, expanding skills training, employment and investment in regional Britain, continuing to control migration, valuing patriotism and ensuring national security.Anazina said:
Which would be? You can kiss goodbye to austerity, for a start. The Mansfield Tories: the eurosceptic anti business party that will take you out of the common market, stop the furriners coming in and let the deficit rip. Tony Benn in Union Jack boxer shorts.Casino_Royale said:
It’s true, that is a risk for the Tories.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
They need to have a platform to get those same voters to stick with them once Brexit is complete.0 -
This is true. But equally it could see a Conservative Party having to fess up that Brexit will have winners AND losers. And having to explain that some of the losers will be their own supporters.alex. said:
Well it’s possible that a rerun of 2017 could be quite successful in the context of a Labour Party coming off the fence over Brexit and not being able to simultaneously draw votes from both sides.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
We really don't know. Either way it may be sensible to have a fall back plan.0 -
If it’s sensible and soft, yes. Perhaps it will be. We can only hope that Brexit is very much like Not Brexit, I’m sure enlightened businessmen like you will agree.Mortimer said:
It is very rare that the government lose a vote about anything. When there has been a referendum and by then hundreds of related votes in favour of Brexit, it isn't exactly difficult to have a strong degree of confidence that the final substantive vote will go the same way.Anazina said:
You seem remarkably confident that they have a majority for it, despite not actually knowing what the deal will be. Must be great to be so sanguine.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.0 -
Of the 13 Tories who voted for the one amendment on which the Govt narrowly lost, I'd be surprised if more than 1 voted against a final deal.Anazina said:
In other words, they have always commanded a majority except when they haven’t.Mortimer said:
They have had for every vote apart from one procedural (non substantive) amendment, so far.williamglenn said:
Do they have a majority for it? That is the question.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.
For rational followers of politics, that answers the question.
For rational followers of logic, that answers William’s question.
Thats the rub, however much Remainers wish it weren't so.0 -
Yes, and I agree with you, but that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.MaxPB said:
It's not going to be substantial enough to get us a majority.Casino_Royale said:
I think a small peel off of some Labour votes to Green/LD and NOTA could occur from it.MaxPB said:
No it won't. The only thing that will move votes is giving people a positive reason to vote for us, we've already got the votes of people who don't like Corbyn, there's nothing left in the tank there.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
I agree the Tories need to move the story on from austerity and Brexit only.
It's not just austerity and Brexit. It's being something other than "not Corbyn". It didn't work last time, just as being "not Trump" didn't work very well for Hilary.0 -
Not sure how enlightened I am, TBH, I sell old paper bound in leather....Anazina said:
If it’s sensible and soft, yes. Perhaps it will be. We can only hope that Brexit is very much like Not Brexit, I’m sure enlightened businessmen like you will agree.Mortimer said:
It is very rare that the government lose a vote about anything. When there has been a referendum and by then hundreds of related votes in favour of Brexit, it isn't exactly difficult to have a strong degree of confidence that the final substantive vote will go the same way.Anazina said:
You seem remarkably confident that they have a majority for it, despite not actually knowing what the deal will be. Must be great to be so sanguine.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.0 -
That assumes a sensible soft Brexit, I hope (and now think) that’s likely. But who knows? Deranged Moggite, anti-business, anti EU talent solutions remain a considerable minority risk.Mortimer said:
Of the 13 Tories who voted for the one amendment on which the Govt narrowly lost, I'd be surprised if more than 1 voted against a final deal.Anazina said:
In other words, they have always commanded a majority except when they haven’t.Mortimer said:
They have had for every vote apart from one procedural (non substantive) amendment, so far.williamglenn said:
Do they have a majority for it? That is the question.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.
For rational followers of politics, that answers the question.
For rational followers of logic, that answers William’s question.
