Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s most successful election winner the latest to question w

SystemSystem Posts: 11,020
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s most successful election winner the latest to question why Corbyn’s party isn’t further ahead

Tony Blair: 'Labour should be 20 points ahead in polls' https://t.co/DS8q4dkCM6

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    "Labour" Leader, I think you have to say these days.

    And then spit.
  • Options
    Presumably Blair has said this now as Gordon said yesterday that effectively he was getting behind Corbyn. Which was a mistake in my book.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    Third!
  • Options
    Tony's rigorous dose of electoral realism somewhat undermined by his assertion in the same interview that we should back Saudi Arabia and Israel as the two 'modernising' forces in the Middle East. Can't have everything, eh?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    edited November 2017
    Does anyone think Blair actually WANTS Corbyn to win an election though?
  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited November 2017
    Boris Johnson

    How much contact had he with Joseph Mifsud, the Russian intelligence cut out who was a player in the Trump-Russia linkage?? Passing? Once? or more?

    Mifsud knew about the Clinton email haul that the Russians had before a lot other people, impressive for an academic.
  • Options
    WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    edited November 2017

    Does anyone think Blair actually WANTS Corbyn to win an election though?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-says-he-wouldn-t-want-a-left-wing-labour-party-to-win-an-election-10406928.html

    He's even wearing a poppy in the article from July 2015.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,965
    15 to 20 points is somewhat ambitious, even with what is happening, given Labour was 2.5 behind at an election a mere 5 months ago. Have polls ever moved that dramatically in such a short period?
  • Options
    It's a shame Blair didn't stick around to get booted out. Dodging out of frame just before the crash rescued (to an extent) a reputation that should rightfully have been destroyed.
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,040
    Who cares what a war criminal thinks?

    Lock him up! Lock him up!
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    15 to 20 points is somewhat ambitious, even with what is happening, given Labour was 2.5 behind at an election a mere 5 months ago. Have polls ever moved that dramatically in such a short period?

    If anybody had said before the election that Corbyn's Labour would be polling in the 40s now, however much of a mess the Tories are in, we'd have all been incredulous. It's still a remarkable turn around.

    And I've yet to see anything to suggest the polling companies are any more accurate now, after getting every important vote wrong for the last three years. Labour could lead by more than the polls are saying for all we know, or they could actually be behind. We're building our understanding of current politics on polls when we have no idea whether they're trustworthy.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,985
    Y0kel said:

    Boris Johnson

    How much contact had he with Joseph Mifsud, the Russian intelligence cut out who was a player in the Trump-Russia linkage?? Passing? Once? or more?

    Mifsud knew about the Clinton email haul that the Russians had before a lot other people, impressive for an academic.

    Y0kel: Donald Trump himself has told us how insulted Putin is at the allegations of Russian meddling in the US election. We should all, therefore, take him at his word.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    dixiedean said:

    15 to 20 points is somewhat ambitious, even with what is happening, given Labour was 2.5 behind at an election a mere 5 months ago. Have polls ever moved that dramatically in such a short period?

    The sub-text is "Of course, I would be fifteen or twenty points ahead....POJWAS....."
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,965

    dixiedean said:

    15 to 20 points is somewhat ambitious, even with what is happening, given Labour was 2.5 behind at an election a mere 5 months ago. Have polls ever moved that dramatically in such a short period?

    If anybody had said before the election that Corbyn's Labour would be polling in the 40s now, however much of a mess the Tories are in, we'd have all been incredulous. It's still a remarkable turn around.

    And I've yet to see anything to suggest the polling companies are any more accurate now, after getting every important vote wrong for the last three years. Labour could lead by more than the polls are saying for all we know, or they could actually be behind. We're building our understanding of current politics on polls when we have no idea whether they're trustworthy.
    Well, quite.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Y0kel said:

    Boris Johnson

    How much contact had he with Joseph Mifsud, the Russian intelligence cut out who was a player in the Trump-Russia linkage?? Passing? Once? or more?

    Mifsud knew about the Clinton email haul that the Russians had before a lot other people, impressive for an academic.

    Y0kel: Donald Trump himself has told us how insulted Putin is at the allegations of Russian meddling in the US election. We should all, therefore, take him at his word.
    Says the poster whose icon is Putin!
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Y0kel said:

    Boris Johnson

    How much contact had he with Joseph Mifsud, the Russian intelligence cut out who was a player in the Trump-Russia linkage?? Passing? Once? or more?

    Mifsud knew about the Clinton email haul that the Russians had before a lot other people, impressive for an academic.

    Y0kel: Donald Trump himself has told us how insulted Putin is at the allegations of Russian meddling in the US election. We should all, therefore, take him at his word.
    The Russians meddled so much in the US election that Hillary won the popular vote?
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Y0kel said:

    Boris Johnson

    How much contact had he with Joseph Mifsud, the Russian intelligence cut out who was a player in the Trump-Russia linkage?? Passing? Once? or more?

    Mifsud knew about the Clinton email haul that the Russians had before a lot other people, impressive for an academic.

    Answers in the Guardian a week ago: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/boris-johnson-brexit-russia-trump&ved=0ahUKEwj7vfOMirfXAhWJHxoKHUI2DrAQjjgIJjAA&usg=AOvVaw2WwJbdiaRH-hbSXJlhMVmp
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,964

    "Labour" Leader, I think you have to say these days.

    And then spit.

    Where's TSE and his trusty bart chart when you need him?
  • Options
    @Winstanley Exactly. Has any major political party gone from being 20+ points behind to 15 to 20 points ahead in under a year? Half the people saying that Corbyn should be xyz ahead are the same people who’d thought he was going to get destroyed in the polls 4/5 months ago. Blair being a prime example of this, of course. I thought Corbyn would do pretty badly on election night during the GE, but he didn’t and you have to think about looking at assessing politics in a different way when you’re proved wrong on such things.
  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Y0kel said:

    Boris Johnson

    How much contact had he with Joseph Mifsud, the Russian intelligence cut out who was a player in the Trump-Russia linkage?? Passing? Once? or more?

    Mifsud knew about the Clinton email haul that the Russians had before a lot other people, impressive for an academic.

    Answers in the Guardian a week ago: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/boris-johnson-brexit-russia-trump&ved=0ahUKEwj7vfOMirfXAhWJHxoKHUI2DrAQjjgIJjAA&usg=AOvVaw2WwJbdiaRH-hbSXJlhMVmp
    The FO denied it. But he met the guy.

    Two questions, did UK IC actually flag this guy. If so, was it ignored?

    One meeting at some event can pass, multiple contacts one to one do not.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    15 to 20 points is somewhat ambitious, even with what is happening, given Labour was 2.5 behind at an election a mere 5 months ago. Have polls ever moved that dramatically in such a short period?

