I think Farron is hopeless, out of his depth and will likely do worse than Clegg. I have noticed Clegg has been doing more of the interviews recently and he is in a different league to Farron. I know this is fatal for a politician but I actually feel sorry for him as he seems a reasonable person but he just does not cut the mustard.
Remarkably, Clegg > Farron, Miliband > Corbyn, Salmond > Sturgeon, Cameron > May, and Farage > Nuttall.
Has this ever been the case before at an election? Where all the major parties have a leader worse than the one previous? (Apart from, maybe, the Greens...)
I think Corbyn > Miliband possibly. (In the campaign) And Sturgeon ~= Salmond still I think (Was impossible for the SNP to better 2015)
Clegg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Farron Cameron >>>>> May Farage >>>>>> Nuttall.
For sure
Corbyn is only looking good because 1. he's facing a hapless Tory campaign, and 2. expectation were SO low he could only out-perform.
As a leader and a candidate for PM he is much, much worse than Miliband.
I suspect Ed Miliband would win this election at a canter.
Yep - I'd strongly consider voting for Red Ed over May.
I'd definitely be voting Ed M over May. For all that was thrown at him, he wasn't as weak as May is coming across now.
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
They could just print the money for the nationalisation, after all in a globalised world most of it will just leak out of the UK economy and have little affect.
I do agree it is not an appetising prospect that Labour propose as those targeted for higher taxes will do anything to avoid having to pay more. They would not be rational people if they did not try to mitigate the amount of tax they pay. This is why I am voting Conservative, Corbyn and McDonnell would remove the incentive for high achievers to produce wealth. Better to have a percentage of something than nothing at all. Mind you I thought that about staying in the EU and the majority didn't agree with me!
I don't think they are proposing 100% taxes at any marginal rate (well, other than maintaining the existing theoretically possible >100% marginal rate between £50k and £60k introduced by Osborne which can occur as a result of withdrawing child benefit for a really large family), so you're quite safe still having "a percentage of something" under Labour.
Commissioned by Kent Messenger Group and conducted by Facts International a market research company based in Ashford.
Telephone poll of 1000 residents covering all Kent constituencies. Results from 797 likely voters expressing an opinion. Likely voters = 4/5 on scale 1-5 (not at all likely, 5 extremely likely)
Be aware this poll was conducted between May 15 to May 22.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
East Coast mainline ran very well whilst nationalised to be fair though.
I think Farron is hopeless, out of his depth and will likely do worse than Clegg. I have noticed Clegg has been doing more of the interviews recently and he is in a different league to Farron. I know this is fatal for a politician but I actually feel sorry for him as he seems a reasonable person but he just does not cut the mustard.
If you're not even in the league that Clegg's in that says it all.
Tim wont lose as many MPs as Clegg thats an arithmetical certainty
Clegg was treated a tad harshly by the public I think. For all he made mistakes too, circumstances also created a perfect storm which swept the LDs away.
Commissioned by Kent Messenger Group and conducted by Facts International a market research company based in Ashford.
Telephone poll of 1000 residents covering all Kent constituencies. Results from 797 likely voters expressing an opinion. Likely voters = 4/5 on scale 1-5 (not at all likely, 5 extremely likely)
Be aware this poll was conducted between May 15 to May 22.
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
And the £10bn middle class student loan bung.
I'm now convinced that has probably saved Labour 40 seats.
Another George Osborne disaster coming home to roost.
Some of us did warn that it would damage the Cons and Libs among students in election after election.
At the next election Labour will promise to write off all student fees debts.
Which would be ironic given it was Labour introduced tuition fees, extended them (breaking a manifesto commitment along the way, I might add) and set up the Browne review in the first place which has led to the current system.
And the Conservatives opposed the introduction of tuition fees which IIRC needed SLAB votes to get it through the HoC.
Why the hell did Cameron and Osborne decide to permanently crap on the under 25s instead of reducing higher education back to its 1990 level and concentrating on improving technical education and training ?
Fear, they would be curbing the aspiration of the under 25s who are not gifted academically but wanted to go to University. Even if they have to get into debt to do it! I think too many go to university and it would be money better spent on vocational training that equipped a workforce rather than keep the higher education industry. But it is a producer interest group that can lobby hard, so a fudge was obviously put through. Being truthful does not make you popular with the electorate, you cannot implement anything in opposition.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam PM says the big risk in election is her losing 6 seats. Though she is talking from Margaret Beckett's Derby S seat with 9k Lab majority
Derbyshire.
Bolsover. NE Derbyshire Derby South.
All in Derbyshire. All being visited by cabinet ministers.
Clearly, Lynton thinks there is mileage in Derbyshire.
Not sure why, as Labour did fine in Bolsover even in the locals, but clearly someone thinks so.
There really shouldn't be much mileage at all in Derbyshire:
NED should be an easy Conservative gain if Pulps and BJO are right Bolsover is 400 MPs territory Derby South is safe Labour
Compare with Nottinghamshire which has Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Gedling, Mansfield and Nottingham S - all of which should be close according to Betfair. Though IMO all will be harder for the Conservatives than they look at first glance.
Derby South isn't safe Labour anymore, we have had hard-left Labour on the Council and it isn't popular. Beckett should hold on but that isn't certain, could be a tight one.
NED looks positive, demographics around Bolsover are at last changing a little, more new business and housing close to the motorway, Skinner should hold but again it could be tight. Conservatives will go well in the East Midlands outside the shitholes Nottingham and Leicester.
Wonder if all Labour canvassers are going round like that, will get people crossing the Tory x for sure.
I once went on a stag-do in Bristol West, along the "Greenest" road in the City.
Boy oh boy that was an uncomfortable experience for a sound Tory like me. Although, my flirting (experimental) with a couple of dreadlocked hippie 20-something girls hawking new-age shite outside their home, with reggae and spliffs, went down rather well.
Why do left-wing girls like Tory men so much?
This thing about left wing girls liking Tory men is something I've only ever heard of on PB. I think, as in the States most people in this country have relationships with those who share their politics.
Liam Gallagher was just on ch4 and he said he was voting Labour as he came from a Labour family. Seems Corbyn is quite popular with the high end of the entertainment industry.
They'll all be trying to hide they money from HMRC after Jezza has won though...
Tories hide their money whoever is power. Tories represent the few not the many.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
East Coast mainline ran very well whilst nationalised to be fair though.
With the Tories franchising most rail contracts out to a foreign government it's then hard to argue with a serious face that government can't run things.
Commissioned by Kent Messenger Group and conducted by Facts International a market research company based in Ashford.
Telephone poll of 1000 residents covering all Kent constituencies. Results from 797 likely voters expressing an opinion. Likely voters = 4/5 on scale 1-5 (not at all likely, 5 extremely likely)
Be aware this poll was conducted between May 15 to May 22.
Commissioned by Kent Messenger Group and conducted by Facts International a market research company based in Ashford.
Telephone poll of 1000 residents covering all Kent constituencies. Results from 797 likely voters expressing an opinion. Likely voters = 4/5 on scale 1-5 (not at all likely, 5 extremely likely)
Be aware this poll was conducted between May 15 to May 22.
Evening all, what do people expect from the revised Ashcroft model tomorrow? I assume it is a similar to the YouGov model in using a variety of demographic and voting history indicators. If it is pointing to a hung parliament too and this is indeed what happens perhaps this is the way forward for election polling if the traditional VI polls continue to point to a Conservative majority?