Thats the rub, however much Remainers wish it weren't so.0 -
Many of our opponents want to think that we hate public spending; what most of us actually hate is a growing debt pile. Conservatism is about not abandoning future generations on the altar of current spending, for which there will always be competing demands.Casino_Royale said:
A balanced approach to public spending and tax restraint from good stewardship of the economy, expanding skills training, employment and investment in regional Britain, continuing to control migration, valuing patriotism and ensuring national security.Anazina said:
Which would be? You can kiss goodbye to austerity, for a start. The Mansfield Tories: the eurosceptic anti business party that will take you out of the common market, stop the furriners coming in and let the deficit rip. Tony Benn in Union Jack boxer shorts.Casino_Royale said:
It’s true, that is a risk for the Tories.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
They need to have a platform to get those same voters to stick with them once Brexit is complete.0 -
I suppose anything is possible, but presumably they would have a hefty price for doing so (if they even care to). At first glance the idea looks like trying to extract a promise we won't crash out if we vote against the deal, allowing Labour to vote against it without too much worry, but it doesn't seem like parliament instructing the government to go back to the EU and renegotiate has much of a guarantee no matter how much we want it to.AnneJGP said:
What I don't understand is how turning down the deal (whatever it is) is going to change anything. Will the EU stop the A50 clock & open up with more concessions because of a vote in the UK parliament?Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sounds a bit like ordering the tide not to come in, to me.
In fact, that would seem to only work if the more hardline Brexiter stance of the EU needing us more than them were in fact true - as they would give us more time because they feared no deal more than us. And I don't think that is true.
But Starmer usually seems plausible, so I'd need to look into it more.0 -
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/979113621518213121
How to win friends and influence people, a reminder be courteous in your dealings. Don't be like Christine.0 -
YouGov must be Tory stooges for putting them ahead in the polls. Well, according to Corbyn supporters on Twitter0
-
Blah. Increasing the deficit or reducing it? Focusing on growth or restricting immigration? You sound like a PPB.Casino_Royale said:
A balanced approach to public spending and tax restraint from good stewardship of the economy, expanding skills training, employment and investment in regional Britain, continuing to control migration, valuing patriotism and ensuring national security.Anazina said:
Which would be? You can kiss goodbye to austerity, for a start. The Mansfield Tories: the eurosceptic anti business party that will take you out of the common market, stop the furriners coming in and let the deficit rip. Tony Benn in Union Jack boxer shorts.Casino_Royale said:
It’s true, that is a risk for the Tories.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
They need to have a platform to get those same voters to stick with them once Brexit is complete.0 -
Given the amount of debating and voting the Lords will be doing, it would be doing a poor job if at least some of them were not things that the Commons felt should be conceded on. Absent a perfect world even the finest legislation probably needs tweaking from the Lords on occasion.Casino_Royale said:
I think HMG will end up making a small number of concessions to the Lords.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.0 -
Yup. Thought you’d struggle to find a response to that.Anazina said:
Blah. Increasing the deficit or reducing it? Focusing on growth or restricting immigration? You sound like a PPB.Casino_Royale said:
A balanced approach to public spending and tax restraint from good stewardship of the economy, expanding skills training, employment and investment in regional Britain, continuing to control migration, valuing patriotism and ensuring national security.Anazina said:
Which would be? You can kiss goodbye to austerity, for a start. The Mansfield Tories: the eurosceptic anti business party that will take you out of the common market, stop the furriners coming in and let the deficit rip. Tony Benn in Union Jack boxer shorts.Casino_Royale said:
It’s true, that is a risk for the Tories.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
They need to have a platform to get those same voters to stick with them once Brexit is complete.