    There were similar surges in Canada (for the Liberals) and New Zealand (for Labour). Sanders had a piece of it as well last year in the US.

    I wish someone would do more research into this. I suspect social media probably has a lot to do with it.
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    @Winstanley Exactly. Has any major political party gone from being 20+ points behind to 15 to 20 points ahead in under a year? Half the people saying that Corbyn should be xyz ahead are the same people who’d thought he was going to get destroyed in the polls 4/5 months ago. Blair being a prime example of this, of course. I thought Corbyn would do pretty badly on election night during the GE, but he didn’t and you have to think about looking at assessing politics in a different way when you’re proved wrong on such things.

    Very true. I was amazed to discover there were still left wingers in the Labour Party. I was amazed Corbyn got nominated. Couldn't believe he would win the leadership. (I think I was arguing on here that it was impossible.) I was sure he couldn't survive. And I was convinced when the snap election was called that it would result in a Conservative landslide so large we'd need scientific notation to talk about the majority.

    But when faced with the facts you have to be pragmatic. I'd prefer a moderate Labour party pursuing mild reforms. But sometimes you have to compromise your principles if you want your party to be in power.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,965

    dixiedean said:

    15 to 20 points is somewhat ambitious, even with what is happening, given Labour was 2.5 behind at an election a mere 5 months ago. Have polls ever moved that dramatically in such a short period?

    There were similar surges in Canada (for the Liberals) and New Zealand (for Labour). Sanders had a piece of it as well last year in the US.

    I wish someone would do more research into this. I suspect social media probably has a lot to do with it.
    Weren't they during campaigns though? Labour had a similar surge here. But a surge outside a campaign when no one is paying that much attention?
    I agree, research would be handy, particularly if such volatility during elections has become more common,
  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    The reason Labour isn't more than 2-3 points ahead (at best) is because the Tory vote appears not to have collapsed as you might have expected under the circumstances combined with the LDs giving up hope for a few years by electing Cable and UKIP ceasing to have any presence.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115

    @Winstanley Exactly. Has any major political party gone from being 20+ points behind to 15 to 20 points ahead in under a year? Half the people saying that Corbyn should be xyz ahead are the same people who’d thought he was going to get destroyed in the polls 4/5 months ago. Blair being a prime example of this, of course. I thought Corbyn would do pretty badly on election night during the GE, but he didn’t and you have to think about looking at assessing politics in a different way when you’re proved wrong on such things.

    Very true. I was amazed to discover there were still left wingers in the Labour Party. I was amazed Corbyn got nominated. Couldn't believe he would win the leadership. (I think I was arguing on here that it was impossible.) I was sure he couldn't survive. And I was convinced when the snap election was called that it would result in a Conservative landslide so large we'd need scientific notation to talk about the majority.

    But when faced with the facts you have to be pragmatic. I'd prefer a moderate Labour party pursuing mild reforms. But sometimes you have to compromise your principles if you want your party to be in power.
    The question is, what will your party actually DO with that power. If it gets that power, but then it goes ahead and encapsulates all your former misgivings about it getting that power, ending up trashing the brand - was it worth compromising your principles?

    Seems to me there are a lot of Labour MPs who have compromised their principles in recent months. It may yet end their careers.....
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,425
    edited November 2017
    Given how inaccurate YouGov's standard VI poll were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    15 to 20 points is somewhat ambitious, even with what is happening, given Labour was 2.5 behind at an election a mere 5 months ago. Have polls ever moved that dramatically in such a short period?

    There were similar surges in Canada (for the Liberals) and New Zealand (for Labour). Sanders had a piece of it as well last year in the US.

    I wish someone would do more research into this. I suspect social media probably has a lot to do with it.
    Weren't they during campaigns though? Labour had a similar surge here. But a surge outside a campaign when no one is paying that much attention?
    I agree, research would be handy, particularly if such volatility during elections has become more common,
    They were. Labour's surge was during the GE2017 campaign.

    It might also have something to do with voters being far less rooted to political ideology, but perhaps more swayed by political fashions.
  • Options

    @Winstanley Exactly. Has any major political party gone from being 20+ points behind to 15 to 20 points ahead in under a year? Half the people saying that Corbyn should be xyz ahead are the same people who’d thought he was going to get destroyed in the polls 4/5 months ago. Blair being a prime example of this, of course. I thought Corbyn would do pretty badly on election night during the GE, but he didn’t and you have to think about looking at assessing politics in a different way when you’re proved wrong on such things.

    Very true. I was amazed to discover there were still left wingers in the Labour Party. I was amazed Corbyn got nominated. Couldn't believe he would win the leadership. (I think I was arguing on here that it was impossible.) I was sure he couldn't survive. And I was convinced when the snap election was called that it would result in a Conservative landslide so large we'd need scientific notation to talk about the majority.

    But when faced with the facts you have to be pragmatic. I'd prefer a moderate Labour party pursuing mild reforms. But sometimes you have to compromise your principles if you want your party to be in power.
    Something in my gut told me the GE2017 wasn't going to turn out well for the Conservatives from the day they revealed their manifesto. And I wasn't even sure before that.

    Yet, I still bet on a clear majority right up until the exit poll came out.
  • Options

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,985

    rcs1000 said:

    Y0kel said:

    Boris Johnson

    How much contact had he with Joseph Mifsud, the Russian intelligence cut out who was a player in the Trump-Russia linkage?? Passing? Once? or more?

    Mifsud knew about the Clinton email haul that the Russians had before a lot other people, impressive for an academic.

    Y0kel: Donald Trump himself has told us how insulted Putin is at the allegations of Russian meddling in the US election. We should all, therefore, take him at his word.
    The Russians meddled so much in the US election that Hillary won the popular vote?
    Of course, meddling and successful meddling are two different things.
  • Options

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    Yup, and look at his ratings compared to Mrs May, he's doing betters than Mrs May.

    There's a bunch of complacent Tories who think the Tories will win the next election by having a new leader and not having the dementia means a Tory victory really boil my piss.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735

    Given how inaccurate YouGov's standard VI poll were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    Why not inaccurate in the other direction? Sure, it seems logical it should be higher, but then again both main parties had very high vote shares in June, and no-one else is really primed to pick up support they are dropping, so anything is possible.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735
    edited November 2017

    @Winstanley Exactly. Has any major political party gone from being 20+ points behind to 15 to 20 points ahead in under a year? Half the people saying that Corbyn should be xyz ahead are the same people who’d thought he was going to get destroyed in the polls 4/5 months ago. Blair being a prime example of this, of course. I thought Corbyn would do pretty badly on election night during the GE, but he didn’t and you have to think about looking at assessing politics in a different way when you’re proved wrong on such things.

    If that were the case all political pundits and politicians would be out of business - they are almost always wrong, but don't let it slow them down in future predictions.

