politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t be tempted by the Corbyn exit in 2018 bets – he’s as str

ReggieCide said:

Foxy said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

We know that the Tories finished the election on much the same polling as they started, so there seem to be few Tory to Corbyn switchers, not surprisigly. What Jezza managed was to appeal to the other 58% more than Tories could comprehend, and judging by this thread struggle to do so now.

Jezza was not the horned demon that the papers made out, but actually a rather popular eccentric Englishman, with a deep and passionate feeling for the downtrodden. He fought on his own terms about domestic issues of fairness, intergenerational justice and a country fit to live in.

As @NickPalmer has pointed out, votes are not decided by their accountants going over the manifestos, it is an emotional choice about themes and values. Jezza does well with these, and despite his eccentricity has an Emotional Intelligence that connects, particularly outside the Westminster bubble.

How is he doing with the Jews do you think?

Much the same as before....the Jewish who are fervently nationalist about their home state will give him short change. And as someone who deeply loves Israel, I can understand their perspective, sort of. The diminishing group of Jewish folk who believe an accommodation with Palestine is achievable and desirable will still lend him their ear.....

JC is no anti semite....that is stating the bleeding obvious....

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Still astonishing that Jez came within a few thousand votes of becoming Prime Minister last year.

There are at least two regular pb'ers on here who nearly gave me a heart-attack over that.

I did the same to Matthew Parker Street with this thread.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/09/if-youre-not-mentally-prepared-for-corbyn-as-prime-minister-then-you-should-be/

Was before any Scottish results and reliable sources saying Canterbury and Shipley were lost, oh and the Tooting result had just come in.

They remembered I called Tory Majority and a Leave victory before the networks did.

Curtice never had the Conservatives on fewer than 311 seats, so I never thought Corbyn would be in a position to govern. I was still shocked by the exit poll, though.

I think Corbyn will lead Labour for as long as he wishes.

I was very disappointed at the Exit Poll, but I wasn't shocked at it. No, I was far more shocked at May calling a surprise GE when she had previously said she would not do so. That was the far bigger political mistake, even more so than May's poor performance during the campaign. Calling an unnecessary GE looked like a very cynical and self serving move, even more so after the launch of that disasterous manifesto which seemed to indicate that May and her team really were rather arrogantly taking not just their own voter base for granted, but the electorate in general. Its no wonder with hind sight that Corbyn and his team were able to energise not just their own supporters, but other more normally disinfranchised voters.

It still amazes me that May and her team obiviously ignored all the clear political risks, especially after what happened to Gordon Brown so early in his premiership when he allowed speculation of an early snap GE to get out of hand before bottling it when the polls became less favourable. I thought that they had when May initially shut down similar speculation. And as with Corbyn and the Labour party, the threat of that unnecessary snap Autumn GE back in 2007 galvanised Cameron and the Conservative party rather than sending them into dissarray.

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

houndtang said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Still astonishing that Jez came within a few thousand votes of becoming Prime Minister last year.

There are at least two regular pb'ers on here who nearly gave me a heart-attack over that.

I did the same to Matthew Parker Street with this thread.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/09/if-youre-not-mentally-prepared-for-corbyn-as-prime-minister-then-you-should-be/

Was before any Scottish results and reliable sources saying Canterbury and Shipley were lost, oh and the Tooting result had just come in.

They remembered I called Tory Majority and a Leave victory before the networks did.

Curtice never had the Conservatives on fewer than 311 seats, so I never thought Corbyn would be in a position to govern. I was still shocked by the exit poll, though.

I just read that thread and thought they actually had lost Shipley - didnt remember that!

I heard the rumour, but disbelieved it.

I heard it from two reliable sources.

One of whom also said Canterbury was gone.

I struggled to process it.

GIven Canterbury was won by 187 votes at 10:43 AM there is no way anyone could have known it was gone before about 6 AM.

You can tell by looking at the piles of votes and teller returns from the day.

And for betting at 25/1 you do not need to be sure. Just knowing things are too close to call in a constituency accustomed to weighing the vote is enough to get your betting boots on.

Oh for sure you can tell it is TCTC but it could have just as easily ended up in the pile of this lot..

bigjohnowls Posts: 9,489
June 2017
Amber Rudd is officially an ex MP

DavidL Posts: 19,121
June 2017
Big_G_NorthWales said:
Sky predicting 324 - 326 majority

Its going to be 330. I told you 4.5 hours ago now.

Paristonda said:
Hahaha Philip Davies gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Best result so far.

Not my finest hour. I was assuming that we would have a repeat of 2015 where the number of Tory seats edged up over the night into a modest majority. If anything in 2017 the Tories went backwards with unexpected losses and only Scotland saving them from a completely ungovernable disaster.

The Tories got 318 seats which was still 4 better than the 314 the BBC exit poll predicted

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

Middle aged voters who were scared at the prospect of Mrs May taking away their inheritance.

You mean people who actually wanted to keep a smaller inheritance - £23k as opposed to £100k.

Pensioners who own a home - so have negligible housing costs - and a modest private and or state pension will mostly end up paying for the entire cost of their home care. It's residential care that costs the big bucks and where dementia patients eventually end up.

Of course how socialist is it to say someone worth £5 million (as they own a £3m house which a charge could be places) but savings of £20k should get free home care in reality - assuming they even get a package from their council which is a big if - but someone who is worth only £50k (in Savings) who rents has to pay 100 per cent of the costs.