Corbyn can’t answer any of them.0 -
That will never catch on.Mortimer said:
Not sure how enlightened I am, TBH, I sell old paper bound in leather....Anazina said:
If it’s sensible and soft, yes. Perhaps it will be. We can only hope that Brexit is very much like Not Brexit, I’m sure enlightened businessmen like you will agree.Mortimer said:
It is very rare that the government lose a vote about anything. When there has been a referendum and by then hundreds of related votes in favour of Brexit, it isn't exactly difficult to have a strong degree of confidence that the final substantive vote will go the same way.Anazina said:
You seem remarkably confident that they have a majority for it, despite not actually knowing what the deal will be. Must be great to be so sanguine.Mortimer said:
It's all guff.williamglenn said:
Politically it makes sense to preempt the A50 vote by proposing that it be decided by referendum: Accept or Revoke.Casino_Royale said:
It would amount to a no-confidence vote. But, then again, so would voting down the A50 deal in practice.Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Govt have a majority in the house for Brexit.
Therefore, we Brexit on the Govt's terms.
Triggering Article 50 was the only vote that mattered. And many MPs still don't seem
to have realised it.0 -
Another PPB wallah.Mortimer said:
Many of our opponents want to think that we hate public spending; what most of us actually hate is a growing debt pile. Conservatism is about not abandoning future generations on the altar of current spending, for which there will always be competing demands.Casino_Royale said:
A balanced approach to public spending and tax restraint from good stewardship of the economy, expanding skills training, employment and investment in regional Britain, continuing to control migration, valuing patriotism and ensuring national security.Anazina said:
Which would be? You can kiss goodbye to austerity, for a start. The Mansfield Tories: the eurosceptic anti business party that will take you out of the common market, stop the furriners coming in and let the deficit rip. Tony Benn in Union Jack boxer shorts.Casino_Royale said:
It’s true, that is a risk for the Tories.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
They need to have a platform to get those same voters to stick with them once Brexit is complete.
0 -
Indeed.dr_spyn said:
The speadsheet tax error spin does seem rather implausible.Philip_Thompson said:
,I would guess because they're Free Trade and not tied to their own Brewery.FrancisUrquhart said:Bargain Booze owner Conviviality could face administration after failing to secure emergency funding.
The firm, which is also a major supplier to chains like Wetherspoons, has suffered a string of profit warnings in recent weeks and revealed a £30m tax bill.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43576991
Why would somebody the size of Wetherspoons need a middle man?
Convivality own Matthew Clark one of the largest wholesalers in the industry that purchase and distribute alcohol from all sorts of breweries etc to all sorts of bars and restaurants.
Worth noting that whole the media is concentrating on Bargain Booze which is a household retail name, I do believe that Matthew Clark is actually the bigger business.0 -
What is wrong with people believing things which could find a place in a PPB? Anybody trying to justify their political tribe in generic terms sounds, well, generic, particularly when the left-right axis is largely bullcrap anyway.Anazina said:
Another PPB wallah.Mortimer said:
Many of our opponents want to think that we hate public spending; what most of us actually hate is a growing debt pile. Conservatism is about not abandoning future generations on the altar of current spending, for which there will always be competing demands.Casino_Royale said:
AAnazina said:
Which would be? You can kiss goodbye to austerity, for a start. The Mansfield Tories: the eurosceptic anti business party that will take you out of the common market, stop the furriners coming in and let the deficit rip. Tony Benn in Union Jack boxer shorts.Casino_Royale said:
It’s true, that is a risk for the Tories.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.
They need to have a platform to get those same voters to stick with them once Brexit is complete.0 -
I don't think anyone seriously expects the deal to be voted down, all these manoeuvres are about changing the nature of the deal in the first place, via parliamentary pressure.kle4 said:
I suppose anything is possible, but presumably they would have a hefty price for doing so (if they even care to). At first glance the idea looks like trying to extract a promise we won't crash out if we vote against the deal, allowing Labour to vote against it without too much worry, but it doesn't seem like parliament instructing the government to go back to the EU and renegotiate has much of a guarantee no matter how much we want it to.AnneJGP said:
What I don't understand is how turning down the deal (whatever it is) is going to change anything. Will the EU stop the A50 clock & open up with more concessions because of a vote in the UK parliament?Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sounds a bit like ordering the tide not to come in, to me.