    Additionally, people do reassess, but might then come to a similar conclusion, rightly or wrongly. So for instance I thought Labour would win most seats in 2015, that they would do better than predicted. I was wrong. I took that into consideration and still came to the conclusion they would do better than predicted in 2017, and that time I was right (if wrong about the extent of how well they would do, like most people). A case of a stopped clock being right twice a day, perhaps, but an example that someone can have called things wrong, reassess but end up with a similar conclusion, and be right next time.

    What's the alternative? 'I was wrong last time therefore I should make no predictions'? 'I was wrong last time therefore people who were right last time must be right this time too?' Neither are guaranteed to be right, and so the mere fact the same people who were wrong last time are saying something now is not enough to dismiss the view, so long as we think they have sufficient justification.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Given how inaccurate YouGov's standard VI poll were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    Why not inaccurate in the other direction? Sure, it seems logical it should be higher, but then again both main parties had very high vote shares in June, and no-one else is really primed to pick up support they are dropping, so anything is possible.
    The leadership/approval ratings tend to say otherwise.

    Yesterday's YouGov gave Corbyn a 29% lead over Mrs May on net well/bad ratings.

    Mrs May is on minus 24, Corbyn is on plus 5
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    I thought this was joke when I heard it on the radio:

    https://tinyurl.com/yafvp6jt

    The referee Ben Toner has been taken off Blackpool’s League One match against Portsmouth, days after the majority owner, the Oystons, were found by a high court judge to have operated an “illegitimate stripping” of the Lancashire club.

    Given the findings against the Oystons, Toner’s name had caused some amusement on social media. However the EFL said he had been replaced by a more senior official only because of the “increased scrutiny” on the match at Blackpool.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735

    Does anyone think Blair actually WANTS Corbyn to win an election though?

    As much as George HW Bush wanted Trump to win.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    kle4 said:

    Given how inaccurate YouGov's standard VI poll were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    Why not inaccurate in the other direction? Sure, it seems logical it should be higher, but then again both main parties had very high vote shares in June, and no-one else is really primed to pick up support they are dropping, so anything is possible.
    The leadership/approval ratings tend to say otherwise.

    Yesterday's YouGov gave Corbyn a 29% lead over Mrs May on net well/bad ratings.

    Mrs May is on minus 24, Corbyn is on plus 5
    In addition:

    If Jezza is good at one thing, it is campaigning.

    If there is one thing that May does worse than governing, it is campaigning.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    I find it credible it had an effect, but I would be surprised if it was marked or significant as I don't think voters are that sophisticated (even those of us who pontificate and navel gaze about politics are probably a lot more driven by gut than clear headedness, as any examination of a Brexit discussion will show, given the same tactics on display from all sides), and anyone relying on that for next time would be taking a huge risk. Even if it was a significant impact, as you say he has not fallen back since, and if some have since fallen off the Corbyn train now he looks credible, they look at the least compensated by people who perhaps stayed at home because he looked like a loser, and who are now on board (like his critics who now literally sing his praises).
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735

    kle4 said:

    Given how inaccurate YouGov's standard VI poll were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    Why not inaccurate in the other direction? Sure, it seems logical it should be higher, but then again both main parties had very high vote shares in June, and no-one else is really primed to pick up support they are dropping, so anything is possible.
    The leadership/approval ratings tend to say otherwise.

    Yesterday's YouGov gave Corbyn a 29% lead over Mrs May on net well/bad ratings.

    Mrs May is on minus 24, Corbyn is on plus 5
    In addition:

    If Jezza is good at one thing, it is campaigning.

    If there is one thing that May does worse than governing, it is campaigning.

    That has been proven true, although I would guess there are limits to either - I've always considered Labour to have a high floor and Tories a low ceiling, but even with truly good or bad campaigns, even if great circumstances, if the starting point of a campaign is closer to what we have now than earlier in the year, the scope for movement, and thus impact of the campaign, is less, since at the time the Tories were showing as at their ceiling and Labour at their floor.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,425
    edited November 2017

    kle4 said:

    Given how inaccurate YouGov's standard VI poll were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    Why not inaccurate in the other direction? Sure, it seems logical it should be higher, but then again both main parties had very high vote shares in June, and no-one else is really primed to pick up support they are dropping, so anything is possible.
    The leadership/approval ratings tend to say otherwise.

    Yesterday's YouGov gave Corbyn a 29% lead over Mrs May on net well/bad ratings.

    Mrs May is on minus 24, Corbyn is on plus 5
    In addition:

    If Jezza is good at one thing, it is campaigning.

    If there is one thing that May does worse than governing, it is campaigning.

    Yup, the Tories need a 30% lead before the campaign if they want to remain the largest party at the general election.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836
    IMO, support for Brexit and dislike for Labour is keeping the Conservatives at 40%.
  • Options
    stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I'm afraid that although indeed Labour should be 20 points ahead, Corbyn Labour cant and wont be -because of him and his extremism which holds Labour back.

    At the election, he piled up votes in seats that Labour already held which meant that Labour won on 40% of the vote, about the same number of seats that Labour won under Gordon Brown in 2010 on 29%

    Corbyn cannot win marginals, and he and his cronies more than any other factor are ensuring power well into the future for the Tories.

    That 40% in June was despite Corbyn not because of him and it was an anti Brexit vote.

    No opposition in history has ever won a general election without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. And if Corbyn Labour cannot be 20 points ahead after the last two disastrous weeks for the Tories, it wont be.
  • Options
    stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    kle4 said:

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    I find it credible it had an effect, but I would be surprised if it was marked or significant as I don't think voters are that sophisticated (even those of us who pontificate and navel gaze about politics are probably a lot more driven by gut than clear headedness, as any examination of a Brexit discussion will show, given the same tactics on display from all sides), and anyone relying on that for next time would be taking a huge risk. Even if it was a significant impact, as you say he has not fallen back since, and if some have since fallen off the Corbyn train now he looks credible, they look at the least compensated by people who perhaps stayed at home because he looked like a loser, and who are now on board (like his critics who now literally sing his praises).
    No he doesnt look credible at all
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735
    Sean_F said:

    IMO, support for Brexit and dislike for Labour is keeping the Conservatives at 40%.

    That could well mean a precipitous drop once those who fear we still won't leave (even though Labour are Leavers too now) finally accept it is done, perhaps on the day itself.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735
    edited November 2017
    stevef said:

    kle4 said:

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    I find it credible it had an effect, but I would be surprised if it was marked or significant as I don't think voters are that sophisticated (even those of us who pontificate and navel gaze about politics are probably a lot more driven by gut than clear headedness, as any examination of a Brexit discussion will show, given the same tactics on display from all sides), and anyone relying on that for next time would be taking a huge risk. Even if it was a significant impact, as you say he has not fallen back since, and if some have since fallen off the Corbyn train now he looks credible, they look at the least compensated by people who perhaps stayed at home because he looked like a loser, and who are now on board (like his critics who now literally sing his praises).
    No he doesnt look credible at all
    I was not making a judgement on his PM credentials. A combination of lack of effort from the local LDs for my vote, and Corbyn finally making me understand why people vote against parties more than vote for, had me vote Tory for the first (and last?) time in June.