For it to go from the current prediction to a hung parliament would be a monumental shift.
But the traditional VI polls have undergone a monumental shift, perhaps the Ashcroft Model will show this too.
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
Tories have added £700bn to the national debt in 7 years. Something about glass houses comes to mind.
hmmm if a tory was honest they wouldn't be a tory.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
East Coast mainline ran very well whilst nationalised to be fair though.
With the Tories franchising most rail contracts out to a foreign government it's then hard to argue with a serious face that government can't run things.
Isn't the argument that the government would be more easily coerced by the unions? The german government doesn't care at all about commuters on Southern.
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
Tories have added £700bn to the national debt in 7 years. Something about glass houses comes to mind.
hmmm if a tory was honest they wouldn't be a tory.
Commissioned by Kent Messenger Group and conducted by Facts International a market research company based in Ashford.
Telephone poll of 1000 residents covering all Kent constituencies. Results from 797 likely voters expressing an opinion. Likely voters = 4/5 on scale 1-5 (not at all likely, 5 extremely likely)
Be aware this poll was conducted between May 15 to May 22.
Evening all, what do people expect from the revised Ashcroft model tomorrow? I assume it is a similar to the YouGov model in using a variety of demographic and voting history indicators. If it is pointing to a hung parliament too and this is indeed what happens perhaps this is the way forward for election polling if the traditional VI polls continue to point to a Conservative majority?
For it to go from the current prediction to a hung parliament would be a monumental shift.
But the traditional VI polls have undergone a monumental shift, perhaps the Ashcroft Model will show this too.
Liam Gallagher was just on ch4 and he said he was voting Labour as he came from a Labour family. Seems Corbyn is quite popular with the high end of the entertainment industry.
They'll all be trying to hide they money from HMRC after Jezza has won though...
Tories hide their money whoever is power. Tories represent the few not the many.
Odd that they get voted in by the many so often then.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
East Coast mainline ran very well whilst nationalised to be fair though.
It wasn't really nationalised. Just publicly run. Presumably Labour want to take over particular industries to actually change the way they operate, not to do more of the same.
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
Tories have added £700bn to the national debt in 7 years. Something about glass houses comes to mind.
hmmm if a tory was honest they wouldn't be a tory.
lol, oh dear.
It's true - I've lied five times since I decided the other day to vote Tory for the first time.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
East Coast mainline ran very well whilst nationalised to be fair though.
Yes, but the issue is that NXEC bit off more than they could chew. It's outrageous that they were able to walk away without financial penalty. Put simply, they offered to make the government more money than they could deliver.
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
Tories have added £700bn to the national debt in 7 years. Something about glass houses comes to mind.
hmmm if a tory was honest they wouldn't be a tory.
lol, oh dear.
It's true - I've lied five times since I decided the other day to vote Tory for the first time.
Evening all, what do people expect from the revised Ashcroft model tomorrow? I assume it is a similar to the YouGov model in using a variety of demographic and voting history indicators. If it is pointing to a hung parliament too and this is indeed what happens perhaps this is the way forward for election polling if the traditional VI polls continue to point to a Conservative majority?
For it to go from the current prediction to a hung parliament would be a monumental shift.
But the traditional VI polls have undergone a monumental shift, perhaps the Ashcroft Model will show this too.
Not in the last week they haven't.
No, but something is up and I am trying to work out whether YouGov or the VI pollls are accurate.
LDs are so buggered - like 2015, they have to severely outperform their vote share in order to retain seats. They didn't manage that in 2015, and if they don't think time, the party dies.
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
And the £10bn middle class student loan bung.
I'm now convinced that has probably saved Labour 40 seats.
Another George Osborne disaster coming home to roost.
Some of us did warn that it would damage the Cons and Libs among students in election after election.
At the next election Labour will promise to write off all student fees debts.
Which would be ironic given it was Labour introduced tuition fees, extended them (breaking a manifesto commitment along the way, I might add) and set up the Browne review in the first place which has led to the current system.
And the Conservatives opposed the introduction of tuition fees which IIRC needed SLAB votes to get it through the HoC.
Why the hell did Cameron and Osborne decide to permanently crap on the under 25s instead of reducing higher education back to its 1990 level and concentrating on improving technical education and training ?
Fear, they would be curbing the aspiration of the under 25s who are not gifted academically but wanted to go to University. Even if they have to get into debt to do it! I think too many go to university and it would be money better spent on vocational training that equipped a workforce rather than keep the higher education industry. But it is a producer interest group that can lobby hard, so a fudge was obviously put through. Being truthful does not make you popular with the electorate, you cannot implement anything in opposition.
They've certainly curbed the aspirations of those who had their expectations raised, received near worthless degrees, are three years later in entering the workforce and have £30k plus debt.
Still its kept lots of people employed at Scumbag University - I wonder how many of them vote Conservative.
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
And the £10bn middle class student loan bung.
I'm now convinced that has probably saved Labour 40 seats.
Another George Osborne disaster coming home to roost.
Some of us did warn that it would damage the Cons and Libs among students in election after election.
At the next election Labour will promise to write off all student fees debts.
Which would be ironic given it was Labour introduced tuition fees, extended them (breaking a manifesto commitment along the way, I might add) and set up the Browne review in the first place which has led to the current system.
And the Conservatives opposed the introduction of tuition fees which IIRC needed SLAB votes to get it through the HoC.
Why the hell did Cameron and Osborne decide to permanently crap on the under 25s instead of reducing higher education back to its 1990 level and concentrating on improving technical education and training ?
Fear, they would be curbing the aspiration of the under 25s who are not gifted academically but wanted to go to University. Even if they have to get into debt to do it! I think too many go to university and it would be money better spent on vocational training that equipped a workforce rather than keep the higher education industry. But it is a producer interest group that can lobby hard, so a fudge was obviously put through. Being truthful does not make you popular with the electorate, you cannot implement anything in opposition.
They've certainly curbed the aspirations of those who had their expectations raised, received near worthless degrees, are three years later in entering the workforce and have £30k plus debt.
Still its kept lots of people employed at Scumbag University - I wonder how many of them vote Conservative.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
East Coast mainline ran very well whilst nationalised to be fair though.
With the Tories franchising most rail contracts out to a foreign government it's then hard to argue with a serious face that government can't run things.
Its not the foreign governments who will be paying out when the strikes begin.
I didn't watch the BBC debates this week but I noticed claims that the audience were rigged. But it could have been that the Jezzarites are noisier.
However I remember the referendum Question Time from Boston. I was born and brought up there and return on a regular basis to visit family (and usually tour the pubs).
I was astonished by the programme. It seemed that most of the audience were Remainers as were most of the speakers. I had a completely different impression when returning. I posted on here that I must be moving in an echo chamber, divorced from reality.
On June 24th, it was obvious that my Boston was the real Boston. In the BBC's defence, it's possible that they associate naturally with the poshos, so it might have been a genuine mistake.
It's also possible they balanced the debate audience this week, but didn't make allowance for shouty lefties.
I'm serious here, I'd suggest they were gullible rather than biased.
LDs are so buggered - like 2015, they have to severely outperform their vote share in order to retain seats. They didn't manage that in 2015, and if they don't think time, the party dies.
