For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.
I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
The Revenant is a great film. The scandal is that it's not listed for Bafta VFX.
It left me colder than the scenery....
EDIT: and the reason it didn't make BAFTA VFX is that the director went to very great lengths to publicly eschew VFX. That, and many BAFTA voters didn't get past 10 minutes in before they went to the next screener, I understand from a well connected source on the judging panel!
What judging panel? There isn't a group that physically meet up and pick the films. Or do you mean the members in the individual chapter?
By "judging panel", I mean those who are BAFTA awards big-wigs, the organisers, who get feedback...
One wonders why they bothered upgrading the security for voting this year, when from your comments it would seem that everyone is blabbing away behind the scenes...
Is there any polling data that directly asks whether people care about any of this?
People don't care, but that isn't the point: the point is, will it escalate into some sort of formal action against Hillary and/or her aides?
Not quite. Those who care were already in the GOP camp. There is strong evidence that the drip, drip, drip on this issue and the murky dealings of the Clinton Foundation have seriously undermined Hillary on trustworthiness with Independents.
And so on. Her greatest saving grace is that the voters do not think highly of Trump. Against all other candidates, the trust issue is a major problem.
Christopher Hope Half of the Labour MPs who nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership have now been given front bench roles: https://t.co/gNnSSaJnMf
“At the start of the parliament, we had an immediate challenge,” one of Miliband’s top advisers said. “The question was whether you confront the Tory spin that Labour had overspent, causing the crash, or whether you concede the point. But we neither confronted nor conceded – we simply tried to move on.”
It's still wrong though - The Tories might well have implied that Labour caused the crash, but they didn't generally say it, which made accusations they did fall flat as mere counter spin - both sides are adept at defending themselves from ridiculous assertions their opponents never actually make. I don't have the link to hand on my iPad, but even in 2010 in his conference speech Cameron was saying Labour didn't cause everything, but they did make it worse.
OK, there's spin there about the Tory spin. But, tellingly, Labour's defence was always to the straw man that they were being accused of causing everything. Which was unconvincing.
There is no answer for Labour on spending responsibly. They don't. Simples. They are the party of the big state, for the big state by the big state. It's what they do. It's who they are. It's why the 'moderate' leadership candidates had precisely nothing to say in an age of austerity. It's why Corbyn's message of 'let's make it even worse' resonated. They can't be trusted.
Corbyn aspires to reduce not only nuclear deterrent spending to zero, but dreams of abolishing the armed forces entirely, like Costa Rica. And McDonnell would like to abolish MI5. Think of all the savings, replacing all those tanks, spies, submarines and soldiers with just one white flag.
“At the start of the parliament, we had an immediate challenge,” one of Miliband’s top advisers said. “The question was whether you confront the Tory spin that Labour had overspent, causing the crash, or whether you concede the point. But we neither confronted nor conceded – we simply tried to move on.”
It's still wrong though - The Tories might well have implied that Labour caused the crash, but they didn't generally say it, which made accusations they did fall flat as mere counter spin - both sides are adept at defending themselves from ridiculous assertions their opponents never actually make. I don't have the link to hand on my iPad, but even in 2010 in his conference speech Cameron was saying Labour didn't cause everything, but they did make it worse.
OK, there's spin there about the Tory spin. But, tellingly, Labour's defence was always to the straw man that they were being accused of causing everything. Which was unconvincing.
I agree. I thought Ed M would be an OK PM (probably a bit crappy, but that's what I expect), though I preferred Cameron, but I think that particular, shall we say, interpretation of what the Tories were accusing Labour of (most of the time, I'm sure individuals were harsher at times) didn't ring true for people, they didn't think such a strong accusation would be made, because it would be ridiculous to blame Labour for causing a global issue. I deride the public quite often, in an arrogant manner which probably precludes me from holding public office, but I think sometimes they, we, do pick up the subtle difference between an attack which is spin but still reasonable, and one which is not.
There is no answer for Labour on spending responsibly. They don't. Simples. They are the party of the big state, for the big state by the big state. It's what they do. It's who they are. It's why the 'moderate' leadership candidates had precisely nothing to say in an age of austerity. It's why Corbyn's message of 'let's make it even worse' resonated. They can't be trusted. Next question?
If they want to be responsible they should be advocating higher taxes to pay for the desired higher spending. A hypothetical tax on "bankers" that's spent 10 times over doesn't cut the mustard, they need to be honest and say they want to spend X billion more which will mean putting income tax up from 20% to Y and lower the 40% threshold from £50k to Z.
Any advocating of more debt to pay for spending will lead to the same result they got in 2010 and 2015.
