Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This could have been the moment that Cameron and his mother en

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This could have been the moment that Cameron and his mother ensured Corbyn would one day become PM

Just before Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader in September 2015 I wrote a piece for PB offering Jeremy Corbyn some fashion advice. That piece was inspired by the fact that earlier on that summer I had visited the House of Commons and has seen Jeremy Corbyn living up to the Steptoe Corbyn meme and I wasn’t sure to give Corbyn some loose change.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • First! Like the Tories at GE2022*

    *T&C Apply
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,065
    Second, vanilla ate my first. :(
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,874
    edited December 2018
    I think you may be overestimating the impact of a PMQ jibe and underestimate him just being worn down by the PR people and McDonnell to sharpen up his look a bit.
  • Cameron as the best dress politician in the country.

    Cross-dresser?

    You'll get the ERGers all of a tizzy.....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,874
    I do love that picture of Corbyn. Fair play to him for showing a sense of humour.
  • Cameron as the best dress politician in the country.

    Cross-dresser?

    You'll get the ERGers all of a tizzy.....

    Oops.
  • kle4 said:

    I think you may be overestimating the impact of a PMQ jibe

    Agree - I'm sure the Labour machine would have polished him up sooner or later....

    If they took PMQs jibes seriously they wouldn't get out of bed in the morning....
  • kle4 said:

    I do love that picture of Corbyn. Fair play to him for showing a sense of humour.

    It’s a bit of fun in the run up to Christmas.

    It was noteworthy that Labour made no attempt to smarten Corbyn up before Dave’s jibe.
  • Doom porn headline in the Guardian:

    ' More than 30,000 UK retailers in 'significant' financial distress '

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/23/high-street-online-uk-retailers-significant-financial-distress-christmas-shopping

    Half way down the article come some details:

    ' However, the total tally of fashion retailers in financial distress (3,300) is down 6% compared with last Christmas, while the overall number of high street retailers in trouble is down 8% at 17,226. '
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,065

    Doom porn headline in the Guardian:

    ' More than 30,000 UK retailers in 'significant' financial distress '

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/23/high-street-online-uk-retailers-significant-financial-distress-christmas-shopping

    Half way down the article come some details:

    ' However, the total tally of fashion retailers in financial distress (3,300) is down 6% compared with last Christmas, while the overall number of high street retailers in trouble is down 8% at 17,226. '

    How can 30,000 be in significant financial distress when only 3,300 are in financial distress?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,574
    edited December 2018
    Totally agree. Not so much that it was Dave's jibe that did it (although it may have been) but the main point about JC shaping up with the visuals. He really looks the part now. Beard neatly trimmed and an enviable collection of good Paul Smith suits. Which look fabulous on him because for a man of nearly 70 he has a figure to die for. Yes, it has been quite the transformation. Important development. It sounds trivial but it isn't. It means votes.
  • RobD said:

    Doom porn headline in the Guardian:

    ' More than 30,000 UK retailers in 'significant' financial distress '

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/23/high-street-online-uk-retailers-significant-financial-distress-christmas-shopping

    Half way down the article come some details:

    ' However, the total tally of fashion retailers in financial distress (3,300) is down 6% compared with last Christmas, while the overall number of high street retailers in trouble is down 8% at 17,226. '

    How can 30,000 be in significant financial distress when only 3,300 are in financial distress?
    The 3,300 are in the fashion retail sector and the 30,000 is all retailers.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,065
    edited December 2018

    RobD said:

    Doom porn headline in the Guardian:

    ' More than 30,000 UK retailers in 'significant' financial distress '

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/23/high-street-online-uk-retailers-significant-financial-distress-christmas-shopping

    Half way down the article come some details:

    ' However, the total tally of fashion retailers in financial distress (3,300) is down 6% compared with last Christmas, while the overall number of high street retailers in trouble is down 8% at 17,226. '

    How can 30,000 be in significant financial distress when only 3,300 are in financial distress?
    The 3,300 are in the fashion retail sector and the 30,000 is all retailers.
    Ah, that makes much more sense :p Although the total number of retailers in trouble is 17,000? Maybe a high street distinction there?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,207
    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Amusingly - a certain EU official reveals he is very much a fan......

  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    edited December 2018
    Sorry, I don't agree that Corbyn has improved his sense of fashion, he did wear the hooded jacket for the Remembrance ceremony in November 2018! Apart from special occasions he still tends to focus on the personification of the geography teacher look!

    I think Cameron was too obsessed with image, speaks volumes about him that he thought he could change political fundamentals with such a superficial change. Probably the reason he managed to only improve Tory polling by a few percentage points in 2010 and 2015 from the dire 1997, 2001 and 2005 result. I went out of my way to support Cameron but I always thought he would not deliver and would fail, I could tell he had no substance, it was all style but in the brutal reality of the time I thought he would be much better than Gordon Brown. Maybe Enoch Powell's dictum coloured my judgement about all political careers ending in failure!

    Cameron bequeathed to the nation a worse mess than he inherited when he quit. I take little notice of him now and believe he and those around him have had too easy lives where they have never known how hard decisions made by Governments ruins lives. Cameron is personally likeable but he made some incredibly bad decisions: HS2, Chinese involvement in Nuclear Power stations, EU referendum's and the like. I could go on but real politics is more than style, look at Ken Clarke!
  • "Slow and highly coordinated" trans: "What the feck has he tweeted now?"

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,874
    SeanT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Totally agree. Not so much that it was Dave's jibe that did it (although it may have been) but the main point about JC shaping up with the visuals. He really looks the part now. Beard neatly trimmed and an enviable collection of good Paul Smith suits. Which look fabulous on him because for a man of nearly 70 he has a figure to die for. Yes, it has been quite the transformation. Important development. It sounds trivial but it isn't. It means votes.

    I think TSEagles is politely trolling us, in a festive way.
    So out of character.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,719
    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
    All Brexit will do is change where immigrants arrive from geographically, which has been stilted towards European provenance in recent decades.

    In the future if Brexit is executed the immigrants will come from India, Pakistan, Africa, the middle East and far east. Many of them will not be Christian and new diasporas will further fragment society and be more visible than the European settlers.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,574
    edited December 2018
    @ Sean T

    :-)

    Well of course I don't judge by appearances either but there are those that do. One of my old grandpas for example (long gone now) very often used to say "clothes maketh the man". It was almost like his catchphrase. Pretty annoying, he was.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.
    Some people I have encountered thought that Brexit would mean less Immigrants from the rest of the world as well as Europe. I think that the public who supported Brexit is going to be very disappointed when society continues to change away from the mostly homogenous white population to mixed and in some cases segregated communities that will continue to grow paradoxically even faster due to Brexit!
  • I'm delighted to have been proven a visionary on the shiteness of Jordan Pickford.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,719
    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.
    Polling on immigration is basically flat since the referendum. The percentage of people wanting immigration reduced is the same bar margin of error.