The Left needs to realign, and the death of the LDs is part of that.
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
But they are. The Labour manifesto says " We will scrap the punitive sanctions regime". You can't get much clearer than that.
If you imagined that a Corbynite manifesto wouldn't include this commitment you don't have a clue about the British left. It's not like they (we? I think of myself as a centrist) haven't been banging on about it for the last several years.
But they are. The Labour manifesto says " We will scrap the punitive sanctions regime". You can't get much clearer than that.
If you imagined that a Corbynite manifesto wouldn't include this commitment you don't have a clue about the British left. It's not like they (we? I think of myself as a centrist) haven't been banging on about it for the last several years.
That's not reversing the cuts to benefit though, that's just scraping the sanction scheme.
I think Farron is hopeless, out of his depth and will likely do worse than Clegg. I have noticed Clegg has been doing more of the interviews recently and he is in a different league to Farron. I know this is fatal for a politician but I actually feel sorry for him as he seems a reasonable person but he just does not cut the mustard.
If you're not even in the league that Clegg's in that says it all.
Tim wont lose as many MPs as Clegg thats an arithmetical certainty
Clegg had been the leader of the coalition partner in government.
Farron has been an opposition leader for two years. He really should be making some gains - at the very least keeping seats.
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
And the £10bn middle class student loan bung.
I'm now convinced that has probably saved Labour 40 seats.
Another George Osborne disaster coming home to roost.
Some of us did warn that it would damage the Cons and Libs among students in election after election.
At the next election Labour will promise to write off all student fees debts.
Which would be ironic given it was Labour introduced tuition fees, extended them (breaking a manifesto commitment along the way, I might add) and set up the Browne review in the first place which has led to the current system.
And the Conservatives opposed the introduction of tuition fees which IIRC needed SLAB votes to get it through the HoC.
Why the hell did Cameron and Osborne decide to permanently crap on the under 25s instead of reducing higher education back to its 1990 level and concentrating on improving technical education and training ?
Fear, they would be curbing the aspiration of the under 25s who are not gifted academically but wanted to go to University. Even if they have to get into debt to do it! I think too many go to university and it would be money better spent on vocational training that equipped a workforce rather than keep the higher education industry. But it is a producer interest group that can lobby hard, so a fudge was obviously put through. Being truthful does not make you popular with the electorate, you cannot implement anything in opposition.
They've certainly curbed the aspirations of those who had their expectations raised, received near worthless degrees, are three years later in entering the workforce and have £30k plus debt.
Still its kept lots of people employed at Scumbag University - I wonder how many of them vote Conservative.
I didn't watch the BBC debates this week but I noticed claims that the audience were rigged. But it could have been that the Jezzarites are noisier. .
I'm sure that is true - not a single applause line for Rudd though, who particularly at the start was pretty strong, it was bizarre. Nuttal did manage a couple in fairness.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
East Coast mainline ran very well whilst nationalised to be fair though.
With the Tories franchising most rail contracts out to a foreign government it's then hard to argue with a serious face that government can't run things.
Its not the foreign governments who will be paying out when the strikes begin.
Well I don't have much confidence for old Corbyn to do a Ronald Reagen Air Traffic control job on them should they misbehave, it is true.
Pretty sure McLoughlin was a scab during the miners' strike. Not sure that will necessarily make him popular.
A fireman friend told me of the Merseyside fire station where someone put up a Christmas message on an adjoining house that flashed the initial letters of Santa Claus Arrives By Sleigh every few seconds. Caused consternation as the S word is utterly verboten.
Wonder if all Labour canvassers are going round like that, will get people crossing the Tory x for sure.
I once went on a stag-do in Bristol West, along the "Greenest" road in the City.
Boy oh boy that was an uncomfortable experience for a sound Tory like me. Although, my flirting (experimental) with a couple of dreadlocked hippie 20-something girls hawking new-age shite outside their home, with reggae and spliffs, went down rather well.
Why do left-wing girls like Tory men so much?
This thing about left wing girls liking Tory men is something I've only ever heard of on PB. I think, as in the States most people in this country have relationships with those who share their politics.
lol
Your situation certainly isn't representative. A vast majority of 40+ men are not millionaires which realistically is the main reason as to why girls of my age group would be into old men.
The LDs may be mortally wounded in parliament but they're unlikely to "die". As the continuation of the historic Liberal party, they still have too much of a ground presence and too many fee-paying members for that to happen.
I wouldn't bet against them being subsumed into a new centre/centre-left party in due course. I also wouldn't bet against a strange rebirth if/when Brexit goes tits up.
Wonder if all Labour canvassers are going round like that, will get people crossing the Tory x for sure.
I once went on a stag-do in Bristol West, along the "Greenest" road in the City.
Boy oh boy that was an uncomfortable experience for a sound Tory like me. Although, my flirting (experimental) with a couple of dreadlocked hippie 20-something girls hawking new-age shite outside their home, with reggae and spliffs, went down rather well.
Why do left-wing girls like Tory men so much?
This thing about left wing girls liking Tory men is something I've only ever heard of on PB. I think, as in the States most people in this country have relationships with those who share their politics.
This is viewed as a dead cert Tory gain and it should be in the Brexit election. But don't laugh, have just been watching a candidates debate on local tv channel Made in Birmingham. Tory candidate not that great, doing his best to play up his brexit credentials (to the scoffing of the UKIP lady) - the area was heavily for Leave. Anyway David Winnick making a decent fist of it and reassuring that he was always strongly for seeing through the referendum decision even though it won on a small majority. Labour 4.2 on Bf to hold this seat on thin money.
Hmm. Even the YouGov hung parliament forecast has the Tories (narrowly) gaining this one.
Please tell me in that YG hung poll WoodCOCK loses his seat hasnt he said he will never countenance Jezza as PM?
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
But they are. The Labour manifesto says " We will scrap the punitive sanctions regime". You can't get much clearer than that.
If you imagined that a Corbynite manifesto wouldn't include this commitment you don't have a clue about the British left. It's not like they (we? I think of myself as a centrist) haven't been banging on about it for the last several years.
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
It's clearly a risk, but it doesn't obviously seem to be a larger risk than May's willingness to leave the EU without any form of trade agreement and to prioritise closed borders over tariff-free movement of goods and economically beneficial immigration. Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when this failure to live in globalised economic reality leads to a shrinking economy, huge falls in tax revenue (and so on)
So, if you're Labour what do you do? Some people are about to think for the first time 'maybe'. How do they handle that? In the past, Labour has not handled that moment well. How would you play it?
1. Hope. You want better for you and yours than you have now? As the 6th richest economy we don't have to cut everything and everything. We can't afford NOT to invest in our children 2. Decency. This is Britain. My grandfather didn't fight to secure our freedom in order to have veteran soldiers starved to death, the disabled left to lie in their own filth and children going to school hungry because their working parents can't afford food. We are better than this. What the Tories are doing to people is wrong at a very basic moral level, your neighbour is your friend not your enemy if we all pull together
Having spoken to so may people in this campaign my gut feel as to the mad swing is this. The Tory manifesto broke the TINA narrative. People have said "that isn't right" and are willing to vote accordingly. Because whatever your views on the economy these are human beings and our friends family and neighbours being treated by the Tories like scum. And the Tories excuses for working people reliant on foodbanks just doesn't wash any more.
People voted Brexit because they want a better future. Only one party offering details about what that means to them.