Corbyn aspires to reduce not only nuclear deterrent spending to zero, but dreams of abolishing the armed forces entirely, like Costa Rica. And McDonnell would like to abolish MI5. Think of all the savings, replacing all those tanks, spies, submarines and soldiers with just one white flag.
I'm sure McDonnell would like to abolish MI5, the amount of money they must be spending following all his 'friends' around at the moment...
For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.
I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
The Revenant is a great film. The scandal is that it's not listed for Bafta VFX.
It left me colder than the scenery....
EDIT: and the reason it didn't make BAFTA VFX is that the director went to very great lengths to publicly eschew VFX. That, and many BAFTA voters didn't get past 10 minutes in before they went to the next screener, I understand from a well connected source on the judging panel!
What judging panel? There isn't a group that physically meet up and pick the films. Or do you mean the members in the individual chapter?
By "judging panel", I mean those who are BAFTA awards big-wigs, the organisers, who get feedback...
One wonders why they bothered upgrading the security for voting this year, when from your comments it would seem that everyone is blabbing away behind the scenes...
Since BAFTA had a big clear-out of voting members, there are fewer to blab. So it's easier to get an impression of what people are actually watching. Last year, I heard "blabbing" that a lot of the voters were voting for 12 Years A Slave - despite not haven't seen it. It was the "worthy" film they were expected to vote for, but they didn't want to have to actually watch interminable whipping scenes...
Before that, it was quite clear very few BAFTA members had bothered to watch the screener for Dallas Buyer's Club, because they didn't even shortlist the two stand-out Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor performances - the ones that went on to win the Oscars. Now that is just plain embarrassing.
If you want a nomination for the most conservative electorate in Britain - then BAFTA gets mine!
“At the start of the parliament, we had an immediate challenge,” one of Miliband’s top advisers said. “The question was whether you confront the Tory spin that Labour had overspent, causing the crash, or whether you concede the point. But we neither confronted nor conceded – we simply tried to move on.”
It's still wrong though - The Tories might well have implied that Labour caused the crash, but they didn't generally say it, which made accusations they did fall flat as mere counter spin - both sides are adept at defending themselves from ridiculous assertions their opponents never actually make. I don't have the link to hand on my iPad, but even in 2010 in his conference speech Cameron was saying Labour didn't cause everything, but they did make it worse.
OK, there's spin there about the Tory spin. But, tellingly, Labour's defence was always to the straw man that they were being accused of causing everything. Which was unconvincing.
"How did they get us into this mess? Too much spending, too much borrowing, too much debt. And what did they propose last week? More spending, more borrowing, more debt. They have learned nothing – literally nothing – from the crisis they created." David Cameron, speech to the 2013 Conservative Party Conference
Christopher Hope Half of the Labour MPs who nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership have now been given front bench roles: https://t.co/gNnSSaJnMf
The other half will get them when the first half resign from Cabinet....
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
Corbyn aspires to reduce not only nuclear deterrent spending to zero, but dreams of abolishing the armed forces entirely, like Costa Rica. And McDonnell would like to abolish MI5. Think of all the savings, replacing all those tanks, spies, submarines and soldiers with just one white flag.
“At the start of the parliament, we had an immediate challenge,” one of Miliband’s top advisers said. “The question was whether you confront the Tory spin that Labour had overspent, causing the crash, or whether you concede the point. But we neither confronted nor conceded – we simply tried to move on.”
It's still wrong though - The Tories might well have implied that Labour caused the crash, but they didn't generally say it, which made accusations they did fall flat as mere counter spin - both sides are adept at defending themselves from ridiculous assertions their opponents never actually make. I don't have the link to hand on my iPad, but even in 2010 in his conference speech Cameron was saying Labour didn't cause everything, but they did make it worse.
OK, there's spin there about the Tory spin. But, tellingly, Labour's defence was always to the straw man that they were being accused of causing everything. Which was unconvincing.
"How did they get us into this mess? Too much spending, too much borrowing, too much debt. And what did they propose last week? More spending, more borrowing, more debt. They have learned nothing – literally nothing – from the crisis they created." David Cameron, speech to the 2013 Conservative Party Conference
Doesn't say global crisis, but yes at times they implied Labour caused 'it', in such a way someone could say they were blaming the global problem. But overall they were smarter than that.
As in this one:
Let's start by being honest with ourselves. The mess this country is in - it's not all because of Labour.
Of course, they must take some of the blame. Alright, they need to take a lot of the blame.
Individual instances might have pointed to blaming Labour for all, but they were careful enough to be nuanced enough, in general, that the accusation that that was entirely what they were doing was not credible.
Incidentally, I'm probably late to this, but I've just seen Ruth Davidson is switching from being a Glasgow candidate to an Edinburgh candidate in this year's Holyrood election.
