politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As ICM reports another gigantic CON lead Number 10 moves to sq

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As ICM reports another gigantic CON lead Number 10 moves to squash the “snap election” speculation

This morning there have been two significant announcements from number 10. Firstly article 50 will be invoked next week on March 29th. Secondly it is being made very clear that there will be no general election. This is how the Guardian is reporting the latter:

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

To use a well known psephological term, Lab under Corbyn are fucked. The next GE will the electoral equivalent of the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

TheScreamingEagles

The kicker from this poll, by Martin Boon

"When 18-24s split 41% vs 29% for the Conservatives, Labour can only be in some sort of historic mess."

FrancisUrquhart

5...4...3...2...1...Justin Short Straws tells us that because of the Grimsby Local Council elections of 1936, that Labour really isn't in that bad a position and can still win in 2020.

TOPPING

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

SimonStClare

I wonder if the ICM changes are due to the Budget, or Theresa May slapping down Sturgen.

SandyRentool

26% would be more than enough to win a General Election in the Netherlands.

Nothing to worry about. Just wait for the centre-right to become fractured into 5 different parties and we're home & hosed.

Richard_Nabavi

SandyRentool said:

26% would be more than enough to win a General Election in the Netherlands.

Nothing to worry about. Just wait for the centre-right to become fractured into 5 different parties and we're home & hosed.

At the moment the Labour Party seems well ahead on the race to fracture.

RoyalBlue

TheScreamingEagles said:

The kicker from this poll, by Martin Boon

"When 18-24s split 41% vs 29% for the Conservatives, Labour can only be in some sort of historic mess."

Do you believe this though? Pensioner support for the Tories is so strong you'd expect a better Labour performance here, even with the Tories on 45% overall.

FrancisUrquhart

I wonder how much jahadi jez appearing to be an appreaser on brexit is hurting his image with the young who were remainers?

Fight the power...He did what? Probably voted for brexit and now backing the bill through parliament....booooo...Judas....

SquareRoot

Whist out on the road today and thinking about Watson calling foul on UNITE and Momentum, I felt a touch of schadenfreude in remembering that 11 or so yrs ago, Watson was plotting to get rid of Blair (Gordon Brown and the children's Christmas presents untruths )

williamglenn

SimonStClare said:

I wonder if the ICM changes are due to the Budget, or Theresa May slapping down Sturgen.

If they're due to May slapping down Sturgeon then it augers badly for the prospects of the union.

Anorak

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

isam

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

My original comment on this is that people with £70m (!) could personally do something, become a philanthropist .Set up a business and employ the people in a third world country a la Bournville in the UK, build a village for £50m, these are top of the head thoughts, and wil be no doubt forensically ridiculed by beauraucrats, but rather than give money, do something with it. A mini Bill Gates perhaps.

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

SandyRentool said:

26% would be more than enough to win a General Election in the Netherlands.

Nothing to worry about. Just wait for the centre-right to become fractured into 5 different parties and we're home & hosed.

At the moment the Labour Party seems well ahead on the race to fracture.

Wait for May's statement on Osborne. The fracturing of the Tories could be days away.

John_M

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

The FTPA limits the Prime Minister's power to call elections.

Bojabob

SandyRentool said:

26% would be more than enough to win a General Election in the Netherlands.

Nothing to worry about. Just wait for the centre-right to become fractured into 5 different parties and we're home & hosed.

Yes those Labour members that voted for Corbyn have few other options remaining than to indulge in the luxury of quasi-comedic fantasy.

Freggles

How on earth are the Greens on 4% when you have Corbyn?

HurstLlama

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

I should have thought that the answer to your question would be quite straight forward, in words of one syllable then, "It would be the wrong thing to do".

Anorak

John_M said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

The FTPA limits the Prime Minister's power to call elections.

I get that - it's in the header too - but AIUI there are still mechanisms to force it through. Isn't Tory, SNP, and LD voting for no-confidence enough?

Bojabob

Richard_Nabavi said:

SandyRentool said:

26% would be more than enough to win a General Election in the Netherlands.

Nothing to worry about. Just wait for the centre-right to become fractured into 5 different parties and we're home & hosed.

At the moment the Labour Party seems well ahead on the race to fracture.

