malcolmg said: "Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party."
It`s not all that surprising. People forget that the gulf between conservatism and liberalism is no wider than the gulf between liberalism and collectivism.
Catching up with the news today, the times have an interesting article on the Tory campaign. It looks as though we're dropping the threat of no deal from the manifesto. That would be a massive step in the right direction and prove all of those "moderate" Tories they were wrong to leave the party. If it's true I might actually get out and campaign. All of this quibbling over the Boris deal vs some future Labour deal has no cut through, a deal is a deal in the eyes of the majority of voters.
On the basis of a conservative majority, we will leave with a deal, what then for all of those "moderates" or self proclaimed one nation Tories who have abandoned the party on the idiotic idea that this is all some kind of cover to push through no deal? Will they come back or dig in and move on to some other kind of gripe?
Of course they cant campaign for no deal and the deal at the same time. No deal (at this stage) far more likely in a hung parliament than any Tory government now.
Next gripe for Tory and centrist remainers is threat of crash out at end of transition period which will be on us almost straight after the election. So we have just kicked the can down the road and actually weakened our negotiating position for the more important stage, no wonder the EU were keen to get the deal signed off asap.
Before noon on sat morning? No, all I've had is the usual. As for the electoral impact of the rugby fiasco, I guess the best way to close what most people seem to feel is not a fruitful discussion is with those 3 very useful words - We Will See.
Roger said: "As for England we are spared the sight of Johnson greeting the English team at Downing Street would have made most decent people want to retch."
That isn't new registrations. It's just total applications.
I reregistered to vote just in case so I will be in those stats (not 18-34 alas) but not a new registration.
Yes those stats are going to be a bit misleading. I juts did it again off the back of this post (seemingly a very good system - well done to whoever put it in place) just in case, but I fear that might be the second or third time this year.
It’s the panic of “I can’t remember if the council send out the form any more”.
At what point in 2017 - ie how many weeks before the election - did Corbyn start his resurgence? That’s the pattern we should be looking for. If he’s gonna do it again he needs an exact repeat.
I think it was YouGov, fieldwork on 25/26 April with a 16-point lead compared to the previous 23-point lead. Assume poll published on 27th and that was 42 days before polling day.
We are 40 days from polling day.
So it should start around now. Hmm. Makes for a nervy week.
In their favour they don't start so far behind the Tories, and gains by the Lib Dems and SNP will mean that a small swing to the Tories will still leave them short of a majority. So there's a bit of leeway.
There will probably be enough polls published in the Sunday papers tomorrow that one of them, randomly, will have good news for Labour. Pretty dire if that's not the case.
If you look at the 2017 GE opinion poll tracker posted by AndyJS there is a distinct pattern.
That was a 7 week campaign. In week 2 Labour made a definite move up, and narrowed the gap. Then it was status quo, until early week 4 (after the Tory manifesto) when Labour surged again, and from then on they consistently got closer to TMay.
This is a shorter campaign. My reading therefore is that Labour need tangible narrowing very soon, and they need to do brilliantly in the debates. I can’t see either manifesto helping Labour so much, this time.
The only caveat I would add is that we're still waiting for the first results from a YouGov MRP poll. That could change our perception of the campaign completely - in any direction.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
And Sky moved on and featuring the conservatives moratorium on fracking and how popular it will be in the North of England. Yougov poll shows 67% oppose fracking
It was mentioned last night that Carrie is very much into green issues and it is believed she is behind this and other green policies yet to be announced
How can Jo Swinson say she will be PM and stand down candidates in a GE
Last night's 5 live and question time were not at all kind on 'revoke'
Not sure it is as good a policy as she thinks it is
To be fair BigG, I worked at CCHQ in 2001 and someone let slip the Tories only had 70 target seats. So how could William Hague claim he could be PM after that election? All politicians stretch truth and reality....
Before noon on sat morning? No, all I've had is the usual. As for the electoral impact of the rugby fiasco, I guess the best way to close what most people seem to feel is not a fruitful discussion is with those 3 very useful words - We Will See.
He doesn’t make clear what the usual is does he? But high seems a fair assumption based on thinking England’s loss will effect Boris majority in anyway.
The players and coach couldn’t look more gutted. To beat Australia and New Zealand and return home with nothing, hard. Sure there were a few nervous errors early doors, and the saff defended well in knock out matches, but that defence commits numbers far too narrow, if it was a two legged tie they could be walloped second game.
Before noon on sat morning? No, all I've had is the usual. As for the electoral impact of the rugby fiasco, I guess the best way to close what most people seem to feel is not a fruitful discussion is with those 3 very useful words - We Will See.
Fair play -
You have every right to post your thoughts as we all do and 'we shall see' is as good an answer to any critism
On the one hand, we should welcome greater voter participation.
On the other, if they all then troop down to the polling stations and shore up the Far Left vote it could be a catastrophe.
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
Still oddly terrified of a modest realignment of the Thatcher Blair consensus in favour of neglected people in neglected places, I see.
And Sky moved on and featuring the conservatives moratorium on fracking and how popular it will be in the North of England. Yougov poll shows 67% oppose fracking
It was mentioned last night that Carrie is very much into green issues and it is believed she is behind this and other green policies yet to be announced
So we have policy by pillow talk now?
Sorry, you gave me spitting image sketch of Carrie in one ear, Cummings in the other.
And Sky moved on and featuring the conservatives moratorium on fracking and how popular it will be in the North of England. Yougov poll shows 67% oppose fracking
It was mentioned last night that Carrie is very much into green issues and it is believed she is behind this and other green policies yet to be announced
And Sky moved on and featuring the conservatives moratorium on fracking and how popular it will be in the North of England. Yougov poll shows 67% oppose fracking
It was mentioned last night that Carrie is very much into green issues and it is believed she is behind this and other green policies yet to be announced
So we have policy by pillow talk now?
I am not privvy to that information but if we get good policies I really do not care
These things DO make a difference. Mrs Thatcher's Falklands bounce is a great example. If that contest had gone horribly wrong, like this one did today, do you not think there would have been a polling impact in the opposite direction?
If you watch the BBC's 1983 election night show, the Falklands War was mentioned once during a 12 hour programme.
I ask you seriously if you were around in 1983? The election was 100% about the 'Falkland Factor' whether it was mentioned or not. It was the whole backdrop to the election. This one will hopefully be about Johnson's character but it's too early to know.
i was around in 1983 and well above voting age (sadly).
It is an old canard that the Falklands won Thatcher that election. Foot was unpopular and unelectable, the economy was recovering and the Tories were broadly united.
With or without the Falklands Thatcher would have won.
