Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After an eventful day a CON overall majority now a 60% chance

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited November 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After an eventful day a CON overall majority now a 60% chance on Betfair

Today’s moved by Farage sounds like a very important development but are we over stating it? Much of the coverage seems to be based on the widespread assumption that all the BP party vote will automatically go to the Tories.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Conservative in name only.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    60% seems a bit high this far out but I do think that a Tory majority is more probable than not.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Jonathan said:

    Conservative in name only.

    I don't think Boris passes the Peter Hitchens test of being a Conservative! :wink:
  • GMFGMF Posts: 13
    The impact on the seats outside the 317 will be very interesting - and not easy to poll.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Lord Heyward on Newsnight!!!!! :D
  • Kevin McNamara has resigned as LibDem candidate in marginal seat - following this disclosure in Mirror and on ⁦@GuidoFawkes⁩ https://t.co/nfyYolM9CI
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    Jonathan said:

    Conservative in name only.

    You mean in the same way that Corbyn's SWP is Labour in name only? :wink:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    The Brexit Party standing down in Tory seats will help the Tories most in seats they are trying to retain against a pro Remain LD or SNP challenger, in seats where Labour are the challengers it will still help but less so for as OGH states some Brexit Party voters are ex Labour. Indeed the Brexit Party still standing in Labour held marginals could even help the Tories there for the same reason
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    Dr Ben Spencer (GLA member and moderate) selected for next door Runnymede and Weybridge. Philip Hammond has tweeted his congratulations.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    "BP... has inherited the UKIP characteristic of being very poor in first past the post elections with a tendency to be overstated in the polls"

    Is this conclusion drawn from... one by election, where they came 2nd by 683 votes?
  • GMFGMF Posts: 13
    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    The real question is whether BXP stands down in another 50 or so target seats. Then the Conservatives would have a serious advantage.

    Having said that, there is one effect that the header fails to take into account even with this limited arrangement: in most times, and especially in a populist age, voters love strength. And to see Farage the big mouth of Brexit bend the knee to Boris will boost Boris' "strength" rating amongst the electorate, even if they dislike the alignment itself. Corbyn looks weaker and more friendless by the day...
  • GMFGMF Posts: 13
    JohnO said:

    Dr Ben Spencer (GLA member and moderate) selected for next door Runnymede and Weybridge. Philip Hammond has tweeted his congratulations.

    Con gain Runnymede..
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    A bump to the Tory chances seems justified, on the basis of today. Will be very interesting to see if Lab have hit a ceiling, or if they can push the 'this is 2017 only the Tories are doing worse' hopes further. A week or two of stable polling (or Tory increase) would start to worry them.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited November 2019
    HYUFD said:

    The Brexit Party standing down in Tory seats will help the Tories most in seats they are trying to retain against a pro Remain LD or SNP challenger, in seats where Labour are the challengers it will still help but less so for as OGH states some Brexit Party voters are ex Labour. Indeed the Brexit Party still standing in Labour held marginals could even help the Tories there for the same reason

    Labour remainers could also become DNV if brexit party don't stand. They must be pretty disillusioned with Labour to be thinking BP.

    The same is applicable to potential ex tory brexit party voters

    The effect could be to reduce turn out
  • It will boost the Conservatives a little in Con-Lib constituencies but not have much effect in Con-Lab constituencies.
  • I've tried, really, hard. I know I should be able to do it. So I've tried again, to no avail. No, I just have to accept the awful truth: I must be a bad person, because, however I look at it, I can't feel sorry for the BXP candidates who put themselves forward in good faith and now have been ditched, I can only laugh at them.

    Presumably there will be another couple of hundred before the nominations go in.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    It will certainly boost the bank balances of the people involved.
    Anyone know of any openings?
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had to with an alternative, I would go LD - even though I'm a leaver and I detest the LDs revoke policy. BUT - Corbyn. Dear God, the damage he would do to this country, domestically and internationally, does not bear thinking about. Even if you could forget all of his past associations.

    You don't think Brexit has damaged the UK internationally or domestically then? The UKs international reputation is at rock bottom whilst Northern Ireland could erupt into civil war again and Scotland may go it own way. Meanwhile the economy will be adversely affected by any sort of Brexit. You see we all see different things...
    Well I don't know if Brexit has damaged the UK yet because it's not even been enacted. Maybe if it had been sooner we wouldn't be in this mess. Losers consent and all that. But Corbyn is a nasty old fool who has pretty much wrung his hands for every terrorist organisation in the world who has had an interest in undermining the West. He still does. Now I'm not silly enough to think Boris is perfect, he isn't, far from it. But still. Corbyn as PM isn't just about economics (actually neither is Brexit), it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited November 2019
    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    kle4 said:

    A bump to the Tory chances seems justified, on the basis of today. Will be very interesting to see if Lab have hit a ceiling, or if they can push the 'this is 2017 only the Tories are doing worse' hopes further. A week or two of stable polling (or Tory increase) would start to worry them.

