There has been a lot of excitement about a video racking up a lot of views on Facebook. There's another video that's also been racking up a lot of views that hasn't been commented on but I suspect is also having its influence:
The reality is none of them can be trusted. They are all not being truthful to the public about what the future will be like.
The Tories tried a bit of honesty over social care, and look what happened next!
Sadly, it looks increasingly like the electorate want to both have cake and eat cake - and think someone else should pay the baker's bill.
People are desperate.
If the polls are right, I think people saw that May was offering more of the same, and they simply can't face another five years of that. Just like people believed 350m would go to the NHS a week because Leavers told them so, they believe they will get a free owl - not in the least because Corbyn comes across as more competent/reasonable on TV during this campaign than how the right-wing press have characterised him.
I think that the Tories plus sympathetic business types (with credibility) need to attack Corbyn on the economic front - especially mortgages and jobs. I'm nervous and was made more so by a conversation in the office yesterday. An intelligent but not politically engaged middle aged co-worker stated he was tempted by Labour over the student fees pledge. He has children in secondary school. A hell of a lot of people have only a partial grasp and Labour have fought a good but unscrupulous campaign. To me the Labour manifesto would be an economic disaster but the main objection to Corbyn and the unholy trinity is moral repugnance over terrorism and support for vile anti-western groups.
I agree. The week ahead has to be on economic competence. Many people will be naive about Corbyn, ignorant of both his past terrorist sympathies and his crazy economic plans.
But the only one they will care about is when it hits them in the wallet, and they need to know that their children will be far worse off with Corbyn (pledge or no pledge).
The Tories who gave us Brexit have no right to talk about economic competence my friend, or stability... leaving the country at the mercy of a coterie of right wing, lunatic zealots.
I think that the Tories plus sympathetic business types (with credibility) need to attack Corbyn on the economic front - especially mortgages and jobs. I'm nervous and was made more so by a conversation in the office yesterday. An intelligent but not politically engaged middle aged co-worker stated he was tempted by Labour over the student fees pledge. He has children in secondary school. A hell of a lot of people have only a partial grasp and Labour have fought a good but unscrupulous campaign. To me the Labour manifesto would be an economic disaster but the main objection to Corbyn and the unholy trinity is moral repugnance over terrorism and support for vile anti-western groups.
The problem the Tories have is that their usually "sympathetic business types" are all fearful of Brexit and even more fearful when they see that May is more interested in pandering to prejudice than actually addressing their genuine concerns.
Good point but hoping for a hung parliament to spike Brexit is a very dangerous game. Lunacy is being normalised and extreme leftist dogma is being legitimised by those supporting Labour who are not "true believers".
It is becoming kind of hard to see the "safe" option in this election?
@TheScreamingEagles Ben Page is saying on twitter that May is 15, not 4 points ahead of Corbyn.
Leads like that may well be her saving grace come June 8th.
That's best PM ratings.
I'm talking about leader ratings.
Jim Callaghan led Margaret Thatcher on the best PM ratings in 1979.
Ah. I thought the best PM ratings were a reliable indicator at the last GE?
Nope. It is leadership ratings and who is best in charge of the economy that are the reliable indicators.
Well, we will see what mega polling weekend brings as far as that is concerned.
If she gets back in Tories faith in her ability to negotiate a Good Brexit deal will be shot to pieces after this campaign.
Why do you trust the polling?
I don't know what to believe right now.
Maybe the polls are wrong, we will see.
I think the most interesting aspect of polling is the psychology of those who follow and/or are involved with them.
It really is akin to the charlatanry of early religion or modern day conjurors. We see it on this thread. People make comments that cover all results then repeatedly refer to and link to those that are proven, while pretending the ones that were wrong never happened.
The same with polls. No matter what the result here, most polls would have got it wrong. But those w a vested interest in them being meaningful will point to those that were correct when it suits them after the event
Polls have come to shape the entire political narrative. Without them, there is no political narrative. That's why there is a compulsion to believe polls - even during a period when pollsters have got it spectacularly wrong - EUref, GE 2015 etc. Even I am starting to think the polls might be right, because right now it seems delusional to totally dismiss them. But hey, we could be on course for another polling disaster. If that's the case, then I think those interested in politics must let go of looking too much into polls.