But Corbyn's still a c*nt.
Corbyn will wreck our economy, lose people their homes and jobs, and very probably get people killed.
In your unbiased opinion!
Nope. I'm being completely objective.
It's just you deluded Labourites are too blind to see it.
This is viewed as a dead cert Tory gain and it should be in the Brexit election. But don't laugh, have just been watching a candidates debate on local tv channel Made in Birmingham. Tory candidate not that great, doing his best to play up his brexit credentials (to the scoffing of the UKIP lady) - the area was heavily for Leave. Anyway David Winnick making a decent fist of it and reassuring that he was always strongly for seeing through the referendum decision even though it won on a small majority. Labour 4.2 on Bf to hold this seat on thin money.
Hmm. Even the YouGov hung parliament forecast has the Tories (narrowly) gaining this one.
Please tell me in that YG hung poll WoodCOCK loses his seat hasnt he said he will never countenance Jezza as PM?
I didn't watch the BBC debates this week but I noticed claims that the audience were rigged. But it could have been that the Jezzarites are noisier. .
I'm sure that is true - not a single applause line for Rudd though, who particularly at the start was pretty strong, it was bizarre. Nuttal did manage a couple in fairness.
Loved her final pitch though "When you're in the ballot box, silently tick the tory box"
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
And the £10bn middle class student loan bung.
I'm now convinced that has probably saved Labour 40 seats.
Another George Osborne disaster coming home to roost.
Some of us did warn that it would damage the Cons and Libs among students in election after election.
At the next election Labour will promise to write off all student fees debts.
Which would be ironic given it was Labour introduced tuition fees, extended them (breaking a manifesto commitment along the way, I might add) and set up the Browne review in the first place which has led to the current system.
And the Conservatives opposed the introduction of tuition fees which IIRC needed SLAB votes to get it through the HoC.
Why the hell did Cameron and Osborne decide to permanently crap on the under 25s instead of reducing higher education back to its 1990 level and concentrating on improving technical education and training ?
Fear, they would be curbing the aspiration of the under 25s who are not gifted academically but wanted to go to University. Even if they have to get into debt to do it! I think too many go to university and it would be money better spent on vocational training that equipped a workforce rather than keep the higher education industry. But it is a producer interest group that can lobby hard, so a fudge was obviously put through. Being truthful does not make you popular with the electorate, you cannot implement anything in opposition.
I really struggle with the idea that our society encourages young people to get into debt. I don't know how university & other FE should be funded, but youngsters taking on huge debts doesn't seem right in principle.
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
Tories have added £700bn to the national debt in 7 years. Something about glass houses comes to mind.
hmmm if a tory was honest they wouldn't be a tory.
lol, oh dear.
It's true - I've lied five times since I decided the other day to vote Tory for the first time.
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
Tories have added £700bn to the national debt in 7 years. Something about glass houses comes to mind.
hmmm if a tory was honest they wouldn't be a tory.
lol, oh dear.
It's true - I've lied five times since I decided the other day to vote Tory for the first time.
Wonder if all Labour canvassers are going round like that, will get people crossing the Tory x for sure.
I once went on a stag-do in Bristol West, along the "Greenest" road in the City.
Boy oh boy that was an uncomfortable experience for a sound Tory like me. Although, my flirting (experimental) with a couple of dreadlocked hippie 20-something girls hawking new-age shite outside their home, with reggae and spliffs, went down rather well.
Why do left-wing girls like Tory men so much?
This thing about left wing girls liking Tory men is something I've only ever heard of on PB. I think, as in the States most people in this country have relationships with those who share their politics.
True. But a short, intense fling?
Happens a lot.
Can't say I know of that happening among girls I know (95% of them are left wing). Then again most people don't ask about each other's politics when it comes to flings so!
Wonder if all Labour canvassers are going round like that, will get people crossing the Tory x for sure.
I once went on a stag-do in Bristol West, along the "Greenest" road in the City.
Boy oh boy that was an uncomfortable experience for a sound Tory like me. Although, my flirting (experimental) with a couple of dreadlocked hippie 20-something girls hawking new-age shite outside their home, with reggae and spliffs, went down rather well.
Why do left-wing girls like Tory men so much?
This thing about left wing girls liking Tory men is something I've only ever heard of on PB. I think, as in the States most people in this country have relationships with those who share their politics.
lol
Your situation certainly isn't representative. A vast majority of 40+ men are not millionaires which realistically is the main reason as to why girls of my age group would be into old men.
The LDs may be mortally wounded in parliament but they're unlikely to "die". As the continuation of the historic Liberal party, they still have too much of a ground presence and too many fee-paying members for that to happen.
I wouldn't bet against them being subsumed into a new centre/centre-left party in due course. I also wouldn't bet against a strange rebirth if/when Brexit goes tits up.
Well, we thought they might get a modest one now and look at the result, fighting to retain as many as they currently hold!
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
And the £10bn middle class student loan bung.
I'm now convinced that has probably saved Labour 40 seats.
Another George Osborne disaster coming home to roost.
Some of us did warn that it would damage the Cons and Libs among students in election after election.
At the next election Labour will promise to write off all student fees debts.
Which would be ironic given it was Labour introduced tuition fees, extended them (breaking a manifesto commitment along the way, I might add) and set up the Browne review in the first place which has led to the current system.
And the Conservatives opposed the introduction of tuition fees which IIRC needed SLAB votes to get it through the HoC.
Why the hell did Cameron and Osborne decide to permanently crap on the under 25s instead of reducing higher education back to its 1990 level and concentrating on improving technical education and training ?
Fear, they would be curbing the aspiration of the under 25s who are not gifted academically but wanted to go to University. Even if they have to get into debt to do it! I think too many go to university and it would be money better spent on vocational training that equipped a workforce rather than keep the higher education industry. But it is a producer interest group that can lobby hard, so a fudge was obviously put through. Being truthful does not make you popular with the electorate, you cannot implement anything in opposition.
I really struggle with the idea that our society encourages young people to get into debt. I don't know how university & other FE should be funded, but youngsters taking on huge debts doesn't seem right in principle.
Unless something has changed, I don't think it counts when you are looking to get a mortgage or a loan (at least the debt doesn't, of course the outgoing every month counts). It's basically a graduate tax.
Just got back from an evening of canvassing in Enfield North. On the whole Labour and Tory 2015 voters staying loyal but did get 1 Labour to Tory voter and 1 moving to Labour over social care. Also still a few undecideds and some who won't vote and also got 1 man who does not normally vote but voted Leave over immigration so if he votes Tory this time that could also be significant. Anyway while inner London has clearly moved to Corbyn, suburban London marginals are still too close to call in my view
I don't know his reasoning but here is mine - I actually go further than Clegg, I don't think she will ever be a Westminster MP.
Ruth's Davidson's main, and sole generator of her electoral success, selling point is her "No2IndyRef2" stance. Standing up to the NastyNats. No running away from the Nationalists.
Her entire political persona is totally enmeshed with the SNP. If the SNP are not totally defeated then stepping away from Holyrood means running away from the Nats, an exact 100% abandonment of her selling point. Davidson's electoral success is codependent on SNP strength. Davidson lead the Conservatives to their worst ever council election result in 2012 and their worst ever Westminster vote share in 2015 (just a few hundred votes from losing Mundell and the worst worstest ever result), 4 years of less than mediocrity. The SCon surge has happened after the SNP became all encompassing and a needed a natural counterweight.