    If they're not worried 10 points behind after 9 years in opposition they never will be.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2019
    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    My wife who isn't political but always votes was angry at there being another election and angrier still after discovering that our daughters nativity is being rescheduled due to it [had been due on the 12th], she says we voted in the referendum and we voted in recent elections and MPs should just do their jobs and not make us vote again.

    Her suggestion today for MPs - 'why not just send them all to the jungle, we could call it "I'm the Prime Minister, Get Me Out Of Here!" . . . but not send any cameras with them.'
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had to with an alternative, I would go LD - even though I'm a leaver and I detest the LDs revoke policy. BUT - Corbyn. Dear God, the damage he would do to this country, domestically and internationally, does not bear thinking about. Even if you could forget all of his past associations.

    You don't think Brexit has damaged the UK internationally or domestically then? The UKs international reputation is at rock bottom whilst Northern Ireland could erupt into civil war again and Scotland may go it own way. Meanwhile the economy will be adversely affected by any sort of Brexit. You see we all see different things...
    Well I don't know if Brexit has damaged the UK yet because it's not even been enacted. Maybe if it had been sooner we wouldn't be in this mess. Losers consent and all that. But Corbyn is a nasty old fool who has pretty much wrung his hands for every terrorist organisation in the world who has had an interest in undermining the West. He still does. Now I'm not silly enough to think Boris is perfect, he isn't, far from it. But still. Corbyn as PM isn't just about economics (actually neither is Brexit), it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778

    It will boost the Conservatives a little in Con-Lib constituencies but not have much effect in Con-Lab constituencies.

    And the Leave-ier the seat, the greater the impact. So, in the South West, in Norfolk North and Eastbourne, it may be decisive.

    In some places like Richmond Park, it may have the effect of scaring a few "voted Remain in 2016 and prefer the Tories and don't mind Brexit so long as there's really a Deal" into the arms of the LDs.

    Still, I never liked Zac Goldsmith.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    she says we voted in the referendum and we voted in recent elections and MPs should just do their jobs and not make us vote again.
    Well I agree with that, whatever they decide frankly, but we are where we are.
    Jason said:

    kle4 said:

    A bump to the Tory chances seems justified, on the basis of today. Will be very interesting to see if Lab have hit a ceiling, or if they can push the 'this is 2017 only the Tories are doing worse' hopes further. A week or two of stable polling (or Tory increase) would start to worry them.

    If they're not worried 10 points behind after 9 years in opposition they never will be.
    They have last time to tell them they can recover, even though its no guarantee of a repeat. If they are, say, 15 points behind with a week to go, then they would panic. But I highly doubt they will until after the election, if the polls are borne out.
  • isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited November 2019
    St Raheem of Sterling axed from England team
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    I expect a further Farage capitulation over the coming days to stand aside in a section of Labour v Tory marginals .

    At which point one might wonder why he’s bothering at all . He really should have just ended the BP after Bozo got his deal .
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had to with an alternative, I would go LD - even though I'm a leaver and I detest the LDs revoke policy. BUT - Corbyn. Dear God, the damage he would do to this country, domestically and internationally, does not bear thinking about. Even if you could forget all of his past associations.

    nt things...
    Well I don't know if Brexit has damaged the UK yet because it's not even been enacted. Maybe if it had been sooner we wouldn't be in this mess. Losers consent and all that. But Corbyn is a nasty old fool who has pretty much wrung his hands for every terrorist organisation in the world who has had an interest in undermining the West. He still does. Now I'm not silly enough to think Boris is perfect, he isn't, far from it. But still. Corbyn as PM isn't just about economics (actually neither is Brexit), it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.


  • You don't think Brexit has damaged the UK internationally or domestically then? The UKs international reputation is at rock bottom whilst Northern Ireland could erupt into civil war again and Scotland may go it own way. Meanwhile the economy will be adversely affected by any sort of Brexit. You see we all see different things...

    Well I don't know if Brexit has damaged the UK yet because it's not even been enacted. Maybe if it had been sooner we wouldn't be in this mess. Losers consent and all that. But Corbyn is a nasty old fool who has pretty much wrung his hands for every terrorist organisation in the world who has had an interest in undermining the West. He still does. Now I'm not silly enough to think Boris is perfect, he isn't, far from it. But still. Corbyn as PM isn't just about economics (actually neither is Brexit), it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.

    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?

    This a point I make to as many people as possible. In view, unless you are very wealthy you have nothing to fear from a Labour Government, led by a man who prefers haw haw to war war, despite what the media says. If you Joe Bloggs you have everything to gain from Labour government that would look after your interests, not just the big earners.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    edited November 2019
    The Labour lady who is in trouble about her Poppy Day comments makes a fair point IMO, as does the late Harry Patch, whom she was citing. This debate should not be off limits. She expressed it in an intemperate way, but actually the futile loss of life in the Great War, and Patch’s views on it, are worthy of debate.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    nico67 said:

    I expect a further Farage capitulation over the coming days to stand aside in a section of Labour v Tory marginals .