Does this not throw a bit of doubt on the "Scottish Tory surge" claims, if they evidently think there is a good chance of a further drop in their vote in Glasgow?
Corbyn aspires to reduce not only nuclear deterrent spending to zero, but dreams of abolishing the armed forces entirely, like Costa Rica. And McDonnell would like to abolish MI5. Think of all the savings, replacing all those tanks, spies, submarines and soldiers with just one white flag.
Incidentally, I'm probably late to this, but I've just seen Ruth Davidson is switching from being a Glasgow candidate to an Edinburgh candidate in this year's Holyrood election.
Does this not throw a bit of doubt on the "Scottish Tory surge" claims, if they are evidently think there is a good chance of a further drop in their vote in Glasgow?
Dair certainly thinks so, I think I recall him pointing to that switch. But maybe she made the decision before the long prophesied Tory surge began to become more than legend?
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
If Corbyn does remain leader up until May 2020, just how many votes do we think Labour would win? Obviously there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before then but let's talk about what we think is an 80% confidence range (i.e. we accept a 10% chance either side).
We know the ICM call centre did the private polling for Labour, and I believe that Populus did the fieldwork for the private polling that Crosby Textor did for the Tories.
Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls, the published polls were impeccably neutral, whereas the private polling was a bit more loaded and asked the VI question AFTER the supplementaries.
Perhaps the polls need to be less neutral and a bit more reflective that we're in a quasi-Presidential system.
You'll be lynched by the FPTP police for daring to suggest people are voting for anything other than a local representative.
It makes you wonder why parties bother putting out a manifesto.
Re Labour causing the crash - it's the distinction between blaming a car driver because the lorry in front of him crashed, and blaming him because he was driving too close to it when it crashed.
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
If Corbyn does remain leader up until May 2020, just how many votes do we think Labour would win? Obviously there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before then but let's talk about what we think is an 80% confidence range (i.e. we accept a 10% chance either side).
7.5 million as a lower bound ? 10.5 million as an upper ?
'You'll be lynched by the FPTP police for daring to suggest people are voting for anything other than a local representative.'
As we were told on numerous occasions we vote for an MP not a party, this was confirmed by Lib Dem private polling which they described as 'competitive'.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
Oldham seems to show that either labour voters don;t get the significance of what is happening to their party, or they don't care.
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as selling first-borns in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as a shit sandwich in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
Indeed, and that must be galling for the likes of Cameron and Osborne.
Oldham seems to show that either labour voters don;t get the significance of what is happening to their party, or they don't care.
Or they are right, at least in part, and people won't be put off by their change as much as we think they are and many think they should be.
Seems unlikely, and merely holding up is not enough for them to achieve victory, but that Tory ceiling of support is just about us reached, even with Corbynite Labour to contend with. The rest have to go somewhere, and currently it isn't going to another party, so either it's sticking with Labout, unexpectedly, or there'll be a lot of staying at home.
May's locals could be very interesting - apparently given which ones were contested in this cycle before, they won't necessarily do too badly.
Oldham seems to show that either labour voters don;t get the significance of what is happening to their party, or they don't care.
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as selling first-borns in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
'The north' is actually quite blue when you look at it on a map ^_~
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
If Corbyn does remain leader up until May 2020, just how many votes do we think Labour would win? Obviously there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before then but let's talk about what we think is an 80% confidence range (i.e. we accept a 10% chance either side).
Given Miliband got 27%, probably about 23% assuming there's no SDP2 or UKIP surge following the referendum?
This is an excellent piece. The pitfalls of phoning are also explored here in this November 2015 piece in The New Yorker, but in an American context. Don't be put off by the title in the link (an old idea) because the article is really very fresh. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/politics-and-the-new-machine My only other point is it's a pity pollsters can't record the number of times people either hang up or slam the door - perhaps this figure might give us a clearer idea of those not covered by voter apathy: on a scale of 1 for exasparation and 10 for ineffable rage, I think many voters in the Spring of 2015 registered pretty close to 9, and voted Conservative. What do you think? Are there pollsters trying to work with tabulating the opinions of voters who are undecided, or in no mood to talk?
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
If Corbyn does remain leader up until May 2020, just how many votes do we think Labour would win? Obviously there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before then but let's talk about what we think is an 80% confidence range (i.e. we accept a 10% chance either side).
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as a shit sandwich in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
Indeed, and that must be galling for the likes of Cameron and Osborne.
Particularly Osborne, who's problem it might well be to face.
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
If Corbyn does remain leader up until May 2020, just how many votes do we think Labour would win? Obviously there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before then but let's talk about what we think is an 80% confidence range (i.e. we accept a 10% chance either side).
