Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The bad news for LAB from Prof John Curtice – Corbyn has NOT s

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited March 22 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The bad news for LAB from Prof John Curtice – Corbyn has NOT solved its turnout problem

The conclusion from John Curtice’s new analysis:

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609
    edited March 22
    Primo, like the Tories?

    That 88% statistic tends to put paid to the idea that lots of Conservative voters stayed at home last year.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,332
    Great news turnout is rising!

    The link to the full paper didn't work for me.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609
    rkrkrk said:

    Great news turnout is rising!

    The link to the full paper didn't work for me.

    http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/1570351/Why-Turnout-Increased-In-The-2017-General-Election.pdf
    Is the correct link, looks like Wordpress mashed it in the header.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,545
    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,151
    Jonathan said:

    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.

    So Labour is screwed whilst Corbyn is leader. That is the element "at stake" for more people than Labour can persuade.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.

    So Labour is screwed whilst Corbyn is leader. That is the element "at stake" for more people than Labour can persuade.

    Yep, the Jezziah is this incompetent, tired, clueless government’s get out of jail free card.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    Good morning, everyone.

    Worth noting, as well as events, we don't have a firm transition deal nor a proper EU exit deal as yet. Plenty of scope for the Government to stuff things up royally.

    Hopefully Corbyn's appeasement of Putin will put off some voters who might otherwise have been tempted by the nice old uncle persona.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    Its early yet and I am in shock about events down under but has he not done better than anyone since 2001? He probably didn't beat Blair in 97 but then who did?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    Also I think it is fair to say that the Jezziah didn't so much gain non voters as ex Lib Dem and UKIP voters.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,422
    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,244
    Off topic, but an interesting article on a potential outside bet for the Democratic nomination:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/21/mitch-landrieu-2020-democrats-473648

    Probably not going to happen, but the story is a great deal more convincing than that of some of those on much shorter odds.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,679
    DavidL said:

    Its early yet and I am in shock about events down under but has he not done better than anyone since 2001? He probably didn't beat Blair in 97 but then who did?

    He did better than in 2005, 2010 or 2015. Considering the latter two were Labour's second and third or fourth worst showing in an election since universal suffrage in 1928 that's not saying much though.

    Tony Blair (twice) remains the only Labour leader elected in the last fifty years to lead Labour to over 40% of the popular vote nationwide (Corbyn got 39.99%). In that time the Tories have had Thatcher (three times) Major and May.

    That is really the scale of the task that will confront the next Labour leader. They remain divisive and unpopular. The problem is that they believe (1) they're the good guys and everyone loves them really and (2) because 2017 went better than anyone expected, they assume that Corbyn's popular qualities (endless lying and an inability to put forward a realistic programme for government) will rub off on a successor.

    Both seem to me to be reckless assumptions. However, after the last few years the only thing we can say for sure is that nobody knows what will happen next.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,679
    DavidL said:

    Also I think it is fair to say that the Jezziah didn't so much gain non voters as ex Lib Dem and UKIP voters.

    Or in places perhaps ex Tory voters while they picked up UKIPpers to compensate?

    Does anyone have a graphic on the churn? I have a funny feeling it would be rather complex and regional.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,332

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.

    So Labour is screwed whilst Corbyn is leader. That is the element "at stake" for more people than Labour can persuade.

    Yep, the Jezziah is this incompetent, tired, clueless government’s get out of jail free card.

    A little while back I agreed to a 25 quid bet at 5-1 you offered that Corbyn would not become PM within 6 months of the next election. You didn't reply to my agreement - just wanted to check we are still on?

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/02/09/five-con-holds-a-gain-one-lab-hold-in-this-weeks-local-by-elections/
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,462
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,151
    AndyJS said:
    It's the new normal.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Its early yet and I am in shock about events down under but has he not done better than anyone since 2001? He probably didn't beat Blair in 97 but then who did?

    He did better than in 2005, 2010 or 2015. Considering the latter two were Labour's second and third or fourth worst showing in an election since universal suffrage in 1928 that's not saying much though.

    Tony Blair (twice) remains the only Labour leader elected in the last fifty years to lead Labour to over 40% of the popular vote nationwide (Corbyn got 39.99%). In that time the Tories have had Thatcher (three times) Major and May.

    That is really the scale of the task that will confront the next Labour leader. They remain divisive and unpopular. The problem is that they believe (1) they're the good guys and everyone loves them really and (2) because 2017 went better than anyone expected, they assume that Corbyn's popular qualities (endless lying and an inability to put forward a realistic programme for government) will rub off on a successor.

    Both seem to me to be reckless assumptions. However, after the last few years the only thing we can say for sure is that nobody knows what will happen next.
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,375
    AndyJS said:
    Perhaps TM should call a snap election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609
    DavidL said:

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
    That sort of cunning plan is best executed on the second or third day of a Test match though!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,679
    edited March 22
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Its early yet and I am in shock about events down under but has he not done better than anyone since 2001? He probably didn't beat Blair in 97 but then who did?

    He did better than in 2005, 2010 or 2015. Considering the latter two were Labour's second and third or fourth worst showing in an election since universal suffrage in 1928 that's not saying much though.

    Tony Blair (twice) remains the only Labour leader elected in the last fifty years to lead Labour to over 40% of the popular vote nationwide (Corbyn got 39.99%). In that time the Tories have had Thatcher (three times) Major and May.

    That is really the scale of the task that will confront the next Labour leader. They remain divisive and unpopular. The problem is that they believe (1) they're the good guys and everyone loves them really and (2) because 2017 went better than anyone expected, they assume that Corbyn's popular qualities (endless lying and an inability to put forward a realistic programme for government) will rub off on a successor.

    Both seem to me to be reckless assumptions. However, after the last few years the only thing we can say for sure is that nobody knows what will happen next.
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Yes, but you don't win an election with people who are already party identifiers. If you did, Duncan Smith would have won the greatest victory ever (or, if you want someone who fought an actual election, Neil Kinnock). The trick is to convert more people to be party identifiers and pick up the non-aligned, like me.