    At which point one might wonder why he’s bothering at all . He really should have just ended the BP after Bozo got his deal .

    Its a media event for the Brexit supporting media to then channel the gullible into supporting BJ and the Tories. I see straight through it all. That is the objective anyway! It could backfire as the token UKIP effort in 2017 did not work. It has to be remembered the Leave vote mandate is of diminishing importance as it gets older. New voters don't share the same view as older ones they may be replacing.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
    It was still his Party. He only left the Party in December 2018 and he may not have been leader of the Party but he was still in the party then and leader of its MEPs still then.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    edited November 2019



    'It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?

    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.'

    Spot on. This is the standard defence Corbyn's apologists have been trotting out since he became leader. They really believe it too. It's astonishing. No matter the evidence to the contrary, they will not see him for what he is.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited November 2019

    isam said:

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
    It was still his Party. He only left the Party in December 2018 and he may not have been leader of the Party but he was still in the party then and leader of its MEPs still then.
    Interesting to see how David Cameron's Conservatives do on Dec 12th!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    isam said:

    St Raheem of Sterling axed from England team

    The language used in the breaking story suggests some sort of bust up back stage...
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had to with an alternative, I would go LD - even though I'm a leaver and I detest the LDs revoke policy. BUT - Corbyn. Dear God, the damage he would do to this country, domestically and internationally, does not bear thinking about. Even if you could forget all of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    St Raheem of Sterling axed from England team

    The language used in the breaking story suggests some sort of bust up back stage...
    Fisticuffs with Joe Gomez apparently
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited November 2019

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had to with an alternative, I would go LD - even though I'm a leaver and I detest the LDs revoke policy. BUT - Corbyn. Dear God, the damage he would do to this country, domestically and internationally, does not bear thinking about. Even if you could forget all of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    Cobryn is a threat to the whole country - he's an intellectually-challenged, far-left, anti-British clown. Did the "biased evil Tory MSM" make up his multi-decade track record of all these things?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
    It was still his Party. He only left the Party in December 2018 and he may not have been leader of the Party but he was still in the party then and leader of its MEPs still then.
    Interesting to see how David Cameron's Conservatives do on Dec 12th!
    I think they'll beat their 12 seat tally from 2017.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
    It was still his Party. He only left the Party in December 2018 and he may not have been leader of the Party but he was still in the party then and leader of its MEPs still then.
    Interesting to see how David Cameron's Conservatives do on Dec 12th!
    It will be indeed.

    Though Farage was still an elected UKIP representative in 2017 and leader of all its elected representatives in the only Parliament it had elected representatives in while Cameron stood down as an elected representative years ago.

    Suggesting 2017 UKIP had nothing to do with Farage is like suggesting that 2019 SNP has nothing to do with Ian Blackford.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had to with an alternative, I would go LD - even though I'm a leaver and I detest the LDs revoke policy. BUT - Corbyn. Dear God, the damage he would do to this country, domestically and internationally, does not bear thinking about. Even if you could forget all of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    They see him as a threat because he IS a threat. So was Michael Foot, even though he was ten times the man Corbyn ever could be.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
    Um, yeah! OGH forgot to put "party"!
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
    It was still his Party. He only left the Party in December 2018 and he may not have been leader of the Party but he was still in the party then and leader of its MEPs still then.
    Interesting to see how David Cameron's Conservatives do on Dec 12th!
    It will be indeed.

    Though Farage was still an elected UKIP representative in 2017 and leader of all its elected representatives in the only Parliament it had elected representatives in while Cameron stood down as an elected representative years ago.

    Suggesting 2017 UKIP had nothing to do with Farage is like suggesting that 2019 SNP has nothing to do with Ian Blackford.
    The UKIP GE 2017 campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Nigel Farage, that's all there is to it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,237
    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,237
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
    It was still his Party. He only left the Party in December 2018 and he may not have been leader of the Party but he was still in the party then and leader of its MEPs still then.
    Interesting to see how David Cameron's Conservatives do on Dec 12th!
    It will be indeed.

    Though Farage was still an elected UKIP representative in 2017 and leader of all its elected representatives in the only Parliament it had elected representatives in while Cameron stood down as an elected representative years ago.

    Suggesting 2017 UKIP had nothing to do with Farage is like suggesting that 2019 SNP has nothing to do with Ian Blackford.
    The UKIP GE 2017 campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Nigel Farage, that's all there is to it.
    Hadn't he buggered off to the States at that point? He didn't really come back until he founded BXP. Or have I got that wrong?
  • philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    All blokes over 21, all women over 30.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
    It was still his Party. He only left the Party in December 2018 and he may not have been leader of the Party but he was still in the party then and leader of its MEPs still then.
    Interesting to see how David Cameron's Conservatives do on Dec 12th!
    It will be indeed.