Given Miliband got 27%, probably about 23% assuming there's no SDP2 or UKIP surge following the referendum?
Re Labour causing the crash - it's the distinction between blaming a car driver because the lorry in front of him crashed, and blaming him because he was driving too close to it when it crashed.
But what if the person who said they could drive better had previously stated they would match the other drivers speed and distance pre-crash?
Re Labour causing the crash - it's the distinction between blaming a car driver because the lorry in front of him crashed, and blaming him because he was driving too close to it when it crashed.
But what if the person who said they could drive better had previously stated they would match the other drivers speed and distance pre-crash?
They'd claim they would have had better reactions and avoided the worst. Might be nonsense, but it would be unproven, so would get more leeway.
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
If Corbyn does remain leader up until May 2020, just how many votes do we think Labour would win? Obviously there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before then but let's talk about what we think is an 80% confidence range (i.e. we accept a 10% chance either side).
7.5 million as a lower bound ? 10.5 million as an upper ?
I think that range is about right, though perhaps slightly lower.
Even if things go badly wrong for the Tories, I struggle to see Labour under Corbyn polling topside of 10m, which would be more than Blair won in 2005, and only then on a high turnout (which it might well be if there's a stark choice between the parties).
On the other hand, where's the lower limit? I don't think 7m is unrealistic. Brown tested the limits of Labour's core vote in 2008-9 and found it to be weak. With the Lib Dems and UKIP available to scoop up parts of Labour's vote - though both have challenges in doing so - we could see a very small return by historic standards.
Oldham seems to show that either labour voters don;t get the significance of what is happening to their party, or they don't care.
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as selling first-borns in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
'The north' is actually quite blue when you look at it on a map ^_~
The North of England for the Tories is where Scotland was for them in approximately 1987.
Still enough old people who were raised as dyed-in-the-wool Tories to give them significant seats, but a slowly-dawning sense across much of the younger generations that culturally the Tories just don't "understand us" (something which overrules how they may feel about the Tories' stances on particular issues), which will continue as more of the older generation die off.
The North West, Yorkshire and Scotland were the only regions where the Tory vote dropped in 2015 (even London saw a small increase in their vote).
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
If Corbyn does remain leader up until May 2020, just how many votes do we think Labour would win? Obviously there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before then but let's talk about what we think is an 80% confidence range (i.e. we accept a 10% chance either side).
Given Miliband got 27%, probably about 23% assuming there's no SDP2 or UKIP surge following the referendum?
Didn't Miliband get just over 30% ?
Yes you're right. Dunno where 27% came from. 25% for Corbyn then?
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
Oldham seems to show that either labour voters don;t get the significance of what is happening to their party, or they don't care.
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as selling first-borns in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
'The north' is actually quite blue when you look at it on a map ^_~
The North of England for the Tories is where Scotland was for them in approximately 1987.
Still enough old people who were raised as dyed-in-the-wool Tories to give them significant seats, but a slowly-dawning sense across much of the younger generations that culturally the Tories just don't "understand us" (something which overrules how they may feel about the Tories' stances on particular issues), which will continue as more of the older generation die off.
The North West, Yorkshire and Scotland were the only regions where the Tory vote dropped in 2015 (even London saw a small increase in their vote).
Are you sure about that? My instinct from the campaign is that it was older voters who moved to Ukip (particularly in safe seats, including safe Labour ones) rather than younger voters going to Labour.
Mr. Herdson, I wonder how UKIP did in Yorkshire. I think their vote in this constituency (I was paying more attention to the winner, of course) increased quite a bit, from an already solid base.
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Given how wrong I was about the public at large not fearing Ed M leading the country, you are probably right. I have this compulsion to see positives for Labour in nearly every situation, including that, surely, Corbyn cannot do as bad as people think.
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
If Corbyn does remain leader up until May 2020, just how many votes do we think Labour would win? Obviously there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before then but let's talk about what we think is an 80% confidence range (i.e. we accept a 10% chance either side).
Given Miliband got 27%, probably about 23% assuming there's no SDP2 or UKIP surge following the referendum?
Didn't Miliband get just over 30% ?
Miliband added a truly massive 1.4% to the Labour vote share compared with Gordo's 29.0% in 2010
Oldham seems to show that either labour voters don;t get the significance of what is happening to their party, or they don't care.
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as selling first-borns in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
'The north' is actually quite blue when you look at it on a map ^_~
The North of England for the Tories is where Scotland was for them in approximately 1987.
Still enough old people who were raised as dyed-in-the-wool Tories to give them significant seats, but a slowly-dawning sense across much of the younger generations that culturally the Tories just don't "understand us" (something which overrules how they may feel about the Tories' stances on particular issues), which will continue as more of the older generation die off.