Indeed it would be wise to do immediately. I keep saying it. Split in the Commons, appoint Nandy as leader on a soft-left platform. Watch the pressure grow on the Corbynites as they rapidly turn into a anachronistic irrelevance.

TheScreamingEagles

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

FPTA.

TOPPING

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

Coz Lab are fucked* and a nat poll would not be known so stay safe in power*.

* = one syllable.

williamglenn

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

Better to have cannon fodder in front of her than a hundred bayonets behind her.

Anorak

HurstLlama said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

I should have thought that the answer to your question would be quite straight forward, in words of one syllable then, "It would be the wrong thing to do".

Wrong politically, legally or ethically?

Dixie

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

TheScreamingEagles

SimonStClare said:

I wonder if the ICM changes are due to the Budget, or Theresa May slapping down Sturgen.

You're reading way too much into what is essentially statistical noise.

Bojabob

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

FPTA.

The Frit Pathetic Theresa Act?

rkrkrk

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

Economist article on conditional and unconditional cash transfers:
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal

Throwing money (at the right people) surprisingly effective apparently.

There is definitely a debate to be had about how people in rich countries can help those much less fortunate.

But I'm unconvinced by those who say there's nothing i/we can do and that it's really much better to keep our own money/spend it on nice things for me and not give it to some kind of charitable organisation.

TOPPING

isam said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

My original comment on this is that people with £70m (!) could personally do something, become a philanthropist .Set up a business and employ the people in a third world country a la Bournville in the UK, build a village for £50m, these are top of the head thoughts, and wil be no doubt forensically ridiculed by beauraucrats, but rather than give money, do something with it. A mini Bill Gates perhaps.

Yes there's def the teach a man to fish thing, which I agree with (who wouldn't) but it is fraught with difficulties and unintended consequences.

Let's just say I am an Easterly-ite and not a Sachs-ite. (Linda Polman is good on aid also.)

BannedInParis

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

She can't.

or

FTPA

Anyway, keeping this up for weeks more, if not months, coupled with them stating at all turns that they're not going to snap is probably better in the longer run.

Casino_Royale

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

FF43

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

It would require Labour support or at least abstention to get to the two thirds threshold. This would be turkeys voting for Christmas. Not entirely impossible if you think about it. Without Christmas, turkeys wouldn't enjoy their brief and, one suspects, miserable existence.

Alternatively they could vote to repeal the Act on a simple majority. The Lords would probably throw up barriers against what they see as gerrymandering.

Probably not worth the additional risk at this critical juncture.

TheScreamingEagles

Popcorn required

https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/843811744401313792

BannedInParis

Anorak said:

John_M said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

The FTPA limits the Prime Minister's power to call elections.

I get that - it's in the header too - but AIUI there are still mechanisms to force it through. Isn't Tory, SNP, and LD voting for no-confidence enough?

No confidence allows someone else a chance to form a government.

There's a clause stating that 2/3 of commons (434 MPs) could vote for an election - but that would need a mass turkeys voting for xmas moment.

Charles

Further to my rather mysterious post on the last thread, I'd draw people's attention to this site. We are launching next Monday and there will be a press release going out on Friday with the details I can't mention yet (but am very excited about )

www.thefore.org

BannedInParis

Bojabob said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

FPTA.

The Frit Pathetic Theresa Act?

no.

BannedInParis

"It would require Labour support or at least abstention to get to the two thirds threshold. "

I think its written that abstentions count as no - i.e. it needs 434 positive votes for an election but humbly submit to someone who has read it more recently.

SimonStClare

TheScreamingEagles said:

SimonStClare said:

I wonder if the ICM changes are due to the Budget, or Theresa May slapping down Sturgen.

You're reading way too much into what is essentially statistical noise.

A multitude of threads and conspiracy theories have been generated on far less.

SandyRentool

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

My original comment on this is that people with £70m (!) could personally do something, become a philanthropist .Set up a business and employ the people in a third world country a la Bournville in the UK, build a village for £50m, these are top of the head thoughts, and wil be no doubt forensically ridiculed by beauraucrats, but rather than give money, do something with it. A mini Bill Gates perhaps.

Yes there's def the teach a man to fish thing, which I agree with (who wouldn't) but it is fraught with difficulties and unintended consequences.

Let's just say I am an Easterly-ite and not a Sachs-ite. (Linda Polman is good on aid also.)