What a shameful system whereby someone who is worth 100 times as much gets something for free whereas the other pays the entire cost - which May tried to suggest should be changed - but failed to explain why.

Social care is in a shocking state and many homes are frankly a disgrace with poor care staffed by minimum wage earning staff - but hey let's worry about the inheritance not the care of the person who we inherit from.

Only about a quarter of pensioners will ever end up in a care home, a higher percentage will need personal care

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

Lots of the naive (of whom there are many) will have voted for Corbyn.

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

On topic:

Corbyn will stay until the next election shows he is unelectable.

The “wildcard” is Theresa May. She is one of the few Tory leaders who could lose to Corbyn, as she so nearly did last year.

Side topic:

We’ve heard a lot about the dodgy harvesting of Facebook data by Leave. We haven’t heard much about the proliferation of pro-Brexit, fake news pushed by Russia online. How much was that worth to Leave?

And, it could have made the difference.
TV was pretty equal Leave v Remain. But newspapers were pro-Leave, as was social media.

At the end of the day, I don’t find the election particularly safe and it’s another good reason for a vote - this time on the Deal.

But the real reason Remain lost was because Remain were crap and complacent.

Actually the last polling comparing Hammond, Rudd, Davis and Boris and May v Corbyn Labour from Survation showed May got a higher Tory voteshare than all of them bar Boris

Bar Boris?

David_Evershed said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

Lots of the naive (of whom there are many) will have voted for Corbyn.

The LDs got 7%, the Liberals lowest general election voteshare since 1959, UKIP and the Greens got under 2%, their lowest voteshare since 2001, most of the non Tory protest vote went to Corbyn and a fair few who did not vote in 2015 too

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

tyson said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

1987, 2001, 2005 were particularly boring nights.....

The hegemony of Thatcher and Blair made election nights akin to watching Man City play West Brom.....

Completely agree. 2017 was supposed to be another one of those walkovers. Instead it proved to be rather gripping. After 2015 as well we are probably a bit spoilt for excitement on election nights. We are due a dull one.

For me, 2015 was the exact opposite of 2017. I was delighted that Cameron and Osborne had somehow manufactured a majority but I was in despair at the success of the SNP in Scotland. Avalanche doesn't quite do it credit. Probably the most remarkable achievement by any political party in my adult lifetime.

I disagree a little about the SNP. While not healthy at the time for one party to have such dominance, that's eased off now but what it has shown is that no party can rely on voters it takes for granted, and that there are no safe seats anywhere in Scotland any more. That has to be a good thing.

To win 56/59 seats was an astonishing achievement. Scottish Labour had been a tottering edifice for years hollowed out, unloved and neglected but the extent of its demolition was incredible. The Scottish Liberal Democrats were in a similar position. Of course only FPTP could really deliver a result like that in a true democracy. I don't think we will see the like again.

I put this idea forward with a little trepidation, but it's possible that AV could as well? (As indeed could the French two-round system).

I don't think that AV or 2-round run-offs would have worked that well for the SNP - it would have allowed unionist votes to consolidate - but that's down to the nature of the SNP. In other scenarios - where the dominant party is less divisive and fairly centralist, as in 1997, for example, AV translates a party's lead in votes into an even greater one in seats than FPTP does.

Under AV the SNP would have won 54 seats.

With STV 34 seats, and with list PR 30 seats.

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/691055087377059840?s=21

tyson said:

Foxy said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

We know that the Tories finished the election on much the same polling as they started, so there seem to be few Tory to Corbyn switchers, not surprisigly. What Jezza managed was to appeal to the other 58% more than Tories could comprehend, and judging by this thread struggle to do so now.

Jezza was not the horned demon that the papers made out, but actually a rather popular eccentric Englishman, with a deep and passionate feeling for the downtrodden. He fought on his own terms about domestic issues of fairness, intergenerational justice and a country fit to live in.

As @NickPalmer has pointed out, votes are not decided by their accountants going over the manifestos, it is an emotional choice about themes and values. Jezza does well with these, and despite his eccentricity has an Emotional Intelligence that connects, particularly outside the Westminster bubble.

Good post Foxy....kind of explains why someone like Corbyn has grown on people like us...the Russia and anti semitic stuff is going to get as much traction as a coach stuck in a snowstorm....

Corbyn is quintessentially and eccentrically English. You'd trust him to look after your kids and you would always appreciate bumping into him in the street to have a quick natter...

He does seem to do well with people.He came to York in late 2015 to visit flood victims.He stayed for ages speaking to them.The local media seem impressed with his presence.As did the flood victims in all the reports.This was at a time when he was getting the MSm treatment as now.

However my brother originally very anti Corbyn person.Now states to everyone who will listen he supports him after the last GE, but he will not become PM , as they will do him in, one way or another.He does go in for a lot of Conspiracy theories though.Nevertheless you do get the feeling , the full force of the establishment is against him.

We will have to see what details emerged, but I think it is entirely reasonable for a 78-year old man to use a weapon against an intruder in his house.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43639183

tyson said:

ReggieCide said:

Foxy said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

We know that the Tories finished the election on much the same polling as they started, so there seem to be few Tory to Corbyn switchers, not surprisigly. What Jezza managed was to appeal to the other 58% more than Tories could comprehend, and judging by this thread struggle to do so now.

Jezza was not the horned demon that the papers made out, but actually a rather popular eccentric Englishman, with a deep and passionate feeling for the downtrodden. He fought on his own terms about domestic issues of fairness, intergenerational justice and a country fit to live in.