The North West, Yorkshire and Scotland were the only regions where the Tory vote dropped in 2015 (even London saw a small increase in their vote).
Are you sure about that? My instinct from the campaign is that it was older voters who moved to Ukip (particularly in safe seats, including safe Labour ones) rather than younger voters going to Labour.
Dawn Butler Brent Cameron looks like a kid whose just done a poo said a friend. Yes it does feel like he's Sh***ing all over the working class doesn't it
Oldham seems to show that either labour voters don;t get the significance of what is happening to their party, or they don't care.
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as selling first-borns in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
'The north' is actually quite blue when you look at it on a map ^_~
The North of England for the Tories is where Scotland was for them in approximately 1987.
Still enough old people who were raised as dyed-in-the-wool Tories to give them significant seats, but a slowly-dawning sense across much of the younger generations that culturally the Tories just don't "understand us" (something which overrules how they may feel about the Tories' stances on particular issues), which will continue as more of the older generation die off.
The North West, Yorkshire and Scotland were the only regions where the Tory vote dropped in 2015 (even London saw a small increase in their vote).
It depends where you mean. Merseyside, Sheffield, Newcastle, Greater Manchester are all areas of weakness for the Conservatives. But, the party has plenty of support in North and West Yorkshire, Cheshire, Lancashire, and Humberside.
I think there's some truth in the notion that Tories are more difficult to contact than other voters. For example if you walk around Islington North on the day of the next election, you'd probably find about 90% of people saying they intend to vote for Corbyn, whereas he'll actually get about 60-65%.
Mr. 565, not sure I buy that. North Yorkshire is solidly blue, South solidly red, and West Yorkshire's peppered with marginals, often red-blue.
Interesting to hear the blue vote dropped in Yorkshire, but I wonder if that was just due to differential turnout.
The two Wirral seats are the best examples of the Tories' Northern problem. Nice houses (some VERY nice) everywhere, no universities anywhere or especially high numbers of trendy 20-somethings, barely a non-white face to be seen.
"Hidden from the discussion of Labour’s big increase in membership is any analysis of who has joined as fee paying individual members, but a deeper examination will show that it is overwhelmingly the middle classes who are joining. One street in Islington North, with owner-occupiers living in multi-million pound properties, had 40 people over a 12 week period join the Party. Membership is now higher in the average Tory heartland seat than in the average Labour heartland seat. Within heartland areas it is again overwhelmingly the middle classes who have joined."
@chrisg0000: '#Newsnight in search of rare mystical beastie, the scottish tory' Tory votes Scotland 2001 360,658 2005 369,388 2010 412,905 2015 434,097
How odd they didn't include 1997, the worst Conservative election in living memory Reading these posts is great because you don't have to have a Twitter to see what the Guidosphere is tweeting
Dawn Butler Brent Cameron looks like a kid whose just done a poo said a friend. Yes it does feel like he's Sh***ing all over the working class doesn't it
I read this yesterday and it made me so angry. Had a conservative tweeted such a disgusting message, then all hell would have been let loose. Another example of double standards.
Why this woman has been elected yet again, I can't imagine. She never attends the HoC and I can't remember a single speech she has made.
Mr. 565, not sure I buy that. North Yorkshire is solidly blue, South solidly red, and West Yorkshire's peppered with marginals, often red-blue.
Interesting to hear the blue vote dropped in Yorkshire, but I wonder if that was just due to differential turnout.
The two Wirral seats are the best examples of the Tories' Northern problem. Nice houses (some VERY nice) everywhere, no universities anywhere or especially high numbers of trendy 20-somethings, barely a non-white face to be seen.
Both Labour in 2015.
Danny, do you really want to talk about Labour's 'efforts' in the Wirral last year?
@chrisg0000: '#Newsnight in search of rare mystical beastie, the scottish tory' Tory votes Scotland 2001 360,658 2005 369,388 2010 412,905 2015 434,097
How odd they didn't include 1997, the worst Conservative election in living memory Reading these posts is great because you don't have to have a Twitter to see what the Guidosphere is tweeting
Christopher Hope Half of the Labour MPs who nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership have now been given front bench roles: https://t.co/gNnSSaJnMf
The other half will get them when the first half resign from Cabinet....
@chrisg0000: '#Newsnight in search of rare mystical beastie, the scottish tory' Tory votes Scotland 2001 360,658 2005 369,388 2010 412,905 2015 434,097
How odd they didn't include 1997, the worst Conservative election in living memory Reading these posts is great because you don't have to have a Twitter to see what the Guidosphere is tweeting
Mr. 565, I don't think 'northern' is a helpful description. North Yorkshire's northern. It's also bluer than a drowning smurf.