    Incidentally. Historically number of people wanting immigration reduced probably decreased after freedom of movement was introduced. That rather knocks your theory into a cocked hat.
  • This wouldn't have happened under Big Sam.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,844
    The SS were very nicely turned out, in their lovely Hugo Boss anti-semite uniforms......
  • Floater said:
    Police at Britain's biggest airports are set to be armed with drone-killing bazookas in the wake of the chaos

    Shades of David Blunkett sending tanks into prisons.

    Police. Bazookas. Airliners. Built-up areas. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Now all he has to do is sharpen up everything else and he might have ratings that are a level above abyssal.
  • SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.
    Some people I have encountered thought that Brexit would mean less Immigrants from the rest of the world as well as Europe. I think that the public who supported Brexit is going to be very disappointed when society continues to change away from the mostly homogenous white population to mixed and in some cases segregated communities that will continue to grow paradoxically even faster due to Brexit!
    I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.

    I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.

    There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
  • SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.
    Some people I have encountered thought that Brexit would mean less Immigrants from the rest of the world as well as Europe. I think that the public who supported Brexit is going to be very disappointed when society continues to change away from the mostly homogenous white population to mixed and in some cases segregated communities that will continue to grow paradoxically even faster due to Brexit!
    I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.

    I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.

    There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
    There is if it also reduces immigration of those who do work. High fliers have agency. They will be repelled by anti-immigrant societies.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,847
    @SeanT, I'd say the point Robert Harris misses is that 10% of the electorate can wield an awful lot of power under our electoral system, if they're voting on a single issue (much more power than under PR). A party that wishes to govern has to chase after these votes if they want to win.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 73,244
    edited December 2018
    I hope Spurs score at least one more.

    It will mean that Everton have conceded more goals in this match as Liverpool have conceded in their 18 Premier League matches this season.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.
    Some people I have encountered thought that Brexit would mean less Immigrants from the rest of the world as well as Europe. I think that the public who supported Brexit is going to be very disappointed when society continues to change away from the mostly homogenous white population to mixed and in some cases segregated communities that will continue to grow paradoxically even faster due to Brexit!
    I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.

    I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.

    There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
    Please show me the statistics that support your theory, I would direct you to the ONS website to start with if I were you. The studies I have seen tend to imply that European Immigrants add several billions to the Government finances net, per year.
  • "Slow and highly coordinated" trans: "What the feck has he tweeted now?"

    Actual translation: reverse ferreting on the pull-out is the only way he can hope to find a new defence secretary to work with him. Even Fox News has charged Trump over enabling IS.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,065


    Please show me the statistics that support your theory, I would direct you to the ONS website to start with if I were you. The studies I have seen tend to imply that European Immigrants add several billions to the Government finances net, per year.

    Does that take into account indirect cost of provision of services, not just direct benefits paid?
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    RobD said:


    Please show me the statistics that support your theory, I would direct you to the ONS website to start with if I were you. The studies I have seen tend to imply that European Immigrants add several billions to the Government finances net, per year.

    Does that take into account indirect cost of provision of services, not just direct benefits paid?
    It does that is why it is a NET Figure.

    I am sorry I have to go, I am helping with festive things!
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,372
    Sean_F said:

    @SeanT, I'd say the point Robert Harris misses is that 10% of the electorate can wield an awful lot of power under our electoral system, if they're voting on a single issue (much more power than under PR). A party that wishes to govern has to chase after these votes if they want to win.

    If 2015 had been fought under PR the likely government to emerge would have been Con (36.8) + Ukip (12.6) + DUP (0.6) for 50%.

    And I'm guessing UKIP might have had one particular demand in exchange for entering into a government with the Tories...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,065

    RobD said:


    Please show me the statistics that support your theory, I would direct you to the ONS website to start with if I were you. The studies I have seen tend to imply that European Immigrants add several billions to the Government finances net, per year.

    Does that take into account indirect cost of provision of services, not just direct benefits paid?
    It does that is why it is a NET Figure.

    I am sorry I have to go, I am helping with festive things!
    Ah, it could have been a net figure of tax receipts and benefit payments.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    image

    Where do I donate?
  • kyf_100 said:

    Sean_F said:

    @SeanT, I'd say the point Robert Harris misses is that 10% of the electorate can wield an awful lot of power under our electoral system, if they're voting on a single issue (much more power than under PR). A party that wishes to govern has to chase after these votes if they want to win.

    If 2015 had been fought under PR the likely government to emerge would have been Con (36.8) + Ukip (12.6) + DUP (0.6) for 50%.

    And I'm guessing UKIP might have had one particular demand in exchange for entering into a government with the Tories...
    Taxi drivers to wear caps?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 51,003
    Corbyn has sharpened up his appearance but as his Remembrance Day coat showed he is still prone to the odd lapse
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,624
    Is it true that the drones didn't exist? Just a figment of an airport official on acid?

    Hasn't Brexit done enough damage to the country's reputation?

    A friend of mine on day one said it was probably an owl.....

    Now now it seems it might not even have been an owl.
  • Jezza should look good in a suit: he’s slim built but with broad shoulders. I know this to be true as I’m similarly built myself and was once told it by a gay man!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,371
    TSE has been on the sherry.. Corbyn does not look.like a PM in waiting...
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,372

    kyf_100 said:

    Sean_F said:

    @SeanT, I'd say the point Robert Harris misses is that 10% of the electorate can wield an awful lot of power under our electoral system, if they're voting on a single issue (much more power than under PR). A party that wishes to govern has to chase after these votes if they want to win.

    If 2015 had been fought under PR the likely government to emerge would have been Con (36.8) + Ukip (12.6) + DUP (0.6) for 50%.

    And I'm guessing UKIP might have had one particular demand in exchange for entering into a government with the Tories...
    Taxi drivers to wear caps?
    Probably more likely to demand the immediate defenestration of anyone who's ever taken an Uber, given most cabbies I've met have been Kippers.

    But the point is that under PR, GE 2015 would have left the UK ungovernable without UKIP support.

    Leading us right back to where we are now. Under FPTP or PR, enough people were willing to vote for a single issue party that it forced the issue.

    Then, when the issue was put to the general population, 52% of them voted to leave.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Sean_F said:

    @SeanT, I'd say the point Robert Harris misses is that 10% of the electorate can wield an awful lot of power under our electoral system, if they're voting on a single issue (much more power than under PR). A party that wishes to govern has to chase after these votes if they want to win.

    If 2015 had been fought under PR the likely government to emerge would have been Con (36.8) + Ukip (12.6) + DUP (0.6) for 50%.

    And I'm guessing UKIP might have had one particular demand in exchange for entering into a government with the Tories...
    Taxi drivers to wear caps?
    Probably more likely to demand the immediate defenestration of anyone who's ever taken an Uber, given most cabbies I've met have been Kippers.

    But the point is that under PR, GE 2015 would have left the UK ungovernable without UKIP support.