As @NickPalmer has pointed out, votes are not decided by their accountants going over the manifestos, it is an emotional choice about themes and values. Jezza does well with these, and despite his eccentricity has an Emotional Intelligence that connects, particularly outside the Westminster bubble.

How is he doing with the Jews do you think?

Much the same as before....the Jewish who are fervently nationalist about their home state will give him short change. And as someone who deeply loves Israel, I can understand their perspective, sort of. The diminishing group of Jewish folk who believe an accommodation with Palestine is achievable and desirable will still lend him their ear.....

JC is no anti semite....that is stating the bleeding obvious....

Only he will know the truth of your last sentence but it certainly isn't bleeding obvious, only a myopic would think so.

Opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games in Queensland, Australia on BBC1. It must be 1982 again. How's Michael Foot doing in the polls?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Commonwealth_Games

NickPalmer said:

Tissue_Price said:

Corbyn is vulnerable to an internal coup by his own supporters, who may conclude (correctly, I think) that he is an overall drag on the ticket (not to mention the age concerns).

But not this year - if you're planning for a 2022 election then a new leader around 2020 would probably be about right. The competition amongst the left to be that leader will be intense.

I don't think he's vulnerable to an internal coup at all - his supporters are notably loyal (although McDonnell is much wilier, he's remained strikingly on-message) and Corbyn is personally far more popular in the party than any other left-winger. What might happen is that he decided himself that the cause was best served by someone else, in which case he'd stand down in a heartbeat - I don't know anyone who puts the cause ahead of his own role more than he does. But for the present, I don't see that someone else would do better, and I doubt if he does.

McDonnell is indeed wily.

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

Voters didn't think Theresa May deserved a 100 seat majority and swung against her at the end of the campaign.

HYUFD said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

Middle aged voters who were scared at the prospect of Mrs May taking away their inheritance.

You mean people who actually wanted to keep a smaller inheritance - £23k as opposed to £100k.

Pensioners who own a home - so have negligible housing costs - and a modest private and or state pension will mostly end up paying for the entire cost of their home care. It's residential care that costs the big bucks and where dementia patients eventually end up.

Of course how socialist is it to say someone worth £5 million (as they own a £3m house which a charge could be places) but savings of £20k should get free home care in reality - assuming they even get a package from their council which is a big if - but someone who is worth only £50k (in Savings) who rents has to pay 100 per cent of the costs.

What a shameful system whereby someone who is worth 100 times as much gets something for free whereas the other pays the entire cost - which May tried to suggest should be changed - but failed to explain why.

Social care is in a shocking state and many homes are frankly a disgrace with poor care staffed by minimum wage earning staff - but hey let's worry about the inheritance not the care of the person who we inherit from.

Only about a quarter of pensioners will ever end up in a care home, a higher percentage will need personal care

That still doesn't discount the fact that warehousing old people in care homes staffed by people paid a pittance is really quite disgusting. Many go because they lose mental capacity, and the rest go because they are bullied by their families who cannot cope and have no alternatives. The vast majority of the population would not wish a care home on themselves...so why have we created these horrible, dehumanised institutions to care for our loved ones is really quite unfathomable and cruel. As I posted earlier, it is one of those things that future generations will berate us for because surely they would have come up with something much more imaginative and satisfying for for those at the end of their lives.

NorthofStoke said:

Foxy said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

We know that the Tories finished the election on much the same polling as they started, so there seem to be few Tory to Corbyn switchers, not surprisigly. What Jezza managed was to appeal to the other 58% more than Tories could comprehend, and judging by this thread struggle to do so now.

Jezza was not the horned demon that the papers made out, but actually a rather popular eccentric Englishman, with a deep and passionate feeling for the downtrodden. He fought on his own terms about domestic issues of fairness, intergenerational justice and a country fit to live in.

As @NickPalmer has pointed out, votes are not decided by their accountants going over the manifestos, it is an emotional choice about themes and values. Jezza does well with these, and despite his eccentricity has an Emotional Intelligence that connects, particularly outside the Westminster bubble.

A good summary of how many supporters view him. It is just a pity that he is also a narrow minded idealogue who verges on being a fanatic. Many have projected qualities on to him that he does not possess and which are also contradictory. Many so want to believe so his unlikely coalition may persist but I think a big collapse in support wil happen at some stage, probably before the next GE.

I think Jezza wrong about many things, and he has a Thatcher like rigidity of opinion, that is similtaneously a strength and also an Achilles heel. What he has done for Labour most of all is to give them back their Mojo. For too long there have been grey party leaders without a vision, and when someone comes along with one, the world beats a path to their door.

I don't think the Labour selectorate is particularly hard left, but they do feel a sense of mission. Corbyn showed this in his first hustings. The crowd loves a good tubthumper.

I don't expect the next Labour leader to be cut from the same part of the party, but they will need to maintain the same level of passion. Parties change tack surprisingly quickly. 10 years after Foot, Blair was in post and 10 years after Blair, Corbyn was. The common factor of all of these was their ability to inspire. Labour Moderates should take comfort from this, but also work on why they should have support. What can they offer the country?

NickPalmer said:

Tissue_Price said:

Corbyn is vulnerable to an internal coup by his own supporters, who may conclude (correctly, I think) that he is an overall drag on the ticket (not to mention the age concerns).

But not this year - if you're planning for a 2022 election then a new leader around 2020 would probably be about right. The competition amongst the left to be that leader will be intense.