Give a man a fish, and he eats for one day.

Teach a man to fish, and he'll vote UKIP in protest at the EU Common Fisheries Policy.

HurstLlama

Anorak said:

HurstLlama said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

I should have thought that the answer to your question would be quite straight forward, in words of one syllable then, "It would be the wrong thing to do".

Wrong politically, legally or ethically?

In my view, Mr. Anorak, wrong politically and ethically. It would mean circumventing the FTPA, not impossible but difficult to do without looking stupid and opportunistic. There is no need for a GE at this stage. TM has said, on I think multiple occasions, that she does not want an early election. HMG should be rather busy at the moment and a GE at this stage would at best be a distraction and therefore not in the Country's best interests.

Now, it maybe that at some point over the next couple of years that TM's administration will be blocked in Parliament. If so that might require an early GE, but not now.

GarethoftheVale2

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

There's also the new boundaries

isam

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

My original comment on this is that people with £70m (!) could personally do something, become a philanthropist .Set up a business and employ the people in a third world country a la Bournville in the UK, build a village for £50m, these are top of the head thoughts, and wil be no doubt forensically ridiculed by beauraucrats, but rather than give money, do something with it. A mini Bill Gates perhaps.

Yes there's def the teach a man to fish thing, which I agree with (who wouldn't) but it is fraught with difficulties and unintended consequences.

Let's just say I am an Easterly-ite and not a Sachs-ite. (Linda Polman is good on aid also.)

Peter Green wanted to make Cheese and Tomato sandwiches and deliver them to Biafra! Mick Fleetwood wouldn't have it

2mins onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAOnP8ESfzU

williamglenn

Dixie said:

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

Labour's current position is worse than the Tories in 1997-2001, however the Tories' position is not as strong as Labour's at that time and the overall political situation is more volatile.

If negotiations go off the rails, the first credible centrist movement that emerges could rapidly surge to the front, a la Macron.

AndyJS

The Tories were on just 26% in the projected national share at the 2013 local elections. If they get anything like this poll they'd make huge gains, although perhaps around 37-40% is more likely.

Sunil_Prasannan

"The old stubborn bed blocker"?

Mike Smithson = TORY!

david_herdson

We await the May elections to see if the polling is reflected in a substantial number of Labour losses. That might just trigger pressure on the leadership but the way the party is structured these days Mr Corbyn seems secure.

The local elections come in four parts and Corbyn is a lucky sod that he's unlikely to be hit with a lot of blame.

1. Scotland. This will be an unmitigated disaster for Labour. They can expect to lose half their councillors at a minimum. If it's really bad, they could lose getting on for three-quarters of them. However, the ship there really did hit the rocks before Corbyn took over and while he hasn't exactly helped, even fair-minded supporters will blame a lot of the losses on errors in the past coming home to roost and / or the current Scottish leadership.

2. Wales. Labour might well lose a reasonable number of seats here too, possibly to all three other main parties (I exclude UKIP as a main party in local government terms). Again though, the Labour administration in Cardiff has been in post for 18 years and will no doubt shoulder the blame - not unreasonably.

3. England. The elections are mostly in the shire counties where there weren't that many Labour voters to begin with and, consequently, there aren't that many Labour councillors. Unlike how it would have been had this been a year with elections in a large number of metro-councils, unitaries or London, Labour simply can't lose a huge number of councillors. They could lose control of all their counties but that's only three: almost no matter how badly things go, it won't look that dramatic.

4. The metro-mayors. These possibly contain the biggest risk to Corbyn given that they're the highest profile (national media will know the names of some of the candidates). However, even Corbyn shouldn't be able to lose Gtr Manchester, Merseyside or Teeside, while the ludicrously over-named 'West of England' (Southern Severn Estuary would be more accurate) and the Cambs & Peterborough look Tory enough to discount any Blue win there. Only the W Mids stands out as a potential bad loss for Lab but even there, the blame would no doubt be put down to the relative capacity of the candidates rather than inherent current party strength.

Put simply, there are enough plausible explanations for wavering Corbynites to waver a little longer.

2018 will be a different matter.

Sean_F

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Sunil_Prasannan

"The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he? Oh, if I were going to cut and run I'd have gone after the Falklands. Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn't take it? Couldn't stand it? Right now inflation is lower than it has been for thirteen years, a record the right hon. Gentleman couldn't begin to touch!"