    But there were people in Labour who disliked Corbyn's policies and style and objected to him on that basis. And then there were those who could support any Labour leader, they just thought he would lead them to electoral disaster and may have not voted, or worked less hard as a result. To the latter group, he now looks very credible, and they will desperately beg forgiveness. (and, as noted, literally sing his praises).
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sean_F said:

    IMO, support for Brexit and dislike for Labour is keeping the Conservatives at 40%.

    If the election is post Brexit, some of that motivation by non-traditional Tory voting Brexiteers may fade. Even if Brexit happens without real shocks.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,985
    Completely off topic observation from California re immigration controls post Brexit.

    The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.

    It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.

    The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.

    A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    stevef said:

    I'm afraid that although indeed Labour should be 20 points ahead, Corbyn Labour cant and wont be -because of him and his extremism which holds Labour back.

    At the election, he piled up votes in seats that Labour already held which meant that Labour won on 40% of the vote, about the same number of seats that Labour won under Gordon Brown in 2010 on 29%

    Corbyn cannot win marginals, and he and his cronies more than any other factor are ensuring power well into the future for the Tories.

    That 40% in June was despite Corbyn not because of him and it was an anti Brexit vote.

    No opposition in history has ever won a general election without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. And if Corbyn Labour cannot be 20 points ahead after the last two disastrous weeks for the Tories, it wont be.

    Corbyn won Canterbury and Westminster. He can win marginals.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    IMO, support for Brexit and dislike for Labour is keeping the Conservatives at 40%.

    That could well mean a precipitous drop once those who fear we still won't leave (even though Labour are Leavers too now) finally accept it is done, perhaps on the day itself.

    Sean_F said:

    IMO, support for Brexit and dislike for Labour is keeping the Conservatives at 40%.

    If the election is post Brexit, some of that motivation by non-traditional Tory voting Brexiteers may fade. Even if Brexit happens without real shocks.

    Quite possibly.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Just two key factors will affect the polls nearer the next election:
    1. Whoever the next leader is.
    2. How Brexit is going.

    A good leader and a modest Brexit would put the Tories back in the game.
  • Options
    stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    kle4 said:

    stevef said:

    kle4 said:

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    I find it credible it had an effect, but I would be surprised if it was marked or significant as I don't think voters are that sophisticated (even those of us who pontificate and navel gaze about politics are probably a lot more driven by gut than clear headedness, as any examination of a Brexit discussion will show, given the same tactics on display from all sides), and anyone relying on that for next time would be taking a huge risk. Even if it was a significant impact, as you say he has not fallen back since, and if some have since fallen off the Corbyn train now he looks credible, they look at the least compensated by people who perhaps stayed at home because he looked like a loser, and who are now on board (like his critics who now literally sing his praises).
    No he doesnt look credible at all
    I was not making a judgement on his PM credentials. A combination of lack of effort from the local LDs for my vote, and Corbyn finally making me understand why people vote against parties more than vote for, had me vote Tory for the first (and last?) time in June.

    But there were people in Labour who disliked Corbyn's policies and style and objected to him on that basis. And then there were those who could support any Labour leader, they just thought he would lead them to electoral disaster and may have not voted, or worked less hard as a result. To the latter group, he now looks very credible, and they will desperately beg forgiveness. (and, as noted, literally sing his praises).
    There are those in Labour who thought that Corbyn as Labour leader would lead to meltdown and some of them now delude themselves into thinking that he might lead them to victory. A lot of those Labour supporters who were against Corbyn before June 8 -including myself -still oppose him. I believe that his 40% was caused by wanting to stop a Tory landslide and hard Brexit, and the youth vote (in reality piling up votes in already Labour seats).

  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,058
    rcs1000 said:

    Completely off topic observation from California re immigration controls post Brexit.

    The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.

    It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.

    The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.

    A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.

    6% of the population of California is made up of undocumented immigrants...

    The only thing preventing Canadians from working cash in hand in low-wage jobs in California is desire, not the immigration system, and unless you are proposing to introduce tourist visas for EU citizens, you will not prevent this kind of activity from springing up.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735
    edited November 2017
    AndyJS said:

    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?

    One of the mysteries of our age, and with devastating consequences for their revival (they are now not even the 'anyone but Tory' vote across swathes of the south). Certainly they were banking on it, Tim Farron's pitch was directly not as a PM, but as a more credible opposition leader than Corbyn.

    Seems like in this day and age, those they lost when they went into coalition are not interested in anything other than backing the least bad of the big two, and for those people that will always be Labour.

    stevef said:

    I'm afraid that although indeed Labour should be 20 points ahead, Corbyn Labour cant and wont be -because of him and his extremism which holds Labour back.

    At the election, he piled up votes in seats that Labour already held which meant that Labour won on 40% of the vote, about the same number of seats that Labour won under Gordon Brown in 2010 on 29%

    Corbyn cannot win marginals, and he and his cronies more than any other factor are ensuring power well into the future for the Tories.

    That 40% in June was despite Corbyn not because of him and it was an anti Brexit vote.

    No opposition in history has ever won a general election without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. And if Corbyn Labour cannot be 20 points ahead after the last two disastrous weeks for the Tories, it wont be.

    Corbyn won Canterbury and Westminster. He can win marginals.
    I don't see how that works as a rebuttal frankly - Canterbury and Westminster were not marginals (nor did he win Westminster), but he also failed to win a bunch of places that were (or used to be) marginals, places like Copeland, Nuneaton, Swindon South. Probably still swings to Labour in most of them, but far far smaller than elsewhere, so while stevef might well not be right either, just because Corbyn can win Canterbury does not mean for certain he can win marginals. Indeed, the very fact it was not a marginal might suggest the conditions are not replicable to the same degree elsewhere, as this was provably the case
  • Options
    stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    AndyJS said:

    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?

    stevef said:

    I'm afraid that although indeed Labour should be 20 points ahead, Corbyn Labour cant and wont be -because of him and his extremism which holds Labour back.

    At the election, he piled up votes in seats that Labour already held which meant that Labour won on 40% of the vote, about the same number of seats that Labour won under Gordon Brown in 2010 on 29%

    Corbyn cannot win marginals, and he and his cronies more than any other factor are ensuring power well into the future for the Tories.

    That 40% in June was despite Corbyn not because of him and it was an anti Brexit vote.

    No opposition in history has ever won a general election without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. And if Corbyn Labour cannot be 20 points ahead after the last two disastrous weeks for the Tories, it wont be.