I don't think he's vulnerable to an internal coup at all - his supporters are notably loyal (although McDonnell is much wilier, he's remained strikingly on-message) and Corbyn is personally far more popular in the party than any other left-winger. What might happen is that he decided himself that the cause was best served by someone else, in which case he'd stand down in a heartbeat - I don't know anyone who puts the cause ahead of his own role more than he does. But for the present, I don't see that someone else would do better, and I doubt if he does.

The naivety is mind boggling

HYUFD said:

David_Evershed said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

Lots of the naive (of whom there are many) will have voted for Corbyn.

The LDs got 7%, the Liberals lowest general election voteshare since 1959, UKIP and the Greens got under 2%, their lowest voteshare since 2001, most of the non Tory protest vote went to Corbyn and a fair few who did not vote in 2015 too

All the fault of the so-called "Progressive Alliance", which more or less instructed everybody to vote Labour. This worked, though, because the Tory campaign focused on the creation of a Tory-May dictatorship, which everybody wanted to prevent. I don`t think the Tories will make that mistake again.

MarqueeMark said:

tyson said:

Corbyn is quintessentially and eccentrically English.

So is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Doesn't give them a case to provide our PM though....

some obviously think it does

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dear oh dear. I called it yesterday.

But apparently I don’t understand how the world works.

Journalists don't seem to (want to!) understand how science works, and vice versa. Molecules don't have "MADE IN RUSSIA" stamped on their covalent bonds, and the Porton Down guy hasn't been given any training on how to communicate a slightly complicated message.

Yesterday on Twitter was profoundly depressing. As ever

Nah. It was Boris and the FCO saying Porton Down had confirmed it was Russia now they are deleting all evidence of them saying that.

This is the sort of behaviour you’d expect from Blair and Campbell.

MarqueeMark said:

tyson said:

Corbyn is quintessentially and eccentrically English.

So is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Doesn't give them a case to provide our PM though....

We do like our leaders to be very British...shopkkeepers daughter...anyone? Vicar's daughter? Public school boys. Methodist Scot. And now we have the eccentric Corbyn, slightly on the spectrum, who likes trains.

Awkward.

https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/981492124117028864?s=21

tyson said:

HYUFD said:

brendan16 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

Middle aged voters who were scared at the prospect of Mrs May taking away their inheritance.

You mean people who actually wanted to keep a smaller inheritance - £23k as opposed to £100k.

Pensioners who own a home - so have negligible housing costs - and a modest private and or state pension will mostly end up paying for the entire cost of their home care. It's residential care that costs the big bucks and where dementia patients eventually end up.

Of course how socialist is it to say someone worth £5 million (as they own a £3m house which a charge could be places) but savings of £20k should get free home care in reality - assuming they even get a package from their council which is a big if - but someone who is worth only £50k (in Savings) who rents has to pay 100 per cent of the costs.

What a shameful system whereby someone who is worth 100 times as much gets something for free whereas the other pays the entire cost - which May tried to suggest should be changed - but failed to explain why.

Social care is in a shocking state and many homes are frankly a disgrace with poor care staffed by minimum wage earning staff - but hey let's worry about the inheritance not the care of the person who we inherit from.

Only about a quarter of pensioners will ever end up in a care home, a higher percentage will need personal care

That still doesn't discount the fact that warehousing old people in care homes staffed by people paid a pittance is really quite disgusting. Many go because they lose mental capacity, and the rest go because they are bullied by their families who cannot cope and have no alternatives. The vast majority of the population would not wish a care home on themselves...so why have we created these horrible, dehumanised institutions to care for our loved ones is really quite unfathomable and cruel. As I posted earlier, it is one of those things that future generations will berate us for because surely they would have come up with something much more imaginative and satisfying for for those at the end of their lives.

Depends on the care home, the best ones provide all round care with a range of social activities, reasonable food and entertainments

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dear oh dear. I called it yesterday.

But apparently I don’t understand how the world works.

Journalists don't seem to (want to!) understand how science works, and vice versa. Molecules don't have "MADE IN RUSSIA" stamped on their covalent bonds, and the Porton Down guy hasn't been given any training on how to communicate a slightly complicated message.

Yesterday on Twitter was profoundly depressing. As ever

Nah. It was Boris and the FCO saying Porton Down had confirmed it was Russia now they are deleting all evidence of them saying that.

This is the sort of behaviour you’d expect from Blair and Campbell.

Like I said, journalists don't seem to understand how science works.

It Boris and the FCO who don’t seem to understand how science works.

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

We know that the Tories finished the election on much the same polling as they started, so there seem to be few Tory to Corbyn switchers, not surprisigly. What Jezza managed was to appeal to the other 58% more than Tories could comprehend, and judging by this thread struggle to do so now.

Jezza was not the horned demon that the papers made out, but actually a rather popular eccentric Englishman, with a deep and passionate feeling for the downtrodden. He fought on his own terms about domestic issues of fairness, intergenerational justice and a country fit to live in.

As @NickPalmer has pointed out, votes are not decided by their accountants going over the manifestos, it is an emotional choice about themes and values. Jezza does well with these, and despite his eccentricity has an Emotional Intelligence that connects, particularly outside the Westminster bubble.

Jezza is not a horned demon no, he's worse. Horns at least would warn the ignorant on how dangerous he is.

His idols that have destroyed their nations economy and impoverished their people weren't horned demons either.

Many of his idols did far worse than your last sentence suggests

TheScreamingEagles said:

tyson said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

@DavidL The post wasn't about your prediction particularly, more that "very close" results can't be predicted so early in the night..