- M. H. Thatcher, Prime Minister's Question Time, House of Commons, 19 April, 1983.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

SquareRoot

williamglenn said:

Dixie said:

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

Labour's current position is worse than the Tories in 1997-2001, however the Tories' position is not as strong as Labour's at that time and the overall political situation is more volatile.

If negotiations go off the rails, the first credible centrist movement that emerges could rapidly surge to the front, a la Macron.

There isn't a credible "alternative" centrist movement, and one is unlikely to emerge, it would just split the Labour vote even more.. As someone posted further down, Labour are fucked.

Tissue_Price

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

My original comment on this is that people with £70m (!) could personally do something, become a philanthropist .Set up a business and employ the people in a third world country a la Bournville in the UK, build a village for £50m, these are top of the head thoughts, and wil be no doubt forensically ridiculed by beauraucrats, but rather than give money, do something with it. A mini Bill Gates perhaps.

Yes there's def the teach a man to fish thing, which I agree with (who wouldn't) but it is fraught with difficulties and unintended consequences.

Let's just say I am an Easterly-ite and not a Sachs-ite. (Linda Polman is good on aid also.)

Give a man a fish, and he eats for one day.

Teach a man to fish, and he'll vote UKIP in protest at the EU Common Fisheries Policy.

Give a man a Poisson process, and he'll eat at random yet underlyingly predictable times for ever.

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

To use a well known psephological term, Lab under Corbyn are fucked. The next GE will the electoral equivalent of the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

TSE = TORY!

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/vizcomic/status/843829926298091520

Richard_Nabavi

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SandyRentool said:

26% would be more than enough to win a General Election in the Netherlands.

Nothing to worry about. Just wait for the centre-right to become fractured into 5 different parties and we're home & hosed.

At the moment the Labour Party seems well ahead on the race to fracture.

Wait for May's statement on Osborne. The fracturing of the Tories could be days away.

Her statement on Osborne will be: 'It's not a matter for me', so I wouldn't get too excited.

AndyJS

At the local elections Labour are defending a 3% lead over the Tories in the projected share:

Lab 29%
Con 26%
UKIP 22%
LD 13%

SandyRentool

williamglenn said:

Dixie said:

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

Labour's current position is worse than the Tories in 1997-2001, however the Tories' position is not as strong as Labour's at that time and the overall political situation is more volatile.

If negotiations go off the rails, the first credible centrist movement that emerges could rapidly surge to the front, a la Macron.

The key word there is 'credible'.

Farron?
Clegg?
Blair?
Major?

An incredible quartet.

Tissue_Price

AndyJS said:

At the local elections Labour are defending a 3% lead over the Tories in the projected share:

Lab 29%
Con 26%
UKIP 22%
LD 13%

Do you have a spreadsheet / model for the mayoralties, Andy?

TheScreamingEagles

williamglenn said:

Dixie said:

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

Labour's current position is worse than the Tories in 1997-2001, however the Tories' position is not as strong as Labour's at that time and the overall political situation is more volatile.

If negotiations go off the rails, the first credible centrist movement that emerges could rapidly surge to the front, a la Macron.

I'm tempted to form The Gladstonian Liberal Party.

Would capture the current politicians I really admire as well as Mrs Thatcher as she governed.

TOPPING

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

Economist article on conditional and unconditional cash transfers:
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal

Throwing money (at the right people) surprisingly effective apparently.

There is definitely a debate to be had about how people in rich countries can help those much less fortunate.

But I'm unconvinced by those who say there's nothing i/we can do and that it's really much better to keep our own money/spend it on nice things for me and not give it to some kind of charitable organisation.

Well of course if you fly in and drop $1,000 on some poor unfortunate it works very well. For him. Likewise fair trade works very well for fair trade producers. But an alternative strategy is to make a transfer to government which can then determine the nation's priorities and spend accordingly. Of course this doesn't solve corruption (there is still plenty of it around) and generally foreign aid does best which goes to better run regimes. A further strategy is the one that @isam suggests which is to make direct transfers to (or found) individual private organisations (Water Aid is always a good example).