If the Falklands hadn’t been invaded then yes, I think you are correct. If the had been lost then I think it could have been very different.
I was a candidate then (Chelsea - we were pleased to save our 12.5% deposit). The Falklands did dominate, not just directly but because winning gave Mrs T an air of competence and it was widely felt that Foot didn't have that. The main factor though was simply the SDP split. It looked for a while as though the Alliance would overtake Labour (sounds familiar?), and although they fell back as election day approached, the divided opposition delivered the win to the Conservatives on a plate.
How can Jo Swinson say she will be PM and stand down candidates in a GE
Last night's 5 live and question time were not at all kind on 'revoke'
Not sure it is as good a policy as she thinks it is
To be fair BigG, I worked at CCHQ in 2001 and someone let slip the Tories only had 70 target seats. So how could William Hague claim he could be PM after that election? All politicians stretch truth and reality....
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
These things DO make a difference. Mrs Thatcher's Falklands bounce is a great example. If that contest had gone horribly wrong, like this one did today, do you not think there would have been a polling impact in the opposite direction?
If you watch the BBC's 1983 election night show, the Falklands War was mentioned once during a 12 hour programme.
I ask you seriously if you were around in 1983? The election was 100% about the 'Falkland Factor' whether it was mentioned or not. It was the whole backdrop to the election. This one will hopefully be about Johnson's character but it's too early to know.
i was around in 1983 and well above voting age (sadly).
It is an old canard that the Falklands won Thatcher that election. Foot was unpopular and unelectable, the economy was recovering and the Tories were broadly united.
With or without the Falklands Thatcher would have won.
If the Falklands hadn’t been invaded then yes, I think you are correct. If the had been lost then I think it could have been very different.
I was a candidate then (Chelsea - we were pleased to save our 12.5% deposit). The Falklands did dominate, not just directly but because winning gave Mrs T an air of competence and it was widely felt that Foot didn't have that. The main factor though was simply the SDP split. It looked for a while as though the Alliance would overtake Labour (sounds familiar?), and although they fell back as election day approached, the divided opposition delivered the win to the Conservatives on a plate.
I don't think that translates to England winning or losing in the rugby though.
Before noon on sat morning? No, all I've had is the usual. As for the electoral impact of the rugby fiasco, I guess the best way to close what most people seem to feel is not a fruitful discussion is with those 3 very useful words - We Will See.
No We Won't, because no outcome is going to be evidence of the batshit causal link for which you are contending. Unless you are hoping for a series of vox pops saying "I went into that booth intending to put my cross in the Conservative box, but the rugby result just stuck in my craw."
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
These things DO make a difference. Mrs Thatcher's Falklands bounce is a great example. If that contest had gone horribly wrong, like this one did today, do you not think there would have been a polling impact in the opposite direction?
If you watch the BBC's 1983 election night show, the Falklands War was mentioned once during a 12 hour programme.
I ask you seriously if you were around in 1983? The election was 100% about the 'Falkland Factor' whether it was mentioned or not. It was the whole backdrop to the election. This one will hopefully be about Johnson's character but it's too early to know.
I was a student during the 1983 election and I agree that the War was a backdrop. It didn't help that Michael Foot was portrayed by the Murdoch media as the yellow bellied pacifist. Also I remember I remember the welsh windbag with his facile comment about "guts on goose green.." which didnt help.
I campaigned in the Midlands during the 1983 election. On my doorsteps it was all about what was wrong with the Labour Party. There wasn't much agreement about what exactly was wrong with it, but it was definitely wrong. The Falklands was actually several news cycles ago by then and I don't think it was in the forefront of people's minds. It never came up that I remember, though it obviously didn't do the Tories any harm.
I hope it wasn't my personal fault, but my patch bucked the national trend by being even worse for Labour than average - a statistically difficult level of failure to acheive. I maintain to this day a great deal of respect for political activists willing to put themselves through that kind of thing.
These things DO make a difference. Mrs Thatcher's Falklands bounce is a great example. If that contest had gone horribly wrong, like this one did today, do you not think there would have been a polling impact in the opposite direction?
If you watch the BBC's 1983 election night show, the Falklands War was mentioned once during a 12 hour programme.
I ask you seriously if you were around in 1983? The election was 100% about the 'Falkland Factor' whether it was mentioned or not. It was the whole backdrop to the election. This one will hopefully be about Johnson's character but it's too early to know.
i was around in 1983 and well above voting age (sadly).
It is an old canard that the Falklands won Thatcher that election. Foot was unpopular and unelectable, the economy was recovering and the Tories were broadly united.
With or without the Falklands Thatcher would have won.
If the Falklands hadn’t been invaded then yes, I think you are correct. If the had been lost then I think it could have been very different.
I was a candidate then (Chelsea - we were pleased to save our 12.5% deposit). The Falklands did dominate, not just directly but because winning gave Mrs T an air of competence and it was widely felt that Foot didn't have that. The main factor though was simply the SDP split. It looked for a while as though the Alliance would overtake Labour (sounds familiar?), and although they fell back as election day approached, the divided opposition delivered the win to the Conservatives on a plate.
You mean the electoral system plus the divided opposition delivered the win. The Conservatives got 61% of the seats on 42% of the vote.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
The MPs you've welcomed - you're welcome to them!
Indeed. Honestly I'm glad we've managed to get rid of them, they will cause exactly the same trouble for the Lib Dems when they see a policy they don't like. They want it to be all about them, not the party.
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
Yes, if Corbyn is prime minister, he might shut down parliament to rule alongside unelected advisors with Russian links. Or turn his back on capitalism. Or decimate the armed forces. Or drive up the national debt. Or drag the Queen into his cynical political games. Or wreck the probation service and leave murderers free to roam the streets and kill again. Or cut 20,000 coppers and deny a link to rising crime. Or make more likely the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Or tear up longstanding trading arrangements.
But all these things already happened under the Tories, so where's the reds under the bed scare?
These things DO make a difference. Mrs Thatcher's Falklands bounce is a great example. If that contest had gone horribly wrong, like this one did today, do you not think there would have been a polling impact in the opposite direction?
If you watch the BBC's 1983 election night show, the Falklands War was mentioned once during a 12 hour programme.
I ask you seriously if you were around in 1983? The election was 100% about the 'Falkland Factor' whether it was mentioned or not. It was the whole backdrop to the election. This one will hopefully be about Johnson's character but it's too early to know.
i was around in 1983 and well above voting age (sadly).
It is an old canard that the Falklands won Thatcher that election. Foot was unpopular and unelectable, the economy was recovering and the Tories were broadly united.