    Corbyn won Canterbury and Westminster. He can win marginals.
    Canterbury wasnt a marginal. He won Canterbury on the student vote. But its not enough. Corbyn has to win a huge number of ordinary Tory to Labour marginals. And he cant. And wont.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    stevef said:

    I'm afraid that although indeed Labour should be 20 points ahead, Corbyn Labour cant and wont be -because of him and his extremism which holds Labour back.

    At the election, he piled up votes in seats that Labour already held which meant that Labour won on 40% of the vote, about the same number of seats that Labour won under Gordon Brown in 2010 on 29%

    Corbyn cannot win marginals, and he and his cronies more than any other factor are ensuring power well into the future for the Tories.

    That 40% in June was despite Corbyn not because of him and it was an anti Brexit vote.

    No opposition in history has ever won a general election without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. And if Corbyn Labour cannot be 20 points ahead after the last two disastrous weeks for the Tories, it wont be.

    Corbyn won Canterbury and Westminster. He can win marginals.
    He didn't win Westminster.
  • Options

    stevef said:

    I'm afraid that although indeed Labour should be 20 points ahead, Corbyn Labour cant and wont be -because of him and his extremism which holds Labour back.

    At the election, he piled up votes in seats that Labour already held which meant that Labour won on 40% of the vote, about the same number of seats that Labour won under Gordon Brown in 2010 on 29%

    Corbyn cannot win marginals, and he and his cronies more than any other factor are ensuring power well into the future for the Tories.

    That 40% in June was despite Corbyn not because of him and it was an anti Brexit vote.

    No opposition in history has ever won a general election without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. And if Corbyn Labour cannot be 20 points ahead after the last two disastrous weeks for the Tories, it wont be.

    Corbyn won Canterbury and Westminster. He can win marginals.
    One thing about the polling failure I haven't seen anyone talking about is how it should make us reevaluate Corbyn's polling before the Brexit vote and coup attempt, when he was slightly behind or about the same for most of the time. If the polls were equally skewed then, it would imply that Labour was slightly ahead and changes the whole narrative.
  • Options
    felix said:

    Just two key factors will affect the polls nearer the next election:
    1. Whoever the next leader is.
    2. How Brexit is going.

    A good leader and a modest Brexit would put the Tories back in the game.

    The Tories are still in the game while LAB is only 2 or 3 points ahead
  • Options
    stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Next time the Tories will have a better leader, a better manifesto, Corbyn will be 73, Brexit will be done with, the Tories will be ferociously attacking Labour's economic plans, Labour will go into the election with people thinking that Corbyn stands a good chance of becoming PM which will motivate a high Tory/older turnout to stop him.

    And Corbyn is going to stop all that and sweep to victory on the basis of tiny three point lead in the polls during one of the worst fortnights of a Tory government in living memory?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AndyJS said:

    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?

    A few thoughts.

    There is little appetite for centrism at present, it has been discredited by Blairism then Cameronism. Both of those will look different in time, but not for years. At the moment people want to drink more intoxicating beverages. Centrism appeals in less turbulent times.

    The current party is too fixated on its middle class anti-Brexit message to appeal to its traditional rural constituency. As for all parties, the activists are more fanatical and monomaniac than the voters.

    Cable's coronation wasted the opportunity to have a real debate on future policy. In addition he is too tired and tainted by his choices in coalition, particularly on student fees.

    We will revove, but not for a generation.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735
    stevef said:

    kle4 said:

    stevef said:

    kle4 said:

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    I find it credible literally sing his praises).
    No he doesnt look credible at all
    I was not making a judgement on his PM credentials. A combination of lack of effort from the local LDs for my vote, and Corbyn finally making me understand why people vote against parties more than vote for, had me vote Tory for the first (and last?) time in June.

    But there were people in Labour who disliked Corbyn's policies and style and objected to him on that basis. And then there were those who could support any Labour leader, they just thought he would lead them to electoral disaster and may have not voted, or worked less hard as a result. To the latter group, he now looks very credible, and they will desperately beg forgiveness. (and, as noted, literally sing his praises).
    There are those in Labour who thought that Corbyn as Labour leader would lead to meltdown and some of them now delude themselves into thinking that he might lead them to victory. A lot of those Labour supporters who were against Corbyn before June 8 -including myself -still oppose him. I believe that his 40% was caused by wanting to stop a Tory landslide and hard Brexit, and the youth vote (in reality piling up votes in already Labour seats).

    It's possible - I think those who are putting all their eggs in the 'he's an amazing campaigner and people are ready for change - hypothesis are being too harsh if they dismiss it as a possibility, but I also think the Tory share was caused by a certain amount of support for Brexit and dislike of Corbyn, and the latter won't necessarily stay in place for all of those, and the Tory support base might depress in key areas further even if Corbyn remains in place, as we did see them take hits for certain positions.

    People now believe he could win, whether they like that idea or not. Whether those who would not support him when they thought him a loser but will now, outnumber those who only supported the party as they didn't think he could win but do now? Well, we shall see.
  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    stevef said:

    Next time the Tories will have a better leader, a better manifesto, Corbyn will be 73, Brexit will be done with, the Tories will be ferociously attacking Labour's economic plans, Labour will go into the election with people thinking that Corbyn stands a good chance of becoming PM which will motivate a high Tory/older turnout to stop him.

    And Corbyn is going to stop all that and sweep to victory on the basis of tiny three point lead in the polls during one of the worst fortnights of a Tory government in living memory?

    We still have 4.5 years to go. I think it is too early to come to any conclusions as to how things will pan out if the Parliament runs to full term.

    So much time for 'events' to change everything.
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    stevef said:

    Next time the Tories will have a better leader, a better manifesto, Corbyn will be 73, Brexit will be done with, the Tories will be ferociously attacking Labour's economic plans, Labour will go into the election with people thinking that Corbyn stands a good chance of becoming PM which will motivate a high Tory/older turnout to stop him.

    And Corbyn is going to stop all that and sweep to victory on the basis of tiny three point lead in the polls during one of the worst fortnights of a Tory government in living memory?

    How did you vote at the last election , with your concerns ?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,735
    stevef said:

    Next time the Tories will have a better leader, a better manifesto, Corbyn will be 73, Brexit will be done with, the Tories will be ferociously attacking Labour's economic plans, Labour will go into the election with people thinking that Corbyn stands a good chance of becoming PM which will motivate a high Tory/older turnout to stop him.

    And Corbyn is going to stop all that and sweep to victory on the basis of tiny three point lead in the polls during one of the worst fortnights of a Tory government in living memory?