    Leading us right back to where we are now. Under FPTP or PR, enough people were willing to vote for a single issue party that it forced the issue.

    Then, when the issue was put to the general population, 52% of them voted to leave.
    Or, of course, Miliband and Cameron could have stitched up a deal to freeze UKIP out.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,719
    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all mputer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.
    Polling on immigration is basically flat since the referendum. The percentage of people wanting immigration reduced is the same bar margin of error.

    Incidentally. Historically number of people wanting immigration reduced probably decreased after freedom of movement was introduced. That rather knocks your theory into a cocked hat.
    You're just wrong

    "Immigration is perceived to be one of the ‘most important issues’ facing the British public, though its salience has declined since the Brexit referendum"



    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/#kp2


    "In the year or so before the EU referendum, between June 2015 and June 2016, immigration was consistently named as the most salient issue facing the country, peaking at 56% in September 2015. In 1994, which was the starting point of this data series, less than 5% of respondents thought of immigration as a concern, and it remained rarely mentioned prior to 2000. The increasing rate of immigration from the EU since the accession of the “A8 countries” to the EU was accompanied by a clear change in public mood between 2001 and 2016. Immigration was displaced as primary concern by the economy during the recession years but quickly returned to prominence.

    Since the EU Referendum in June 2016, however, immigration has been mentioned by far fewer people, falling from 48% in June 2016 to 21% in December 2017. Over this same period, it is perhaps not surprising that Europe/ the EU has increased in salience. As of December 2017, 46% mentioned this as a concern, with a further 44% mentioning the NHS (as respondents can name more than one issue if they want to, the total comes to more than 100%)."
    You missed what they say about the percentage of people who think immigration is too high.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 6,349
    edited December 2018
    SeanT said:

    fpt Justin:

    "I don't think your last paragraph is valid. By the final ten days of the campaign several polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. The Tory surge in Scotland also implied a weaker underlying performance elsewhere in GB.
    Diane Abbot had a number of media disasters in the campaign - yet the effect was marginal."

    ***

    I'm saying he would "struggle to win an election", not ruling it out. And I stand by it. Enough people know his views and dislike them so much, I can't see him winning an overall majority (and remember, to do that he surely has to win back seats in Scotland, of which there is no prospect at all, at the moment, according to the polls).

    I *could* see him winning a small plurality over the Tories and governing in a volatile coalition with, or Supply & Confidence from, the Nats. But it would be horribly unstable and I suspect another election would follow soon after.

    That said, at some point even Labour members are going to get bored of Grandpa's terrorist hugging anti-Semitic Brexiteering election-losing shtick, and they will replace him with someone much more papabile. Thornberry, say. Then Labour could and should surge.

    As I have stated here before, I suspect Labour is well placed to make significant gains in Scotland next time - mainly at SNP expense. The most recent poll there has Labour & Tories both on 26% with the SNP on 37%. However, in recent elections the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings and I doubt they will end up with more than 33% in a Westminster election with Labour on circa 30%. Others disagree - so we shall have to see!
  • justin124 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt Justin:

    "I don't think your last paragraph is valid. By the final ten days of the campaign several polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. The Tory surge in Scotland also implied a weaker underlying performance elsewhere in GB.
    Diane Abbot had a number of media disasters in the campaign - yet the effect was marginal."

    ***

    I'm saying he would "struggle to win an election", not ruling it out. And I stand by it. Enough people know his views and dislike them so much, I can't see him winning an overall majority (and remember, to do that he surely has to win back seats in Scotland, of which there is no prospect at all, at the moment, according to the polls).

    I *could* see him winning a small plurality over the Tories and governing in a volatile coalition with, or Supply & Confidence from, the Nats. But it would be horribly unstable and I suspect another election would follow soon after.

    That said, at some point even Labour members are going to get bored of Grandpa's terrorist hugging anti-Semitic Brexiteering election-losing shtick, and they will replace him with someone much more papabile. Thornberry, say. Then Labour could and should surge.

    As I have stated here before, I suspect Labour is well placed to make significant gains in Scotland next time - mainly at SNP expense. Thye most recent poll there has Labour & Tories both on 26% with the SNP on 37%. However, in recent elections the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings and I doubt they will end up with more than 33% in a Westminster election with Labour on circa 30%. Others disagree - so we shall have to see!
    Do you have this post on repeat. Are you trying to convince yourself that labour have any chance in Scotland

    Because there is not a hope for labour in Scotland
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    edited December 2018
    You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Corbyn make look more presentable now that he wears a suit and tie and no longer wears Compo’s cast offs, but he still spouts the same incoherent rubbish and is totally incapable of team building. Wearing a natty suit doesn’t do anything to eliminate or even reduce his party’s anti-semitism or misogyny both of which have surfaced on his watch.

    BTW - penultimate para should be “heeded” not “headed”
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 6,349

    justin124 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt Justin:

    "I don't think your last paragraph is valid. By the final ten days of the campaign several polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. The Tory surge in Scotland also implied a weaker underlying performance elsewhere in GB.
    Diane Abbot had a number of media disasters in the campaign - yet the effect was marginal."

    ***

    I'm saying he would "struggle to win an election", not ruling it out. And I stand by it. Enough people know his views and dislike them so much, I can't see him winning an overall majority (and remember, to do that he surely has to win back seats in Scotland, of which there is no prospect at all, at the moment, according to the polls).

    I *could* see him winning a small plurality over the Tories and governing in a volatile coalition with, or Supply & Confidence from, the Nats. But it would be horribly unstable and I suspect another election would follow soon after.

    That said, at some point even Labour members are going to get bored of Grandpa's terrorist hugging anti-Semitic Brexiteering election-losing shtick, and they will replace him with someone much more papabile. Thornberry, say. Then Labour could and should surge.

    As I have stated here before, I suspect Labour is well placed to make significant gains in Scotland next time - mainly at SNP expense. Thye most recent poll there has Labour & Tories both on 26% with the SNP on 37%. However, in recent elections the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings and I doubt they will end up with more than 33% in a Westminster election with Labour on circa 30%. Others disagree - so we shall have to see!
    Do you have this post on repeat. Are you trying to convince yourself that labour have any chance in Scotland

    Because there is not a hope for labour in Scotland
    I could make the same comment about your comments and the certainty with which you claim to know better than what even the polls are indicating.
  • You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Corbyn make look more presentable now that he wears a suit and tie and no longer wears Compo’s cast offs, but he still spouts the same incoherent rubbish and is totally incapable of team building. Wearing a natty suit doesn’t do anything to eliminate or even reduce his party’s anti-semitism or misogyny both of which have surfaced on his watch.

    BTW - penultimate para should be “heeded” not “headed”

    Ta.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.
    Some people I have encountered thought that Brexit would mean less Immigrants from the rest of the world as well as Europe. I think that the public who supported Brexit is going to be very disappointed when society continues to change away from the mostly homogenous white population to mixed and in some cases segregated communities that will continue to grow paradoxically even faster due to Brexit!
    I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.