With or without the Falklands Thatcher would have won.
If the Falklands hadn’t been invaded then yes, I think you are correct. If the had been lost then I think it could have been very different.
I was a candidate then (Chelsea - we were pleased to save our 12.5% deposit). The Falklands did dominate, not just directly but because winning gave Mrs T an air of competence and it was widely felt that Foot didn't have that. The main factor though was simply the SDP split. It looked for a while as though the Alliance would overtake Labour (sounds familiar?), and although they fell back as election day approached, the divided opposition delivered the win to the Conservatives on a plate.
I though that the effect of the SDP Alliance was shown to be neutral, taking as many votes off the Tories as Labour.
1983 was the first election that I could vote in. The Falklands factor, and end of the economic downturn of the early Eighties gave the country a fresh atmosphere of optimism, at least in Winchester where I was living at the time.
When I look back at my old photos it was the point that I started looking like a Yuppie rather than Vyvian from the Young Ones.
I voted SDP in that one. 1992 was the first time that I voted Labour.
And Sky moved on and featuring the conservatives moratorium on fracking and how popular it will be in the North of England. Yougov poll shows 67% oppose fracking
It was mentioned last night that Carrie is very much into green issues and it is believed she is behind this and other green policies yet to be announced
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
Yes, if Corbyn is prime minister, he might shut down parliament to rule alongside unelected advisors with Russian links. Or turn his back on capitalism. Or decimate the armed forces. Or drive up the national debt. Or drag the Queen into his cynical political games. Or wreck the probation service and leave murderers free to roam the streets and kill again. Or cut 20,000 coppers and deny a link to rising crime. Or make more likely the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Or tear up longstanding trading arrangements.
But all these things already happened under the Tories, so where's the reds under the bed scare?
He must have been in power for ages to have achieved all that already!
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
Yes, if Corbyn is prime minister, he might shut down parliament to rule alongside unelected advisors with Russian links. Or turn his back on capitalism. Or decimate the armed forces. Or drive up the national debt. Or drag the Queen into his cynical political games. Or wreck the probation service and leave murderers free to roam the streets and kill again. Or cut 20,000 coppers and deny a link to rising crime. Or make more likely the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Or tear up longstanding trading arrangements.
But all these things already happened under the Tories, so where's the reds under the bed scare?
Who turned their back on capitalism in the Tories? Everything else you've said the Tories are guilty of, but not that one.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It’s not strange at all. Liberal democratic has liberal in title, it’s obvious home for liberal Tory’s, the type who would stand on back benches quoting Sybil.
‘Basil! BASIL!”
No. This:
Say what you like, our Queen reigns over the greatest nation that ever existed. Now let’s get brexit done, we’ll be okay.
Which nation for she reigns over Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws. The RICH and the POOR.
Time to take sides and Forget about December election settling anything at all, we are All in for a long long battle.
For sure , and I see very little liberal about today's Liberal party, or democratic for that matter.
And Sky moved on and featuring the conservatives moratorium on fracking and how popular it will be in the North of England. Yougov poll shows 67% oppose fracking
It was mentioned last night that Carrie is very much into green issues and it is believed she is behind this and other green policies yet to be announced
The fracking ban is really clever politics.
Fracking is dying anyway. Renewables have suddenly reached critical mass, they are about to make fracking in the UK pointlessly difficult and pricey.
An easy goal for Boris to score.
It’s not dying any time soon, as it produces the cheapest fossil fuel on the planet. But will quite probably not happen in the UK at all now.
The issue of the associated earthquakes is just too problematic in a country as intensively populated as England. They've tried it; it doesn't work here. Shame, because as you say it is relatively cheap energy.
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
A beautiful place that was in the grip of the greatest depression in modern history and which had, little more than a decade earlier, been almost ripped apart by civil war.
Once again your comparisons are fatuous in the extreme.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
I don't see them doing much though and given Swinson's stance that is a very good thing, she is no Liberal.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
The MPs you've welcomed - you're welcome to them!
Indeed. Honestly I'm glad we've managed to get rid of them, they will cause exactly the same trouble for the Lib Dems when they see a policy they don't like. They want it to be all about them, not the party.
There is a point not discussed but if any of these ex conservative mps get elected as liberals, apart from Brexit, they remain conservatives at heart and in a tight HOC they would be likely to support a lot of the conservative manifesto
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
You cant seriously be comparing todays Britain to 1930's Germany?
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
Yes, if Corbyn is prime minister, he might shut down parliament to rule alongside unelected advisors with Russian links. Or turn his back on capitalism. Or decimate the armed forces. Or drive up the national debt. Or drag the Queen into his cynical political games. Or wreck the probation service and leave murderers free to roam the streets and kill again. Or cut 20,000 coppers and deny a link to rising crime. Or make more likely the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Or tear up longstanding trading arrangements.
But all these things already happened under the Tories, so where's the reds under the bed scare?
Who turned their back on capitalism in the Tories? Everything else you've said the Tories are guilty of, but not that one.
And Sky moved on and featuring the conservatives moratorium on fracking and how popular it will be in the North of England. Yougov poll shows 67% oppose fracking
It was mentioned last night that Carrie is very much into green issues and it is believed she is behind this and other green policies yet to be announced
The fracking ban is really clever politics.
Fracking is dying anyway. Renewables have suddenly reached critical mass, they are about to make fracking in the UK pointlessly difficult and pricey.
An easy goal for Boris to score.
It’s not dying any time soon, as it produces the cheapest fossil fuel on the planet. But will quite probably not happen in the UK at all now.
The issue of the associated earthquakes is just too problematic in a country as intensively populated as England. They've tried it; it doesn't work here. Shame, because as you say it is relatively cheap energy.
Surely a few earthquakes are "a price well worth paying," if there's profit to be made?
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
Yes, if Corbyn is prime minister, he might shut down parliament to rule alongside unelected advisors with Russian links. Or turn his back on capitalism. Or decimate the armed forces. Or drive up the national debt. Or drag the Queen into his cynical political games. Or wreck the probation service and leave murderers free to roam the streets and kill again. Or cut 20,000 coppers and deny a link to rising crime. Or make more likely the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Or tear up longstanding trading arrangements.
But all these things already happened under the Tories, so where's the reds under the bed scare?
Who turned their back on capitalism in the Tories? Everything else you've said the Tories are guilty of, but not that one.
Workers own the means of production now, haven't you noticed?