    Though Farage was still an elected UKIP representative in 2017 and leader of all its elected representatives in the only Parliament it had elected representatives in while Cameron stood down as an elected representative years ago.

    Suggesting 2017 UKIP had nothing to do with Farage is like suggesting that 2019 SNP has nothing to do with Ian Blackford.
    The UKIP GE 2017 campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Nigel Farage, that's all there is to it.
    Except for Farage still being completely associated with UKIP, still an elected UKIP MEP, and the leader of UKIP's MEPs.

    Has Michael Gove got nothing to do with the Conservatives?
  • viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited November 2019

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    "At GE2017 Farage’s then chalked up 1.9% of the overall GB vote which was much smaller than most pollsters had recorded"

    What?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Nothing to do with Farage though (I assume 'Farage's' is supposed to be followed by 'party' )
    It was still his Party. He only left the Party in December 2018 and he may not have been leader of the Party but he was still in the party then and leader of its MEPs still then.
    Interesting to see how David Cameron's Conservatives do on Dec 12th!
    It will be indeed.

    Though Farage was still an elected UKIP representative in 2017 and leader of all its elected representatives in the only Parliament it had elected representatives in while Cameron stood down as an elected representative years ago.

    Suggesting 2017 UKIP had nothing to do with Farage is like suggesting that 2019 SNP has nothing to do with Ian Blackford.
    The UKIP GE 2017 campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Nigel Farage, that's all there is to it.
    Except for Farage still being completely associated with UKIP, still an elected UKIP MEP, and the leader of UKIP's MEPs.

    Has Michael Gove got nothing to do with the Conservatives?
    Michael Gove is a member of the Conservative cabinet, is standing for election and will be campaigning for the party. Farage in 2017 was not standing for election and played no part whatsoever in UKIP's campaign, so the comparison you are trying to make is absurd.

    Basically, Mike made a rick in the header, forgetting that Farage wasn't involved in 2017.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,237
    Arse! Oddschecker don't do "history" any more! You used to be able to get historical data from them but now you can't. How do you get historical data from oddschecker?
  • ICM poll. Fieldwork up to and including today, changes from a week ago.

    Con 39 +1
    Lab 31
    LD 15
    BXP 8 -1
    Green 3

    [Apologies if it's already been picked up and commented on earlier.]
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    edited November 2019
    Jason said:




    'It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?

    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.'

    Spot on. This is the standard defence Corbyn's apologists have been trotting out since he became leader. They really believe it too. It's astonishing. No matter the evidence to the contrary, they will not see him for what he is.

    You need to quote accurately rather than misleadingly.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    edited November 2019

    The Labour lady who is in trouble about her Poppy Day comments makes a fair point IMO, as does the late Harry Patch, whom she was citing. This debate should not be off limits. She expressed it in an intemperate way, but actually the futile loss of life in the Great War, and Patch’s views on it, are worthy of debate.

    Where I originally come from, an old mining area, no fucker wears a poppy. There's a lot of folk think it's ridiculous. See a few folk wearing one round the parts I now live in, which is posher. Not sure whether there's the beginnings of a pattern there, would be interested to know what other people see.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 595

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?

    I believe it was so women didn't immediately outnumber men on the electoral roll.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010

    ICM poll. Fieldwork up to and including today, changes from a week ago.

    Con 39 +1
    Lab 31
    LD 15
    BXP 8 -1
    Green 3

    [Apologies if it's already been picked up and commented on earlier.]

    So is 8 points a comfortable lead, with a month to go?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?
    The same logic which had them with no vote when men did have it I presume, it just took stages of reform to erase that logic rather than all at once.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Chris said:

    ICM poll. Fieldwork up to and including today, changes from a week ago.

    Con 39 +1
    Lab 31
    LD 15
    BXP 8 -1
    Green 3

    [Apologies if it's already been picked up and commented on earlier.]

    So is 8 points a comfortable lead, with a month to go?
    I suppose it depends on how well the rest of the campaign goes.

    :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Chris said:

    ICM poll. Fieldwork up to and including today, changes from a week ago.

    Con 39 +1
    Lab 31
    LD 15
    BXP 8 -1
    Green 3

    [Apologies if it's already been picked up and commented on earlier.]

    So is 8 points a comfortable lead, with a month to go?
    Normally, yes. If its 2017 redux, no.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    valleyboy said:



    You don't think Brexit has damaged the UK internationally or domestically then? The UKs international reputation is at rock bottom whilst Northern Ireland could erupt into civil war again and Scotland may go it own way. Meanwhile the economy will be adversely affected by any sort of Brexit. You see we all see different things...