In fact, that would seem to only work if the more hardline Brexiter stance of the EU needing us more than them were in fact true - as they would give us more time because they feared no deal more than us. And I don't think that is true.
But Starmer usually seems plausible, so I'd need to look into it more.
There are twists and turns in this yet.
The Bargain Booze administration news may well be a further straw in the wind. There are lots of companies overexpanded on cheap debt. When that cheap debt ends, so do they.0 -
Quite probably - particularly if such a plan is indeed merely a bluff, because that bluff might get called.Foxy said:
I don't think anyone seriously expects the deal to be voted down, all these manoeuvres are about changing the nature of the deal in the first place, via parliamentary pressure.kle4 said:
I suppose anything is possible, but presumably they would have a hefty price for doing so (if they even care to). At first glance the idea looks like trying to extract a promise we won't crash out if we vote against the deal, allowing Labour to vote against it without too much worry, but it doesn't seem like parliament instructing the government to go back to the EU and renegotiate has much of a guarantee no matter how much we want it to.AnneJGP said:
What I don't understand is how turning down the deal (whatever it is) is going to change anything. Will the EU stop the A50 clock & open up with more concessions because of a vote in the UK parliament?Anazina said:
Seems a wise move. I’m sure we’ll soon hear on here why it isn’t.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sounds a bit like ordering the tide not to come in, to me.
In fact, that would seem to only work if the more hardline Brexiter stance of the EU needing us more than them were in fact true - as they would give us more time because they feared no deal more than us. And I don't think that is true.
But Starmer usually seems plausible, so I'd need to look into it more.
There are twists and turns in this yet.
Good night everybody. I wonder what fresh anti-semitic scandal will hit tomorrow.
0 -
Tonight's Yougov if repeated in May's local elections would see a 3% swing from Labour to Tory since May 2014, a 9.5% swing from the LDs to the Tories and a 14% swing from UKIP to the Tories.
It is now certainly a possibility the Tories will make a net gain in terms of both councillors and councils0 -
Only a handful of voters need to shift to deliver a Conservative majority. A result of 43/39 would give a dozen Conservative gains.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.0 -
Corbyn is an old fool - you risk becoming his kindred spirit if you continue to punt platitudes on an Internet forum! As you clearly have good taste in James Bond films I will let you off.Casino_Royale said:
Yup. Thought you’d struggle to find a response to that.Anazina said:
Blah. Increasing the deficit or reducing it? Focusing on growth or restricting immigration? You sound like a PPB.Casino_Royale said:
A balanced approach to public spending and tax restraint from good stewardship of the economy, expanding skills training, employment and investment in regional Britain, continuing to control migration, valuing patriotism and ensuring national security.Anazina said:
Which would be? You can kiss goodbye to austerity, for a start. The Mansfield Tories: the eurosceptic anti business party that will take you out of the common market, stop the furriners coming in and let the deficit rip. Tony Benn in Union Jack boxer shorts.Casino_Royale said:
It’s true, that is a risk for the Tories.Danny565 said:Casino_Royale said:Danny565 said:another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
They need to have a platform to get those same voters to stick with them once Brexit is complete.
Corbyn can’t answer any of them.
0 -
Labour takes all complaints of anti-Semitism extremely seriously,The_Apocalypse said:
When the MSM take notice (tbf, I am sure parts of the party take them very seriously)0 -
It is a bit like football clubs who incorrectly calculate their NI commitments then go bust. Its like a massive shock that multi-million pound footballers end up costing a lot in NI contributions.dr_spyn said:
The speadsheet tax error spin does seem rather implausible.Philip_Thompson said:
,I would guess because they're Free Trade and not tied to their own Brewery.FrancisUrquhart said:Bargain Booze owner Conviviality could face administration after failing to secure emergency funding.
The firm, which is also a major supplier to chains like Wetherspoons, has suffered a string of profit warnings in recent weeks and revealed a £30m tax bill.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43576991
Why would somebody the size of Wetherspoons need a middle man?