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
Yes, if Corbyn is prime minister, he might shut down parliament to rule alongside unelected advisors with Russian links. Or turn his back on capitalism. Or decimate the armed forces. Or drive up the national debt. Or drag the Queen into his cynical political games. Or wreck the probation service and leave murderers free to roam the streets and kill again. Or cut 20,000 coppers and deny a link to rising crime. Or make more likely the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Or tear up longstanding trading arrangements.
But all these things already happened under the Tories, so where's the reds under the bed scare?
Who turned their back on capitalism in the Tories? Everything else you've said the Tories are guilty of, but not that one.
F business?
True, but that's not evidence of turning away from capitalism.
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
You cant seriously be comparing todays Britain to 1930's Germany?
He does it regularly in spite of posters on all sides of the argument pointing out how stupid it is.
If it is serious rather than just trolling (which I suspect is the case) then it reveals a remarkable lack of understanding of 20th century European history.
On the one hand, we should welcome greater voter participation.
On the other, if they all then troop down to the polling stations and shore up the Far Left vote it could be a catastrophe.
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
However it would piss off Rod Liddle which should lighten everyone's spirits.
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
Yes, if Corbyn is prime minister, he might shut down parliament to rule alongside unelected advisors with Russian links. Or turn his back on capitalism. Or decimate the armed forces. Or drive up the national debt. Or drag the Queen into his cynical political games. Or wreck the probation service and leave murderers free to roam the streets and kill again. Or cut 20,000 coppers and deny a link to rising crime. Or make more likely the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Or tear up longstanding trading arrangements.
But all these things already happened under the Tories, so where's the reds under the bed scare?
Who turned their back on capitalism in the Tories? Everything else you've said the Tories are guilty of, but not that one.
Workers own the means of production now, haven't you noticed?
I rather suspect that Boris would be more inclined to go in the other direction if he were really to go against capitalism. But he hasn't and won't, so it's moot.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
The MPs you've welcomed - you're welcome to them!
Indeed. Honestly I'm glad we've managed to get rid of them, they will cause exactly the same trouble for the Lib Dems when they see a policy they don't like. They want it to be all about them, not the party.
There is a point not discussed but if any of these ex conservative mps get elected as liberals, apart from Brexit, they remain conservatives at heart and in a tight HOC they would be likely to support a lot of the conservative manifesto
I am not sure that is the case. It may well be ex-smoker syndrome, where those who have given up the habit are the most fanatical critics.
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
You cant seriously be comparing todays Britain to 1930's Germany?
He does it regularly in spite of posters on all sides of the argument pointing out how stupid it is.
If it is serious rather than just trolling (which I suspect is the case) then it reveals a remarkable lack of understanding of 20th century European history.
I doubt he is a troll, but "Even if you weren't trolling, your argument wouldn't hold water" is music to trolls' ears.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
I don't see them doing much though and given Swinson's stance that is a very good thing, she is no Liberal.
Late to David's excellent and informative thread. To add to the 10 points, here are three more that should give Labour cause for concern:
11. Following each GE, polling companies make adjustments to their methodology to try and avoid repeating past mistakes, and 2017 is no exception. Actual adjustments made since 2017 are summed up by Anthony Wells here: "... in the 2017 election, most of the difference between polls was indeed down to how polling companies predicted likelihood to vote, and this was the biggest cause of polling error. However when those new turnout models backfired and went wrong, polling companies dropped them. There are no longer any companies using demographic based turnout models that have a huge impact on voting intention figures and weight down young people. These days almost everyone has gone back to basing their turnout models primarily on how likely respondents themselves say they are to vote, a filter that typically only has a modest impact." http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/10093
12. There is as much a danger that polling companies overstate rather than understate their adjustments, and end up making errors that yo-yo in the opposite direction in successive elections. They end up fighting the last election on the assumption that the factors that prevailed then must repeat themselves. Thus we saw the pattern of a net understatement of the Con vote share relative to Labour in 2005, an overstatement of the Con lead in 2010, an understatement of the Con lead in 2015 and an overstatement of the Con lead in 2017. The pattern breaks down prior to 2005. Labour share relative to the Tories was consistently overstated from 1987 onwards, but this should hardly be of comfort to Labour now. The fact remains that in the whole history of opinion polling there appear never to have been two successive elections when the Labour vote share has been understated relative to the Tories.
13. There is a debate raging amongst polling companies over the unreliability of of false recall of past vote and its potential or actual effect in distorting polling weighting. See again the link above. Only one company is immune from this, because it considers that the problem is so intractable that it avoids using past vote recall altogether, basing its weighting only on socio demographic factors. It should therefore be of considerable worry to Labour that that company - Ipsos MORI- happens to be the one registering a Conservative vote share of 41%.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
The MPs you've welcomed - you're welcome to them!
Indeed. Honestly I'm glad we've managed to get rid of them, they will cause exactly the same trouble for the Lib Dems when they see a policy they don't like. They want it to be all about them, not the party.
There is a point not discussed but if any of these ex conservative mps get elected as liberals, apart from Brexit, they remain conservatives at heart and in a tight HOC they would be likely to support a lot of the conservative manifesto
That's got to be worth some kind of prize for world class clutching at straws.
No We Won't, because no outcome is going to be evidence of the batshit causal link for which you are contending. Unless you are hoping for a series of vox pops saying "I went into that booth intending to put my cross in the Conservative box, but the rugby result just stuck in my craw."
Of course you're right. And even if that were a specific reason - or one of them - people would be too sheepish to admit it. They would come up with something that sounds more thoughtful and weighty. Mood can be important though.
On the one hand, we should welcome greater voter participation.
On the other, if they all then troop down to the polling stations and shore up the Far Left vote it could be a catastrophe.
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
What in heaven's name could they do that is worse than what the Tories have already done?
On the one hand, we should welcome greater voter participation.
On the other, if they all then troop down to the polling stations and shore up the Far Left vote it could be a catastrophe.
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
What in heaven's name could they do that is worse than what the Tories have already done?
Yes, this is what we should fear about Corbyn: his valuing of ideology ahead of economic pragmatism, his purging of political opponents on his own side and his lack of respect for the British Constitution. It’d be simply terrible if we ended up with a prime minister like that.
At what point in 2017 - ie how many weeks before the election - did Corbyn start his resurgence? That’s the pattern we should be looking for. If he’s gonna do it again he needs an exact repeat.
I think it was YouGov, fieldwork on 25/26 April with a 16-point lead compared to the previous 23-point lead. Assume poll published on 27th and that was 42 days before polling day.
We are 40 days from polling day.
So it should start around now. Hmm. Makes for a nervy week.
In their favour they don't start so far behind the Tories, and gains by the Lib Dems and SNP will mean that a small swing to the Tories will still leave them short of a majority. So there's a bit of leeway.