    I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.

    There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
    Er... foreign students and wealthy self-sufficient immigrants don't work but bring money into the country; most of the others are working and contributing.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt Justin:

    "I don't think your last paragraph is valid. By the final ten days of the campaign several polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. The Tory surge in Scotland also implied a weaker underlying performance elsewhere in GB.
    Diane Abbot had a number of media disasters in the campaign - yet the effect was marginal."

    ***

    I'm saying he would "struggle to win an election", not ruling it out. And I stand by it. Enough people know his views and dislike them so much, I can't see him winning an overall majority (and remember, to do that he surely has to win back seats in Scotland, of which there is no prospect at all, at the moment, according to the polls).

    I *could* see him winning a small plurality over the Tories and governing in a volatile coalition with, or Supply & Confidence from, the Nats. But it would be horribly unstable and I suspect another election would follow soon after.

    That said, at some point even Labour members are going to get bored of Grandpa's terrorist hugging anti-Semitic Brexiteering election-losing shtick, and they will replace him with someone much more papabile. Thornberry, say. Then Labour could and should surge.

    As I have stated here before, I suspect Labour is well placed to make significant gains in Scotland next time - mainly at SP expense. Thye most recent poll there has Labour & Tories both on 26% with the SNP on 37%. However, in recent elections the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings and I doubt they will end up with more than 33% in a Westminster election with Labour on circa 30%. Others disagree - so we shall have to see!
    Do you have this post on repeat. Are you trying to convince yourself that labour have any chance in Scotland

    Because there is not a hope for labour in Scotland
    I could make the same comment about your comments and the certainty with which you claim to know better than what even the polls are indicating.
    I know Scotland, it's people and it's politics

    I have lived there, voted there, and have family and friends in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Isle of Arran, Lossiemouth and the north east upto Wick.

    I witnessed the monopoly of labour over decades until the SNP offered a much better progressive agenda and have been very successful. In Nicola Sturgeon they have a consumate politician and they occupy labours space totally. Many of our relatives who long ago were staunch labour supporters left for the SNP and they are not coming back

    Also the opposition to the SNP comes from Ruth Davidson, someone who takes Nicola on shoulder to shoulder

    Continue with your dream but labour with a hopeless Scots leader (who is English, believe it or not) will not hold back the SNP in any election in the foreceable future
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 6,349

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt Justin:

    "I don't think your last paragraph is valid. By the final ten days of the campaign several polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. The Tory surge in Scotland also implied a weaker underlying performance elsewhere in GB.
    Diane Abbot had a number of media disasters in the campaign - yet the effect was marginal."

    ***


    That said, at some point even Labour members are going to get bored of Grandpa's terrorist hugging anti-Semitic Brexiteering election-losing shtick, and they will replace him with someone much more papabile. Thornberry, say. Then Labour could and should surge.

    As I have stated here before, I suspect Labour is well placed to make significant gains in Scotland next time - mainly at SP expense. Thye most recent poll there has Labour & Tories both on 26% with the SNP on 37%. However, in recent elections the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings and I doubt they will end up with more than 33% in a Westminster election with Labour on circa 30%. Others disagree - so we shall have to see!
    Do you have this post on repeat. Are you trying to convince yourself that labour have any chance in Scotland

    Because there is not a hope for labour in Scotland
    I could make the same comment about your comments and the certainty with which you claim to know better than what even the polls are indicating.
    I know Scotland, it's people and it's politics

    I have lived there, voted there, and have family and friends in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Isle of Arran, Lossiemouth and the north east upto Wick.

    I witnessed the monopoly of labour over decades until the SNP offered a much better progressive agenda and have been very successful. In Nicola Sturgeon they have a consumate politician and they occupy labours space totally. Many of our relatives who long ago were staunch labour supporters left for the SNP and they are not coming back

    Also the opposition to the SNP comes from Ruth Davidson, someone who takes Nicola on shoulder to shoulder

    Continue with your dream but labour with a hopeless Scots leader (who is English, believe it or not) will not hold back the SNP in any election in the foreceable future
    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt Justin:

    "I don't think your last paragraph is valid. By the final ten days of the campaign several polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. The Tory surge in Scotland also implied a weaker underlying performance elsewhere in GB.
    Diane Abbot had a number of media disasters in the campaign - yet the effect was marginal."

    ***


    That said.

    As I have stated here before, I suspect Labour is well placed to make significant gains in Scotland next time - mainly at SP expense. Thye most recent poll there has Labour & Tories both on 26% with the SNP on 37%. However, in recent elections the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings and I doubt they will end up with more than 33% in a Westminster election with Labour on circa 30%. Others disagree - so we shall have to see!
    Do you have this post on repeat. Are you trying to convince yourself that labour have any chance in Scotland

    Because there is not a hope for labour in Scotland
    I could make the same comment about your comments and the certainty with which you claim to know better than what even the polls are indicating.
    I know Scotland, it's people and it's politics

    I have lived there, voted there, and have family and friends in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Isle of Arran, Lossiemouth and the north east upto Wick.

    I witnessed the monopoly of labour over decades until the SNP offered a much better progressive agenda and have been very successful. In Nicola Sturgeon they have a consumate politician and they occupy labours space totally. Many of our relatives who long ago were staunch labour supporters left for the SNP and they are not coming back

    Also the opposition to the SNP comes from Ruth Davidson, someone who takes Nicola on shoulder to shoulder

    Continue with your dream but labour with a hopeless Scots leader (who is English, believe it or not) will not hold back the SNP in any election in the foreceable future
    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.
    I rest my case as stated. Hang on to your unicorns if you wish
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 6,349

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt Justin:

    "I don't think your last paragraph is valid. By the final ten days of the campaign several polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. The Tory surge in Scotland also implied a weaker underlying performance elsewhere in GB.
    Diane Abbot had a number of media disasters in the campaign - yet the effect was marginal."

    ***


    That said.

    As I have stated here before, I suspect Labour is well placed to make significant gains in Scotland next time - mainly at SP expense. Thye most recent poll there has Labour & Tories both on 26% with the SNP on 37%. However, in recent elections the SNP has underperformed its poll ratings and I doubt they will end up with more than 33% in a Westminster election with Labour on circa 30%. Others disagree - so we shall have to see!
    Do you have this post on repeat. Are you trying to convince yourself that labour have any chance in Scotland

    Because there is not a hope for labour in Scotland
    I could make the same comment about your comments and the certainty with which you claim to know better than what even the polls are indicating.
    I know Scotland, it's people and it's politics

    I have lived there, voted there, and have family and friends in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Isle of Arran, Lossiemouth and the north east upto Wick.