    I appreciate that was your point - my point however is that graph really isn't very helpful.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
    That sort of cunning plan is best executed on the second or third day of a Test match though!
    It did seem to have certain flaws, especially with NZ at 155/3.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765
    edited March 22
    Too late professor, the narrative has already been established and the myth is in place. Twas ever thus.

    In fairness he did do well, given expectations. Over 40% was a shocker.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609
    Nigelb said:

    Off topic, but an interesting article on a potential outside bet for the Democratic nomination:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/21/mitch-landrieu-2020-democrats-473648

    Probably not going to happen, but the story is a great deal more convincing than that of some of those on much shorter odds.

    His interview on The Daily Show was very impressive, but probably more of a 2024 candidate than 2020. The Democrats need to get people like Landrieu front and centre though, as people like him have much more appeal in the swing states than in the Dem strongholds.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    O/t, but many thanks to whoever recommended the Antony King & Ivor Crewe booh ‘The Blunders of our Governments’ recently. Not always an easy read, but a useful analysis of why things can go wrong, in some cases spectacularly.

    Made me wonder even more about Gordon Brown’s time in office! And about the long term effects of the ‘agreement’ with Blair.

    Sadly there’s no evidence that anything is likely to get better and the way the Brexit negotiations are being conducted might well be the subject of a follow-up by Crewe if he can find a collaborator of similar status.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765
    AndyJS said:
    Impressive, really, even if it does them little good at this stage. I guess it's not been a disastrous month compared to some they've had, but so many bear traps ahead.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    edited March 22

    AndyJS said:
    It's the new normal.
    Still a bit to go but if this continues May may not be the Armageddon for May (sorry couldn't resist that) once threatened for the Tories, at least outside London.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,244
    DavidL said:

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
    Shame about the rather trickier period when the ball was swinging and seaming...


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,244
    The story of the guy who developed the Novichok agents, was poisoned by them, and confirmed their existence:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/22/andrei-zheleznyakov-soviet-scientist-poisoned-novichok

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,743
    So did Gateshead vote Leave?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Its early yet and I am in shock about events down under but has he not done better than anyone since 2001? He probably didn't beat Blair in 97 but then who did?

    He did better than in 2005, 2010 or 2015. Considering the latter two were Labour's second and third or fourth worst showing in an election since universal suffrage in 1928 that's not saying much though.

    Tony Blair (twice) remains the only Labour leader elected in the last fifty years to lead Labour to over 40% of the popular vote nationwide (Corbyn got 39.99%). In that time the Tories have had Thatcher (three times) Major and May.

    That is really the scale of the task that will confront the next Labour leader. They remain divisive and unpopular. The problem is that they believe (1) they're the good guys and everyone loves them really and (2) because 2017 went better than anyone expected, they assume that Corbyn's popular qualities (endless lying and an inability to put forward a realistic programme for government) will rub off on a successor.

    Both seem to me to be reckless assumptions. However, after the last few years the only thing we can say for sure is that nobody knows what will happen next.
    Point 1 is a fun one because of course all people think they're the good guys, but as the GE demostrated the big two are almost equally popular and still are. Unless a comment on Corbyn's popularity is caveated or specific to, say, Labour members or the young, the party don't seem more popular than the tories, even though it feels that way.

    I always recall caroline lucas a very short time after GE2015 speaking at some protest against the tories talking about representing the majority, and me just thinking that she had some nerve to present herself as the face of the popular will. I'm a PR supporter, but the big two at least have a good claim to be representing the biggest chunks of the public.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,462
    TOPPING said:

    So did Gateshead vote Leave?

    Yes with 57%.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
    That sort of cunning plan is best executed on the second or third day of a Test match though!
    It did seem to have certain flaws, especially with NZ at 155/3.
    A situation has developed not necessarily to England's advantage, it is true.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765
    DavidL said:

    AndyJS said:
    It's the new normal.
    Still a bit to go but if this continues May may not be the Armageddon for May (sorry couldn't resist that) once threatened for the Tories, at least outside London.
    A bit like pre GE Corbyn the expectations have been lowered so a positive spin may be possible in the overall even if London can practically be written off.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,151

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.

    So Labour is screwed whilst Corbyn is leader. That is the element "at stake" for more people than Labour can persuade.

    Yep, the Jezziah is this incompetent, tired, clueless government’s get out of jail free card.

    The big difference is that this government can do something about being regarded by you (and perhaps others? :lol: ) as "incompetent, tired, clueless". It has clearly been entirely engrossed in delivering Brexit. Theresa May APPEARS so far to be delivering effectively a form of associate membership of the EU that the EU wouldn't/couldn't/didn't offer David Cameron. I suspect that at the end of the day, it will be a Brexit outcome that a significant majority will be happy to live with. To that extent, the Moaning Minnies of Remainerstan will have done her a huge favour. "They said it couldn't be done...." (Although given her form on asking the voters what they think, I doubt she will put it to a second referendum.)

    Coming out the other side of Brexit with an OK outcome will be more than enough to put a spring in her - and her Government's - step. It doesn't augur well for Labour, under whichever leader's banner they choose to fight the next election.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 350
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Its early yet and I am in shock about events down under but has he not done better than anyone since 2001? He probably didn't beat Blair in 97 but then who did?

    He did better than in 2005, 2010 or 2015. Considering the latter two were Labour's second and third or fourth worst showing in an election since universal suffrage in 1928 that's not saying much though.

    Tony Blair (twice) remains the only Labour leader elected in the last fifty years to lead Labour to over 40% of the popular vote nationwide (Corbyn got 39.99%). In that time the Tories have had Thatcher (three times) Major and May.

    That is really the scale of the task that will confront the next Labour leader. They remain divisive and unpopular. The problem is that they believe (1) they're the good guys and everyone loves them really and (2) because 2017 went better than anyone expected, they assume that Corbyn's popular qualities (endless lying and an inability to put forward a realistic programme for government) will rub off on a successor.