I agree. I think it boils down to a human desire to look for narratives where there are none. People like a story to make sense of the unknown, even if rational analysis shows it to be fiction
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I agree Boris needs to be moved.
Davis seems to be doing a good job to me.
Agree re Davis, though if there's going to be a Brexit department, it doesn't seem very sensible to switch the Sec of State after he's spent a year getting to grips with the job.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
» show previous quotes My god, are you actually admitting that Cameron is less than perfect? And has fucked this up? Because he has. And we can all see it. The renegotiation was horribly oversold, and the endless lies from Cameron, ever since, have made it all so much worse.
He turned out to be a much lesser politician than we thought. And nearing the end of his utility, anyway.
I agree that we will move on. But I expect it to be under some mind of eurosceptic Tory prime minister. Perhaps May at a pinch (who is clearly maneuvering towards LEAVERS). An avowed REMAINER would split the party in two.
We'll have a 2nd referendum within 10-15 years. Movements inside the eurozone will make it inevitable."
@TheScreamingEagles Ben Page is saying on twitter that May is 15, not 4 points ahead of Corbyn.
Leads like that may well be her saving grace come June 8th.
That's best PM ratings.
I'm talking about leader ratings.
Jim Callaghan led Margaret Thatcher on the best PM ratings in 1979.
Ah. I thought the best PM ratings were a reliable indicator at the last GE?
Nope. It is leadership ratings and who is best in charge of the economy that are the reliable indicators.
Well, we will see what mega polling weekend brings as far as that is concerned.
If she gets back in Tories faith in her ability to negotiate a Good Brexit deal will be shot to pieces after this campaign.
Why do you trust the polling?
I don't know what to believe right now.
Maybe the polls are wrong, we will see.
I think the most interesting aspect of polling is the psychology of those who follow and/or are involved with them.
It really is akin to the charlatanry of early religion or modern day conjurors. We see it on this thread. People make comments that cover all results then repeatedly refer to and link to those that are proven, while pretending the ones that were wrong never happened.
The same with polls. No matter what the result here, most polls would have got it wrong. But those w a vested interest in them being meaningful will point to those that were correct when it suits them after the event
Polls have come to shape the entire political narrative. Without them, there is no political narrative. That's why there is a compulsion to believe polls - even during a period when pollsters have got it spectacularly wrong - EUref, GE 2015 etc. Even I am starting to think the polls might be right, because right now it seems delusional to totally dismiss them. But hey, we could be on course for another polling disaster. If that's the case, then I think those interested in politics must let go of looking too much into polls.
Based on the Tory campaign visits perhaps they have. If they are utterly wrong, a discussion needs to be has about their influence.
There has been a lot of excitement about a video racking up a lot of views on Facebook. There's another video that's also been racking up a lot of views that hasn't been commented on but I suspect is also having its influence:
@TheScreamingEagles Ben Page is saying on twitter that May is 15, not 4 points ahead of Corbyn.
Leads like that may well be her saving grace come June 8th.
That's best PM ratings.
I'm talking about leader ratings.
Jim Callaghan led Margaret Thatcher on the best PM ratings in 1979.
Ah. I thought the best PM ratings were a reliable indicator at the last GE?
Nope. It is leadership ratings and who is best in charge of the economy that are the reliable indicators.
Well, we will see what mega polling weekend brings as far as that is concerned.
If she gets back in Tories faith in her ability to negotiate a Good Brexit deal will be shot to pieces after this campaign.
Why do you trust the polling?
I don't know what to believe right now.
Maybe the polls are wrong, we will see.
I think the most interesting aspect of polling is the psychology of those who follow and/or are involved with them.
It really is akin to the charlatanry of early religion or modern day conjurors. We see it on this thread. People make comments that cover all results then repeatedly refer to and link to those that are proven, while pretending the ones that were wrong never happened.
The same with polls. No matter what the result here, most polls would have got it wrong. But those w a vested interest in them being meaningful will point to those that were correct when it suits them after the event
Polls have come to shape the entire political narrative. Without them, there is no political narrative. That's why there is a compulsion to believe polls - even during a period when pollsters have got it spectacularly wrong - EUref, GE 2015 etc. Even I am starting to think the polls might be right, because right now it seems delusional to totally dismiss them. But hey, we could be on course for another polling disaster. If that's the case, then I think those interested in politics must let go of looking too much into polls.