Convivality own Matthew Clark one of the largest wholesalers in the industry that purchase and distribute alcohol from all sorts of breweries etc to all sorts of bars and restaurants.0 -
Can they stem the tide in London? That would be a remarkable showing. Can't see it myself.HYUFD said:Tonight's Yougov if repeated in May's local elections would see a 3% swing from Labour to Tory since May 2014, a 9.5% swing from the LDs to the Tories and a 14% swing from UKIP to the Tories.
It is now certainly a possibility the Tories will make a net gain in terms of both councillors and councils0 -
Just happens that those parts clearly aren’t at the top of the Labour Party, sadly.kle4 said:
Labour takes all complaints of anti-Semitism extremely seriously,The_Apocalypse said:
When the MSM take notice (tbf, I am sure parts of the party take them very seriously)0 -
If the Cons make net gains Labour will cling to gains in London.Sean_F said:
Only a handful of voters need to shift to deliver a Conservative majority. A result of 43/39 would give a dozen Conservative gains.Danny565 said:
If you say so. To me, from your post, it sounds like the Tories are banking on a re-run of 2017 strategy (except without the Brexit factor that pulled "Mansfield Man" over to the Tories), which strikes me as rather good news from a Labour perspective, but I suppose time will tell.Casino_Royale said:
Events of recent weeks have given currency to attacks on Corbyn’s judgement on national security and discrimination that they didn’t previously have. That’s because it’s come directly from his own mouth and relates to both current and future events. Not his past.Danny565 said:
The sad truth is that racism doesn't really change people's votes, unless they themselves are the victims of the racism. As exhibit A of that, I give you Zac Goldsmith doing quite well in the 2016 mayoral election (he did better than the Tories did in London a year later), despite running an outright racist and Islamophobic campaign.another_richard said:
That probably isn't that many people.Casino_Royale said:
Except for the votes of Jews and the non-Jewish who care about the LOTO being tolerant of anti-Semitism.Danny565 said:
LOL, the anti-Semitism thing is not going to move any votes.MikeL said:Good poll for Con.
YouGov had a Lab lead of 2% in early March so last YouGov poll showed a substantial move. Holding on to that and increasing the lead any further is solid progress.
Plus remember it usually takes a while for news to filter through into poll changes - Corbyn's anti-Semitism problems only hit main news headlines on Monday.
And its also possible that it attracts some extra votes from people who don't like Jews.
Morally, the antisemitism isn't good at all, and is personally one of my biggest issues with Corbyn - but, as far as the general public are concerned, I doubt it even makes the top 10 of issues Corbyn-doubters have.
I think that’s what could move votes.0 -
I think a lot of the apparent shift to Labour in London is driven by the eastern inner boroughs, where it will make almost no difference to seat counts. In my leafy suburb, the Tory vote is rock solid; nobody mentions Brexit on the doorstep.kle4 said:
Can they stem the tide in London? That would be a remarkable showing. Can't see it myself.HYUFD said:Tonight's Yougov if repeated in May's local elections would see a 3% swing from Labour to Tory since May 2014, a 9.5% swing from the LDs to the Tories and a 14% swing from UKIP to the Tories.
It is now certainly a possibility the Tories will make a net gain in terms of both councillors and councils0 -
Be honest. That's a Callaghan manifesto.Casino_Royale said:
A balanced approach to public spending and tax restraint from good stewardship of the economy, expanding skills training, employment and investment in regional Britain, continuing to control migration, valuing patriotism and ensuring national security.Anazina said:Which would be? You can kiss goodbye to austerity, for a start. The Mansfield Tories: the eurosceptic anti business party that will take you out of the common market, stop the furriners coming in and let the deficit rip. Tony Benn in Union Jack boxer shorts.