Oh no worries. I was not offended.

It was a weird night, elated at the results in Scotland (Alex Salmond being a true highlight) but bewildered at what those Sassenachs were playing at down south. Watching Balls and Osborne through the internet was another pleasure. Some elections don't stay long in the memory. That one will.

1987, 2001, 2005 were particularly boring nights.....

The hegemony of Thatcher and Blair made election nights akin to watching Man City play West Brom.....

I’m going to the cathedral of football tonight, hopefully to see Citeh spanked.

Enjoy. You lucky git!

Foxy said:

NorthofStoke said:

Foxy said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

We know that the Tories finished the election on much the same polling as they started, so there seem to be few Tory to Corbyn switchers, not surprisigly. What Jezza managed was to appeal to the other 58% more than Tories could comprehend, and judging by this thread struggle to do so now.

Jezza was not the horned demon that the papers made out, but actually a rather popular eccentric Englishman, with a deep and passionate feeling for the downtrodden. He fought on his own terms about domestic issues of fairness, intergenerational justice and a country fit to live in.

As @NickPalmer has pointed out, votes are not decided by their accountants going over the manifestos, it is an emotional choice about themes and values. Jezza does well with these, and despite his eccentricity has an Emotional Intelligence that connects, particularly outside the Westminster bubble.

A good summary of how many supporters view him. It is just a pity that he is also a narrow minded idealogue who verges on being a fanatic. Many have projected qualities on to him that he does not possess and which are also contradictory. Many so want to believe so his unlikely coalition may persist but I think a big collapse in support wil happen at some stage, probably before the next GE.

I think Jezza wrong about many things, and he has a Thatcher like rigidity of opinion, that is similtaneously a strength and also an Achilles heel. What he has done for Labour most of all is to give them back their Mojo. For too long there have been grey party leaders without a vision, and when someone comes along with one, the world beats a path to their door.

I don't think the Labour selectorate is particularly hard left, but they do feel a sense of mission. Corbyn showed this in his first hustings. The crowd loves a good tubthumper.

I don't expect the next Labour leader to be cut from the same part of the party, but they will need to maintain the same level of passion. Parties change tack surprisingly quickly. 10 years after Foot, Blair was in post and 10 years after Blair, Corbyn was. The common factor of all of these was their ability to inspire. Labour Moderates should take comfort from this, but also work on why they should have support. What can they offer the country?

I agree , they do like a good tubthumper , Corbyn came to York and spoke in the main square.In contrast May came to York and went to the Barbican centre to speak to invited conservatives.

The Corbyn event generated a lot of local media coverage.It also imo produced a good result in York Central which spread to York Outer.

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: Ladbrokes markets are up. There's also a special, 3.75 on Williams not getting a point in the next 5 races. It's a credible possibility, not sure if it counts as value.

That’s crap value as it includes Baku and Monaco, where things can and do happen.

glw said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dear oh dear. I called it yesterday.

But apparently I don’t understand how the world works.

Journalists don't seem to (want to!) understand how science works, and vice versa. Molecules don't have "MADE IN RUSSIA" stamped on their covalent bonds, and the Porton Down guy hasn't been given any training on how to communicate a slightly complicated message.

Yesterday on Twitter was profoundly depressing. As ever

I am quite surprised that the man from Dstl was allowed to answer such questions. It should have been blindingly obvious that any ambiguity in his answers would be seized upon by Russia.

I don't expect any UK chemical forensics capability. or UK intelligence on Russian WMD programmes, that would definitively point the finger to be disclosed to the public.

The PR was appalling.

Jacob Rees Mogg replies to the Beano's claims he is imitating Walter the Softie

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/981488221426278400

Yorkcity said:

Foxy said:

NorthofStoke said:

Foxy said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

We know that the Tories finished the election on much the same polling as they started, so there seem to be few Tory to Corbyn switchers, not surprisigly. What Jezza managed was to appeal to the other 58% more than Tories could comprehend, and judging by this thread struggle to do so now.

Jezza was not the horned demon that the papers made out, bble.

A good summary of how many supporters view him. It is just a pity that he is also a narrow minded idealogue who verges on being a fanatic. Many have projected qualities on to him that he does not possess and which are also contradictory. Many so want to believe so his unlikely coalition may persist but I think a big collapse in support wil happen at some stage, probably before the next GE.

I think Jezza wrong about many things, and he has a Thatcher like rigidity of opinion, that is similtaneously a strength and also an Achilles heel. What he has done for Labour most of all is to give them back their Mojo. For too long there have been grey party leaders without a vision, and when someone comes along with one, the world beats a path to their door.

I don't think the Labour selectorate is particularly hard left, but they do feel a sense of mission. Corbyn showed this in his first hustings. The crowd loves a good tubthumper.

I don't expect the next Labour leader to be cut from the same part of the party, but they will need to maintain the same level of passion. Parties change tack surprisingly quickly. 10 years after Foot, Blair was in post and 10 years after Blair, Corbyn was. The common factor of all of these was their ability to inspire. Labour Moderates should take comfort from this, but also work on why they should have support. What can they offer the country?

I agree , they do like a good tubthumper , Corbyn came to York and spoke in the main square.In contrast May came to York and went to the Barbican centre to speak to invited conservatives.

The Corbyn event generated a lot of local media coverage.It also imo produced a good result in York Central which spread to York Outer.

The only Tory who can attract a crowd like Corbyn is Boris which is why he is still the most likely candidate to succeed May in my view

Mr. Sandpit, good point.