    I witnessed the monopoly of labour over decades until the SNP offered a much better progressive agenda and have been very successful. In Nicola Sturgeon they have a consumate politician and they occupy labours space totally. Many of our relatives who long ago were staunch labour supporters left for the SNP and they are not coming back

    Also the opposition to the SNP comes from Ruth Davidson, someone who takes Nicola on shoulder to shoulder

    Continue with your dream but labour with a hopeless Scots leader (who is English, believe it or not) will not hold back the SNP in any election in the foreceable future
    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.
    I rest my case as stated. Hang on to your unicorns if you wish
    In truth you have not addressed my points at all!
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,982
    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,583

    I know Scotland, it's people and it's politics

    I have lived there, voted there, and have family and friends in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Isle of Arran, Lossiemouth and the north east upto Wick.

    I witnessed the monopoly of labour over decades until the SNP offered a much better progressive agenda and have been very successful. In Nicola Sturgeon they have a consumate politician and they occupy labours space totally. Many of our relatives who long ago were staunch labour supporters left for the SNP and they are not coming back

    Also the opposition to the SNP comes from Ruth Davidson, someone who takes Nicola on shoulder to shoulder

    Continue with your dream but labour with a hopeless Scots leader (who is English, believe it or not) will not hold back the SNP in any election in the foreceable future

    I don't profess the same degree of knowledge of the situation North of the Border as you do (I've not set foot there since I left after graduating, twenty years ago,) but I'd rather imagine that most of the remaining Scottish Labour vote are either elderly habit voters, belong to that rather niche group of left-leaning Unionists, or are anti-SNP tactical voters who think Labour has the best chance of beating the Nats in their constituency? I'm actually amazed they do as well as they do, and wonder if much of their remaining vote might be vulnerable to the Conservatives - if, under a future leader, they were to divorce from the party in England and Wales and resurrect the old Unionist Party?

    I imagine that it might be like the CDU/CSU split in Germany, with the two parties operating as separate entities with separate manifestos, that don't compete with one another at state level and operate in alliance at national level. I wonder if that's doable? Something similar previously existed, prior to 1965, after all.

    All this assumes, of course, that the UK survives long enough for politics to evolve in that direction. Which is far from a given at this juncture.
  • Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    Mr Eagles

    To further the accident over cross dressing referred to above;

    'He looks like what he is - a dung hill in a dress...suit.'

    With apologies to Lord Edmund Blackadder and another Labour politician...
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,583
    edited December 2018
    kyf_100 said:

    Sean_F said:

    @SeanT, I'd say the point Robert Harris misses is that 10% of the electorate can wield an awful lot of power under our electoral system, if they're voting on a single issue (much more power than under PR). A party that wishes to govern has to chase after these votes if they want to win.

    If 2015 had been fought under PR the likely government to emerge would have been Con (36.8) + Ukip (12.6) + DUP (0.6) for 50%.

    And I'm guessing UKIP might have had one particular demand in exchange for entering into a government with the Tories...
    Observations such as this are pointless. If we had a PR system rather than FPTP then many voters could and would make different choices: depending on the mechanism, the predominant or sole motive would be to pick one's favoured party - rather than, as now, picking the least unpalatable one with a realistic chance of winning a seat. And the choice of available parties would in all likelihood be entirely different, anyway.

    We'd have a far-Right tendency, a Farage-Rees-Mogg social conservative party, a Christian Democrat party, probably some kind of wet centrist nothing party, a Social Democrat party, a Momentum party, and possibly a far-Left tendency as well. Oh, and there would still be the Greens, the various Celtic Nationalist and NI Unionist parties, and quite likely special interest groups such as a Pensioners' Party and an Islamic Party running as well. Depending on exactly how the PR system operated and how low its thresholds were set, it's possible that absolutely all of them could end up represented in a veritable alphabet soup of a Parliament.

    In an electorate working with PR, a very large percentage of the population could be expected to behave differently to how they do at the moment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641

    Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
    Didn't Corbyn work for Putin once (well, Russia Today, which is basically the same thing)?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 2,350

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt Justin:

    "I don't think your last paragraph is valid. By the final ten days of the campaign several polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. The Tory surge in Scotland also implied a weaker underlying performance elsewhere in GB.
    Diane Abbot had a number of media disasters in the campaign - yet the effect was marginal."

    ***

    I'm saying he would "struggle to win an election", not ruling it out. And I stand by it. Enough people know his views and dislike them so much, I can't see him winning an overall majority (and remember, to do that he surely has to win back seats in Scotland, of which there is no prospect at all, at the moment, according to the polls).

    I *could* see him winning a small plurality over the Tories and governing in a volatile coalition with, or Supply & Confidence from, the Nats. But it would be horribly unstable and re going to get bored of Grandpa's terrorist hugging anti-Semitic Brexiteering election-losing shtick, and they will replace him with someone much more papabile. Thornberry, say. Then Labour could and should surge.

    As I have stated here before, I suspect Labour is well placed to make significant gains in Scotland nexrmed its poll ratings and I doubt they will end up with more than 33% in a Westminster election with Labour on circa 30%. Others disagree - so we shall have to see!
    Do you have this post on repeat. Are you trying to convince yourself that labour have any chance in Scotland

    Because there is not a hope for labour in Scotland
    I could make the same comment about your comments and the certainty with which you claim to know better than what even the polls are indicating.
    I know Scotland, it's people and it's politics

    I have lived there, voted there, and have family and friends in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Isle of Arran, Lossiemouth and the north east upto Wick.

    I witnessed the monopoly of labour over decades until the SNP offered a much better progressive agenda and have been very successful. In Nicola Sturgeon they have a consumate politician and they occupy labours space totally. Many of our relatives who long ago were staunch labour supporters left for the SNP and they are not coming back

    Also the opposition to the SNP comes from Ruth Davidson, someone who takes Nicola on shoulder to shoulder

    Continue with your dream but labour with a hopeless Scots leader (who is English, believe it or not) will not hold back the SNP in any election in the foreceable future
    Have you ever considered the possibility that- not just in Scotland, but in general- your family and friends might not actually be a very representative sample of the electorate?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,982

    Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
    That's quite a way beyond what I'd agree with.

    Point 1 - yes - he plans to ruin us all - quite deliberately too.

    Point 2 - he's just an accidental bigot.

    Point 3 - total control. (I don't think Corbyn wants that, but I'm sure he'll try to achieve that when his pans don't work)

    Point 4 - you really can't worry about whether a crackpot agrees with you.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,636

    kyf_100 said:

    Sean_F said:

    @SeanT, I'd say the point Robert Harris misses is that 10% of the electorate can wield an awful lot of power under our electoral system, if they're voting on a single issue (much more power than under PR). A party that wishes to govern has to chase after these votes if they want to win.

    If 2015 had been fought under PR the likely government to emerge would have been Con (36.8) + Ukip (12.6) + DUP (0.6) for 50%.

    And I'm guessing UKIP might have had one particular demand in exchange for entering into a government with the Tories...
    Observations such as this are pointless. If we had a PR system rather than FPTP then many voters could and would make different choices: depending on the mechanism, the predominant or sole motive would be to pick one's favoured party - rather than, as now, picking the least unpalatable one with a realistic chance of winning a seat. And the choice of available parties would in all likelihood be entirely different, anyway.