    Both seem to me to be reckless assumptions. However, after the last few years the only thing we can say for sure is that nobody knows what will happen next.
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
    That sort of cunning plan is best executed on the second or third day of a Test match though!
    It did seem to have certain flaws, especially with NZ at 155/3.
    A situation has developed not necessarily to England's advantage, it is true.
    Kane Williamson is on target to score twice the entire England total in the same day. That will have the statisticians working their way through the books.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,606
    edited March 22
    It's fairly clear that Labour's reasonably good result wasn't so much mobilising the young (though there was some of that) as winning over much of the 21-45 working population. Increaingly Britain is divided into retired Conservatives (who worry about property, inheritance, etc.) and employed Labour voters (who worry about unemployment, schools, etc.) - obviously an over-generalisation, but that seems to be the trend. I agree that trusting on mobilisation of people who didn't vote in 2017 is a mistake.

    The latest "anonymous MP says for two pins I'd speak out against the leadership" round seems to have largely fizzled again (with a couple of exceptions) - there were reports that Labour MPs were going to attack Corbyn during PMQs, but he was fine.

    An odd feature of today's situation is that there is a chunk of voters on both sides who don't want their party to win big but would be OK with it winning narrowly. I know Tory Remainers who feel things aren't too bad at the moment, but who would be scared of a big Tory win with loads of vociferous Brexiteers running the show. I also know centrist Labour voters who would accept a Corbyn government dependent on centrist Labour MPs, LibDems and SNP but wouldn't fancy his getting a big mandate. It's quite hard to predict how these two groups will vote, if they vote at all: A real PB nerd would base it on the exact position of the constituency on the list of possible gains either way, but few people are like that in real life.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,151
    edited March 22
    Nigelb said:

    The story of the guy who developed the Novichok agents, was poisoned by them, and confirmed their existence:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/22/andrei-zheleznyakov-soviet-scientist-poisoned-novichok

    "Russian officials continue to deny ever having such a programme. “I want to state with all possible certainty that the Soviet Union or Russia had no programmes to develop a toxic agent called novichok,” said Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov last week."

    So what DID you call that toxic agent, Mr Ryabkov?
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 356
    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Its early yet and I am in shock about events down under but has he not done better than anyone since 2001? He probably didn't beat Blair in 97 but then who did?

    He did better than in 2005, 2010 or 2015. Considering the latter two were Labour's second and third or fourth worst showing in an election since universal suffrage in 1928 that's not saying much though.

    Tony Blair (twice) remains the only Labour leader elected in the last fifty years to lead Labour to over 40% of the popular vote nationwide (Corbyn got 39.99%). In that time the Tories have had Thatcher (three times) Major and May.

    That is really the scale of the task that will confront the next Labour leader. They remain divisive and unpopular. The problem is that they believe (1) they're the good guys and everyone loves them really and (2) because 2017 went better than anyone expected, they assume that Corbyn's popular qualities (endless lying and an inability to put forward a realistic programme for government) will rub off on a successor.

    Both seem to me to be reckless assumptions. However, after the last few years the only thing we can say for sure is that nobody knows what will happen next.
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    Labour will have a hard time as the Lib Dems, Greens etc will be looking to get their vote back, its not a certainty, but Labour will be squeezed more than they anticipate. A split anti govt vote may actually save their bacon - look what happened to Labour in 2005
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
    That sort of cunning plan is best executed on the second or third day of a Test match though!
    It did seem to have certain flaws, especially with NZ at 155/3.
    A situation has developed not necessarily to England's advantage, it is true.
    Kane Williamson is on target to score twice the entire England total in the same day. That will have the statisticians working their way through the books.
    It happened in August 2015, when England skittled the convicts for 60, and Joe Root was on 124* at the end of Day 1. Better times for English cricket! :)
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/11371/scorecard/743969/england-vs-australia-4th-investec-test-australia-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2015/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765



    An odd feature of today's situation is that there is a chunk of voters on both sides who don't want their party to win big but would be OK with it winning narrowly.

    I think that's right, and interesting. Plenty of people perhaps not a fan of their parties current direction, or worried by what the loonier element woukd do and thinking they are in the ascendency, but not so worried that letting the other lot in seems acceptable.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,419
    So is Ben Stokes now the fifth best England qualified batsman ?

    The England selectors think so.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.

    So Labour is screwed whilst Corbyn is leader. That is the element "at stake" for more people than Labour can persuade.

    Yep, the Jezziah is this incompetent, tired, clueless government’s get out of jail free card.

    The big difference is that this government can do something about being regarded by you (and perhaps others? :lol: ) as "incompetent, tired, clueless". It has clearly been entirely engrossed in delivering Brexit. Theresa May APPEARS so far to be delivering effectively a form of associate membership of the EU that the EU wouldn't/couldn't/didn't offer David Cameron. I suspect that at the end of the day, it will be a Brexit outcome that a significant majority will be happy to live with. To that extent, the Moaning Minnies of Remainerstan will have done her a huge favour. "They said it couldn't be done...." (Although given her form on asking the voters what they think, I doubt she will put it to a second referendum.)

    Coming out the other side of Brexit with an OK outcome will be more than enough to put a spring in her - and her Government's - step. It doesn't augur well for Labour, under whichever leader's banner they choose to fight the next election.