    Possibly not, but the LDs, SDLP and SNP will back them over the Tories any day of the week if they get the chance (though that would be chaotic), there is no guarantee the Tories will pick a better leader, a manifesto is not as criticial as people think and it will depend on the key policies that grab attention at the time, economically we are due a recession even if things are going well with the Brexit separation and in any case the Tories will have been in power for possibly 12 years and so the standard 'time for a change/too risky for a change' arguments might not play in their favour, and depending on how well the government has been doing and whether Corbyn modulates his tone a bit and learns some nuance (he is in fact better at that now than he used to be) then the Tory/older vote still might not turn out enough, depending on how they have been pitched too.

    I think the Tory vote was pretty darn high in June (if not as high as many of the polls suggested), it was just that Labour's was surprisingly high as well, and it's a question of will either party manage to rise next time, or are they holding out for the other side decreasing?
  • Options
    OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469

    "Labour" Leader, I think you have to say these days.

    And then spit.

    And May, Puke
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2017

    AndyJS said:

    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?

    A few thoughts.

    There is little appetite for centrism at present, it has been discredited by Blairism then Cameronism. Both of those will look different in time, but not for years. At the moment people want to drink more intoxicating beverages. Centrism appeals in less turbulent times.

    The current party is too fixated on its middle class anti-Brexit message to appeal to its traditional rural constituency. As for all parties, the activists are more fanatical and monomaniac than the voters.

    Cable's coronation wasted the opportunity to have a real debate on future policy. In addition he is too tired and tainted by his choices in coalition, particularly on student fees.

    We will revove, but not for a generation.

    Thanks, interesting. You'd think, with people in general supposedly becoming more aware of the past, centrism would be more popular than ever.
  • Options
    OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469

    felix said:

    Just two key factors will affect the polls nearer the next election:
    1. Whoever the next leader is.
    2. How Brexit is going.

    A good leader and a modest Brexit would put the Tories back in the game.

    The Tories are still in the game while LAB is only 2 or 3 points ahead
    But the Tories have no leader, or any potential one. The corpse is twitching... but for how much longer...
  • Options
    AndyJS said:

    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?

    I was one of the 25%. There was a sense of excitement together with the reassurance of some experienced people. I don't think there is much of either now.
  • Options
    OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    What a lot of PBtories are ignoring, is that the Labour Party are in electioneering mode, while the Tories, LibDems, SNP and the others are hiding their election funds under the floor boards (what little they have) in the pretense that they have a chance of, if not winning, being able to influence the result.
  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    OchEye said:

    What a lot of PBtories are ignoring, is that the Labour Party are in electioneering mode, while the Tories, LibDems, SNP and the others are hiding their election funds under the floor boards (what little they have) in the pretense that they have a chance of, if not winning, being able to influence the result.

    If they are in electioneering mode, they should be making more progress then. They should be driving forward not limping.

    Leading a protest movement is very different to presenting yourselves as a government-in-waiting.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,860
    On Topic.

    Tony Blair speaks out on Armistice Day.

    Very appropriate not
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    stevef said:

    AndyJS said:

    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?

    stevef said:

    I'm afraid that although indeed Labour should be 20 points ahead, Corbyn Labour cant and wont be -because of him and his extremism which holds Labour back.

    At the election, he piled up votes in seats that Labour already held which meant that Labour won on 40% of the vote, about the same number of seats that Labour won under Gordon Brown in 2010 on 29%

    Corbyn cannot win marginals, and he and his cronies more than any other factor are ensuring power well into the future for the Tories.

    That 40% in June was despite Corbyn not because of him and it was an anti Brexit vote.

    No opposition in history has ever won a general election without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. And if Corbyn Labour cannot be 20 points ahead after the last two disastrous weeks for the Tories, it wont be.

    Corbyn won Canterbury and Westminster. He can win marginals.
    Canterbury wasnt a marginal. He won Canterbury on the student vote. But its not enough. Corbyn has to win a huge number of ordinary Tory to Labour marginals. And he cant. And wont.
    But Labour did win quite a few of them last June and would win a further 35 Tory marginals on the basis of the latest Yougov poll.
  • Options
    OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469

    OchEye said:

    What a lot of PBtories are ignoring, is that the Labour Party are in electioneering mode, while the Tories, LibDems, SNP and the others are hiding their election funds under the floor boards (what little they have) in the pretense that they have a chance of, if not winning, being able to influence the result.

    If they are in electioneering mode, they should be making more progress then. They should be driving forward not limping.

    Leading a protest movement is very different to presenting yourselves as a government-in-waiting.
    Under the level of previous methods, on the streets, on the Internet, in social media, they are growing a presence, which all the main stream media is ignoring. While the tories are in hiding, in shame....
  • Options
    BudGBudG Posts: 711
    stevef said:

    Next time the Tories will have a better leader, a better manifesto, Corbyn will be 73, Brexit will be done with, the Tories will be ferociously attacking Labour's economic plans, Labour will go into the election with people thinking that Corbyn stands a good chance of becoming PM which will motivate a high Tory/older turnout to stop him.

    And Corbyn is going to stop all that and sweep to victory on the basis of tiny three point lead in the polls during one of the worst fortnights of a Tory government in living memory?

    I do not think Corbyn will remain as leader if this Parliament goes anywhere near it's full term. I believe Corbyn knows that his baggage is likely to cost his party 10% of the vote and will stand down in favour of his chosen successor, content in the accomplishment of changing Labour into a left leaning socialist party with a membership which will ensure that continues for some time.

    However, if he IS still around, which is the comfort blanket most PB Tories seem to be clinging to, they need to remember that how effective a campaigner he proved to be, albeit against a very poor Tory campaign, when he enjoyed less biased coverage in the media that comes with a General Election period. He had momentum and if the campaign had been another two weeks longer, he might well have won most seats. And next time, he will have a much more united party behind him.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    rcs1000 said:

    Completely off topic observation from California re immigration controls post Brexit.

    The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.

    It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.

    The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.

    A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.

    Brilliant.

    If I were PM, I would have a couple of researchers whose duty would be to research, for any question which arose, how the 50 most organised countries in the world dealt with it, and submit to me one paragraph summaries of the best 10 solutions. The savings in wheel-reinvention would be massive.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    BudG said:

    stevef said:

    Next time the Tories will have a better leader, a better manifesto, Corbyn will be 73, Brexit will be done with, the Tories will be ferociously attacking Labour's economic plans, Labour will go into the election with people thinking that Corbyn stands a good chance of becoming PM which will motivate a high Tory/older turnout to stop him.

    And Corbyn is going to stop all that and sweep to victory on the basis of tiny three point lead in the polls during one of the worst fortnights of a Tory government in living memory?

    I do not think Corbyn will remain as leader if this Parliament goes anywhere near it's full term. I believe Corbyn knows that his baggage is likely to cost his party 10% of the vote and will stand down in favour of his chosen successor, content in the accomplishment of changing Labour into a left leaning socialist party with a membership which will ensure that continues for some time.