In the near term it is impossible for her to take up a Westminster seat. Firstly for the reason outlined above, abandoning Holyrood would seem and abandonment of her principles - so obviously if she was to go for it the seat would have to be in Scotland, going outside of Scotland would be not an option. Secondly if she takes a safe seat then that kills her fighter image, if she goes for a competitive seat then she risks an anti-Tory tactical voting backlash which would destroy the Ruth Davidson project as she is a winner.
At some point the SNP will decline, she has a tiny window of opportunity to switch from Holyrood to Westminster before either a Labour resurgence or SNP fightback occur. MY strongest belief is that the one event that could propell her to Westminster and then number Ten is the one vent she has vowed and staked everything on not occurring - a decisive No vote in IndyRef2. But IndyRef2 even occurring is a blow for Davidson.
Which is all irrelevant as I don't think she has her eyes on Westminster at all - I think she would be more than satisfied with First Minister and I suspect she is a little miffed with John Lamont resigning his Hoyrood seat with indecent haste making Holyrood look small and provincial.
Wonder if all Labour canvassers are going round like that, will get people crossing the Tory x for sure.
I once went on a stag-do in Bristol West, along the "Greenest" road in the City.
Boy oh boy that was an uncomfortable experience for a sound Tory like me. Although, my flirting (experimental) with a couple of dreadlocked hippie 20-something girls hawking new-age shite outside their home, with reggae and spliffs, went down rather well.
Why do left-wing girls like Tory men so much?
This thing about left wing girls liking Tory men is something I've only ever heard of on PB. I think, as in the States most people in this country have relationships with those who share their politics.
True. But a short, intense fling?
Happens a lot.
Can't say I know of that happening among girls I know (95% of them are left wing). Then again most people don't ask about each other's politics when it comes to flings so!
Wonder if all Labour canvassers are going round like that, will get people crossing the Tory x for sure.
I once went on a stag-do in Bristol West, along the "Greenest" road in the City.
Boy oh boy that was an uncomfortable experience for a sound Tory like me. Although, my flirting (experimental) with a couple of dreadlocked hippie 20-something girls hawking new-age shite outside their home, with reggae and spliffs, went down rather well.
Why do left-wing girls like Tory men so much?
This thing about left wing girls liking Tory men is something I've only ever heard of on PB. I think, as in the States most people in this country have relationships with those who share their politics.
True. But a short, intense fling?
Happens a lot.
Can't say I know of that happening among girls I know (95% of them are left wing). Then again most people don't ask about each other's politics when it comes to flings so!
I didn't watch the BBC debates this week but I noticed claims that the audience were rigged. But it could have been that the Jezzarites are noisier. .
I'm sure that is true - not a single applause line for Rudd though, who particularly at the start was pretty strong, it was bizarre. Nuttal did manage a couple in fairness.
Loved her final pitch though "When you're in the ballot box, silently tick the tory box"
I felt like she wanted to whisper at the camera 'Don't worry, it'll be a shameful little secret'.
@SeanT Few anecdotes isn't necessarily representative of a country of nearly seventy million people. I'm not taking lessons on being naive from a 40+ man whose mood swings here there and bloody everywhere in a single day.
I didn't watch the BBC debates this week but I noticed claims that the audience were rigged. But it could have been that the Jezzarites are noisier. .
I'm sure that is true - not a single applause line for Rudd though, who particularly at the start was pretty strong, it was bizarre. Nuttal did manage a couple in fairness.
It was fucking ridiculous and the BBC are rightly ashamed (see their comments today). Five mostly tiny left wing parties with an audience full of shouty student twats. Pfff.
Why TM was right not to go. Rise above the political dwarves, especially the 'orrible SNP.
I don't know his reasoning but here is mine - I actually go further than Clegg, I don't think she will ever be a Westminster MP.
Ruth's Davidson's main, and sole generator of her electoral success, selling point is her "No2IndyRef2" stance. Standing up to the NastyNats. No running away from the Nationalists.
Her entire political persona is totally enmeshed with the SNP. If the SNP are not totally defeated then stepping away from Holyrood means running away from the Nats, an exact 100% abandonment of her selling point. Davidson's electoral success is codependent on SNP strength. Davidson lead the Conservatives to their worst ever council election result in 2012 and their worst ever Westminster vote share in 2015 (just a few hundred votes from losing Mundell and the worst worstest ever result), 4 years of less than mediocrity. The SCon surge has happened after the SNP became all encompassing and a needed a natural counterweight.
In the near term it is impossible for her to take up a Westminster seat. Firstly for the reason outlined above, abandoning Holyrood would seem and abandonment of her principles - so obviously if she was to go for it the seat would have to be in Scotland, going outside of Scotland would be not an option. Secondly if she takes a safe seat then that kills her fighter image, if she goes for a competitive seat then she risks an anti-Tory tactical voting backlash which would destroy the Ruth Davidson project as she is a winner.
At some point the SNP will decline, she has a tiny window of opportunity to switch from Holyrood to Westminster before either a Labour resurgence or SNP fightback occur. MY strongest belief is that the one event that could propell her to Westminster and then number Ten is the one vent she has vowed and staked everything on not occurring - a decisive No vote in IndyRef2. But IndyRef2 even occurring is a blow for Davidson.
Which is all irrelevant as I don't think she has her eyes on Westminster at all - I think she would be more than satisfied with First Minister and I suspect she is a little miffed with John Lamont resigning his Hoyrood seat with indecent haste making Holyrood look small and provincial.
You make a decent case. I'd like to see what she could do at UK level, but she certainly couldn't jump now, and even if we last five years she might not, as the SNP threat will still be around (although if Tories win then, it will proabably be their last for a while, so her last chance to get into UK power) and much work still to be done.
Wonder if all Labour canvassers are going round like that, will get people crossing the Tory x for sure.
I once went on a stag-do in Bristol West, along the "Greenest" road in the City.
Boy oh boy that was an uncomfortable experience for a sound Tory like me. Although, my flirting (experimental) with a couple of dreadlocked hippie 20-something girls hawking new-age shite outside their home, with reggae and spliffs, went down rather well.
Why do left-wing girls like Tory men so much?
This thing about left wing girls liking Tory men is something I've only ever heard of on PB. I think, as in the States most people in this country have relationships with those who share their politics.
True. But a short, intense fling?
Happens a lot.
Can't say I know of that happening among girls I know (95% of them are left wing). Then again most people don't ask about each other's politics when it comes to flings so!
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
Tories have added £700bn to the national debt in 7 years. Something about glass houses comes to mind.
Seriously, why the hell do you think that's a logical argument? And not just you, countless other Labourites?
Constantly? Like.. since 2010?
Do you not understand it's completely contradictory?
Your argument seems to be... we've had cuts, people are suffering, but the national debt has gone up anyway, so screw it, tax, borrow and spend our way out of it.
It's precisely because it's so hard to eliminate a £160bn deficit that we're only 2/3rds of the way there. It has been done gradually, and at times controversially, but there has been no mass unemployment here, no collapse in house prices, no sharp cuts in public sector pay (as in Ireland and Greece) and we've continued to invest in infrastructure, and still have decent, if stretched, public services. The deficit will all be gone by 2025, and then we can start paying down the debt (remember that: we're still paying more than the defence budget *every year* on interest alone. And it's precisely because our deficit reduction plan is credible, and has made constant progress, that the interest rates on that debt has been kept so low) and deciding what to do with any additional tax revenues. Then, and only then, can we debate whether the extra cash can go into public services or further tax cuts, and even then there'll be choices.