    The Tories have run out of ideas at a time when living standards continue to stagnate or even fall. Brexit is clearly a blocker, but will be dealt with, with - as you say - pretty much a status quo deal that makes the UK a rule-taker, rather than part of the decision-making process. As long as the symbolic stuff is handled well, that will certainly be fine for most people - and should give the Tories a boost. But it will not solve any of the country's long-term problems. And with an opposition that cannot hope to win with its current leader, that is very bad news for Britain.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765
    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    I'm not personally opposed to a soft Brexit, far from it, but I do wonder if it is too soft that we are storing up more problems for the future as the debate trundles along with the need to have another go and do it properly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    edited March 22
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
    That sort of cunning plan is best executed on the second or third day of a Test match though!
    It did seem to have certain flaws, especially with NZ at 155/3.
    A situation has developed not necessarily to England's advantage, it is true.
    Kane Williamson is on target to score twice the entire England total in the same day. That will have the statisticians working their way through the books.
    It happened in August 2015, when England skittled the convicts for 60, and Joe Root was on 124* at the end of Day 1. Better times for English cricket! :)
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/11371/scorecard/743969/england-vs-australia-4th-investec-test-australia-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2015/
    Well done. Seriously impressed.
    Edit. He is not going to make it (at least today). I forgot that England used up a few overs in their innings too. Last over of a humiliating day.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    Mr. kle4, for some, the intention is to leave us with one foot in the door so we can rejoin. Of course, that also means the current political polarisation over the subject will become a long term feature.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623
    rkrkrk said:

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.

    So Labour is screwed whilst Corbyn is leader. That is the element "at stake" for more people than Labour can persuade.

    Yep, the Jezziah is this incompetent, tired, clueless government’s get out of jail free card.

    A little while back I agreed to a 25 quid bet at 5-1 you offered that Corbyn would not become PM within 6 months of the next election. You didn't reply to my agreement - just wanted to check we are still on?

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/02/09/five-con-holds-a-gain-one-lab-hold-in-this-weeks-local-by-elections/

    Sure thing.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    I'm not personally opposed to a soft Brexit, far from it, but I do wonder if it is too soft that we are storing up more problems for the future as the debate trundles along with the need to have another go and do it properly.
    I'm quite relaxed about that. Once we have left and our politicians are no longer on the Council of Ministers carousel we will gradually drift further away.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,419

    It's fairly clear that Labour's reasonably good result wasn't so much mobilising the young (though there was some of that) as winning over much of the 21-45 working population. Increaingly Britain is divided into retired Conservatives (who worry about property, inheritance, etc.) and employed Labour voters (who worry about unemployment, schools, etc.) - obviously an over-generalisation, but that seems to be the trend. I agree that trusting on mobilisation of people who didn't vote in 2017 is a mistake.

    The latest "anonymous MP says for two pins I'd speak out against the leadership" round seems to have largely fizzled again (with a couple of exceptions) - there were reports that Labour MPs were going to attack Corbyn during PMQs, but he was fine.

    An odd feature of today's situation is that there is a chunk of voters on both sides who don't want their party to win big but would be OK with it winning narrowly. I know Tory Remainers who feel things aren't too bad at the moment, but who would be scared of a big Tory win with loads of vociferous Brexiteers running the show. I also know centrist Labour voters who would accept a Corbyn government dependent on centrist Labour MPs, LibDems and SNP but wouldn't fancy his getting a big mandate. It's quite hard to predict how these two groups will vote, if they vote at all: A real PB nerd would base it on the exact position of the constituency on the list of possible gains either way, but few people are like that in real life.

    The graphs in this article are revealing:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43075099

    This year's PPE exam should have this question:

    When did the Conservatives change from being a party advocating high levels of home ownership to a party advocating high levels of house prices ? Discuss the effects.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
    That sort of cunning plan is best executed on the second or third day of a Test match though!
    It did seem to have certain flaws, especially with NZ at 155/3.
    A situation has developed not necessarily to England's advantage, it is true.
    Kane Williamson is on target to score twice the entire England total in the same day. That will have the statisticians working their way through the books.
    It happened in August 2015, when England skittled the convicts for 60, and Joe Root was on 124* at the end of Day 1. Better times for English cricket! :)
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/11371/scorecard/743969/england-vs-australia-4th-investec-test-australia-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2015/
    Well done. Seriously impressed.
    That was the most recent match that came to mind with such a disgraceful first innings score, so I looked it up. There may be a more recent match with the same scenario.

    I'll admit to being quite good at Google, but then I do work as an IT consultant and often have to research obscure things online. ;) Cricinfo has some amazingly detailed reports and statistics available for every first class and international match ever played.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    I'm sure it was all a cunning plan to get NZ in before that tricky period when the lights take over with the pink ball....
    That sort of cunning plan is best executed on the second or third day of a Test match though!
    It did seem to have certain flaws, especially with NZ at 155/3.
    A situation has developed not necessarily to England's advantage, it is true.
    Kane Williamson is on target to score twice the entire England total in the same day. That will have the statisticians working their way through the books.
    It happened in August 2015, when England skittled the convicts for 60, and Joe Root was on 124* at the end of Day 1. Better times for English cricket! :)
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/11371/scorecard/743969/england-vs-australia-4th-investec-test-australia-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2015/
    Well done. Seriously impressed.
    That was the most recent match that came to mind with such a disgraceful first innings score, so I looked it up. There may be a more recent match with the same scenario.

    I'll admit to being quite good at Google, but then I do work as an IT consultant and often have to research obscure things online. ;) Cricinfo has some amazingly detailed reports and statistics available for every first class and international match ever played.
    Someone on cricinfo says: "Warner did it against India at the WACA in 2011 with a century in the last session."
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,151

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.

    So Labour is screwed whilst Corbyn is leader. That is the element "at stake" for more people than Labour can persuade.

    Yep, the Jezziah is this incompetent, tired, clueless government’s get out of jail free card.

    The big difference is that this government can do something about being regarded by you (and perhaps others? :lol: ) as "incompetent, tired, clueless". It has clearly been entirely engrossed in delivering Brexit. Theresa May APPEARS so far to be delivering effectively a form of associate membership of the EU that the EU wouldn't/couldn't/didn't offer David Cameron. I suspect that at the end of the day, it will be a Brexit outcome that a significant majority will be happy to live with. To that extent, the Moaning Minnies of Remainerstan will have done her a huge favour. "They said it couldn't be done...." (Although given her form on asking the voters what they think, I doubt she will put it to a second referendum.)