0 -
London will likely still see a swing to Labour but it may not be enough to take Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster, the key Labour targets, especially after the anti Semitism row and rumours of Momentum trying to oust moderate Labour group leaders. In which case the Tories could do a 1990 and claim they held their flagship councils in London despite the Labour onslaughtkle4 said:
Can they stem the tide in London? That would be a remarkable showing. Can't see it myself.HYUFD said:Tonight's Yougov if repeated in May's local elections would see a 3% swing from Labour to Tory since May 2014, a 9.5% swing from the LDs to the Tories and a 14% swing from UKIP to the Tories.
It is now certainly a possibility the Tories will make a net gain in terms of both councillors and councils
0 -
Don't tell MeeksRoyalBlue said:
I think a lot of the apparent shift to Labour in London is driven by the eastern inner boroughs, where it will make almost no difference to seat counts. In my leafy suburb, the Tory vote is rock solid; nobody mentions Brexit on the doorstep.kle4 said:
Can they stem the tide in London? That would be a remarkable showing. Can't see it myself.HYUFD said:Tonight's Yougov if repeated in May's local elections would see a 3% swing from Labour to Tory since May 2014, a 9.5% swing from the LDs to the Tories and a 14% swing from UKIP to the Tories.
It is now certainly a possibility the Tories will make a net gain in terms of both councillors and councils0 -
He once made clear the bits of London that did vote more heavily for Brexit than others were not real London anyway. Presumably any bits not crying with bitterness over it also don't count as real London.Floater said:
Don't tell MeeksRoyalBlue said:
I think a lot of the apparent shift to Labour in London is driven by the eastern inner boroughs, where it will make almost no difference to seat counts. In my leafy suburb, the Tory vote is rock solid; nobody mentions Brexit on the doorstep.kle4 said:
Can they stem the tide in London? That would be a remarkable showing. Can't see it myself.HYUFD said:Tonight's Yougov if repeated in May's local elections would see a 3% swing from Labour to Tory since May 2014, a 9.5% swing from the LDs to the Tories and a 14% swing from UKIP to the Tories.
It is now certainly a possibility the Tories will make a net gain in terms of both councillors and councils-1 -
Greater London has been a reality since 1965.kle4 said:
He once made clear the bits of London that did vote more heavily for Brexit than others were not real London anyway.Floater said:
Don't tell MeeksRoyalBlue said:
I think a lot of the apparent shift to Labour in London is driven by the eastern inner boroughs, where it will make almost no difference to seat counts. In my leafy suburb, the Tory vote is rock solid; nobody mentions Brexit on the doorstep.kle4 said:
Can they stem the tide in London? That would be a remarkable showing. Can't see it myself.HYUFD said:Tonight's Yougov if repeated in May's local elections would see a 3% swing from Labour to Tory since May 2014, a 9.5% swing from the LDs to the Tories and a 14% swing from UKIP to the Tories.
It is now certainly a possibility the Tories will make a net gain in terms of both councillors and councils0 -
It does appear that Theresa has turned the corner on her election disaster.0
-
She's planning another walking holiday in Wales this Easter.GIN1138 said:It does appear that Theresa has turned the corner on election disaster.
0 -
That kind of attitude is normally displayed by people who grew up very far from the capital, but display their satisfaction with their achieved metropolitan identity by turning withering fire on the place and people that made them.kle4 said:
He once made clear the bits of London that did vote more heavily for Brexit than others were not real London anyway.Floater said:
Don't tell MeeksRoyalBlue said:
I think a lot of the apparent shift to Labour in London is driven by the eastern inner boroughs, where it will make almost no difference to seat counts. In my leafy suburb, the Tory vote is rock solid; nobody mentions Brexit on the doorstep.kle4 said:
Can they stem the tide in London? That would be a remarkable showing. Can't see it myself.HYUFD said:Tonight's Yougov if repeated in May's local elections would see a 3% swing from Labour to Tory since May 2014, a 9.5% swing from the LDs to the Tories and a 14% swing from UKIP to the Tories.
It is now certainly a possibility the Tories will make a net gain in terms of both councillors and councils
Mr Meeks is the platonic ideal.0
This discussion has been closed.