Forlornehope

Calling Corbyn a "bed blocker" is being unfair. He knows exactly what he is doing. A smaller "true socialist" Labour Party will be in place ready to take power when the voters see that capitalism has collapsed in ruins. Now, there might be a rather long time to wait for this but what are a few centuries among true believers - Christians have been waiting for the "Second Coming" for twenty of them.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

Fishing

"The ICM poll is simply totally awful for Mr Corbyn’s Labour but no doubt the old stubborn bed blocker, without the self-awareness to realise HE is a large part of the problem, will just stick it out."

I've no doubt at all that's true, but who exactly would lead Labour to the sunlit uplands of level pegging in the polls, never mind a victory?

AndyJS

Tissue_Price said:

AndyJS said:

At the local elections Labour are defending a 3% lead over the Tories in the projected share:

Lab 29%
Con 26%
UKIP 22%
LD 13%

Do you have a spreadsheet / model for the mayoralties, Andy?

What sort of spreadsheet?

MarqueeMark

williamglenn said:

Dixie said:

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

Labour's current position is worse than the Tories in 1997-2001, however the Tories' position is not as strong as Labour's at that time and the overall political situation is more volatile.

If negotiations go off the rails, the first credible centrist movement that emerges could rapidly surge to the front, a la Macron.

At least you are using "could" these days, entertaining some doubt that the great change is maybe not going to come.... You're getting there.

PlatoSaid

FrancisUrquhart said:

I wonder how much jahadi jez appearing to be an appreaser on brexit is hurting his image with the young who were remainers?

Fight the power...He did what? Probably voted for brexit and now backing the bill through parliament....booooo...Judas....

I was very confused by his Emergency Protest that he failed to turn up at.

TOPPING

Forlornehope said:

Calling Corbyn a "bed blocker" is being unfair. He knows exactly what he is doing. A smaller "true socialist" Labour Party will be in place ready to take power when the voters see that capitalism has collapsed in ruins. Now, there might be a rather long time to wait for this but what are a few centuries among true believers - Christians have been waiting for the "Second Coming" for twenty of them.

And as the Chinese said about the French Revolution...

Welcome.

FF43

rkrkrk said:

Economist article on conditional and unconditional cash transfers:
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal

Throwing money (at the right people) surprisingly effective apparently.

There is definitely a debate to be had about how people in rich countries can help those much less fortunate.

But I'm unconvinced by those who say there's nothing i/we can do and that it's really much better to keep our own money/spend it on nice things for me and not give it to some kind of charitable organisation.

There was an interesting article on the universal insurance scheme for healthcare in Rwanda, also in the Economist. It's basic and not comparable with a first world healthcare. However, the premiums are set at $8 a year or less, for which you get primary care and hospital treatment when required. It has a 91% take up rate. Improvements in medical outcomes are dramatic, with mothers dying in childbirth and the death rate from tuberculosis both being cut by three quarters.

It does require outside subvention but I reckon it's in the tens of millions of dollars a year. I think that would be the kind of project I would love to support as a wealthy philanthropist. Of course, it's not simply a case of someone with money opening their chequebook. There is a full system behind it.

SandyRentool

@david-herdson

Firstly, it is Teesside!!!

More seriously, Teesside isn't a shoo-in for Labour, there are plenty of Tory voting areas within the boundaries of the mayoral election so it could be lost, just like Stockton South (which swung further blue in 2015).

As for Labour losing all our English councils, if we lose control of Durham, then that would be a total meltdown.

I am expecting us to lose all of our seats on North Yorkshire. Just a hunch, not based on data analysis.

AndyJS

Labour are defending a surprisingly large number of county council seats this year in places like Nuneaton, Cannock, Tamworth, Worcester, etc. It's not really correct to say there aren't many Labour seats in those areas.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Hope, welcome to pb.com.

TheScreamingEagles

The Tory lead before the spiral of silence adjustment was 21%

Pre spiral of silence adjustment, Scottish sub sample amusement

SNP 47% Con 30% Lab 12% LD 2% UKIP 4% Greens 5%

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_guardian_march17_poll2.pdf

Pulpstar

My dedication to getting a true vote share <-> PNS is most definitely going above and beyond the call of duty this time round.
Particularly for Derbyshire :>

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, surely that Lib Dem share in Scotland has to be underrated. Half (two points behind) the UKIP rating seems incredible.