    Coming out the other side of Brexit with an OK outcome will be more than enough to put a spring in her - and her Government's - step. It doesn't augur well for Labour, under whichever leader's banner they choose to fight the next election.

    The Tories have run out of ideas at a time when living standards continue to stagnate or even fall. Brexit is clearly a blocker, but will be dealt with, with - as you say - pretty much a status quo deal that makes the UK a rule-taker, rather than part of the decision-making process. As long as the symbolic stuff is handled well, that will certainly be fine for most people - and should give the Tories a boost. But it will not solve any of the country's long-term problems. And with an opposition that cannot hope to win with its current leader, that is very bad news for Britain.
    Most people are wary of Government with "ideas" - they tend to be expensive failures. A bit of steady as she goes on the economy, bringing down the debt they inherited from a government with an idea - that it had beaten boom and bust - will do for now. I'm not saying there aren't things to fix - housing for the young being one very pressing need, another being Dementia Tax 2 - but how many people really want to take the risk of Corbyn implement HIS government of "ideas"?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,419
    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,923
    edited March 22

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    The Second Test coincides with Chelsea v Spurs and the first legs of the Champions League quarter finals.

    Oh wait ignore the latter half of that sentence, doesn’t apply to you lot.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,870

    It's fairly clear that Labour's reasonably good result wasn't so much mobilising the young (though there was some of that) as winning over much of the 21-45 working population. Increaingly Britain is divided into retired Conservatives (who worry about property, inheritance, etc.) and employed Labour voters (who worry about unemployment, schools, etc.) - obviously an over-generalisation, but that seems to be the trend. I agree that trusting on mobilisation of people who didn't vote in 2017 is a mistake.

    The latest "anonymous MP says for two pins I'd speak out against the leadership" round seems to have largely fizzled again (with a couple of exceptions) - there were reports that Labour MPs were going to attack Corbyn during PMQs, but he was fine.

    An odd feature of today's situation is that there is a chunk of voters on both sides who don't want their party to win big but would be OK with it winning narrowly. I know Tory Remainers who feel things aren't too bad at the moment, but who would be scared of a big Tory win with loads of vociferous Brexiteers running the show. I also know centrist Labour voters who would accept a Corbyn government dependent on centrist Labour MPs, LibDems and SNP but wouldn't fancy his getting a big mandate. It's quite hard to predict how these two groups will vote, if they vote at all: A real PB nerd would base it on the exact position of the constituency on the list of possible gains either way, but few people are like that in real life.

    The graphs in this article are revealing:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43075099

    This year's PPE exam should have this question:

    When did the Conservatives change from being a party advocating high levels of home ownership to a party advocating high levels of house prices ? Discuss the effects.
    Thatcher. Equity release is a powerful drug. To be fair to the Conservatives, Labour governments were just as addicted. Ed Miliband recognised expensive housing was the opposite of aspirational, but was roundly disparaged by the opposition at the time.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.

    So Labour is screwed whilst Corbyn is leader. That is the element "at stake" for more people than Labour can persuade.

    Yep, the Jezziah is this incompetent, tired, clueless government’s get out of jail free card.

    The big difference is that this government can do something about being regarded by you (and perhaps others? :lol: ) as "incompetent, tired, clueless". It has clearly been entirely engrossed in delivering Brexit. Theresa May APPEARS so far to be delivering effectively a form of associate membership of the EU that the EU wouldn't/couldn't/didn't offer David Cameron. I suspect that at the end of the day, it will be a Brexit outcome that a significant majority will be happy to live with. To that extent, the Moaning Minnies of Remainerstan will have done her a huge favour. "They said it couldn't be done...." (Although given her form on asking the voters what they think, I doubt she will put it to a second referendum.)

    Coming out the other side of Brexit with an OK outcome will be more than enough to put a spring in her - and her Government's - step. It doesn't augur well for Labour, under whichever leader's banner they choose to fight the next election.

    The Britain.
    Most people are wary of Government with "ideas" - they tend to be expensive failures. A bit of steady as she goes on the economy, bringing down the debt they inherited from a government with an idea - that it had beaten boom and bust - will do for now. I'm not saying there aren't things to fix - housing for the young being one very pressing need, another being Dementia Tax 2 - but how many people really want to take the risk of Corbyn implement HIS government of "ideas"?

    There are more people worried by Corbyn than relaxed about him, which is why the Tories cannot lose while he leads Labour. But we desperately need a government with ideas and vision. The UK is still stuck in the 20th century, dominated by nostalgia on both the left and right. That will not cut the mustard or solve the many problems we have - ones that get bigger the further from London you go.

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,422

    just as well spurs aren't playing any time soon with this ongoing england 'performance'

    The Second Test coincides with Chelsea v Spurs and the first legs of the Champions League quarter finals.

    Oh wait ignore the latter half of that sentence, doesn’t apply to you lot.
    Unfortunate... shuffles off to check Chelsea's odds ... whilst ignoring latter part
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,591
    So this morning the English cricket team joins the English rugby team as rubbish. Never mind only another few weeks before the English football team joins them

    And all this because of Brexit !!!!!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,151

    It's fairly clear that Labour's reasonably good result wasn't so much mobilising the young (though there was some of that) as winning over much of the 21-45 working population. Increaingly Britain is divided into retired Conservatives (who worry about property, inheritance, etc.) and employed Labour voters (who worry about unemployment, schools, etc.) - obviously an over-generalisation, but that seems to be the trend. I agree that trusting on mobilisation of people who didn't vote in 2017 is a mistake.

    The latest "anonymous MP says for two pins I'd speak out against the leadership" round seems to have largely fizzled again (with a couple of exceptions) - there were reports that Labour MPs were going to attack Corbyn during PMQs, but he was fine.