You don't just give up because it's hard. Well, perhaps that's what The Labour Party do, since at least 2009, because they don't live in the real world.
Anyone would think you just want any and every possible angle to attack the Tories, and don't particularly care whether it stacks up or not.
I think Farron is hopeless, out of his depth and will likely do worse than Clegg. I have noticed Clegg has been doing more of the interviews recently and he is in a different league to Farron. I know this is fatal for a politician but I actually feel sorry for him as he seems a reasonable person but he just does not cut the mustard.
Remarkably, Clegg > Farron, Miliband > Corbyn, Salmond > Sturgeon, Cameron > May, and Farage > Nuttall.
Has this ever been the case before at an election? Where all the major parties have a leader worse than the one previous? (Apart from, maybe, the Greens...)
People had better pray there is a landslide for the simple reason that Westminster needs some fresh talent.
Landslides don't bring in new talent they bring in people who didn't expect to win, we're poorly selected. One only has to look at he SNP at the last GE or UKIP in the euro elections to see what happens. Their might be some gems but they will be few and far between. Many of the Tory west country winners last time are poor as local MPs but useful cannon fodder to their party
Even the Westcountry Tory MPs who have absolutely plum safe seats are duffers. Why on Earth do Tories give them to the Bufton Tuftons of this world rather than people who could be spending their days running the country rather than needing to offer 24hr gate-fixing counselling to constituents in order to protect their seats? Hugo Swire for example wouldn't be in danger of losing to a leftist independent were he not a walking stereotype and lazy to boot.
@SeanT Few anecdotes isn't necessarily representative of a country of nearly seventy million people. I'm not taking lessons on being naive from a 40+ man whose mood swings here there and bloody everywhere in a single day.
Young people today are so bloody sensible*. They don't drink, or smoke, or do drugs, and they stand up to their elders.
*Apart from soft spots for kindly but hapless politicians left over from the early 1980s that is.
I didn't watch the BBC debates this week but I noticed claims that the audience were rigged. But it could have been that the Jezzarites are noisier. .
I'm sure that is true - not a single applause line for Rudd though, who particularly at the start was pretty strong, it was bizarre. Nuttal did manage a couple in fairness.
It was fucking ridiculous and the BBC are rightly ashamed (see their comments today). Five mostly tiny left wing parties with an audience full of shouty student twats. Pfff.
Why TM was right not to go. Rise above the political dwarves, especially the 'orrible SNP.
The idea that TMay is somehow a political giant, or even above average height, is certainly...interesting.
Think of all the extra lives that will be lost when Corbyn and McDonnell's failure to live in economic reality leads to extra tax revenue being pitiful, but spending ballooning the deficit to over £100bn, leading to a deterioration of our credit rating, increase in our debt interest, and, ultimately, the debtors calling in it and very sharp and nasty cuts being required.
Tories have added £700bn to the national debt in 7 years. Something about glass houses comes to mind.
Seriously, why the hell do you think that's a logical argument? And not just you, countless other Labourites?
Constantly? Like.. since 2010?
Do you not understand it's completely contradictory?
Your argument seems to be... we've had cuts, people are suffering, but the national debt has gone up anyway, so screw it, tax, borrow and spend our way out of it.
It's precisely because it's so hard to eliminate a £160bn deficit that we're only 2/3rds of the way there. It has been done gradually, and at times controversially, but there has been no mass unemployment here, no collapse in house prices, no sharp cuts in public sector pay (as in Ireland and Greece) and we've continued to invest in infrastructure, and still have decent, if stretched, public services. The deficit will all be gone by 2025, and then we can start paying down the debt (remember that: we're still paying more than the defence budget *every year* on interest alone. And it's precisely because our deficit reduction plan is credible, and has made constant progress, that the interest rates on that debt has been kept so low) and deciding what to do with any additional tax revenues. Then, and only then, can we debate whether the extra cash can go into public services or further tax cuts, and even then there'll be choices.
You don't just give up because it's hard. Well, perhaps that's what The Labour Party do, since at least 2009, because they don't live in the real world.
Anyone would think you just want any and every possible angle to attack the Tories, and don't particularly care whether it stacks up or not.
I think Farron is hopeless, out of his depth and will likely do worse than Clegg. I have noticed Clegg has been doing more of the interviews recently and he is in a different league to Farron. I know this is fatal for a politician but I actually feel sorry for him as he seems a reasonable person but he just does not cut the mustard.
Remarkably, Clegg > Farron, Miliband > Corbyn, Salmond > Sturgeon, Cameron > May, and Farage > Nuttall.
Has this ever been the case before at an election? Where all the major parties have a leader worse than the one previous? (Apart from, maybe, the Greens...)
People had better pray there is a landslide for the simple reason that Westminster needs some fresh talent.
Landslides don't bring in new talent they bring in people who didn't expect to win, we're poorly selected. One only has to look at he SNP at the last GE or UKIP in the euro elections to see what happens. Their might be some gems but they will be few and far between. Many of the Tory west country winners last time are poor as local MPs but useful cannon fodder to their party
Even the Westcountry Tory MPs who have absolutely plum safe seats are duffers. Why on Earth do Tories give them to the Bufton Tuftons of this world rather than people who could be spending their days running the country rather than needing to offer 24hr gate-fixing counselling to constituents in order to protect their seats? Hugo Swire for example wouldn't be in danger of losing to a leftist independent were he not a walking stereotype and lazy to boot.
I see there are three separate independents standing against Hugo Swire. Has to be close to a record outside of seats held by senior cabinet figures.
I didn't watch the BBC debates this week but I noticed claims that the audience were rigged. But it could have been that the Jezzarites are noisier. .
I'm sure that is true - not a single applause line for Rudd though, who particularly at the start was pretty strong, it was bizarre. Nuttal did manage a couple in fairness.
It was fucking ridiculous and the BBC are rightly ashamed (see their comments today). Five mostly tiny left wing parties with an audience full of shouty student twats. Pfff.
Why TM was right not to go. Rise above the political dwarves, especially the 'orrible SNP.
The idea that TMay is somehow a political giant, or even above average height, is certainly...interesting.
Let's just say it is about 3 weeks behind the times.
I didn't watch the BBC debates this week but I noticed claims that the audience were rigged. But it could have been that the Jezzarites are noisier. .
I'm sure that is true - not a single applause line for Rudd though, who particularly at the start was pretty strong, it was bizarre. Nuttal did manage a couple in fairness.
Loved her final pitch though "When you're in the ballot box, silently tick the tory box"
I felt like she wanted to whisper at the camera 'Don't worry, it'll be a shameful little secret'.
The first time is always difficult, but after that it's much easier...
I didn't watch the BBC debates this week but I noticed claims that the audience were rigged. But it could have been that the Jezzarites are noisier. .
I'm sure that is true - not a single applause line for Rudd though, who particularly at the start was pretty strong, it was bizarre. Nuttal did manage a couple in fairness.
Loved her final pitch though "When you're in the ballot box, silently tick the tory box"
And many will.