There will probably be enough polls published in the Sunday papers tomorrow that one of them, randomly, will have good news for Labour. Pretty dire if that's not the case.
I'd be astonished if there isn't an upswing for Labour after their campaign launch. There'll be a lot of Labour voters who will previously have flirted with other parties who'll use a Corbyn stump speech on telly as a psychological crutch - an excuse for discarding their doubts and reverting to type. You get the general idea - "Well, there were all these stories on the telly about Labour being soft on Europe, economically suicidal and rabidly anti-Semitic - but I liked what Jeremy said about the NHS and the bankers, and he sounds very nice, and I'm sure all the negative stuff people say about Labour is just the work of the biased MSM, and the Liberals are just Tories, and the Greens can never win, so yeah I'm voting Labour because I've always voted Labour in every election ever anyway."
There was an example of just such a biddable idiot as this who took the time to call into a show I was listening to on 5 Live earlier this week. There are an awful lot of them out there.
Similar things could be said re-Johnson's closeness to the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
his valuing of ideology ahead of economic pragmatism, his purging of political opponents on his own side and his lack of respect for the British Constitution. It’d be simply terrible if we ended up with a prime minister like that.
At what point in 2017 - ie how many weeks before the election - did Corbyn start his resurgence? That’s the pattern we should be looking for. If he’s gonna do it again he needs an exact repeat.
I think it was YouGov, fieldwork on 25/26 April with a 16-point lead compared to the previous 23-point lead. Assume poll published on 27th and that was 42 days before polling day.
We are 40 days from polling day.
So it should start around now. Hmm. Makes for a nervy week.
In their favour they don't start so far behind the Tories, and gains by the Lib Dems and SNP will mean that a small swing to the Tories will still leave them short of a majority. So there's a bit of leeway.
There will probably be enough polls published in the Sunday papers tomorrow that one of them, randomly, will have good news for Labour. Pretty dire if that's not the case.
I'd be astonished if there isn't an upswing for Labour after their campaign launch. There'll be a lot of Labour voters who will previously have flirted with other parties who'll use a Corbyn stump speech on telly as a psychological crutch - an excuse for discarding their doubts and reverting to type. You get the general idea - "Well, there were all these stories on the telly about Labour being soft on Europe, economically suicidal and rabidly anti-Semitic - but I liked what Jeremy said about the NHS and the bankers, and he sounds very nice, and I'm sure all the negative stuff people say about Labour is just the work of the biased MSM, and the Liberals are just Tories, and the Greens can never win, so yeah I'm voting Labour because I've always voted Labour in every election ever anyway."
There was an example of just such a biddable idiot as this who took the time to call into a show I was listening to on 5 Live earlier this week. There are an awful lot of them out there.
Similar things could be said re-Johnson's closeness to the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
On the one hand, we should welcome greater voter participation.
On the other, if they all then troop down to the polling stations and shore up the Far Left vote it could be a catastrophe.
The overriding priority in this election is neither the EU nor the survival of the Union - it's keeping Corbyn and McDonnell away from the levers of power. Every single gain made from Labour is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be welcomed.
What in heaven's name could they do that is worse than what the Tories have already done?
It is what they might do in addition to everything the Tories have done
Late to David's excellent and informative thread. To add to the 10 points, here are three more that should give Labour cause for concern:
11. Following each GE, polling companies make adjustments to their methodology to try and avoid repeating past mistakes, and 2017 is no exception. Actual adjustments made since 2017 are summed up by Anthony Wells here: "... in the 2017 election, most of the difference between polls was indeed down to how polling companies predicted likelihood to vote, and this was the biggest cause of polling error. However when those new turnout models backfired and went wrong, polling companies dropped them. There are no longer any companies using demographic based turnout models that have a huge impact on voting intention figures and weight down young people. These days almost everyone has gone back to basing their turnout models primarily on how likely respondents themselves say they are to vote, a filter that typically only has a modest impact." http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/10093
...
Whatever your methodology you can *always* produce an infinite number of "improvements" by fine tuning and backtesting. Say your basic method is examining the entrails of chickens. You go back over your data and see whether examinations before or after lunch, or of male vs female chicken entrails, or conducted wearing a swimsuit vs wearing evening dress, were better predictors. Every single parameter you can think of yields an "improvement" in one direction or the other (except a few which give a neutral result, randomness being what it is) without actually making any difference at all to the objective value of your method.
These things DO make a difference. Mrs Thatcher's Falklands bounce is a great example. If that contest had gone horribly wrong, like this one did today, do you not think there would have been a polling impact in the opposite direction?
If you watch the BBC's 1983 election night show, the Falklands War was mentioned once during a 12 hour programme.
I ask you seriously if you were around in 1983? The election was 100% about the 'Falkland Factor' whether it was mentioned or not. It was the whole backdrop to the election. This one will hopefully be about Johnson's character but it's too early to know.
i was around in 1983 and well above voting age (sadly).
It is an old canard that the Falklands won Thatcher that election. Foot was unpopular and unelectable, the economy was recovering and the Tories were broadly united.
With or without the Falklands Thatcher would have won.
If the Falklands hadn’t been invaded then yes, I think you are correct. If the had been lost then I think it could have been very different.
I was a candidate then (Chelsea - we were pleased to save our 12.5% deposit). The Falklands did dominate, not just directly but because winning gave Mrs T an air of competence and it was widely felt that Foot didn't have that. The main factor though was simply the SDP split. It looked for a while as though the Alliance would overtake Labour (sounds familiar?), and although they fell back as election day approached, the divided opposition delivered the win to the Conservatives on a plate.
I’m sorry but Foot delivered the Tory win on a plate, you can’t blame anyone else. You have no right to none Tory votes and can only blame yourselves for not being attractive enough to vote for.
13. There is a debate raging amongst polling companies over the unreliability of of false recall of past vote and its potential or actual effect in distorting polling weighting. See again the link above. Only one company is immune from this, because it considers that the problem is so intractable that it avoids using past vote recall altogether, basing its weighting only on socio demographic factors. It should therefore be of considerable worry to Labour that that company - Ipsos MORI- happens to be the one registering a Conservative vote share of 41%.
My recollection is that past-vote weighting was introduced by ICM for the 1997GE, and widely adopted thereafter, to reduce the large bias to Labour that otherwise existed in opinion polls, so that's an interesting observation.
Probably not a good time to fess up that I had a few quid on South Africa.
I know nothing about sport but if I'm betting on a sporting event I always bet against England on the grounds that the odds on England are always too short.
I laid England at 1.49 just before the match. I haven't told anyone. This is a secret.