    We'd have a far-Right tendency, a Farage-Rees-Mogg social conservative party, a Christian Democrat party, probably some kind of wet centrist nothing party, a Social Democrat party, a Momentum party, and possibly a far-Left tendency as well. Oh, and there would still be the Greens, the various Celtic Nationalist and NI Unionist parties, and quite likely special interest groups such as a Pensioners' Party and an Islamic Party running as well. Depending on exactly how the PR system operated and how low its thresholds were set, it's possible that absolutely all of them could end up represented in a veritable alphabet soup of a Parliament.

    In an electorate working with PR, a very large percentage of the population could be expected to behave differently to how they do at the moment.
    +1
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,372
    edited December 2018

    kyf_100 said:

    Sean_F said:

    @SeanT, I'd say the point Robert Harris misses is that 10% of the electorate can wield an awful lot of power under our electoral system, if they're voting on a single issue (much more power than under PR). A party that wishes to govern has to chase after these votes if they want to win.

    If 2015 had been fought under PR the likely government to emerge would have been Con (36.8) + Ukip (12.6) + DUP (0.6) for 50%.

    And I'm guessing UKIP might have had one particular demand in exchange for entering into a government with the Tories...
    Observations such as this are pointless. If we had a PR system rather than FPTP then many voters could and would make different choices: depending on the mechanism, the predominant or sole motive would be to pick one's favoured party - rather than, as now, picking the least unpalatable one with a realistic chance of winning a seat. And the choice of available parties would in all likelihood be entirely different, anyway.

    We'd have a far-Right tendency, a Farage-Rees-Mogg social conservative party, a Christian Democrat party, probably some kind of wet centrist nothing party, a Social Democrat party, a Momentum party, and possibly a far-Left tendency as well. Oh, and there would still be the Greens, the various Celtic Nationalist and NI Unionist parties, and quite likely special interest groups such as a Pensioners' Party and an Islamic Party running as well. Depending on exactly how the PR system operated and how low its thresholds were set, it's possible that absolutely all of them could end up represented in a veritable alphabet soup of a Parliament.

    In an electorate working with PR, a very large percentage of the population could be expected to behave differently to how they do at the moment.
    You're almost certainly correct. I got half way through a reply to Donny speculating that both Tories and Labour would end up splitting into two breakaway parties under PR - then I realised that was only one of many, many possible outcomes, then had to head off to pack for Christmas, so I never finished the post.

    My opinion however is that under almost every circumstance since 2015 leading up to the referendum, UKIP as a single issue party have been big enough to either force a referendum under FPTP for the leading party to win, or to make it impossible to govern without them under PR.

    In short, all roads lead to Rome, or in this case, to referendum. I can't imagine a scenario under PR or FPTP that would have led otherwise.

    Sorry if this post is a bit garbled, it's rushed and I need to get back to packing...
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    kyf_100 said:

    Sean_F said:

    @SeanT, I'd say the point Robert Harris misses is that 10% of the electorate can wield an awful lot of power under our electoral system, if they're voting on a single issue (much more power than under PR). A party that wishes to govern has to chase after these votes if they want to win.

    If 2015 had been fought under PR the likely government to emerge would have been Con (36.8) + Ukip (12.6) + DUP (0.6) for 50%.

    And I'm guessing UKIP might have had one particular demand in exchange for entering into a government with the Tories...
    Observations such as this are pointless. If we had a PR system rather than FPTP then many voters could and would make different choices: depending on the mechanism, the predominant or sole motive would be to pick one's favoured party - rather than, as now, picking the least unpalatable one with a realistic chance of winning a seat. And the choice of available parties would in all likelihood be entirely different, anyway.

    We'd have a far-Right tendency, a Farage-Rees-Mogg social conservative party, a Christian Democrat party, probably some kind of wet centrist nothing party, a Social Democrat party, a Momentum party, and possibly a far-Left tendency as well. Oh, and there would still be the Greens, the various Celtic Nationalist and NI Unionist parties, and quite likely special interest groups such as a Pensioners' Party and an Islamic Party running as well. Depending on exactly how the PR system operated and how low its thresholds were set, it's possible that absolutely all of them could end up represented in a veritable alphabet soup of a Parliament.

    In an electorate working with PR, a very large percentage of the population could be expected to behave differently to how they do at the moment.
    Indeed. The party that best represents my views doesn’t exist.
  • He did so well in the 2017 election that he won only four more seats than Gordon did in 2010....
  • ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
    Didn't Corbyn work for Putin once (well, Russia Today, which is basically the same thing)?
    Salmond has his own show on RT believe it or not.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,287
    Fun thread - it goes beyond the leaders. Look at the conferences. Tory conference audience are well-heeled, well-suited, and mostly well into retirement.

    But the Labour conference hall is filled with all manner of activists who look like they wouldn't be seen dead in a tie. We have it at our council meetings as well -the old skool Labour folks will scrub suit and tie but the young trendy Momentumites wear a jumper that looks like it hasn't been washing since last Christmas. Personally I would be put off by how they present themselves, but they keep winning marginal wards, somehow.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    edited December 2018

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
    Didn't Corbyn work for Putin once (well, Russia Today, which is basically the same thing)?
    Salmond has his own show on RT believe it or not.
    I always thought there was something fishy about him...

    I've just another thought too. Sturgeon are Russian fish...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,719
    justin124 said:



    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.

    Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
    Didn't Corbyn work for Putin once (well, Russia Today, which is basically the same thing)?
    Salmond has his own show on RT believe it or not.
    I always thought there was something fishy about him...

    I've just another thought too. Sturgeon are Russian fish...
    The common sturgeon (acipenser sturio), now sadly not so common, was native to Britain as well as Russia
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
    Didn't Corbyn work for Putin once (well, Russia Today, which is basically the same thing)?
    Salmond has his own show on RT believe it or not.
    I always thought there was something fishy about him...

    I've just another thought too. Sturgeon are Russian fish...
    The common sturgeon (acipenser sturio), now sadly not so common, was native to Britain as well as Russia
    And a Yorkshire company is now farming sturgeon for caviar without the need to kill the fish.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    That picture of Corbyn & the Bentley - can someone just remind me, it's a real picture right, not photoshopped? Was it done for some charity spoof?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,190

    That picture of Corbyn & the Bentley - can someone just remind me, it's a real picture right, not photoshopped? Was it done for some charity spoof?

    For the last leg
  • SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    How can someone as self evidently smart as writer Robert Harris tweet something as idiotic as this? -



    We all know that immigration has been a major, or even THE major issue, for lots of Brits, for many years. Part of that was because of Free Movement, and the huge influx of Eastern Europeans since 2005. In other words, the EU was a major issue, it was just concealed in the polling data under different titles.