Tissue_Price

AndyJS said:

Tissue_Price said:

AndyJS said:

At the local elections Labour are defending a 3% lead over the Tories in the projected share:

Lab 29%
Con 26%
UKIP 22%
LD 13%

Do you have a spreadsheet / model for the mayoralties, Andy?

What sort of spreadsheet?

A predictive one :-) Just wondering how you saw the WM contest, really - Andy Street looks quite a short price considering...
https://twitter.com/Psephography/status/842817820652158977

Yorkcity

SandyRentool said:

@david-herdson

Firstly, it is Teesside!!!

More seriously, Teesside isn't a shoo-in for Labour, there are plenty of Tory voting areas within the boundaries of the mayoral election so it could be lost, just like Stockton South (which swung further blue in 2015).

As for Labour losing all our English councils, if we lose control of Durham, then that would be a total meltdown.

I am expecting us to lose all of our seats on North Yorkshire. Just a hunch, not based on data analysis.

Can not believe you have any in North Yorkshire .The only red dot on the North Yorkshire map is York.

notme

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/843835715532275712

MTimT

TheScreamingEagles said:

To use a well known psephological term, Lab under Corbyn are fucked. The next GE will the electoral equivalent of the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

Jenkins' Ear?

danielmawbs

HurstLlama said:

Anorak said:

HurstLlama said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

I should have thought that the answer to your question would be quite straight forward, in words of one syllable then, "It would be the wrong thing to do".

Wrong politically, legally or ethically?

In my view, Mr. Anorak, wrong politically and ethically. It would mean circumventing the FTPA, not impossible but difficult to do without looking stupid and opportunistic. There is no need for a GE at this stage. TM has said, on I think multiple occasions, that she does not want an early election. HMG should be rather busy at the moment and a GE at this stage would at best be a distraction and therefore not in the Country's best interests.

Now, it maybe that at some point over the next couple of years that TM's administration will be blocked in Parliament. If so that might require an early GE, but not now.

Back to your original question anorak- she can't. The ftp act stops her so she would either have to have a no confidence vote in herself, she would look stupid and have to resign or she asks for labours help getting a 2/3rds majority in parliament to vote for it. Again how does she know labour would play along, a vote against would make her look extremely weak, weaker than brown.

For these reasons I'm currently laying 2017 on BF at odds of upto 4.0

rcs1000

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, surely that Lib Dem share in Scotland has to be underrated. Half (two points behind) the UKIP rating seems incredible.

It's a subsample, so not worth the paper it's not written on. The other Scottish subsample (at the weekend) had the LDs ahead of Labour in Scotland, to give the opposite extreme.

FF43

TOPPING said:

Well of course if you fly in and drop $1,000 on some poor unfortunate it works very well. For him. Likewise fair trade works very well for fair trade producers. But an alternative strategy is to make a transfer to government which can then determine the nation's priorities and spend accordingly. Of course this doesn't solve corruption (there is still plenty of it around) and generally foreign aid does best which goes to better run regimes. A further strategy is the one that @isam suggests which is to make direct transfers to (or found) individual private organisations (Water Aid is always a good example).

If you bring money into a place you become a stakeholder in whatever "system" exists there. If it's a bunch of warlords or corrupt officials you have to deal with them. You need to be clear that whatever outcomes you are looking for can be met and be justified.

rkrkrk

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

PlatoSaid

Benny
Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans. That's far fewer than even a decade ago. https://t.co/RsDXJzgfss

madasafish

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

I worked in SA for two years a couple of decades ago.
My fear is that it will end up Zimbabwe now - in 50 years or so.
The locals are certainly trying their best..

PlatoSaid

Holy Cats

Boston Bobblehead
If there are only 20 people that can unmask @GenFlynn, the WaPo article mentions 9 people! WOW!

Sean_F

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

Given the amount of oil it has, Nigeria could be a pretty wealthy country.

notme

SandyRentool said:

@david-herdson

Firstly, it is Teesside!!!

More seriously, Teesside isn't a shoo-in for Labour, there are plenty of Tory voting areas within the boundaries of the mayoral election so it could be lost, just like Stockton South (which swung further blue in 2015).

As for Labour losing all our English councils, if we lose control of Durham, then that would be a total meltdown.

I am expecting us to lose all of our seats on North Yorkshire. Just a hunch, not based on data analysis.