    An odd feature of today's situation is that there is a chunk of voters on both sides who don't want their party to win big but would be OK with it winning narrowly. I know Tory Remainers who feel things aren't too bad at the moment, but who would be scared of a big Tory win with loads of vociferous Brexiteers running the show. I also know centrist Labour voters who would accept a Corbyn government dependent on centrist Labour MPs, LibDems and SNP but wouldn't fancy his getting a big mandate. It's quite hard to predict how these two groups will vote, if they vote at all: A real PB nerd would base it on the exact position of the constituency on the list of possible gains either way, but few people are like that in real life.

    The graphs in this article are revealing:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43075099

    This year's PPE exam should have this question:

    When did the Conservatives change from being a party advocating high levels of home ownership to a party advocating high levels of house prices ? Discuss the effects.
    Alternatively, they inherited a position where Labour had gone from a party advocating high levels of public house building to a party happy to have high levels of house prices - which people could then use as a cash machine, to support their otherwise unachievable lifestyles...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,591

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

    I have little doubt immigration will actually increase but it will be targeted and under our control.

    I welcome anyone coming to our Country who works hard and pays their taxes.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,151

    Jonathan said:

    Turnout goes up when it's close, something is at stake nd all tribes get their voters to come out.

    So Labour is screwed whilst Corbyn is leader. That is the element "at stake" for more people than Labour can persuade.

    Yep, the Jezziah is this incompetent, tired, clueless government’s get out of jail free card.

    The big difference is that this government can do something about being regarded by you (and perhaps others? :lol: ) as "incompetent, tired, clueless". It has clearly been entirely engrossed in delivering Brexit. Theresa May APPEARS so far to be delivering effectively a form of associate membership of the EU that the EU wouldn't/couldn't/didn't offer David Cameron. I suspect that at the end of the day, it will be a Brexit outcome that a significant majority will be happy to live with. To that extent, the Moaning Minnies of Remainerstan will have done her a huge favour. "They said it couldn't be done...." (Although given her form on asking the voters what they think, I doubt she will put it to a second referendum.)

    Coming out the other side of Brexit with an OK outcome will be more than enough to put a spring in her - and her Government's - step. It doesn't augur well for Labour, under whichever leader's banner they choose to fight the next election.

    The Britain.
    Most people are wary of Government with "ideas" - they tend to be expensive failures. A bit of steady as she goes on the economy, bringing down the debt they inherited from a government with an idea - that it had beaten boom and bust - will do for now. I'm not saying there aren't things to fix - housing for the young being one very pressing need, another being Dementia Tax 2 - but how many people really want to take the risk of Corbyn implement HIS government of "ideas"?

    There are more people worried by Corbyn than relaxed about him, which is why the Tories cannot lose while he leads Labour. But we desperately need a government with ideas and vision. The UK is still stuck in the 20th century, dominated by nostalgia on both the left and right. That will not cut the mustard or solve the many problems we have - ones that get bigger the further from London you go.

    Devon is a long way from London....
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,419

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

    It is no sacrifice to restrict low and no skilled immigration.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,419

    It's fairly clear that Labour's reasonably good result wasn't so much mobilising the young (though there was some of that) as winning over much of the 21-45 working population. Increaingly Britain is divided into retired Conservatives (who worry about property, inheritance, etc.) and employed Labour voters (who worry about unemployment, schools, etc.) - obviously an over-generalisation, but that seems to be the trend. I agree that trusting on mobilisation of people who didn't vote in 2017 is a mistake.

    The latest "anonymous MP says for two pins I'd speak out against the leadership" round seems to have largely fizzled again (with a couple of exceptions) - there were reports that Labour MPs were going to attack Corbyn during PMQs, but he was fine.

    An odd feature of today's situation is that there is a chunk of voters on both sides who don't want their party to win big but would be OK with it winning narrowly. I know Tory Remainers who feel things aren't too bad at the moment, but who would be scared of a big Tory win with loads of vociferous Brexiteers running the show. I also know centrist Labour voters who would accept a Corbyn government dependent on centrist Labour MPs, LibDems and SNP but wouldn't fancy his getting a big mandate. It's quite hard to predict how these two groups will vote, if they vote at all: A real PB nerd would base it on the exact position of the constituency on the list of possible gains either way, but few people are like that in real life.

    The graphs in this article are revealing:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43075099

    This year's PPE exam should have this question:

    When did the Conservatives change from being a party advocating high levels of home ownership to a party advocating high levels of house prices ? Discuss the effects.
    Alternatively, they inherited a position where Labour had gone from a party advocating high levels of public house building to a party happy to have high levels of house prices - which people could then use as a cash machine, to support their otherwise unachievable lifestyles...
    Increasing numbers of renters doesn't hurt Labour in the way it hurts the Conservatives.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,824
    In good times of economic prosperity where the result is not in doubt ie 2001 turnout will be relatively low. In elections where the economy is not doing so well and the result looks competitive e.g. 1992 turnout will be much higher.

    With the aftermath of the 2008 recession, both parties pretty close in the polls and polarisation post the Brexit vote turnout has been much higher in the past decade
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,422

    So this morning the English cricket team joins the English rugby team as rubbish. Never mind only another few weeks before the English football team joins them

    And all this because of Brexit !!!!!

    From BBC website at 2am today:

    England Rugby: "We've lost three in a row in the 6 Nations, surely you can't be as disappointing as we have been?" England Cricket: "Hold my beer."

    Richard, Tynemouth
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609
    edited March 22

    .

    The graphs in this article are revealing:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43075099

    This year's PPE exam should have this question:

    When did the Conservatives change from being a party advocating high levels of home ownership to a party advocating high levels of house prices ? Discuss the effects.
    There are three things that will help the housing market.

    1. Fewer households - less immigration, divorce, lower birth rate
    2. More houses - at all price points and especially in areas of high demand
    3. Interest rates getting off the floor - making other investments more attractive than BTL.

    Until we see significant movement on all three, there will continue to be pressure on housing. The two key changes in recent years have been the financial crash in 2008-9 and the opening up of the labour market to Eastern Europe in 2004 - neither of which can really be levelled at the Conservative party. Since 2010, government policy on stamp duty has made BTL less attractive, especially in London, and housebuilding is at modern record levels with more new towns proposed and an easing of planning rules in favour of development.