    Well I don't know if Brexit has damaged the UK yet because it's not even been enacted. Maybe if it had been sooner we wouldn't be in this mess. Losers consent and all that. But Corbyn is a nasty old fool who has pretty much wrung his hands for every terrorist organisation in the world who has had an interest in undermining the West. He still does. Now I'm not silly enough to think Boris is perfect, he isn't, far from it. But still. Corbyn as PM isn't just about economics (actually neither is Brexit), it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.

    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?

    This a point I make to as many people as possible. In view, unless you are very wealthy you have nothing to fear from a Labour Government, led by a man who prefers haw haw to war war, despite what the media says. If you Joe Bloggs you have everything to gain from Labour government that would look after your interests, not just the big earners.

    Labour would destroy the economy and peoples jobs - the rich will ride it out or move - its Joe Bloggs who will suffer the most.

    It's not rocket science - wherever Labours approach has been tried it goes horribly wrong.

  • What's remarkable with the LD, UKIP and Green lines are from about a week from now last time. Most of the late squeeze came direct Tory-Lab it looks like.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    ICM poll. Fieldwork up to and including today, changes from a week ago.

    Con 39 +1
    Lab 31
    LD 15
    BXP 8 -1
    Green 3

    [Apologies if it's already been picked up and commented on earlier.]

    So is 8 points a comfortable lead, with a month to go?
    I suppose it depends on how well the rest of the campaign goes.

    :)
    So "No," in other words?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had to with an alternative, I would go LD - even though I'm a leaver and I detest the LDs revoke policy. BUT - Corbyn. Dear God, the damage he would do to this country, domestically and internationally, does not bear thinking about. Even if you could forget all of his past associations.

    nt things...
    Well I don't know if Brexit has damaged the UK yet because it's not even been enacted. Maybe if it had been sooner we wouldn't be in this mess. Losers consent and all that. But Corbyn is a nasty old fool who has pretty much wrung his hands for every terrorist organisation in the world who has had an interest in undermining the West. He still does. Now I'm not silly enough to think Boris is perfect, he isn't, far from it. But still. Corbyn as PM isn't just about economics (actually neither is Brexit), it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    Strange too that Corbyn only talked to his fellow travellers and not the other side of the conflict......
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Jason said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and anti Western sentiment. A lifetime of cheer leading extremist Socialist republics in the Third World and using them as a template to dismantle the free market economy which sustains rich countries like ours. He's a bit shit crazy, vindictive, anti Semitic old bastard with the brain of a 15 year old Communist.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I actually think Corbyn comes across as reasonable and actually cares for the welfare of people unlike Boris who cares for himself only! I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    They see him as a threat because he IS a threat. So was Michael Foot, even though he was ten times the man Corbyn ever could be.
    Yet, Michael Foot was regarded by Thatcher in positive terms despite the public knockabout. Just out of interest do you read a daily newspaper? If you do which one?
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    dodrade said:

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?

    I believe it was so women didn't immediately outnumber men on the electoral roll.
    It was, especially given the number of men who had died in WWI
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Floater said:


    Labour would destroy the economy and peoples jobs - the rich will ride it out or move - its Joe Bloggs who will suffer the most.

    It's not rocket science - wherever Labours approach has been tried it goes horribly wrong.

    Can you be specific about what policies you mean, where and when they were implemented, and why they were wrong? I mean, you're talking in very general terms but I'll bet you've got specifics in mind.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    blueblue said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had tol of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and t.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    Cobryn is a threat to the whole country - he's an intellectually-challenged, far-left, anti-British clown. Did the "biased evil Tory MSM" make up his multi-decade track record of all these things?
    Yet Brexit is not a threat to the union, the economy, peoples jobs, the nhs and the UKs trade policy, standing in the world etc etc?
  • dodrade said:

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?

    I believe it was so women didn't immediately outnumber men on the electoral roll.
    And that would have been thought a bad thing, yes? Hmmmmm.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,237
    edited November 2019

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?
    The past when seen from the lens of the present seems unimaginably cruel and we wonder why they did such things. And in the future they will think the same of us. If the last decade has been any guide, people will swallow and duckspeak any pious or illogical crap if it is in their interests. And that applies to Remain as well as Leave.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    PaulM said:

    dodrade said:

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?

    I believe it was so women didn't immediately outnumber men on the electoral roll.
    It was, especially given the number of men who had died in WWI
    Christ alive, that's bleak when you think about it: "we are going to delay giving fair votes, because we just had a pointless war that killed three quarters of a million men."
    I mean, isn't that the definition of adding insult to injury?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    blueblue said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had tol of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and t.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    Cobryn is a threat to the whole country - he's an intellectually-challenged, far-left, anti-British clown. Did the "biased evil Tory MSM" make up his multi-decade track record of all these things?
    Yet Brexit is not a threat to the union, the economy, peoples jobs, the nhs and the UKs trade policy, standing in the world etc etc?
    Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but a majority of voters voted for it, despite warnings from those opposed.