That is true. My mother's family is from the North Riding and when I go up there it seems like the same world as the southern shires where I live. But then it is essentially the same: beautiful countryside and no shortage of money.
On Labour, it needs to start talking about issues that are of interest to voters, not itself.
People say New Labour is dead, but I think even the mainstream of the party is ideologically driven by the battles of the 1990s.
What has the party shown the most passion on since the election? The admission of insufficient Syrian refugees and holding Corbyn's feet to the fire for a 'no surrender' attitude to any criticism the British have of the EU.
There is even a regular Labour poster here who thinks transgender issues are the most important policy area for Labour to focus on going forwards.
It's not just economics. Until Labour moves on, or at least plays down, it's obsession with cultural relativism, diversity and becomes more comfortable with the concept of nationhood it is going nowhere.
Tristam Hunt is the one who's closest to understanding this, when he said a Labour must become much more at ease with the principle of the nation state to win.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
@chrisg0000: '#Newsnight in search of rare mystical beastie, the scottish tory' Tory votes Scotland 2001 360,658 2005 369,388 2010 412,905 2015 434,097
How odd they didn't include 1997, the worst Conservative election in living memory Reading these posts is great because you don't have to have a Twitter to see what the Guidosphere is tweeting
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
You can get 12.5 on Clinton being Veep candidate :-)
@chrisg0000: '#Newsnight in search of rare mystical beastie, the scottish tory' Tory votes Scotland 2001 360,658 2005 369,388 2010 412,905 2015 434,097
How odd they didn't include 1997, the worst Conservative election in living memory Reading these posts is great because you don't have to have a Twitter to see what the Guidosphere is tweeting
Oldham seems to show that either labour voters don;t get the significance of what is happening to their party, or they don't care.
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as selling first-borns in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
'The north' is actually quite blue when you look at it on a map ^_~
The North of England for the Tories is where Scotland was for them in approximately 1987.
Still enough old people who were raised as dyed-in-the-wool Tories to give them significant seats, but a slowly-dawning sense across much of the younger generations that culturally the Tories just don't "understand us" (something which overrules how they may feel about the Tories' stances on particular issues), which will continue as more of the older generation die off.
The North West, Yorkshire and Scotland were the only regions where the Tory vote dropped in 2015 (even London saw a small increase in their vote).
A singularly inept comment. The older generation have been dying off for ever! You are correct that the big cities in the north are lost to Labour the smaller towns and semi-rural areas of the north show signs of trending blue - look at Bishop Auckland just one unlikely example in the north east. You also miss the point that Labour continues to pile up votes in their strongholds - which masks the changes you should be worried about.
Who does Tim Montgomerie consider the blue-rinse brigade will pick as the next Prime Minister? Here are his thoughts from today's edition of The Times:
" Six months ago George Osborne was the hot favourite but he has been hurt by his mishandling of the tax credits row and the gamble he took in last year’s autumn statement that growth would finish the job of deficit reduction. Boris, the darling of the rubber chicken and selfie circuit, has to be favourite but don’t rule out an outside candidate like Priti Patel. I made the mistake of not listing her as a likely Outer in my column last week. She has yet to prove she has the intellectual range for the toughest job in public life but she’s liked by other MPs, has deep beliefs and a great personal story. She could soon become something of a household name if she puts her heart and soul into the looming referendum campaign. This Asian Tory woman would stand out in a crowd of white, male Eurosceptics. And Tory members have loved a strong, straight-talking woman before and it worked out very well at three general elections."
I've had a fiver's worth on the lady in question at 80/1 with those nice people at Bet365.
A longshot yes, but at this stage I reckon everyone's a longshot.
DYOR
PS I thought Mr. Montgomerie was currently based in America for a year, supposedly covering the long winded build-up to the POTUS election in November. It seems he may have become fed-up and returned to domestic politics.
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Oldham seems to show that either labour voters don;t get the significance of what is happening to their party, or they don't care.
Or that, for all the commentariat's delusions about the Tories being a "One Nation" government with near-universal acclaim, they remain as popular as selling first-borns in much of the North, even when the alternative to them is as problematic as Corbyn's Labour.
'The north' is actually quite blue when you look at it on a map ^_~
The North of England for the Tories is where Scotland was for them in approximately 1987.
Still enough old people who were raised as dyed-in-the-wool Tories to give them significant seats, but a slowly-dawning sense across much of the younger generations that culturally the Tories just don't "understand us" (something which overrules how they may feel about the Tories' stances on particular issues), which will continue as more of the older generation die off.
The North West, Yorkshire and Scotland were the only regions where the Tory vote dropped in 2015 (even London saw a small increase in their vote).