Mr. Eagles, almost as if Boris isn't fit to be Foreign Secretary. It doesn't alter the facts of the case, though.

Blue_rog said:

O/T

I really hope these charges are dropped and the guy in question gets a community award!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/suspected-burglar-dies-tussle-pensioner-78/

Couldn't agree more.

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

tyson said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

1987, 2001, 2005 were particularly boring nights.....

The hegemony of Thatcher and Blair made election nights akin to watching Man City play West Brom.....

Completely agree. 2017 was supposed to be another one of those walkovers. Instead it proved to be rather gripping. After 2015 as well we are probably a bit spoilt for excitement on election nights. We are due a dull one.

For me, 2015 was the exact opposite of 2017. I was delighted that Cameron and Osborne had somehow manufactured a majority but I was in despair at the success of the SNP in Scotland. Avalanche doesn't quite do it credit. Probably the most remarkable achievement by any political party in my adult lifetime.

I disagree a little about the SNP. While not healthy at the time for one party to have such dominance, that's eased off now but what it has shown is that no party can rely on voters it takes for granted, and that there are no safe seats anywhere in Scotland any more. That has to be a good thing.

To win 56/59 seats was an astonishing achievement. Scottish Labour had been a tottering edifice for years hollowed out, unloved and neglected but the extent of its demolition was incredible. The Scottish Liberal Democrats were in a similar position. Of course only FPTP could really deliver a result like that in a true democracy. I don't think we will see the like again.

I put this idea forward with a little trepidation, but it's possible that AV could as well? (As indeed could the French two-round system).

I don't think that AV or 2-round run-offs would have worked that well for the SNP - it would have allowed unionist votes to consolidate - but that's down to the nature of the SNP. In other scenarios - where the dominant party is less divisive and fairly centralist, as in 1997, for example, AV translates a party's lead in votes into an even greater one in seats than FPTP does.

Under AV the SNP would have won 54 seats.

With STV 34 seats, and with list PR 30 seats.

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/691055087377059840?s=21

On those numbers, under PR, a Tory/UKIP coalition would have been necessary after GE2015, together with some C&S from the DUP.

The Russians doing their usual thing of lying 100% of the time, and taking advantage of everyone else when they tell the truth, messy as it usually is.

Depends on the care home, the best ones provide all round care with a range of social activities, reasonable food and entertainments

Hyfud....even the "best" ones are staffed by people paid a pittance, with incredibly high staff turnover, and where old people are left languishing with other old people at the end of their lives....

whichever spin you put on it, and how much money you throw at a home...the concept is fundamentally wrong....

I've put a mother in a home, a father in law in a home, and now we are angling for a mother in law....there are no alternatives....but every relative who has this agonising decision to make has one thing in common..they are happy when they can make their excuse to bring any one visit at any one time to an end and leave said care home. And the vast majority are riddled with guilt about leaving them there. And that guilt never really goes away.

I do a spot of volunteering walking dogs for the elderly..it enables them to keep pets at home. It's a start. We just need to be a whole lot more imaginative about this population...in time with robots, greater professionalism and pay within care staff, unlocking some of the housing problem by mixed communities with young people, pets, students and families living amongst ailing old people..we'll find much better solutions than we have now.

tyson said:

MarqueeMark said:

tyson said:

Corbyn is quintessentially and eccentrically English.

So is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Doesn't give them a case to provide our PM though....

We do like our leaders to be very British...shopkkeepers daughter...anyone? Vicar's daughter? Public school boys. Methodist Scot. And now we have the eccentric Corbyn, slightly on the spectrum, who likes trains.

So British is he that he seems to hate everything about Britain. Sure he makes jam and has an allotment and is probably fun to chat to in the pub. My son has met him and had a selfie with him and said he was pleasant and polite. But so what? What he gets inspiration from - the Far Left - has caused misery to millions everywhere it has been tried. He is good at whipping up a crowd and is inspirational. Lots of good leaders are like that. Lots of bad ones too. It doesn't tell you anything about the quality of what he says.

He has not shown much emotional intelligence in the way he has dealt with his Jewish MPs and the Jewish community more widely. Perhaps that is his one blind spot. But it is one he has in relation to attacks against women in his party as well. It's a pretty large blind spot and suggests that his arc of sympathy and empathy is pretty limited to those who agree with him. In that, he is not that unusual but it is at odds with how he is presented by his supporters which is getting so untethered from the facts about him that it's beginning to resemble that house in Up, attached to balloons and floating well away from Planet Earth.

AndyJS said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T

I really hope these charges are dropped and the guy in question gets a community award!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/suspected-burglar-dies-tussle-pensioner-78/

Couldn't agree more.

No jury is going to convict if the story is even half true. Nonetheless, I can see why the Police have to take a fatal stabbing so seriously, Albeit one rather different to the usual teenage gangsters.

HYUFD said:

Yorkcity said:

Foxy said:

NorthofStoke said:

Foxy said:

houndtang said:

Has it been satisfactorily explained yet how Labour got 40% ? Apart from vague stuff about youth and collapsing UKIP it is still not clear who .voted for the berk.

We know that the Tories finished the election on much the same polling as they started, so there seem to be few Tory to Corbyn switchers, not surprisigly. What Jezza managed was to appeal to the other 58% more than Tories could comprehend, and judging by this thread struggle to do so now.

Jezza was not the horned demon that the papers made out, bble.