    If it turns out that a majority of voters, or enough voters to give him a majority, don't mind Corbyn being anti Nuclear weapons, pro a United Ireland, pro Palestine and whatever else his opponents use to discredit him, that's fair enough too
  • Noo said:

    Floater said:


    Labour would destroy the economy and peoples jobs - the rich will ride it out or move - its Joe Bloggs who will suffer the most.

    It's not rocket science - wherever Labours approach has been tried it goes horribly wrong.

    Can you be specific about what policies you mean, where and when they were implemented, and why they were wrong? I mean, you're talking in very general terms but I'll bet you've got specifics in mind.
    Look at everywhere Corbyn celebrates and wants to emulate.

    Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba for starters. I'm sure you can name more.
  • blueblue said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had tol of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and t.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    Cobryn is a threat to the whole country - he's an intellectually-challenged, far-left, anti-British clown. Did the "biased evil Tory MSM" make up his multi-decade track record of all these things?
    Yet Brexit is not a threat to the union, the economy, peoples jobs, the nhs and the UKs trade policy, standing in the world etc etc?
    Would you like to tell us when the UK last had a trade surplus ?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?
    The past when seen from the lens of the present seems unimaginably cruel and we wonder why they did such things. And in the future they will think the same of us. If the last decade has been any guide, people will swallow and duckspeak any pious or illogical crap if it is in their interests. And that applies to Remain as well as Leave.
    I think the policy of not allowing foreigners who live here legally the vote will be something that gets looked back in with fascinated disgust. I can't for the life of me figure out why people think it's ok, despite repeated and noble efforts of those on here who support such a policy.
  • blueblue said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had tol of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and t.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    Cobryn is a threat to the whole country - he's an intellectually-challenged, far-left, anti-British clown. Did the "biased evil Tory MSM" make up his multi-decade track record of all these things?
    Yet Brexit is not a threat to the union, the economy, peoples jobs, the nhs and the UKs trade policy, standing in the world etc etc?
    No.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    blueblue said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had tol of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and t.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have passed you by but the British Government was in talks with the IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. The DUP went into Government with Sinn Fein FFS! I have no doubt at all that many of the people Corbyn has been viewed associating himself with will also have been in dialogue with the very people the terrorist's are running a campaign of violence against.

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    Cobryn is a threat to the whole country - he's an intellectually-challenged, far-left, anti-British clown. Did the "biased evil Tory MSM" make up his multi-decade track record of all these things?
    Yet Brexit is not a threat to the union, the economy, peoples jobs, the nhs and the UKs trade policy, standing in the world etc etc?
    Brexit enables us to do our own trade policy, give the NHS money saved from the EU, control our own borders etc and it is certainly less drastic than the nationalism of say Bolsonaro, Modi, Salvini, Trump etc arising in much of the rest of the world.

    As for the union, the SNP are still polling below 2015 levels which was before the Brexit vote
  • Noo said:

    The Labour lady who is in trouble about her Poppy Day comments makes a fair point IMO, as does the late Harry Patch, whom she was citing. This debate should not be off limits. She expressed it in an intemperate way, but actually the futile loss of life in the Great War, and Patch’s views on it, are worthy of debate.

    Where I originally come from, an old mining area, no fucker wears a poppy. There's a lot of folk think it's ridiculous. See a few folk wearing one round the parts I now live in, which is posher. Not sure whether there's the beginnings of a pattern there, would be interested to know what other people see.
    It could be seen as an early and rather extreme form of virtue signalling.

    The tragedy of WW1readily reduces me to tears, but I recoil from bogus nationalism and loathe the ignorance of the history and the causes of the conflict.

    I'm a reluctant and occasional poppy wearer for that reason.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    Floater said:


    Labour would destroy the economy and peoples jobs - the rich will ride it out or move - its Joe Bloggs who will suffer the most.

    It's not rocket science - wherever Labours approach has been tried it goes horribly wrong.

    Can you be specific about what policies you mean, where and when they were implemented, and why they were wrong? I mean, you're talking in very general terms but I'll bet you've got specifics in mind.
    Look at everywhere Corbyn celebrates and wants to emulate.

    Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba for starters. I'm sure you can name more.
    Ok that's a start, but not quite what I was after. E.g. I see people talking approvingly of America without wanting to adopt, say, their lax gun legislation. Let's get some specifics.
  • Noo said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?
    The past when seen from the lens of the present seems unimaginably cruel and we wonder why they did such things. And in the future they will think the same of us. If the last decade has been any guide, people will swallow and duckspeak any pious or illogical crap if it is in their interests. And that applies to Remain as well as Leave.
    I think the policy of not allowing foreigners who live here legally the vote will be something that gets looked back in with fascinated disgust. I can't for the life of me figure out why people think it's ok, despite repeated and noble efforts of those on here who support such a policy.
    Because such foreigners are temporary guests here and not citizens. Same reason guests you may invite into your home don't get a say in your decorations.