Probably not a good time to fess up that I had a few quid on South Africa.
I know nothing about sport but if I'm betting on a sporting event I always bet against England on the grounds that the odds on England are always too short.
I laid England at 1.49 just before the match. I haven't told anyone. This is a secret.
Ludicrous odds. People got very carried away with England's performance in the semis and utterly underestimated the Welsh performance.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
The MPs you've welcomed - you're welcome to them!
Indeed. Honestly I'm glad we've managed to get rid of them, they will cause exactly the same trouble for the Lib Dems when they see a policy they don't like. They want it to be all about them, not the party.
There is a point not discussed but if any of these ex conservative mps get elected as liberals, apart from Brexit, they remain conservatives at heart and in a tight HOC they would be likely to support a lot of the conservative manifesto
I am not sure that is the case. It may well be ex-smoker syndrome, where those who have given up the habit are the most fanatical critics.
In the case of Dominic Grieve, Philip Lee, Guto Bebb, Sarah Wollaston, I think they've wanted Out of the Conservative Party for a long time, and in the case of Heidi Allen, she only joined it by accident.
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
It's just as well that modern England is nothing like 1930's Germany.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
The MPs you've welcomed - you're welcome to them!
Indeed. Honestly I'm glad we've managed to get rid of them, they will cause exactly the same trouble for the Lib Dems when they see a policy they don't like. They want it to be all about them, not the party.
There is a point not discussed but if any of these ex conservative mps get elected as liberals, apart from Brexit, they remain conservatives at heart and in a tight HOC they would be likely to support a lot of the conservative manifesto
I am not sure that is the case. It may well be ex-smoker syndrome, where those who have given up the habit are the most fanatical critics.
In the case of Dominic Grieve, Philip Lee, Guto Bebb, Sarah Wollaston, I think they've wanted Out of the Conservative Party for a long time, and in the case of Heidi Allen, she only joined it by accident.
Why do Tories insist that their party isn’t changing when it’s transparent and obvious.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
The MPs you've welcomed - you're welcome to them!
Indeed. Honestly I'm glad we've managed to get rid of them, they will cause exactly the same trouble for the Lib Dems when they see a policy they don't like. They want it to be all about them, not the party.
There is a point not discussed but if any of these ex conservative mps get elected as liberals, apart from Brexit, they remain conservatives at heart and in a tight HOC they would be likely to support a lot of the conservative manifesto
I am not sure that is the case. It may well be ex-smoker syndrome, where those who have given up the habit are the most fanatical critics.
In the case of Dominic Grieve, Philip Lee, Guto Bebb, Sarah Wollaston, I think they've wanted Out of the Conservative Party for a long time, and in the case of Heidi Allen, she only joined it by accident.
Why do Tories insist that their party isn’t changing when it’s transparent and obvious.
The Conservative and Unionist party died this summer.
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
It's just as well that modern England is nothing like 1930's Germany.
Funny, I keep hearing on here that a main party and its leader are institutionally antisemitic and must be kept away from power at all costs.
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
It's just as well that modern England is nothing like 1930's Germany.
Funny, I keep hearing on here that a main party and its leader are institutionally antisemitic and must be kept away from power at all costs.
This is correct. The Exchequer collects as much in VAT from the sale of one Ferrari as from the income tax of an average worker over a decade.
But the point was not developed. No conclusion was drawn. It's just lying there.
Conclusion: concentrating wealth in the hands of a few individuals creates stark risks for the tax base and gives enormous political power to those people. It's not healthy for democracy or the economy to have huge inequalities of wealth.
I was wondering about whether this would happen. But for the Conservatives' stand on Brexit, Soubry would otherwise have been very content to stay within the Conservative Party. Unlike Allen and Wollaston, Soubry clearly sees differences between her wider Conservative values and those of the Lib Dems that she views as irreconcilable, hence her decision to stay with the corpse of whatever her flatlining new party calls itself nowadays. So putting Brexit aside, the decision of the Lib Dems to nonetheless endorse Soubry does say quite a lot about the direction that Swinson wants to take the Lib Dems.
That's 3 seats where the LDs aren't standing so far.
Which ones? Is Wantage one of those?
Beaconsfield (Grieve) Broxtowe (Soubry) Isle of Wight (Greens)
Sorry, I got it wrong. Wantage will go the other way, Greens standing down. Watch out for Henley, could see the Lib Dems withdrawing there for the Greens.
And Sky moved on and featuring the conservatives moratorium on fracking and how popular it will be in the North of England. Yougov poll shows 67% oppose fracking
It was mentioned last night that Carrie is very much into green issues and it is believed she is behind this and other green policies yet to be announced
The fracking ban is really clever politics.
Fracking is dying anyway. Renewables have suddenly reached critical mass, they are about to make fracking in the UK pointlessly difficult and pricey.
An easy goal for Boris to score.
It’s not dying any time soon, as it produces the cheapest fossil fuel on the planet. But will quite probably not happen in the UK at all now.
The issue of the associated earthquakes is just too problematic in a country as intensively populated as England. They've tried it; it doesn't work here. Shame, because as you say it is relatively cheap energy.
Surely a few earthquakes are "a price well worth paying," if there's profit to be made?
In Scotland maybe. There are far fewer people to bother in big chunks of it. And you can pay them off.
But who is going to invest big money in a country threatening to go independent, with no certainty on currency and taxation risk?
This is correct. The Exchequer collects as much in VAT from the sale of one Ferrari as from the income tax of an average worker over a decade.
But the point was not developed. No conclusion was drawn. It's just lying there.
Point being, and I thought it quite obvious, why frighten off and vilify those who can afford such things. Other than for ideological spitefullness and green-eyed envy. The tax paid on one such item pays for a teacher for a year in a lump-sum straight to the treasury payment.
We should be proud that those with such incomes come and live in this country and spend their money here. They do not increase poverty, cost people jobs or drain public resources. Infact most will employ hundreds if not thousands in the businesses they start and grow.
Even if they’re overseas super rich they buy goods and services and contribute tax revenue that would otherwise simply not be there if they were driven away. So yes. A gold plated Ferrari is not a cause for typical socialist frothing. That there is a teachers salary. Got, as far as the exchequer is concerned, for free.
Rather than turf them out we should encourage more. Hundreds more. To drive them out is ridiculous and short sighted stupidity.
That's 3 seats where the LDs aren't standing so far.
Which ones? Is Wantage one of those?
Beaconsfield (Grieve) Broxtowe (Soubry) Isle of Wight (Greens)
Sorry, I got it wrong. Wantage will go the other way, Greens standing down. Watch out for Henley, could see the Lib Dems withdrawing there for the Greens.