    However, if he IS still around, which is the comfort blanket most PB Tories seem to be clinging to, they need to remember that how effective a campaigner he proved to be, albeit against a very poor Tory campaign, when he enjoyed less biased coverage in the media that comes with a General Election period. He had momentum and if the campaign had been another two weeks longer, he might well have won most seats. And next time, he will have a much more united party behind him.
    Your paragraph 2 is why your paragraph 1 won't happen.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,058
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Completely off topic observation from California re immigration controls post Brexit.

    The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.

    It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.

    The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.

    A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.

    Brilliant.

    If I were PM, I would have a couple of researchers whose duty would be to research, for any question which arose, how the 50 most organised countries in the world dealt with it, and submit to me one paragraph summaries of the best 10 solutions. The savings in wheel-reinvention would be massive.
    How does this sound to you?

    California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration.

    The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León, the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.


    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20170916-story.html
  • Options
    Does anyone agree with me.

    The Guardian - a comfort blanket for remainers

    The Express - a comfort blanket for leavers

    Where is a there an independent voice with no agenda and able to make sense out of the untruths and coercion on both sides

    Maybe it was ever thus
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,058

    Where is a there an independent voice with no agenda and able to make sense out of the untruths and coercion on both sides

    The FT. ;)
  • Options

    Where is a there an independent voice with no agenda and able to make sense out of the untruths and coercion on both sides

    The FT. ;)
    Well that is the joke of the evening - well done
  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Completely off topic observation from California re immigration controls post Brexit.

    The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.

    It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.

    The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.

    A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.

    Brilliant.

    If I were PM, I would have a couple of researchers whose duty would be to research, for any question which arose, how the 50 most organised countries in the world dealt with it, and submit to me one paragraph summaries of the best 10 solutions. The savings in wheel-reinvention would be massive.
    How does this sound to you?

    California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration.

    The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León, the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.


    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20170916-story.html
    There has to be something wrong when a state is trying to frustrate federal law through such a piece of legislation. It can only end up with a protracted case going up to the Supreme Court.
  • Options
    OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469

    OchEye said:

    What a lot of PBtories are ignoring, is that the Labour Party are in electioneering mode, while the Tories, LibDems, SNP and the others are hiding their election funds under the floor boards (what little they have) in the pretense that they have a chance of, if not winning, being able to influence the result.

    If they are in electioneering mode, they should be making more progress then. They should be driving forward not limping.

    Leading a protest movement is very different to presenting yourselves as a government-in-waiting.
    I believe the PBtories protesthe too much...
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    rcs1000 said:

    Y0kel said:

    Boris Johnson

    How much contact had he with Joseph Mifsud, the Russian intelligence cut out who was a player in the Trump-Russia linkage?? Passing? Once? or more?

    Mifsud knew about the Clinton email haul that the Russians had before a lot other people, impressive for an academic.

    Y0kel: Donald Trump himself has told us how insulted Putin is at the allegations of Russian meddling in the US election. We should all, therefore, take him at his word.
    The Russians meddled so much in the US election that Hillary won the popular vote?
    That's the ideal result for Russia.

    The Russian approach is to sow chaos and discord to weaken their political rivals. They habitually fund both (extreme) sides of a particular issue to try and create destabilising flash points.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Completely off topic observation from California re immigration controls post Brexit.

    The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.

    It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.

    The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.

    A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.

    Brilliant.

    If I were PM, I would have a couple of researchers whose duty would be to research, for any question which arose, how the 50 most organised countries in the world dealt with it, and submit to me one paragraph summaries of the best 10 solutions. The savings in wheel-reinvention would be massive.
    How does this sound to you?

    California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration.

    The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León, the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.


    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20170916-story.html
    Interesting, but too dependent on the state/fed distinction.

    But you learn a lot this way. I thought until 10 minutes ago illegal immigrants to the US were almost all Mexicans, and you just had to shove them back over the land border. It is not that simple: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
  • Options

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    Yup, and look at his ratings compared to Mrs May, he's doing betters than Mrs May.

    There's a bunch of complacent Tories who think the Tories will win the next election by having a new leader and not having the dementia means a Tory victory really boil my piss.
    May was ahead of Corbyn as preferred PM the other day.

    But, the Conservatives need to believe in themselves in again, if they expect the electorate to do so next time.
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    felix said:

    Just two key factors will affect the polls nearer the next election:
    1. Whoever the next leader is.
    2. How Brexit is going.

    A good leader and a modest Brexit would put the Tories back in the game.

    True. No sign of either.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    IMO, support for Brexit and dislike for Labour is keeping the Conservatives at 40%.

    That could well mean a precipitous drop once those who fear we still won't leave (even though Labour are Leavers too now) finally accept it is done, perhaps on the day itself.
    The flipside of that is, if Labour select a moderate centre-left leader, and Brexit is complete, the Conservatives could very quickly slump back down to their core vote of c.30% or so.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Completely off topic observation from California re immigration controls post Brexit.

    The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.

    It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.

    The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.

    A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.

    Next task: how to persuade all the EU nationals who Leavers have been telling for the last two years that they despise and don't want that they should nevertheless look to spend time living and working in Britain.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,425
    edited November 2017

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    Yup, and look at his ratings compared to Mrs May, he's doing betters than Mrs May.

    There's a bunch of complacent Tories who think the Tories will win the next election by having a new leader and not having the dementia means a Tory victory really boil my piss.
    May was ahead of Corbyn as preferred PM the other day.

    But, the Conservatives need to believe in themselves in again, if they expect the electorate to do so next time.
    Best PM doesn't also predict the election outcome, net approval/well/badly ratings are a better predictor, Callaghan was preferred as best PM over Thatcher.

    I do agree about the Tories believing in themselves, but right now we have a PM that doesn't believe in herself.
  • Options

    AndyJS said:

    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?

    A few thoughts.

    There is little appetite for centrism at present, it has been discredited by Blairism then Cameronism. Both of those will look different in time, but not for years. At the moment people want to drink more intoxicating beverages. Centrism appeals in less turbulent times.

    The current party is too fixated on its middle class anti-Brexit message to appeal to its traditional rural constituency. As for all parties, the activists are more fanatical and monomaniac than the voters.

    Cable's coronation wasted the opportunity to have a real debate on future policy. In addition he is too tired and tainted by his choices in coalition, particularly on student fees.

    We will revove, but not for a generation.

    One of the oddest things in recent months has been how many posters on here have been confidently making predictions for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives for a whole generation.

    I suspect it's a rhetorical tool, but politics (and our understanding of it) can change radically overnight, as the last 3 years has shown.
  • Options

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    Yup, and look at his ratings compared to Mrs May, he's doing betters than Mrs May.

    There's a bunch of complacent Tories who think the Tories will win the next election by having a new leader and not having the dementia means a Tory victory really boil my piss.
    May was ahead of Corbyn as preferred PM the other day.