A singularly inept comment. The older generation have been dying off for ever! You are correct that the big cities in the north are lost to Labour the smaller towns and semi-rural areas of the north show signs of trending blue - look at Bishop Auckland just one unlikely example in the north east. You also miss the point that Labour continues to pile up votes in their strongholds - which masks the changes you should be worried about.
Yes the older generation has been dying off forever, but the difference is in my view that the Northerners who will soon be replacing them as the old generation have it deeply-ingrained within them that the Tories hate the North, and only really understand the South - something which, if true, could override the usual process of people's instincts turning more Tory as they get older. As happened in Scotland: the Tories' extinction there wasn't one overnight switch, it was a gradual process as the generations who had thought it acceptable to vote Tory gradually died off, but the pensioners who replaced them in the electorate as time went on were people who just wouldn't countenance voting Tory because they felt they hated Scotland.
The rural areas like North Yorkshire that some people have mentioned are also not really relevant to this since they have very elderly populations typically, so the effect will show up in places like that last.
Comments
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/17/politics/poll-2016-elections-hillary-clinton-trustworthy/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/28/why_voters_dont_trust_hillary_clinton_127567.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/do_voters_trust_clinton_trump
And so on. Her greatest saving grace is that the voters do not think highly of Trump. Against all other candidates, the trust issue is a major problem.
Half of the Labour MPs who nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership have now been given front bench roles: https://t.co/gNnSSaJnMf
Next question?
BREAKING NEWS @theSNP scottish resistance leader caught taking bribe https://t.co/F3wQSTHY2h
Corbyn aspires to reduce not only nuclear deterrent spending to zero, but dreams of abolishing the armed forces entirely, like Costa Rica. And McDonnell would like to abolish MI5. Think of all the savings, replacing all those tanks, spies, submarines and soldiers with just one white flag.
A hypothetical tax on "bankers" that's spent 10 times over doesn't cut the mustard, they need to be honest and say they want to spend X billion more which will mean putting income tax up from 20% to Y and lower the 40% threshold from £50k to Z.
Any advocating of more debt to pay for spending will lead to the same result they got in 2010 and 2015.
It's just that he looks good by comparison with the full-blown jester currently leading* Labour.
*Using a loose definition of 'leading', of course.
Before that, it was quite clear very few BAFTA members had bothered to watch the screener for Dallas Buyer's Club, because they didn't even shortlist the two stand-out Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor performances - the ones that went on to win the Oscars. Now that is just plain embarrassing.
If you want a nomination for the most conservative electorate in Britain - then BAFTA gets mine!
Too much spending, too much borrowing, too much debt.
And what did they propose last week?
More spending, more borrowing, more debt.
They have learned nothing – literally nothing – from the crisis they created."
David Cameron, speech to the 2013 Conservative Party Conference
It's odd, as I've never voted Labour, or Tory, in my life.
@JohnRentoul · 4m4 minutes ago
I was much too kind to Jeremy Corbyn before he was elected – this from POLITICO, August http://www.politico.eu/article/corbyn-calamity-labour-leadership-race-uk-blair-hamas-murdoch/ …
@JohnRentoul · 3m3 minutes ago
The collapse of the Corbyn project is going to scorch the earth as far as the eye can see.
As in this one:
Let's start by being honest with ourselves. The mess this country is in - it's not all because of Labour.
Of course, they must take some of the blame. Alright, they need to take a lot of the blame.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/06/david-cameron-speech-tory-conference
Individual instances might have pointed to blaming Labour for all, but they were careful enough to be nuanced enough, in general, that the accusation that that was entirely what they were doing was not credible.
@AtticusBakelite: It's BBC by a short head & with 2 furlongs to go a late surge from Blairite Warmongers means it's anyone's race. https://t.co/AYSrLoXujc
Does this not throw a bit of doubt on the "Scottish Tory surge" claims, if they evidently think there is a good chance of a further drop in their vote in Glasgow?
But it matches your views.
It makes you wonder why parties bother putting out a manifesto.
10.5 million as an upper ?
'You'll be lynched by the FPTP police for daring to suggest people are voting for anything other than a local representative.'
As we were told on numerous occasions we vote for an MP not a party, this was confirmed by Lib Dem private polling which they described as 'competitive'.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
Indeed, and that must be galling for the likes of Cameron and Osborne.
Seems unlikely, and merely holding up is not enough for them to achieve victory, but that Tory ceiling of support is just about us reached, even with Corbynite Labour to contend with. The rest have to go somewhere, and currently it isn't going to another party, so either it's sticking with Labout, unexpectedly, or there'll be a lot of staying at home.