Remember last year Corbyn more or less equalled Miliband's post Osborne's omnishambles 2012 local election results. The cons in government avoiding a mid term wipeout would be a success in itself. A large net gain seems unlikely.

MTimT

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Well of course if you fly in and drop $1,000 on some poor unfortunate it works very well. For him. Likewise fair trade works very well for fair trade producers. But an alternative strategy is to make a transfer to government which can then determine the nation's priorities and spend accordingly. Of course this doesn't solve corruption (there is still plenty of it around) and generally foreign aid does best which goes to better run regimes. A further strategy is the one that @isam suggests which is to make direct transfers to (or found) individual private organisations (Water Aid is always a good example).

If you bring money into a place you become a stakeholder in whatever "system" exists there. If it's a bunch of warlords or corrupt officials you have to deal with them. You need to be clear that whatever outcomes you are looking for can be met and be justified.

A further option is not to give the money in direct aid but to seed public private partnerships that have a profit incentive but create sustainable growth and jobs in the target country. The key is to engage the recipient in deciding true priorities and to use trusted partners.

Casino_Royale

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

I'd say the ethical obligation is to maximise your contribution to improving the lot of your fellow man, if you can, but that the happiness of yourself, your family, your friends and your community comes first.

You can give your time, skills, advice, effort and wisdom as well as money, and IMHO it should be focussed on where you (personally) can make the most impact.

malcolmg

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

Economist article on conditional and unconditional cash transfers:
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal

Throwing money (at the right people) surprisingly effective apparently.

There is definitely a debate to be had about how people in rich countries can help those much less fortunate.

But I'm unconvinced by those who say there's nothing i/we can do and that it's really much better to keep our own money/spend it on nice things for me and not give it to some kind of charitable organisation.

.

Money has been thrown at Africa for at least 50 years and it has had little impact, majority gets stolen , wasted or used for fat cat charities.
Only way is to fund and run the actual projects yourself otherwise it si money down the drain as we have seen.

Sean_F

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

One should give what one can afford.

Casino_Royale

notme said:

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

I insisted to the dealership that the numberplate for my new Jaguar came without an EU flag on it.

And it didn't.

It did come with customised Union flag wheel badges, which I specifically ordered.

Casino_Royale

madasafish said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

I worked in SA for two years a couple of decades ago.
My fear is that it will end up Zimbabwe now - in 50 years or so.
The locals are certainly trying their best..

Bad Government can break a country as much as Good Government can be the necessary pre-requisite for the development of it.

SandyRentool

Yorkcity said:

SandyRentool said:

@david-herdson

Firstly, it is Teesside!!!

More seriously, Teesside isn't a shoo-in for Labour, there are plenty of Tory voting areas within the boundaries of the mayoral election so it could be lost, just like Stockton South (which swung further blue in 2015).

As for Labour losing all our English councils, if we lose control of Durham, then that would be a total meltdown.

I am expecting us to lose all of our seats on North Yorkshire. Just a hunch, not based on data analysis.

Can not believe you have any in North Yorkshire .The only red dot on the North Yorkshire map is York.

7 out of 72

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yorkshire_County_Council

Sean_F

madasafish said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

I worked in SA for two years a couple of decades ago.
My fear is that it will end up Zimbabwe now - in 50 years or so.
The locals are certainly trying their best..

It's the fable of the frog and scorpion. Some people will ruin themselves just so they can ruin their enemies.

Charles

Casino_Royale said:

notme said:

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

I insisted to the dealership that the numberplate for my new Jaguar came without an EU flag on it.

And it didn't.

It did come with customised Union flag wheel badges, which I specifically ordered.

Why would you buy in ahead of the initial depreciation?

Yorkcity

The polls are static all Moe since January.

rkrkrk

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

One should give what one can afford.

But what can i afford?

I don't need to eat out at a restaurant when i could cook for less at home etc...

Sunil_Prasannan

MTimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

To use a well known psephological term, Lab under Corbyn are fucked. The next GE will the electoral equivalent of the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

Jenkins' Ear?

TSE's point is that The Zanzibar war lasted all of 38 minutes

Sean_F

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

One should give what one can afford.

But what can i afford?

I don't need to eat out at a restaurant when i could cook for less at home etc...

Only you can answer that.