Also, Brighton? Norwich? Bristol? Surely at least one of those?
At what point in 2017 - ie how many weeks before the election - did Corbyn start his resurgence? That’s the pattern we should be looking for. If he’s gonna do it again he needs an exact repeat.
I think it was YouGov, fieldwork on 25/26 April with a 16-point lead compared to the previous 23-point lead. Assume poll published on 27th and that was 42 days before polling day.
We are 40 days from polling day.
So it should start around now. Hmm. Makes for a nervy week.
In their favour they don't start so far behind the Tories, and gains by the Lib Dems and SNP will mean that a small swing to the Tories will still leave them short of a majority. So there's a bit of leeway.
There will probably be enough polls published in the Sunday papers tomorrow that one of them, randomly, will have good news for Labour. Pretty dire if that's not the case.
I'd be astonished if there isn't an upswing for Labour after their campaign launch. There'll be a lot of Labour voters who will previously have flirted with other parties who'll use a Corbyn stump speech on telly as a psychological crutch - an excuse for discarding their doubts and reverting to type. You get the general idea - "Well, there were all these stories on the telly about Labour being soft on Europe, economically suicidal and rabidly anti-Semitic - but I liked what Jeremy said about the NHS and the bankers, and he sounds very nice, and I'm sure all the negative stuff people say about Labour is just the work of the biased MSM, and the Liberals are just Tories, and the Greens can never win, so yeah I'm voting Labour because I've always voted Labour in every election ever anyway."
There was an example of just such a biddable idiot as this who took the time to call into a show I was listening to on 5 Live earlier this week. There are an awful lot of them out there.
Similar things could be said re-Johnson's closeness to the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
Moderator alert! This sort of post really is unacceptable. The only charitable explanation is drunkeness.
At what point in 2017 - ie how many weeks before the election - did Corbyn start his resurgence? That’s the pattern we should be looking for. If he’s gonna do it again he needs an exact repeat.
I think it was YouGov, fieldwork on 25/26 April with a 16-point lead compared to the previous 23-point lead. Assume poll published on 27th and that was 42 days before polling day.
We are 40 days from polling day.
So it should start around now. Hmm. Makes for a nervy week.
In their favour they don't start so far behind the Tories, and gains by the Lib Dems and SNP will mean that a small swing to the Tories will still leave them short of a majority. So there's a bit of leeway.
There will probably be enough polls published in the Sunday papers tomorrow that one of them, randomly, will have good news for Labour. Pretty dire if that's not the case.
I'd be astonished if there isn't an upswing for Labour after their campaign launch. There'll be a lot of Labour voters who will previously have flirted with other parties who'll use a Corbyn stump speech on telly as a psychological crutch - an excuse for discarding their doubts and reverting to type. You get the general idea - "Well, there were all these stories on the telly about Labour being soft on Europe, economically suicidal and rabidly anti-Semitic - but I liked what Jeremy said about the NHS and the bankers, and he sounds very nice, and I'm sure all the negative stuff people say about Labour is just the work of the biased MSM, and the Liberals are just Tories, and the Greens can never win, so yeah I'm voting Labour because I've always voted Labour in every election ever anyway."
There was an example of just such a biddable idiot as this who took the time to call into a show I was listening to on 5 Live earlier this week. There are an awful lot of them out there.
Similar things could be said re-Johnson's closeness to the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
Moderator alert! This sort of post really is unacceptable. The only charitable explanation is drunkeness.
The Tories are more Jedem das Seine than Arbeit Macht Frei.
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
It's just as well that modern England is nothing like 1930's Germany.
Funny, I keep hearing on here that a main party and its leader are institutionally antisemitic and must be kept away from power at all costs.
One does not rule out the other.
I was in Berlin last week and visited the Topography of Terror for the first time. One of the quotes that struck me was 'Like the mood in August 1914, that of 1933 represented the actual power base of the coming Fuhrer state. There was a very widespread sense of release and liberation from democracy. What is a democracy to do when the majority of the population no longer wants it? There was a desire for something genuinely new, popular rule without parties, a popular leader figure.'
This element of the (world) zeitgeist seems to me more worrying than any guff about enabling act II or BJ being an albino Adolf.
Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party.
It really is simple. You win elections by getting people to support you who didn't in the last election. So 22% of 2017 Lab voters, thank you very much and 10% of 2017 Con voters and a few MPs are welcome imo.
The MPs you've welcomed - you're welcome to them!
Indeed. Honestly I'm glad we've managed to get rid of them, they will cause exactly the same trouble for the Lib Dems when they see a policy they don't like. They want it to be all about them, not the party.
There is a point not discussed but if any of these ex conservative mps get elected as liberals, apart from Brexit, they remain conservatives at heart and in a tight HOC they would be likely to support a lot of the conservative manifesto
"They remain conservatives at heart", do they? Tons of wishful thinking there, BigG. Quite the contrary. The more they have to do with people with liberal values, the more Liberal they will become. It is time that everybody who wants to see a liberal society came together in the Liberal Democrats. That applies just as much to liberals still n the Labour Party. And of course that is what people are doing.
At what point in 2017 - ie how many weeks before the election - did Corbyn start his resurgence? That’s the pattern we should be looking for. If he’s gonna do it again he needs an exact repeat.
I think it was YouGov, fieldwork on 25/26 April with a 16-point lead compared to the previous 23-point lead. Assume poll published on 27th and that was 42 days before polling day.
We are 40 days from polling day.
So it should start around now. Hmm. Makes for a nervy week.
In their favour they don't start so far behind the Tories, and gains by the Lib Dems and SNP will mean that a small swing to the Tories will still leave them short of a majority. So there's a bit of leeway.
There will probably be enough polls published in the Sunday papers tomorrow that one of them, randomly, will have good news for Labour. Pretty dire if that's not the case.
I'd be astonished if there isn't an upswing for Labour after their campaign launch. There'll be a lot of Labour voters who will previously have flirted with other parties who'll use a Corbyn stump speech on telly as a psychological crutch - an excuse for discarding their doubts and reverting to type. You get the general idea - "Well, there were all these stories on the telly about Labour being soft on Europe, economically suicidal and rabidly anti-Semitic - but I liked what Jeremy said about the NHS and the bankers, and he sounds very nice, and I'm sure all the negative stuff people say about Labour is just the work of the biased MSM, and the Liberals are just Tories, and the Greens can never win, so yeah I'm voting Labour because I've always voted Labour in every election ever anyway."
There was an example of just such a biddable idiot as this who took the time to call into a show I was listening to on 5 Live earlier this week. There are an awful lot of them out there.