    Anyone who thinks that Corbyn is the answer to housing in London is at best misguided. The only people who will benefit from a crash (as opposed to a gentle reduction) in house prices are those who will buy with cash at the bottom of the market. Everybody else will lose out, in some cases by hundreds of thousands of pounds.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,817

    It's fairly clear that Labour's reasonably good result wasn't so much mobilising the young (though there was some of that) as winning over much of the 21-45 working population. Increaingly Britain is divided into retired Conservatives (who worry about property, inheritance, etc.) and employed Labour voters (who worry about unemployment, schools, etc.) - obviously an over-generalisation, but that seems to be the trend. I agree that trusting on mobilisation of people who didn't vote in 2017 is a mistake.

    The latest "anonymous MP says for two pins I'd speak out against the leadership" round seems to have largely fizzled again (with a couple of exceptions) - there were reports that Labour MPs were going to attack Corbyn during PMQs, but he was fine.

    An odd feature of today's situation is that there is a chunk of voters on both sides who don't want their party to win big but would be OK with it winning narrowly. I know Tory Remainers who feel things aren't too bad at the moment, but who would be scared of a big Tory win with loads of vociferous Brexiteers running the show. I also know centrist Labour voters who would accept a Corbyn government dependent on centrist Labour MPs, LibDems and SNP but wouldn't fancy his getting a big mandate. It's quite hard to predict how these two groups will vote, if they vote at all: A real PB nerd would base it on the exact position of the constituency on the list of possible gains either way, but few people are like that in real life.

    The graphs in this article are revealing:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43075099

    This year's PPE exam should have this question:

    When did the Conservatives change from being a party advocating high levels of home ownership to a party advocating high levels of house prices ? Discuss the effects.
    Alternatively, they inherited a position where Labour had gone from a party advocating high levels of public house building to a party happy to have high levels of house prices - which people could then use as a cash machine, to support their otherwise unachievable lifestyles...
    Increasing numbers of renters doesn't hurt Labour in the way it hurts the Conservatives.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43043294
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,827
    edited March 22

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.
    Fixed that for you.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    Mr. Scrapheap, just wait until the England football team turns up at the World Cup ;)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,870

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    SNIP

    .
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

    I thought that Brexit would have little practical effect too but have changed my mind. It seems you can significantly reduce immigration simply by making immigrants feel unwelcome. This isn't control in any meaningful sense. The most marketable immigrants, and therefore valuable to the UK economy, will be the ones most put off. There will be a temporary tightening of the labour market - we're seeing it already - but the situation will correct itself. Just as an increase in on immigration leads to an increase in GDP, so a decrease will see a reduction in GDP. Economic activity those immigrants were involved with will move abroad.
  • So this morning the English cricket team joins the English rugby team as rubbish. Never mind only another few weeks before the English football team joins them

    And all this because of Brexit !!!!!

    From BBC website at 2am today:

    England Rugby: "We've lost three in a row in the 6 Nations, surely you can't be as disappointing as we have been?" England Cricket: "Hold my beer."

    Richard, Tynemouth
    What a Johnny Come Lately.

    Since I’ve been following the England cricket team in the early 90s I saw them get bowled out for 46 and 51.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    F1: pre-qualifying ramble will be up tomorrow morning, probably. Weather forecast now has rain for both qualifying and the race, heavier for qualifying.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

    It is no sacrifice to restrict low and no skilled immigration.

    It is if it leads to higher prices and higher taxes.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

    I have little doubt immigration will actually increase but it will be targeted and under our control.

    I welcome anyone coming to our Country who works hard and pays their taxes.

    That’s pretty much all EU immigrants.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    SNIP

    .
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

    I thought that Brexit would have little practical effect too but have changed my mind. It seems you can significantly reduce immigration simply by making immigrants feel unwelcome. This isn't control in any meaningful sense. The most marketable immigrants, and therefore valuable to the UK economy, will be the ones most put off. There will be a temporary tightening of the labour market - we're seeing it already - but the situation will correct itself. Just as an increase in on immigration leads to an increase in GDP, so a decrease will see a reduction in GDP. Economic activity those immigrants were involved with will move abroad.

    Yep, it’s at the higher end we’ll have trouble.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609

    F1: pre-qualifying ramble will be up tomorrow morning, probably. Weather forecast now has rain for both qualifying and the race, heavier for qualifying.

    Alonso for pole?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    .
    .
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

    I have little doubt immigration will actually increase but it will be targeted and under our control.

    I welcome anyone coming to our Country who works hard and pays their taxes.

    That’s pretty much all EU immigrants.

    Doesn't someone have to earn 25-30k before they become a net contributor? Importing people for minimum wage jobs topped up with tax credits and housing benefit is a net cost to the government, even more so if they bring dependents with them.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,743
    AndyJS said:

    TOPPING said:

    So did Gateshead vote Leave?

    Yes with 57%.
    Excellent. So presumably they did this on the basis that they could take back control by outsourcing their livelihood to France/Netherlands.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,275
    FF43 said:

    I thought that Brexit would have little practical effect too but have changed my mind. It seems you can significantly reduce immigration simply by making immigrants feel unwelcome. This isn't control in any meaningful sense. The most marketable immigrants, and therefore valuable to the UK economy, will be the ones most put off. There will be a temporary tightening of the labour market - we're seeing it already - but the situation will correct itself. Just as an increase in on immigration leads to an increase in GDP, so a decrease will see a reduction in GDP. Economic activity those immigrants were involved with will move abroad.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,591

    So this morning the English cricket team joins the English rugby team as rubbish. Never mind only another few weeks before the English football team joins them

    And all this because of Brexit !!!!!

    From BBC website at 2am today:

    England Rugby: "We've lost three in a row in the 6 Nations, surely you can't be as disappointing as we have been?" England Cricket: "Hold my beer."