    Robert Harris surely knows this. Which either means he is simply lying, or he is wilfully in some strange and eerie denial, a parallel Remainer universe just as unicorn-rich as the most bonkers Leaver Utopia.

    The only alternative is that he's actually a drooling halfwit, and his clever books are written by a computer.

    Immigartion has always been a hot issue in the UK, from before we even joined the EU. Not only that the percentage of people thinking immigration is "too high" remains the same regardless of the actual level of immigration.
    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.
    Some people I have encountered thought that Brexit would mean less Immigrants from the rest of the world as well as Europe. I think that the public who supported Brexit is going to be very disappointed when society continues to change away from the mostly homogenous white population to mixed and in some cases segregated communities that will continue to grow paradoxically even faster due to Brexit!
    I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.

    I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.

    There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
    There is if it also reduces immigration of those who do work. High fliers have agency. They will be repelled by anti-immigrant societies.
    Do you mean those high-flying East European Roma who have migrated to South Yorkshire ?.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 22,305

    That picture of Corbyn & the Bentley - can someone just remind me, it's a real picture right, not photoshopped? Was it done for some charity spoof?

    I think it was s channel 4 show. Corbyn didn’t realise but then played along
  • SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.

    Some people I have encountered thought that Brexit would mean less Immigrants from the rest of the world as well as Europe. I think that the public who supported Brexit is going to be very disappointed when society continues to change away from the mostly homogenous white population to mixed and in some cases segregated communities that will continue to grow paradoxically even faster due to Brexit!
    I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.

    I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.

    There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
    Please show me the statistics that support your theory, I would direct you to the ONS website to start with if I were you. The studies I have seen tend to imply that European Immigrants add several billions to the Government finances net, per year.
    322 thousand more immigrants in the year to June 2018:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2018#net-migration-continues-to-add-to-the-population-as-more-people-arrive-to-live-in-the-uk-than-leave

    58 thousand fewer immigrants in employment in the year to June 2018

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/employmentbycountryofbirthandnationalityemp06

    Perhaps you can explain how people who do not work but claim benefits, require housing, use public services and add to pressure on transport and the environment help government finances ?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 6,349
    edited December 2018
    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:



    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.

    Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
    Yougov poll May 15th - 18th 2017 had the following -
    SNP 42 Con 29 Lab 19 LibDem 6
    Yougov poll June 1st - 5th 2017 had the results -
    SNP 41 Con 26 Lab 25 Libdem 6
    Actual result June 8h 2017 -
    SNP 36.9 Con 28.6 Lab 27.1 LibDem 6.8

    Thus, the SNP significantly underperformed their poll ratings - as was the case re-Local Elections in Scotland on May 4th 2017 and the Scottish Parliament elections in May 2016.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
    Didn't Corbyn work for Putin once (well, Russia Today, which is basically the same thing)?
    Salmond has his own show on RT believe it or not.
    I always thought there was something fishy about him...

    I've just another thought too. Sturgeon are Russian fish...
    The common sturgeon (acipenser sturio), now sadly not so common, was native to Britain as well as Russia
    That's what the illuminati wanted you to think.

    They've been here for centuries, polluting our precious fluids...
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    Charles said:

    That picture of Corbyn & the Bentley - can someone just remind me, it's a real picture right, not photoshopped? Was it done for some charity spoof?

    I think it was s channel 4 show. Corbyn didn’t realise but then played along
    He was caught in a Bond?
  • Charles said:

    That picture of Corbyn & the Bentley - can someone just remind me, it's a real picture right, not photoshopped? Was it done for some charity spoof?

    I think it was s channel 4 show. Corbyn didn’t realise but then played along
    My recollection was that he was fully aware. It was The Last Leg wasn't it? That's not an Ali G style programme.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,641
    Come to think of it though, Corbyn and May wouldn't make a bad Bond and M for this scene:
  • SeanT said:

    SeanT said:



    But note how, since we voted Brexit, the issue of immigration has reduced in salience. The problem was we LITERALLY had no control over who came and went, because FoM. Now (the voters presume) we do have control once again, as we are Brexiting. So they are less concerned

    There's yer proof that the two issues were linked, and Robert Harris is either stupid. lying or in ridiculous denial.

    Some people I have encountered thought that Brexit would mean less Immigrants from the rest of the world as well as Europe. I think that the public who supported Brexit is going to be very disappointed when society continues to change away from the mostly homogenous white population to mixed and in some cases segregated communities that will continue to grow paradoxically even faster due to Brexit!
    I agree, in part. Though in fairness the government does now, finally, seem intent on reducing migration quite seriously, from across the world. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you accept the economic cost of this.

    I imagine we will still see immigration of around 100,000-200,000 (including students). Still a lot, and enough for most, but way down on the net 350,000+ annually we saw at the peak of the influx.

    There's no economic cost to reducing immigration of people who don't work.
    Er... foreign students and wealthy self-sufficient immigrants don't work but bring money into the country; most of the others are working and contributing.
    Yet the number of immigrants in employment is falling and at a time of record job vacancies.

    RCS seems to have done some research on this and how did he describe economic activity rates among immigrants in recent years ?

    "Worse and worse and worse" was the phrase I think.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,418
    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:



    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.

    Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
    Yougov poll May 15th - 18th 2017 had the following - SNP 42 Con 29 Lab 19 LibDem 6
    Yougov poll June 1st - 5th 2017 had the results - SNP 41 Con 26 Lab 25 Libdem 6
    Actual result June 8h 2017 - SNP 36.9 Con 28.6 Lab 27.1 LibDem 6.8
    Where Justin may be right is that in FPTP, it is perfectly possible for the SNP to maintain vote share but lose seats through Unionist tactical voting.

    E.g., in 2017 it was unclear in Argyll & Bute whether to vote LibDem or Tory if you wished to cast an anti-SNP vote. It is unclear no more.

    It took a few general elections in the 1990s for anti-Tory tactical voting to become efficient.

    So, I think more SNP seat losses might occur (to all 3 parties), even if the SNP vote percentage is steady.
  • So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.

    But why would Gatwick be delusion centre ?
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt Justin:

    "I don't think your last paragraph is valid. By the final ten days of the campaign several polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. The Tory surge in Scotland also implied a weaker underlying performance elsewhere in GB.
    Diane Abbot had a number of media disasters in the campaign - yet the effect was marginal."

    ***

    I'm saying he would "struggle to win an election", not ruling it out.

    As I have stated here before, I suspect Labour is well placed to make significant gains in Scotland nexrmed its poll ratings and I doubt they will end up with more than 33% in a Westminster election with Labour on circa 30%. Others disagree - so we shall have to see!
    Do you have this post on repeat. Are you trying to convince yourself that labour have any chance in Scotland

    Because there is not a hope for labour in Scotland
    I could make the same comment about your comments and the certainty with which you claim to know better than what even the polls are indicating.
    I know Scotland, it's people and it's politics

    I have lived there, voted there, and have family and friends in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Isle of Arran, Lossiemouth and the north east upto Wick.