    If they wish to have a permanent stake in the country there is a path they can take to get citizenship and if they get it then they get the vote same as any other citizen, same as anywhere else in the world.
  • Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Floater said:


    Labour would destroy the economy and peoples jobs - the rich will ride it out or move - its Joe Bloggs who will suffer the most.

    It's not rocket science - wherever Labours approach has been tried it goes horribly wrong.

    Can you be specific about what policies you mean, where and when they were implemented, and why they were wrong? I mean, you're talking in very general terms but I'll bet you've got specifics in mind.
    Look at everywhere Corbyn celebrates and wants to emulate.

    Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba for starters. I'm sure you can name more.
    Ok that's a start, but not quite what I was after. E.g. I see people talking approvingly of America without wanting to adopt, say, their lax gun legislation. Let's get some specifics.
    True but Corbyn endorses their economic methods. There's plenty of specifics that have been posted repeatedly but if you wish to put your head in the sand so be it.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?
    The past when seen from the lens of the present seems unimaginably cruel and we wonder why they did such things. And in the future they will think the same of us. If the last decade has been any guide, people will swallow and duckspeak any pious or illogical crap if it is in their interests. And that applies to Remain as well as Leave.
    I think the policy of not allowing foreigners who live here legally the vote will be something that gets looked back in with fascinated disgust. I can't for the life of me figure out why people think it's ok, despite repeated and noble efforts of those on here who support such a policy.
    Because such foreigners are temporary guests here and not citizens. Same reason guests you may invite into your home don't get a say in your decorations.

    If they wish to have a permanent stake in the country there is a path they can take to get citizenship and if they get it then they get the vote same as any other citizen, same as anywhere else in the world.
    I'm not getting into this shite again, you've made this point numerous times and I don't agree. I know your arguments and I consider them bunkum. The point of the comment was not to reopen that debate but to speculate about things people will have changed their minds on in the future. It was not intended to change anyone's mind now.
  • HYUFD said:
    LOL no!

    The Tories start at nearly 40% of the vote in Sedgefield. UKIP never hit more than 1/6th of the vote there.
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    Noo said:

    PaulM said:

    dodrade said:

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?

    I believe it was so women didn't immediately outnumber men on the electoral roll.
    It was, especially given the number of men who had died in WWI
    Christ alive, that's bleak when you think about it: "we are going to delay giving fair votes, because we just had a pointless war that killed three quarters of a million men."
    I mean, isn't that the definition of adding insult to injury?
    Hard to comprehend isn't it. And that cohort of women aged 21-30 in 1918 were the ones who disproportionately ended up marrying men either much older or much younger than themselves due to the shortage of eligible men their own age caused by the war. Have seen this in my own family tree.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    blueblue said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had tol of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and t.
    It amuses me that his terrorist connections keep being highlighted in the Tory/Brexit supporting media. It may have

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    Cobryn is a threat to the whole country - he's an intellectually-challenged, far-left, anti-British clown. Did the "biased evil Tory MSM" make up his multi-decade track record of all these things?
    Yet Brexit is not a threat to the union, the economy, peoples jobs, the nhs and the UKs trade policy, standing in the world etc etc?
    Would you like to tell us when the UK last had a trade surplus ?
    Do you think Brexit will mean we will have a trade surplus? I am fasinated how you think the economy will improve by implementing Brexit! Do you think for instance we will be exporting more cars or selling more "widgets" into the single market? Or perhaps we will corner the market in derivative trading to undeveloped countries? Really, what is the plan?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    Noo said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    kle4 said:

    GMF said:

    BXP standing down will also depress the turnout further.

    Stay at home party a clear winner.

    It is interesting, as we know historically these winter elections don't mean there has to be low turnout, and despite supposed apathy a lot of people seem pretty darn angry about things, which seems like it would be a good motivator, so it would be a shame if there really was low turnout. Just as we had gotten close to 70% too.
    Voting is easier than ever.

    Street lights, cars, postal votes. If anyone wants to vote they can. A low turnout is a function of either (or both) lack of choice (pacts and tactical voting) or disinterest and boredom.
    Turnout was 71% in December 1923.
    Out of interest, what was the franchise in 1923?
    Men aged 21plus, women aged 30plus, some property thresholds. Representation of the People Act 1918. Men and women did not get franchise equality until 1928.
    Yes, I thought that's what it was.

    It's a curiosity, isn't it? What perverse logic sets the age limit for women higher than men?
    The past when seen from the lens of the present seems unimaginably cruel and we wonder why they did such things. And in the future they will think the same of us. If the last decade has been any guide, people will swallow and duckspeak any pious or illogical crap if it is in their interests. And that applies to Remain as well as Leave.
    I think the policy of not allowing foreigners who live here legally the vote will be something that gets looked back in with fascinated disgust. I can't for the life of me figure out why people think it's ok, despite repeated and noble efforts of those on here who support such a policy.
    Yes, have always thought of that as transgressing the long-established principle of ‘no taxation without representation’.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    The Labour lady who is in trouble about her Poppy Day comments makes a fair point IMO, as does the late Harry Patch, whom she was citing. This debate should not be off limits. She expressed it in an intemperate way, but actually the futile loss of life in the Great War, and Patch’s views on it, are worthy of debate.