May's locals could be very interesting - apparently given which ones were contested in this cycle before, they won't necessarily do too badly.
Even if things go badly wrong for the Tories, I struggle to see Labour under Corbyn polling topside of 10m, which would be more than Blair won in 2005, and only then on a high turnout (which it might well be if there's a stark choice between the parties).
On the other hand, where's the lower limit? I don't think 7m is unrealistic. Brown tested the limits of Labour's core vote in 2008-9 and found it to be weak. With the Lib Dems and UKIP available to scoop up parts of Labour's vote - though both have challenges in doing so - we could see a very small return by historic standards.
Still enough old people who were raised as dyed-in-the-wool Tories to give them significant seats, but a slowly-dawning sense across much of the younger generations that culturally the Tories just don't "understand us" (something which overrules how they may feel about the Tories' stances on particular issues), which will continue as more of the older generation die off.
The North West, Yorkshire and Scotland were the only regions where the Tory vote dropped in 2015 (even London saw a small increase in their vote).
Interesting to hear the blue vote dropped in Yorkshire, but I wonder if that was just due to differential turnout.
Tory votes Scotland
2001 360,658
2005 369,388
2010 412,905
2015 434,097
Brendan O'Neill: The true problem today isn't migrants, but the societies they are coming to https://t.co/XRMQX2lllt https://t.co/q8YnROr9AH
Dawn Butler Brent
Cameron looks like a kid whose just done a poo said a friend. Yes it does feel like he's Sh***ing all over the working class doesn't it
Both Labour in 2015.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/labour-could-get-rid-of-corbyn
Are random probability polls published AFTER election REALLY more accurate election forecasting? See for yourself https://t.co/TedscszTHQ
"Hidden from the discussion of Labour’s big increase in membership is any analysis of who has joined as fee paying individual members, but a deeper examination will show that it is overwhelmingly the middle classes who are joining. One street in Islington North, with owner-occupiers living in multi-million pound properties, had 40 people over a 12 week period join the Party. Membership is now higher in the average Tory heartland seat than in the average Labour heartland seat. Within heartland areas it is again overwhelmingly the middle classes who have joined."
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419
Reading these posts is great because you don't have to have a Twitter to see what the Guidosphere is tweeting
Why this woman has been elected yet again, I can't imagine. She never attends the HoC and I can't remember a single speech she has made.
http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/11886845.UPDATED__Councillors_appalled_as__McVey_Murderer__graffiti_is_scrawled_across_town_hall/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11584479/Esther-McVey-The-girls-leafleting-for-me-must-be-thinking-Would-I-want-this-abuse.html
https://t.co/QZf8JyCScg
People say New Labour is dead, but I think even the mainstream of the party is ideologically driven by the battles of the 1990s.
What has the party shown the most passion on since the election? The admission of insufficient Syrian refugees and holding Corbyn's feet to the fire for a 'no surrender' attitude to any criticism the British have of the EU.
There is even a regular Labour poster here who thinks transgender issues are the most important policy area for Labour to focus on going forwards.
It's not just economics. Until Labour moves on, or at least plays down, it's obsession with cultural relativism, diversity and becomes more comfortable with the concept of nationhood it is going nowhere.
Tristam Hunt is the one who's closest to understanding this, when he said a Labour must become much more at ease with the principle of the nation state to win.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/vote-labour-get-tory/
Here are his thoughts from today's edition of The Times:
" Six months ago George Osborne was the hot favourite but he has been hurt by his mishandling of the tax credits row and the gamble he took in last year’s autumn statement that growth would finish the job of deficit reduction. Boris, the darling of the rubber chicken and selfie circuit, has to be favourite but don’t rule out an outside candidate like Priti Patel.
I made the mistake of not listing her as a likely Outer in my column last week. She has yet to prove she has the intellectual range for the toughest job in public life but she’s liked by other MPs, has deep beliefs and a great personal story. She could soon become something of a household name if she puts her heart and soul into the looming referendum campaign. This Asian Tory woman would stand out in a crowd of white, male Eurosceptics. And Tory members have loved a strong, straight-talking woman before and it worked out very well at three general elections."
I've had a fiver's worth on the lady in question at 80/1 with those nice people at Bet365.
A longshot yes, but at this stage I reckon everyone's a longshot.
DYOR
PS I thought Mr. Montgomerie was currently based in America for a year, supposedly covering the long winded build-up to the POTUS election in November. It seems he may have become fed-up and returned to domestic politics.
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
A great actor who made me laugh, feel sad and also be happy
All within a 90 minute single movie
The rural areas like North Yorkshire that some people have mentioned are also not really relevant to this since they have very elderly populations typically, so the effect will show up in places like that last.