Similar things could be said re-Johnson's closeness to the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
Moderator alert! This sort of post really is unacceptable. The only charitable explanation is drunkeness.
The Tories are more Jedem das Seine than Arbeit Macht Frei.
What a horrible country the UK has become that we are seriously considering voting for Boris Johnson to be our Prime Minister for the next five years.
Not sure about all of the UK, but certainly England is bloody horrible. What have we become, nasty narrow minded petty nationalists who never mind the Empire and global relevance now want to bin off the UK so that England can have its Brexit and boot out the darkies.
Disliking your own country because it may vote in a way you don't like is not the right approach in my opinion.
England is certainly not a horrible place.
Neither was Germany in the 1930s - a beautiful country.
It's just as well that modern England is nothing like 1930's Germany.
Funny, I keep hearing on here that a main party and its leader are institutionally antisemitic and must be kept away from power at all costs.
But those attacks come primarily from its own members.
Comments
"Funny how all the disgruntled Tories are flocking to the Lib Dems, they see it as the other Tory party."
It`s not all that surprising. People forget that the gulf between conservatism and liberalism is no wider than the gulf between liberalism and collectivism.
Next gripe for Tory and centrist remainers is threat of crash out at end of transition period which will be on us almost straight after the election. So we have just kicked the can down the road and actually weakened our negotiating position for the more important stage, no wonder the EU were keen to get the deal signed off asap.
"As for England we are spared the sight of Johnson greeting the English team at Downing Street would have made most decent people want to retch."
Why?
It’s the panic of “I can’t remember if the council send out the form any more”.
Not sure how to get historic data though.
CON: 45% (+3)
LAB: 34% (-17)
BXP: 13% (+13)
LDM: 5% (-2)
GRN: 2% (+2)
Via @Survation, 30-31 Oct.
Changes w/ GE2017.
Wow - 58% intend to vote either CON or BXP.
This looks really bad for Labour - they won the seat in 2017 with 51%.
The players and coach couldn’t look more gutted. To beat Australia and New Zealand and return home with nothing, hard. Sure there were a few nervous errors early doors, and the saff defended well in knock out matches, but that defence commits numbers far too narrow, if it was a two legged tie they could be walloped second game.
You have every right to post your thoughts as we all do and 'we shall see' is as good an answer to any critism
I hope it wasn't my personal fault, but my patch bucked the national trend by being even worse for Labour than average - a statistically difficult level of failure to acheive. I maintain to this day a great deal of respect for political activists willing to put themselves through that kind of thing.
The Conservatives got 61% of the seats on 42% of the vote.
But all these things already happened under the Tories, so where's the reds under the bed scare?
1983 was the first election that I could vote in. The Falklands factor, and end of the economic downturn of the early Eighties gave the country a fresh atmosphere of optimism, at least in Winchester where I was living at the time.
When I look back at my old photos it was the point that I started looking like a Yuppie rather than Vyvian from the Young Ones.
I voted SDP in that one. 1992 was the first time that I voted Labour.
Oh well, on to the tidal lagoons.....
Once again your comparisons are fatuous in the extreme.
Labour stood aside for Martin Bell in Tatton in 1997. Didn't stop them from winning the GE.
If it is serious rather than just trolling (which I suspect is the case) then it reveals a remarkable lack of understanding of 20th century European history.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/rebuttals/?fbclid=IwAR2SG8Zn8MPzDeg2xoRkA0kJNuJS8OrK_sPEO4piZtp43HQu4s40LM1ifAk
Seems there is a bit of a push to defend Labour from charges of anti semitism
Nothing to see eh fellas?
Amusingly Harry's place is described as "leading right wing commentators"
Well, compared to the marxists I guess they are right wing - but they are generally left of centre but appalled by Labours direction of travel.
Next pm..... snigger
11. Following each GE, polling companies make adjustments to their methodology to try and avoid repeating past mistakes, and 2017 is no exception. Actual adjustments made since 2017 are summed up by Anthony Wells here: "... in the 2017 election, most of the difference between polls was indeed down to how polling companies predicted likelihood to vote, and this was the biggest cause of polling error. However when those new turnout models backfired and went wrong, polling companies dropped them. There are no longer any companies using demographic based turnout models that have a huge impact on voting intention figures and weight down young people. These days almost everyone has gone back to basing their turnout models primarily on how likely respondents themselves say they are to vote, a filter that typically only has a modest impact."
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/10093
12. There is as much a danger that polling companies overstate rather than understate their adjustments, and end up making errors that yo-yo in the opposite direction in successive elections. They end up fighting the last election on the assumption that the factors that prevailed then must repeat themselves. Thus we saw the pattern of a net understatement of the Con vote share relative to Labour in 2005, an overstatement of the Con lead in 2010, an understatement of the Con lead in 2015 and an overstatement of the Con lead in 2017. The pattern breaks down prior to 2005. Labour share relative to the Tories was consistently overstated from 1987 onwards, but this should hardly be of comfort to Labour now. The fact remains that in the whole history of opinion polling there appear never to have been two successive elections when the Labour vote share has been understated relative to the Tories.
13. There is a debate raging amongst polling companies over the unreliability of of false recall of past vote and its potential or actual effect in distorting polling weighting. See again the link above. Only one company is immune from this, because it considers that the problem is so intractable that it avoids using past vote recall altogether, basing its weighting only on socio demographic factors. It should therefore be of considerable worry to Labour that that company - Ipsos MORI- happens to be the one registering a Conservative vote share of 41%.
I like to make intelligent points in a stupid way.
So often one sees the opposite.
I laid England at 1.49 just before the match. I haven't told anyone. This is a secret.
But the point was not developed. No conclusion was drawn. It's just lying there.
Is Wantage one of those?
Broxtowe (Soubry)
Isle of Wight (Greens)
But who is going to invest big money in a country threatening to go independent, with no certainty on currency and taxation risk?
We should be proud that those with such incomes come and live in this country and spend their money here. They do not increase poverty, cost people jobs or drain public resources. Infact most will employ hundreds if not thousands in the businesses they start and grow.
Even if they’re overseas super rich they buy goods and services and contribute tax revenue that would otherwise simply not be there if they were driven away. So yes. A gold plated Ferrari is not a cause for typical socialist frothing. That there is a teachers salary. Got, as far as the exchequer is concerned, for free.
Rather than turf them out we should encourage more. Hundreds more. To drive them out is ridiculous and short sighted stupidity.
This element of the (world) zeitgeist seems to me more worrying than any guff about enabling act II or BJ being an albino Adolf.