I got called a "pocket Farage" by a Corbynite dickhead at work in the office today, and several other colleagues could overhear it, because I happened to mention I voted Leave once (last year) to someone else he worked with, and he likes to have a little dig now and again.
I did nothing to encourage it, I was just talking to a colleague and he walked past and 'banted' me.
My colleague looked at his feet and shuffled them awkwardly. I smiled and ignored it, but it's that sort of behaviour that explains why there are so many silent Tories.
I think Farron is hopeless, out of his depth and will likely do worse than Clegg. I have noticed Clegg has been doing more of the interviews recently and he is in a different league to Farron. I know this is fatal for a politician but I actually feel sorry for him as he seems a reasonable person but he just does not cut the mustard.
Remarkably, Clegg > Farron, Miliband > Corbyn, Salmond > Sturgeon, Cameron > May, and Farage > Nuttall.
Has this ever been the case before at an election? Where all the major parties have a leader worse than the one previous? (Apart from, maybe, the Greens...)
People had better pray there is a landslide for the simple reason that Westminster needs some fresh talent.
Landslides don't bring in new talent they bring in people who didn't expect to win, we're poorly selected. One only has to look at he SNP at the last GE or UKIP in the euro elections to see what happens. Their might be some gems but they will be few and far between. Many of the Tory west country winners last time are poor as local MPs but useful cannon fodder to their party
Even the Westcountry Tory MPs who have absolutely plum safe seats are duffers. Why on Earth do Tories give them to the Bufton Tuftons of this world rather than people who could be spending their days running the country rather than needing to offer 24hr gate-fixing counselling to constituents in order to protect their seats? Hugo Swire for example wouldn't be in danger of losing to a leftist independent were he not a walking stereotype and lazy to boot.
I see there are three separate independents standing against Hugo Swire. Has to be close to a record outside of seats held by senior cabinet figures.
I actually think that the explanation to the way the polls are going is quite obvious, the panels are self selecting and unlikely to attract a voter who is genuinely undecided. The anectdotal evidence of the lack of posters and leaflets in marginal constituenc being far less than before implies that he campaign is "under the radar" . The big question is will the 18-35 age group turn out? Having watched the effectiveness of Tory targeting in lib dem seats in 2015 being so successful I seriously doubt if a lot of the polls reflect the true position. Whilst there are not many hats left to eat I think there may be excessive sheet changing in some quarters. Now this is from someone who's hope and expectations on ED is Lib Dems in double figures and not caring what else happens is neither ramping or hot air
If Conservative targeting was effective in 2015, does it necessarily follow that it's as effective this time?
Incidentally, if anyone is interested in these things, I received a bundle of GE leaflets today, delivered by the postman. (LD, Lab, Con, Green). Prior to that I'd only had leaflets delivered prior to the locals - 2 Con GE leaflets. (Newton Abbot constituency.)
Good evening, everyone.
Lucky you - someone in the next constituency from me got one from the Wessex Regionalists of all people.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
East Coast mainline ran very well whilst nationalised to be fair though.
No where near as well as it did when it was Stagecoach. The service improved vastly when it was first privatised, dropped back a fair bit when it went back into temporary public ownership and has now plummeted under Virgin. There really is a private company that doesn't have the first idea about customer service.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
You appear to be confused with the privatised Southern.
Neat bit of Labour campaigning outside Basingstoke railway station earlier: they were handing out leaflets - red on one side, blue on the other - made to look like big train tickets. On the red side was the Labour pledge to nationalize the railways; on the blue side the fare hikes under the Tories. I was expecting a Footite shambles from Labour throughout, but this was punchy and professional.
'This is a nationalised British Rail announcement - the next strike arriving will be on platform four, followed by all other platforms and continuing until a 25% pay rise arrives.'
You appear to be confused with the privatised Southern.
Yeah, no doubt a Corbyn government would cave immediately to union demands.
I think Farron is hopeless, out of his depth and will likely do worse than Clegg. I have noticed Clegg has been doing more of the interviews recently and he is in a different league to Farron. I know this is fatal for a politician but I actually feel sorry for him as he seems a reasonable person but he just does not cut the mustard.
Remarkably, Clegg > Farron, Miliband > Corbyn, Salmond > Sturgeon, Cameron > May, and Farage > Nuttall.
Has this ever been the case before at an election? Where all the major parties have a leader worse than the one previous? (Apart from, maybe, the Greens...)
People had better pray there is a landslide for the simple reason that Westminster needs some fresh talent.
Landslides don't bring in new talent they bring in people who didn't expect to win, we're poorly selected. One only has to look at he SNP at the last GE or UKIP in the euro elections to see what happens. Their might be some gems but they will be few and far between. Many of the Tory west country winners last time are poor as local MPs but useful cannon fodder to their party
Even the Westcountry Tory MPs who have absolutely plum safe seats are duffers. Why on Earth do Tories give them to the Bufton Tuftons of this world rather than people who could be spending their days running the country rather than needing to offer 24hr gate-fixing counselling to constituents in order to protect their seats? Hugo Swire for example wouldn't be in danger of losing to a leftist independent were he not a walking stereotype and lazy to boot.
I see there are three separate independents standing against Hugo Swire. Has to be close to a record outside of seats held by senior cabinet figures.
Splitters!
I think it is very very likely they are just that, put up by the Tories to siphon a few votes of the serious indy at the bottom of the ballot paper. Remember the Literal Democrat who won 10k votes and cost a Devon Liberal Democrat a euro seat nearly 20 years ago, leading to a change in the law..
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
But they are. The Labour manifesto says " We will scrap the punitive sanctions regime". You can't get much clearer than that.
If you imagined that a Corbynite manifesto wouldn't include this commitment you don't have a clue about the British left. It's not like they (we? I think of myself as a centrist) haven't been banging on about it for the last several years.
Open it and search for "sanctions". Read the story about David Clapson.
He died because of sanctions.
Labour are explicitly promising to get rid of sanctions no matter any article in the Guardian says.
Also the headline of that article is slightly misleading. The headline says "Labour manifesto ‘would keep £7bn of planned Tory welfare cuts’" but then goes on to say "the party’s manifesto only pledges to reverse £2bn of the £9bn cuts" so they are proposing to reduce the cuts - and that £2bn presumably includes getting rid of sanctions. And frankly I don't care if that costing is wrong. In the context of the total government budget getting rid of sanctions isn't that big an issue. Yes, sanctions stop some chancers taking the piss - but the cost to people who can't cope with modern society for whatever reason is too high.
Comments
Commissioned by Kent Messenger Group and conducted by Facts International a market research company based in Ashford.
Telephone poll of 1000 residents covering all Kent constituencies. Results from 797 likely voters expressing an opinion. Likely voters = 4/5 on scale 1-5 (not at all likely, 5 extremely likely)
Be aware this poll was conducted between May 15 to May 22.
Change from 2015 (similar survey).
Con 59 +20
Lab 30 +8
LD 7 +1
Grn 3 - 5
UKIP 2 - 22
Best PM
May 69 (Cameron 51)
Corbyn 20 (Miliband 18)
Farron 3 (Clegg 5)
Nuttall 1 ( no figure for Farage)
No data given for Greens
Number of 18-24 year-olds unlikely to vote 8% compared to 31% in 2015
Political editor predicts that all 17 Kent seats likely to stay Con.