A good summary of how many supporters view him. It is just a pity that he is also a narrow minded idealogue who verges on being a fanatic. Many have projected qualities on to him that he does not possess and which are also contradictory. Many so want to believe so his unlikely coalition may persist but I think a big collapse in support wil happen at some stage, probably before the next GE.

I think Jezza wrong about many things, and he has a Thatcher like rigidity of opinion, that is similtaneously a strength and also an Achilles heel. What he has done for Labour most of all is to give them back their Mojo. For too long there have been grey party leaders without a vision, and when someone comes along with one, the world beats a path to their door.

I don't think the Labour selectorate is particularly hard left, but they do feel a sense of mission. Corbyn showed this in his first hustings. The crowd loves a good tubthumper.

I don't expect the next Labour leader to be cut from the same part of the party, but they will need to maintain the same level of passion. Parties change tack surprisingly quickly. 10 years after Foot, Blair was in post and 10 years after Blair, Corbyn was. The common factor of all of these was their ability to inspire. Labour Moderates should take comfort from this, but also work on why they should have support. What can they offer the country?

I agree , they do like a good tubthumper , Corbyn came to York and spoke in the main square.In contrast May came to York and went to the Barbican centre to speak to invited conservatives.

The Corbyn event generated a lot of local media coverage.It also imo produced a good result in York Central which spread to York Outer.

The only Tory who can attract a crowd like Corbyn is Boris which is why he is still the most likely candidate to succeed May in my view

Yes I agree, when Boris came to York during the referendum campaign he generated lots of publicity and a good crowd.

He reaches far beyond the conservative base , that is why Brexit needed him .

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dear oh dear. I called it yesterday.

But apparently I don’t understand how the world works.

Journalists don't seem to (want to!) understand how science works, and vice versa. Molecules don't have "MADE IN RUSSIA" stamped on their covalent bonds, and the Porton Down guy hasn't been given any training on how to communicate a slightly complicated message.

Yesterday on Twitter was profoundly depressing. As ever

Nah. It was Boris and the FCO saying Porton Down had confirmed it was Russia now they are deleting all evidence of them saying that.

This is the sort of behaviour you’d expect from Blair and Campbell.

Blair and Campbell would have sent out a D-Notice.

Certain sections of the media are being useful idiots to the Kremlin agenda here.

Cyclefree said:

tyson said:

MarqueeMark said:

tyson said:

Corbyn is quintessentially and eccentrically English.

So is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Doesn't give them a case to provide our PM though....

We do like our leaders to be very British...shopkkeepers daughter...anyone? Vicar's daughter? Public school boys. Methodist Scot. And now we have the eccentric Corbyn, slightly on the spectrum, who likes trains.

So British is he that he seems to hate everything about Britain. Sure he makes jam and has an allotment and is probably fun to chat to in the pub. My son has met him and had a selfie with him and said he was pleasant and polite. But so what? What he gets inspiration from - the Far Left - has caused misery to millions everywhere it has been tried. He is good at whipping up a crowd and is inspirational. Lots of good leaders are like that. Lots of bad ones too. It doesn't tell you anything about the quality of what he says.

He has not shown much emotional intelligence in the way he has dealt with his Jewish MPs and the Jewish community more widely. Perhaps that is his one blind spot. But it is one he has in relation to attacks against women in his party as well. It's a pretty large blind spot and suggests that his arc of sympathy and empathy is pretty limited to those who agree with him. In that, he is not that unusual but it is at odds with how he is presented by his supporters which is getting so untethered from the facts about him that it's beginning to resemble that house in Up, attached to balloons and floating well away from Planet Earth.

I don't think he does hate everything about Britain. On the contrary he speaks from an ancient streak of British radical thought, from the Diggers, to the Trade Union movement, to the Chartists, to the CND marchers, from the writers like Paine to Foot and Benn. The Tory party do not have a monopoly on Britishness, nor does the Daily Mail.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Craziest rumour of election night.

Tories gonna take Gordon, Banff, Ochill, and Perth & North Perthshire.

I told my friend to book into rehab PDQ.

It wasn't crazy at all.....

Foxy said:

AndyJS said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T

I really hope these charges are dropped and the guy in question gets a community award!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/suspected-burglar-dies-tussle-pensioner-78/

Couldn't agree more.

No jury is going to convict if the story is even half true. Nonetheless, I can see why the Police have to take a fatal stabbing so seriously, Albeit one rather different to the usual teenage gangsters.

It’s one of those occasionally crappy cases which come up. There’s a dead man who has a family, and whatever the circumstances the police are bound to investigate what appears to be a homicide.

If the facts are as described, he’ll be charged with manslaughter and the Crown in an ideal world will send a lawyer to the Magistrate and tell him they intend to offer no evidence, so he’ll be found not guilty the same day. There’s no way anyone would want to put the case in front of a jury.

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

The Russians doing their usual thing of lying 100% of the time, and taking advantage of everyone else when they tell the truth, messy as it usually is.

And, that's enough. There are enough people out there willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, who like to think they're savvy because they distrust Western officialdom.

Well if we want to get really stupid about it it's only a matter of time before a journalist will say "can you 100% prove it?" And a scientist will of course say no.

Scott_P said:

DavidL said:

To win 56/59 seats was an astonishing achievement. Scottish Labour had been a tottering edifice for years hollowed out, unloved and neglected but the extent of its demolition was incredible. The Scottish Liberal Democrats were in a similar position. Of course only FPTP could really deliver a result like that in a true democracy. I don't think we will see the like again.

Did you see the article from Pete Wishart?

He seems to be suggesting Indyref2 will require another SNP majority at Holyrood...