    Richard, Tynemouth
    Shame we do not have a like button
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,591
    edited March 22
    SO

    That’s pretty much all EU immigrants.



    And I have no problem with it as long as it meets our economic need
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    edited March 22
    Mr. Sandpit, I'd probably be looking at the Red Bulls. If it's wet. Forecast has been quite changeable, one day to the next. Also, something like Sainz to do well might be worth looking at for the race, depending how things stack up. Not sure if there'll be one or two pit stops.

    Edited extra bit: if it's fairly dry. Obviously if it's wet then there could be many.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,275
    "Brexit will turn us into a Global Trading Nation!"

    So, we can buy passports from France?

    Ummm......
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,337

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.


    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

    It is no sacrifice to restrict low and no skilled immigration.

    It is if it leads to higher prices and higher taxes.

    Not everything that matters in life is material. Even if it were, EU membership hasn’t been great for people in trades exposed to massive competition from EU nationals.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,977
    Presumably a joke. If it had come from the Treasury he wouldn't say so.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,591
    When I was in business I went to London regularly by train and had a rail card. I am now applying for a two together rail card and on contacting National Rail I spoke to a very helpful representative who, with one or two minor questions, had all my details from when I had my previous rail card.

    I retired 9 years ago so on topic, why are we surprised about the amount tech companies know about us
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,623
    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.


    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    The support for Liam Fox to bestride the world conducting trade deals is, I suspect, somewhat niche.

    Freedom of movement will end in some symbolic way. In practical terms it will stay pretty much as it is - especially at the bottom end. The country will not make the sacrifices needed for a fundamental change.

    It is no sacrifice to restrict low and no skilled immigration.

    It is if it leads to higher prices and higher taxes.

    Not everything that matters in life is material. Even if it were, EU membership hasn’t been great for people in trades exposed to massive competition from EU nationals.

    Not everything in life is material, that is true. But voters notice higher prices and higher taxes, and they do not like them. That's why governments do all they can to ensure they do not happen.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,785
    edited March 22




    It was disruptive change through immigration which led to Brexit.

    Ending that will be enough for many people.

    May could have ended non-EU immigration at any point during, what felt like, the 115 years she was Home Secretary but chose not to do so. Whatever Brexit does or doesn't do reducing immigration won't be one of its manifold and bountiful gifts.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,290
    Off-topic;

    More information's come out on Uber's autonomous car collision with a pedestrian:
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/video-uber-driver-looks-down-for-seconds-before-fatal-crash/

    Take-homes:
    *) The car did not 'see' the pedestrian crossing the road.
    *) The safety driver was inattentive.
    *) The victim was wearing dark clothing.

    All in all, a tragic mess that should have implications for the autonomous testing that's being done. But won't.

    I've linked to the following, from last year, before:
    https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/the-selfdriving-cars-bicycle-problem
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,743
    Scott_P said:

    "Brexit will turn us into a Global Trading Nation!"

    So, we can buy passports from France?

    Ummm......

    I'm pretty sure the 57% of people who voted Leave in Gateshead, where De La Rue makes its passports, didn't do so because they thought that the government would reallocate their work to the furriners.
  • TOPPING said:

    AndyJS said:

    TOPPING said:

    So did Gateshead vote Leave?

    Yes with 57%.
    Excellent. So presumably they did this on the basis that they could take back control by outsourcing their livelihood to France/Netherlands.
    Yup, I find it tragic.

    #LifeComesAtYouFast
  • Presumably a joke. If it had come from the Treasury he wouldn't say so.
    I think it is a reference to Osborne's tenure as 2nd Lord of the Treasury.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,984
    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    "UK economic growth slows to weakest rate in five years"
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/22/uk-economic-growth-slows-to-weakest-rate-in-five-years
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,591

    DavidL said:

    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ?

    .
    Amongst Labour identifiers he did much better than 2001 too, according to the Chart. Of course under Blair the term "labour identifier" may well have been a somewhat broader church. That to me seems Labour's biggest problem. Corbyn motivates the more radical wing of the Labour Party better than anyone since Foot but he turns off the more centrist voter who is needed for a majority.
    Indeed. In 2017 though he had Brexit shoring up his moderate flank, as a lot of socially liberal moderates swallowed their misgivings about Corbyn as their primary motivation was not giving the Conservatives carte blanche to indulge their Brexit zealots. If you look at polling now, more Labour supporters think we should stay in the EU (however that's achieved) than think Corbyn will make a good PM. The question is, whether that can hold until the next election, and I don't think it can in most scenarios - as short of Corbyn demanding a second referendum and campaigning properly this time, it will either be a non issue, if we get a decent deal and abandon some of the sillier notions of Rees-Mogg et al, or Corbyn will be seen as complicit in the disaster.
    May is heading to the softest of soft Brexits where disruption or indeed change will not be noticeable to the majority of people. So far, remarkably, she has brought the wildest Brexiteers along with her and she seems increasingly confident about facing them down. The economy is trundling along reasonably well, still generating more jobs, soon to start delivering real wage increases again and putting chunky sums into public services, notably health. If you add the £4bn for the wage deal to the sums in the last budget we are more than half way to the £350m a week already.

    There is lots and lots that can go wrong yet but right now quite a lot is going right.
    "UK economic growth slows to weakest rate in five years"
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/22/uk-economic-growth-slows-to-weakest-rate-in-five-years
    With respect you and your fellow remainers keep posting negatives on Brexit but none of it is cutting through or changing opinions.

    We need to get the best deal we can and following our exit those who have very real and well held views must campaign to re-join.

    None of the negative posting will change the fact we are leaving.

    And by the way, it could be a disaster but equally it may not be.

    I do not have pre- conceived ideas of how good or bad it will be
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,275
    TOPPING said:

    I'm pretty sure the 57% of people who voted Leave in Gateshead, where De La Rue makes its passports, didn't do so because they thought that the government would reallocate their work to the furriners.

    They make passports for furriners.

    Did they vote for "passports can only be printed in country" ?
This discussion has been closed.