The poll will be online later in the week at www.kentonline.co.uk/election/
I suspect that if Balls had lost in 2010 rather than 2015 I would have been £2k up.
@noreenahertz: No deal is better than a bad deal. Trump's mantra too clearly.
Oh...
NED looks positive, demographics around Bolsover are at last changing a little, more new business and housing close to the motorway, Skinner should hold but again it could be tight. Conservatives will go well in the East Midlands outside the shitholes Nottingham and Leicester.
And I'm already getting hungry for babies.
Ed MilibandVerified account @Ed_Miliband 46m46 minutes ago
More
Ed Miliband Retweeted Christopher Hope
Still its kept lots of people employed at Scumbag University - I wonder how many of them vote Conservative.
However I remember the referendum Question Time from Boston. I was born and brought up there and return on a regular basis to visit family (and usually tour the pubs).
I was astonished by the programme. It seemed that most of the audience were Remainers as were most of the speakers. I had a completely different impression when returning. I posted on here that I must be moving in an echo chamber, divorced from reality.
On June 24th, it was obvious that my Boston was the real Boston. In the BBC's defence, it's possible that they associate naturally with the poshos, so it might have been a genuine mistake.
It's also possible they balanced the debate audience this week, but didn't make allowance for shouty lefties.
I'm serious here, I'd suggest they were gullible rather than biased.
Why then are Labour not proposing to reverse the benefit cuts and instead wasting money on nationalization or on protecting the inheritances of the well off?
But they are. The Labour manifesto says " We will scrap the punitive sanctions regime". You can't get much clearer than that.
If you imagined that a Corbynite manifesto wouldn't include this commitment you don't have a clue about the British left. It's not like they (we? I think of myself as a centrist) haven't been banging on about it for the last several years.
Farron has been an opposition leader for two years. He really should be making some gains - at the very least keeping seats.
Massive LOL.
I wouldn't bet against them being subsumed into a new centre/centre-left party in due course. I also wouldn't bet against a strange rebirth if/when Brexit goes tits up.
Happens a lot.
It's just you deluded Labourites are too blind to see it.
I'll get my coat...
Nominative determinism?
https://twitter.com/davieclegg/status/870362742301110272
I don't know his reasoning but here is mine - I actually go further than Clegg, I don't think she will ever be a Westminster MP.
Ruth's Davidson's main, and sole generator of her electoral success, selling point is her "No2IndyRef2" stance. Standing up to the NastyNats. No running away from the Nationalists.
Her entire political persona is totally enmeshed with the SNP. If the SNP are not totally defeated then stepping away from Holyrood means running away from the Nats, an exact 100% abandonment of her selling point. Davidson's electoral success is codependent on SNP strength. Davidson lead the Conservatives to their worst ever council election result in 2012 and their worst ever Westminster vote share in 2015 (just a few hundred votes from losing Mundell and the worst worstest ever result), 4 years of less than mediocrity. The SCon surge has happened after the SNP became all encompassing and a needed a natural counterweight.
In the near term it is impossible for her to take up a Westminster seat. Firstly for the reason outlined above, abandoning Holyrood would seem and abandonment of her principles - so obviously if she was to go for it the seat would have to be in Scotland, going outside of Scotland would be not an option. Secondly if she takes a safe seat then that kills her fighter image, if she goes for a competitive seat then she risks an anti-Tory tactical voting backlash which would destroy the Ruth Davidson project as she is a winner.
At some point the SNP will decline, she has a tiny window of opportunity to switch from Holyrood to Westminster before either a Labour resurgence or SNP fightback occur. MY strongest belief is that the one event that could propell her to Westminster and then number Ten is the one vent she has vowed and staked everything on not occurring - a decisive No vote in IndyRef2. But IndyRef2 even occurring is a blow for Davidson.
Which is all irrelevant as I don't think she has her eyes on Westminster at all - I think she would be more than satisfied with First Minister and I suspect she is a little miffed with John Lamont resigning his Hoyrood seat with indecent haste making Holyrood look small and provincial.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/woman-realises-shes-slept-with-at-least-four-tories-20170525128318
blimey
Constantly? Like.. since 2010?
Do you not understand it's completely contradictory?
Your argument seems to be... we've had cuts, people are suffering, but the national debt has gone up anyway, so screw it, tax, borrow and spend our way out of it.
It's precisely because it's so hard to eliminate a £160bn deficit that we're only 2/3rds of the way there. It has been done gradually, and at times controversially, but there has been no mass unemployment here, no collapse in house prices, no sharp cuts in public sector pay (as in Ireland and Greece) and we've continued to invest in infrastructure, and still have decent, if stretched, public services. The deficit will all be gone by 2025, and then we can start paying down the debt (remember that: we're still paying more than the defence budget *every year* on interest alone. And it's precisely because our deficit reduction plan is credible, and has made constant progress, that the interest rates on that debt has been kept so low) and deciding what to do with any additional tax revenues. Then, and only then, can we debate whether the extra cash can go into public services or further tax cuts, and even then there'll be choices.
You don't just give up because it's hard. Well, perhaps that's what The Labour Party do, since at least 2009, because they don't live in the real world.
Anyone would think you just want any and every possible angle to attack the Tories, and don't particularly care whether it stacks up or not.
Your party is totally unfit for office.
*Apart from soft spots for kindly but hapless politicians left over from the early 1980s that is.
Sunil's railway odysseys
Discussions on the best restaurants in Conakry
The Haddock of Morris Dancer...
Oh and there is an election going on too?
I got called a "pocket Farage" by a Corbynite dickhead at work in the office today, and several other colleagues could overhear it, because I happened to mention I voted Leave once (last year) to someone else he worked with, and he likes to have a little dig now and again.
I did nothing to encourage it, I was just talking to a colleague and he walked past and 'banted' me.
My colleague looked at his feet and shuffled them awkwardly. I smiled and ignored it, but it's that sort of behaviour that explains why there are so many silent Tories.
Ave it says:
- worst campaign ever
- worst manifesto ever
- worst PM ever
But Ave it projects (GB share):
CON 44%
LAB 36%
LD 8%
SNP 4%
GRN 3%
PC 1%
OTH 4%
Seats:
CON 340
LAB 233
LD 6
SNP 50
GRN 0
PC 3
OTH 18
Con maj 40
Minimal CON gains from LAB - Gains in midlands and north offset by LAB gains in London and south
Gains for CON, LAB and LD from SNP
Labour have plenty of money, so can afford neat advertising
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/3692998/tim-farron-has-to-break-up-a-balloon-fight-as-he-prepares-for-tv-election-showdown-with-mock-debate-between-children/amp/
Open it and search for "sanctions". Read the story about David Clapson.
He died because of sanctions.
Labour are explicitly promising to get rid of sanctions no matter any article in the Guardian says.
Also the headline of that article is slightly misleading. The headline says "Labour manifesto ‘would keep £7bn of planned Tory welfare cuts’" but then goes on to say "the party’s manifesto only pledges to reverse £2bn of the £9bn cuts" so they are proposing to reduce the cuts - and that £2bn presumably includes getting rid of sanctions. And frankly I don't care if that costing is wrong. In the context of the total government budget getting rid of sanctions isn't that big an issue. Yes, sanctions stop some chancers taking the piss - but the cost to people who can't cope with modern society for whatever reason is too high.