    I witnessed the monopoly of labour over decades until the SNP offered a much better progressive agenda and have been very successful. In Nicola Sturgeon they have a consumate politician and they occupy labours space totally. Many of our relatives who long ago were staunch labour supporters left for the SNP and they are not coming back

    Also the opposition to the SNP comes from Ruth Davidson, someone who takes Nicola on shoulder to shoulder

    Continue with your dream but labour with a hopeless Scots leader (who is English, believe it or not) will not hold back the SNP in any election in the foreceable future
    Have you ever considered the possibility that- not just in Scotland, but in general- your family and friends might not actually be a very representative sample of the electorate?
    When I moved to Scotland in 1960 and then into my Scottish family and friends I was and am a Welsh/Englishman conservative voting pro Union person. I was virtually alone in my politics but to be fair of recent times the Scots conservatives led by Ruth Davidson have done well

    At that time most everyone voted labour but not anymore. The SNP, even for pro Union voters, is the left progressive party and no one I know now supports labour. Mind you I am careful when declaring my conservative allegiance

    As far as Westminster elections are concerned and post Brexit the Scots will support the SNP who do stand up for Scotland
  • Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
    Why on earth would anyone with a decided political view give it up because someone they didn't admire shared that view? You'd have to be an image-obsessed imbecile. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,199

    Jezza should look good in a suit: he’s slim built but with broad shoulders. I know this to be true as I’m similarly built myself and was once told it by a gay man!

    Yes, that is right. Clothes hang well on him unlike most politicians, who often dress for radio.

  • justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:



    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.

    Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
    Yougov poll May 15th - 18th 2017 had the following - SNP 42 Con 29 Lab 19 LibDem 6
    Yougov poll June 1st - 5th 2017 had the results - SNP 41 Con 26 Lab 25 Libdem 6
    Actual result June 8h 2017 - SNP 36.9 Con 28.6 Lab 27.1 LibDem 6.8
    Where Justin may be right is that in FPTP, it is perfectly possible for the SNP to maintain vote share but lose seats through Unionist tactical voting.

    E.g., in 2017 it was unclear in Argyll & Bute whether to vote LibDem or Tory if you wished to cast an anti-SNP vote. It is unclear no more.

    It took a few general elections in the 1990s for anti-Tory tactical voting to become efficient.

    So, I think more SNP seat losses might occur (to all 3 parties), even if the SNP vote percentage is steady.
    The SNP coming first in vote share but third in seat share would have interesting consequences.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,719
    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:



    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.

    Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
    Yougov poll May 15th - 18th 2017 had the following -
    SNP 42 Con 29 Lab 19 LibDem 6
    Yougov poll June 1st - 5th 2017 had the results -
    SNP 41 Con 26 Lab 25 Libdem 6
    Actual result June 8h 2017 -
    SNP 36.9 Con 28.6 Lab 27.1 LibDem 6.8

    Thus, the SNP significantly underperformed their poll ratings - as was the case re-Local Elections in Scotland on May 4th 2017 and the Scottish Parliament elections in May 2016.
    And in 2015 the SNP outperformed the eve of poll polls and Labour under performed.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 6,349

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:



    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.

    Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
    Yougov poll May 15th - 18th 2017 had the following - SNP 42 Con 29 Lab 19 LibDem 6
    Yougov poll June 1st - 5th 2017 had the results - SNP 41 Con 26 Lab 25 Libdem 6
    Actual result June 8h 2017 - SNP 36.9 Con 28.6 Lab 27.1 LibDem 6.8
    Where Justin may be right is that in FPTP, it is perfectly possible for the SNP to maintain vote share but lose seats through Unionist tactical voting.

    E.g., in 2017 it was unclear in Argyll & Bute whether to vote LibDem or Tory if you wished to cast an anti-SNP vote. It is unclear no more.

    It took a few general elections in the 1990s for anti-Tory tactical voting to become efficient.

    So, I think more SNP seat losses might occur (to all 3 parties), even if the SNP vote percentage is steady.
    On the other hand parties may - indeed have - fallen to third place yet subsequently gone on to recover sufficiently to win seats.It,therefore, does not follow that because party X was 3rd in 2017 that that represents the likely position today. Argyll & Bute has had a LibDem MP until recent years and should remain a reasonable prospect for them were their national fortunes to recover.As a result, tactical voters can sometimes be led astray!
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Omnium said:

    I find it incredibly strange that Corbyn has been 'normalised'. I can't see any excuse.

    Brexit has normalised him.

    Ruin the economy for ideology? Sounds a lot like Corbyn and Brexit.

    Being surrounded by the sewer of bigotry? Sounds a lot like anti Semitism and Breaking Point et al during the referendum.

    Putin is pro Brexit. Now Corbyn’s worldview aligns with Putin’s views.

    Tory Leavers should give their head a wobble at the thought that Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiteer.
    Why on earth would anyone with a decided political view give it up because someone they didn't admire shared that view? You'd have to be an image-obsessed imbecile. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
    X wants us to do Y
    We don't like X
    Therefore we mustn't do Y

    Obviously a logical fallacy.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,418
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:



    But the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017 - 37.5% of what they held. Polls in Scotland are not showing the SNP stronger than in April/May 2017. Labour ,however, are well up on the ratings recorded at that time and level pegging with the Tories. Also there are likely to be many left of centre voters who vote SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster. How do you explain the Labour surge from 1 seat to 7? Even I predicted a mere 4 or 5 - in the face of much lampooning.

    Citation required. Scottish Labour are down on their 2017 election result.
    Yougov poll May 15th - 18th 2017 had the following - SNP 42 Con 29 Lab 19 LibDem 6
    Yougov poll June 1st - 5th 2017 had the results - SNP 41 Con 26 Lab 25 Libdem 6
    Actual result June 8h 2017 - SNP 36.9 Con 28.6 Lab 27.1 LibDem 6.8
    Where Justin may be right is that in FPTP, it is perfectly possible for the SNP to maintain vote share but lose seats through Unionist tactical voting.

    E.g., in 2017 it was unclear in Argyll & Bute whether to vote LibDem or Tory if you wished to cast an anti-SNP vote. It is unclear no more.

    It took a few general elections in the 1990s for anti-Tory tactical voting to become efficient.

    So, I think more SNP seat losses might occur (to all 3 parties), even if the SNP vote percentage is steady.
    On the other hand parties may - indeed have - fallen to third place yet subsequently gone on to recover sufficiently to win seats.It,therefore, does not follow that because party X was 3rd in 2017 that that represents the likely position today. Argyll & Bute has had a LibDem MP until recent years and should remain a reasonable prospect for them were their national fortunes to recover.As a result, tactical voters can sometimes be led astray!
    It was the former MP who stood for the LibDems in 2017.

    He was surely disappointed in what happened, as he fell to third, but he did well enough to prevent anotherTory Gain.
This discussion has been closed.