    But, the Conservatives need to believe in themselves in again, if they expect the electorate to do so next time.

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    Yup, and look at his ratings compared to Mrs May, he's doing betters than Mrs May.

    There's a bunch of complacent Tories who think the Tories will win the next election by having a new leader and not having the dementia means a Tory victory really boil my piss.
    May was ahead of Corbyn as preferred PM the other day.

    But, the Conservatives need to believe in themselves in again, if they expect the electorate to do so next time.
    Best PM doesn't also predict the election outcome, net approval/well/badly ratings are a better predictor.

    I do agree about the Tories believing in themselves, but right now we have a PM that doesn't believe in herself.
    Actually I do think she believes in herself in a big way
  • Options
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?

    A few thoughts.

    There is little appetite for centrism at present, it has been discredited by Blairism then Cameronism. Both of those will look different in time, but not for years. At the moment people want to drink more intoxicating beverages. Centrism appeals in less turbulent times.

    The current party is too fixated on its middle class anti-Brexit message to appeal to its traditional rural constituency. As for all parties, the activists are more fanatical and monomaniac than the voters.

    Cable's coronation wasted the opportunity to have a real debate on future policy. In addition he is too tired and tainted by his choices in coalition, particularly on student fees.

    We will revove, but not for a generation.

    Thanks, interesting. You'd think, with people in general supposedly becoming more aware of the past, centrism would be more popular than ever.
    Centrism by definition thrives when there is broad political consensus.
  • Options
    JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    edited November 2017
    Yes Mike, you and Blair are correct. Labour should be at 60% in the polls (which is what your 'creative' figures imply) otherwise Corbyn is definitely rubbish. (Of course if he did hit such figures - never before even remotely nearly achieved by anyone - then people with Corbyn Derangement Syndrome would claim that unless every last person in Britain voted for him he would be the worst Labour leader ever :) )

    It would be good to remember that in June Corbyn achieved more votes than Blair in 2001 and 2005, with only 1997, in which Blair rode on the coat-tails of 18 years of built-up discontent with the Tories, marginally topping his total.

    Face it, everything you thought about Corbs was wrong. The sooner you and fellow Lib Dem Blair get over it, rather than looking increasingly loopy and bitter, the better.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    Completely off topic observation from California re immigration controls post Brexit.

    The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.

    It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.

    The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.

    A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.

    Next task: how to persuade all the EU nationals who Leavers have been telling for the last two years that they despise and don't want that they should nevertheless look to spend time living and working in Britain.
    My wife is still here (last time I checked).
  • Options

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    Yup, and look at his ratings compared to Mrs May, he's doing betters than Mrs May.

    There's a bunch of complacent Tories who think the Tories will win the next election by having a new leader and not having the dementia means a Tory victory really boil my piss.
    May was ahead of Corbyn as preferred PM the other day.

    But, the Conservatives need to believe in themselves in again, if they expect the electorate to do so next time.
    Best PM doesn't also predict the election outcome, net approval/well/badly ratings are a better predictor, Callaghan was preferred as best PM over Thatcher.

    I do agree about the Tories believing in themselves, but right now we have a PM that doesn't believe in herself.
    It's hard to disagree with that.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    AndyJS said:

    I don't understand why the LDs are languishing at 7% in the polls. What's happened to the 25% who supported the third party when Corbyn's 1980s equivalent Foot was Labour leader?

    A few thoughts.

    There is little appetite for centrism at present, it has been discredited by Blairism then Cameronism. Both of those will look different in time, but not for years. At the moment people want to drink more intoxicating beverages. Centrism appeals in less turbulent times.

    The current party is too fixated on its middle class anti-Brexit message to appeal to its traditional rural constituency. As for all parties, the activists are more fanatical and monomaniac than the voters.

    Cable's coronation wasted the opportunity to have a real debate on future policy. In addition he is too tired and tainted by his choices in coalition, particularly on student fees.

    We will revove, but not for a generation.

    One of the oddest things in recent months has been how many posters on here have been confidently making predictions for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives for a whole generation.

    I suspect it's a rhetorical tool, but politics (and our understanding of it) can change radically overnight, as the last 3 years has shown.
    One truism is that Lab/Con will never win a majority again. The other even odder one is that Lab/Con has not won a majority since 1812 except [batty exclusions like "except under Tony Blair" or "an old Etonian], which make you wonder who's been governing us.
  • Options
    On topic, it seems that the public has not seen anything to change its mind since June. I'm not sure that yet says anything directly about Jeremy Corbyn either way.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,058

    rcs1000 said:

    Completely off topic observation from California re immigration controls post Brexit.

    The US has a system where it's very easy for Canadians to get a US visa, so long as they have a written job offer (from a firm that pays US taxes), and don't have a criminal record.

    It's relatively well designed so that you can't use it to work cash in hand in the US, as the visa ceases if the recipient stops paying payroll taxes.

    The visa can be got on-line in just a few hours.

    A system like this would make it pretty easy for professionals from the EU to work in the UK without going through massive hoops, but would mean we'd be able to keep out (and kick out) undesirables. It would also limit the amount of low skilled immigration, as a lot of that is cash in hand and/or turning up without a job offer.

    Next task: how to persuade all the EU nationals who Leavers have been telling for the last two years that they despise and don't want that they should nevertheless look to spend time living and working in Britain.
    My wife is still here (last time I checked).
    Seven Brides for Seven Brexiteers.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2017

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    Yup, and look at his ratings compared to Mrs May, he's doing betters than Mrs May.

    There's a bunch of complacent Tories who think the Tories will win the next election by having a new leader and not having the dementia means a Tory victory really boil my piss.
    May was ahead of Corbyn as preferred PM the other day.

    But, the Conservatives need to believe in themselves in again, if they expect the electorate to do so next time.

    Given how inaccurate YouGov were at the general election, yesterday's 3% lead is probably a 10% Labour lead.

    I'd find the hypothesis that Jeremy Corbyn only got 40% because everyone thought Theresa May would win a landslide regardless much more convincing if he'd slipped back markedly in the polls since.
    Yup, and look at his ratings compared to Mrs May, he's doing betters than Mrs May.

    There's a bunch of complacent Tories who think the Tories will win the next election by having a new leader and not having the dementia means a Tory victory really boil my piss.
    May was ahead of Corbyn as preferred PM the other day.

    But, the Conservatives need to believe in themselves in again, if they expect the electorate to do so next time.
    Best PM doesn't also predict the election outcome, net approval/well/badly ratings are a better predictor.

    I do agree about the Tories believing in themselves, but right now we have a PM that doesn't believe in herself.
    Actually I do think she believes in herself in a big way
    I think so too. Who else came up with the TM focussed leadership campaign? It was signed off by herself.

    I would call it a delusional level of self belief, laden with hubris, but self belief it is.
This discussion has been closed.