You mean like the majority for independence they have at present.

Andy_Cooke said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Sorry to go off topic so soon but in response to this comment by Mr Meeks on the previous thread -

“This morning has consisted largely of Leavers choosing to ignore an inconvenient poll finding. Roughly a quarter of the population believe that the referendum was won by cheating. That has big implications for the democratic process.”

I agree. But what to do?

Very little. It's the fate of being on the losing side, unexpectedly, in a close referendum that provides much of the ammunition for that.

It would be interesting, as well, to break down how much of that perception of "cheating" is down to perceived financial advantage, versus perceived unfair campaigning techniques, such as the £350m bus.

I think the former is a red herring, whereas I do think the £350m for the NHS bus had an impact even though I'd never call it cheating myself.

The £350m certainly won't be cheating if that is somewhere near where the number ends up by 2022....

It woul certainly be one way to unravel the Remainers' cry of "cheats!!".

We don't send £350 million per week to the EU and never have.
That's a pure and simple fact. I find it strange that anyone still tries to say we do.

If we find £350 million per week extra for the NHS, a big chunk of it was money we were always going to have to send however we wanted.

The correct number was £288 million a week. Such a large number that I always wondered why Leave chose to go with the £350 million. They could have gone with the real number and it would still have had the same impact without any of the consequences of being labelled dishonest

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

DavidL said:

To win 56/59 seats was an astonishing achievement. Scottish Labour had been a tottering edifice for years hollowed out, unloved and neglected but the extent of its demolition was incredible. The Scottish Liberal Democrats were in a similar position. Of course only FPTP could really deliver a result like that in a true democracy. I don't think we will see the like again.

Did you see the article from Pete Wishart?

He seems to be suggesting Indyref2 will require another SNP majority at Holyrood...

No, but I think that is right (if you include their Green lackeys). And I think that unlikely for the foreseeable future. The Salmond majority at Holyrood was another incredible achievement in a system designed to prevent it. Don't think Nicola is in that class. Largest party but well short of a majority would be my guess this far out.

still nearly 3 years to go David, lot of water to go under the bridge before then.

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

The Russians doing their usual thing of lying 100% of the time, and taking advantage of everyone else when they tell the truth, messy as it usually is.

And, that's enough. There are enough people out there willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, who like to think they're savvy because they distrust Western officialdom.

If Russia was in the dock, then the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. That there are Useful Idiots saying we have to prove beyond all unreasonable doubt is being exploited by the people who did this.

If Russia was in the dock, there would undoubtedly be a conviction - unless the CPS was unfortunate enough to have Corbyn and TSE on the jury. In which case, the judge would get a majority verdict.

(As an aside, had lunch on Monday with somebody who is, let us say, part of the Serrated Edge of the Establishment. He was in absolutely no doubt. None at all. It was Russia.)

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

tyson said:

MarqueeMark said:

tyson said:

Corbyn is quintessentially and eccentrically English.

So is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Doesn't give them a case to provide our PM though....

We do like our leaders to be very British...shopkkeepers daughter...anyone? Vicar's daughter? Public school boys. Methodist Scot. And now we have the eccentric Corbyn, slightly on the spectrum, who likes trains.

So British is he that he seems to hate everything about Britain. Sure he makes jam and has an allotment and is probably fun to chat to in the pub. My son has met him and had a selfie with him and said he was pleasant and polite. But so what? What he gets inspiration from - the Far Left - has caused misery to millions everywhere it has been tried. He is good at whipping up a crowd and is inspirational. Lots of good leaders are like that. Lots of bad ones too. It doesn't tell you anything about the quality of what he says.

He has not shown much emotional intelligence in the way he has dealt with his Jewish MPs and the Jewish community more widely. Perhaps that is his one blind spot. But it is one he has in relation to attacks against women in his party as well. It's a pretty large blind spot and suggests that his arc of sympathy and empathy is pretty limited to those who agree with him. In that, he is not that unusual but it is at odds with how he is presented by his supporters which is getting so untethered from the facts about him that it's beginning to resemble that house in Up, attached to balloons and floating well away from Planet Earth.

I don't think he does hate everything about Britain. On the contrary he speaks from an ancient streak of British radical thought, from the Diggers, to the Trade Union movement, to the Chartists, to the CND marchers, from the writers like Paine to Foot and Benn. The Tory party do not have a monopoly on Britishness, nor does the Daily Mail.

Absolutely. It is quite possible to admire Corbyn as an eccentric Brit, and welcome the way he has shifted the debate on a number of issues, as well as re-energising the labour party and including and involving hundreds of thousands of young people in politics. And at the same time voting conservative (holding your nose) for the first time in your life because you know he would be a disaster as prime minister.

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

AndyJS said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T

I really hope these charges are dropped and the guy in question gets a community award!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/suspected-burglar-dies-tussle-pensioner-78/

Couldn't agree more.

No jury is going to convict if the story is even half true. Nonetheless, I can see why the Police have to take a fatal stabbing so seriously, Albeit one rather different to the usual teenage gangsters.

It’s one of those occasionally crappy cases which come up. There’s a dead man who has a family, and whatever the circumstances the police are bound to investigate what appears to be a homicide.

If the facts are as described, he’ll be charged with manslaughter and the Crown in an ideal world will send a lawyer to the Magistrate and tell him they intend to offer no evidence, so he’ll be found not guilty the same day. There’s no way anyone would want to put the case in front of a jury.

"Reasonable force" in my opinion.