    Where I originally come from, an old mining area, no fucker wears a poppy. There's a lot of folk think it's ridiculous. See a few folk wearing one round the parts I now live in, which is posher. Not sure whether there's the beginnings of a pattern there, would be interested to know what other people see.
    It could be seen as an early and rather extreme form of virtue signalling.

    The tragedy of WW1readily reduces me to tears, but I recoil from bogus nationalism and loathe the ignorance of the history and the causes of the conflict.

    I'm a reluctant and occasional poppy wearer for that reason.
    Exactly the attitude where I come from. Pious, conspicuous virtue signalling. The bigger the poppy on your lapel, the more of a tw*t you are. And woe betide anyone with a poppy on the front of their car. I actually know someone who keyed someone's car for that.
    Not saying these are my views, just that's how some folks think.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    HYUFD said:

    blueblue said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Jason said:

    Jason said:


    Fair enough Kle4. I'm in a safe Tory seat like you, so it wouldn't really matter any way, but if I really had tol of his past associations.

    nt things...
    it's a life time of anti British and t.
    It amuses me that his ter

    As I previously made the point on the previous thread, the UK has survived left-wing Governments in the past and even Churchill accepted the radical socialist policies of the Atlee Government in 1950 and 1951.

    I find the project fear around Corbyn as having parity with project fear around Brexit. If their is nothing to fear about Brexit as Leavers maintain why is Corbyn anymore of a threat?
    There is a pretty big difference between talking with an opponent and acting as a supporter. You can't claim Corbyn was just acting as a negotiator when he was wreath-laying at the graves of terrorists. Especially when he refused to meet with Chukka Umunna.
    I did not say he was a negotiator or supporting them. I was simply saying that he associated with people. The Tory/Brexit supporting media have an agenda, they see Corbyn as a threat. I see it for what it is and that's newspapers trying to steer public opinion. They see what has worked against previous leaders in the past and try and frame the current Labour leader with the same negative coverage i.e. waring a donkey jacket for reembrace day etc...
    Cobryn is a threat to the whole country - he's an intellectually-challenged, far-left, anti-British clown. Did the "biased evil Tory MSM" make up his multi-decade track record of all these things?
    Yet Brexit is not a threat to the union, the economy, peoples jobs, the nhs and the UKs trade policy, standing in the world etc etc?
    Brexit enables us to do our own trade policy, give the NHS money saved from the EU, control our own borders etc and it is certainly less drastic than the nationalism of say Bolsonaro, Modi, Salvini, Trump etc arising in much of the rest of the world.

    As for the union, the SNP are still polling below 2015 levels which was before the Brexit vote
    Our own trade policy without agreement of rolling over existing agreements negotiated by the EU means we dont have a policy with a heck of a lot of countries!

    If the UK economy is smaller than would have been the case by remaining in the EU, your not really saving money as economic activity in the UK is taxed and that revenue falls if economic activity is reduced.

    The SNP are campaigning for another vote, it will gather steam until it becomes inevitable due to Brexit.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    edited November 2019

    blueblue said:


    Cobryn is a threat to the whole country - he's an intellectually-challenged, far-left, anti-British clown. Did the "biased evil Tory MSM" make up his multi-decade track record of all these things?

    Yet Brexit is not a threat to the union, the economy, peoples jobs, the nhs and the UKs trade policy, standing in the world etc etc?
    Would you like to tell us when the UK last had a trade surplus ?
    Do you think Brexit will mean we will have a trade surplus? I am fasinated how you think the economy will improve by implementing Brexit! Do you think for instance we will be exporting more cars or selling more "widgets" into the single market? Or perhaps we will corner the market in derivative trading to undeveloped countries? Really, what is the plan?
    So you don't know.

    Let me tell you then that is was in 1997.

    That's 22 consecutive years of trade deficit.

    Which means that the trade strategy the UK has been pursuing during that period has been less than suitable for the UK economy.

    And your mindset is to do nothing but continue to reinforce this failure.

    Now if you want to know what I would suggest its that the UK should live within its means.

    Now that's a scary concept for all those who want to live in the manner they think they're entitled to but can't actually afford.
  • ICM poll. Fieldwork up to and including today, changes from a week ago.

    Con 39 +1
    Lab 31
    LD 15
    BXP 8 -1
    Green 3

    [Apologies if it's already been picked up and commented on earlier.]

    Labour tribal vote is definitely going to get them 30% come what may. Problem for Tories is they need to get 40%, big ask with Boris not being very popular and how divisive Brexit is.
This discussion has been closed.