Based on the Tory campaign visits perhaps they have. If they are utterly wrong, a discussion needs to be has about their influence.
On twitter many Corbyn supporters genuinely believe that it'll be those on 80k who will 'pay' for all of the things in the manifesto. They've even been mocking those on 35k for not voting Corbyn, saying that they won't be taxed so why are they worried.
Just shows their naivety and stupidity.
We will all pay more tax. A lot more.
If you make £300 a day. £1500 a week. you only get £810 (deductions of student loan/pension included) its about 940-950 without pension/loan)
When I get my p60, its sole destroying to see over a year how much tax and especially national insurance you've paid and you get nothing from it. I don't use the nhs, i'm not unemployed, i don't run a business, I commute to work.
I pay council tax, road tax, health insurance, denplan, have insurance for my cat, pay for my tv, electricity, gas, water, pay for my train to work, pay for my car insurance, pay for home insurance.
I wonder what my taxes are paying for when I get nothing from it. We should have opt out for public services I don't want to pay for people to see their gp for example - OPT OUT.
Ridiculous. That would just mean every time you use it you have to pay a huge amount of back taxes to pay for your treatment.
Rob , don't be a silly Billy , you would take out proper insurance and get better treatment. Completely right.
What it would do is leave far less resources to run it, which would be very regressive in terms of the health of the poorest in society.
No excuse for robbing other people and then stealing their houses into the bargain. Nasty nasty Tories.
» show previous quotes My god, are you actually admitting that Cameron is less than perfect? And has fucked this up? Because he has. And we can all see it. The renegotiation was horribly oversold, and the endless lies from Cameron, ever since, have made it all so much worse.
He turned out to be a much lesser politician than we thought. And nearing the end of his utility, anyway.
I agree that we will move on. But I expect it to be under some mind of eurosceptic Tory prime minister. Perhaps May at a pinch (who is clearly maneuvering towards LEAVERS). An avowed REMAINER would split the party in two.
We'll have a 2nd referendum within 10-15 years. Movements inside the eurozone will make it inevitable."
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
Today's Times newspaper. Claimed top Tory source (anon of course)
Top Tory? Must be a backbencher then. Sacking the Brexit secretary would be utterly stupid.
Read it again. How is becoming FS a "sacking"??
Ah cheers. Still think it's utterly stupid to move him 11 days before negotiations start.
Someone intelligent -> Brexit Someone credible and diplomatic -> Foreign Office Someone unpredictably idiotic -> Out of harms way
Be honest, May has had worse ideas?
P.s. Gummer is the shining light of the Brexit committee, so he isn't coming to it completely anew
On twitter many Corbyn supporters genuinely believe that it'll be those on 80k who will 'pay' for all of the things in the manifesto. They've even been mocking those on 35k for not voting Corbyn, saying that they won't be taxed so why are they worried.
Just shows their naivety and stupidity.
We will all pay more tax. A lot more.
If you make £300 a day. £1500 a week. you only get £810 (deductions of student loan/pension included) its about 940-950 without pension/loan)
When I get my p60, its sole destroying to see over a year how much tax and especially national insurance you've paid and you get nothing from it. I don't use the nhs, i'm not unemployed, i don't run a business, I commute to work.
I pay council tax, road tax, health insurance, denplan, have insurance for my cat, pay for my tv, electricity, gas, water, pay for my train to work, pay for my car insurance, pay for home insurance.
I wonder what my taxes are paying for when I get nothing from it. We should have opt out for public services I don't want to pay for people to see their gp for example - OPT OUT.
Ridiculous. That would just mean every time you use it you have to pay a huge amount of back taxes to pay for your treatment.
Rob , don't be a silly Billy , you would take out proper insurance and get better treatment. Completely right.
What it would do is leave far less resources to run it, which would be very regressive in terms of the health of the poorest in society.
No excuse for robbing other peopel and then stealing their houses into the bargain. Nasty nasty Tories.
You do have to wonder at what point the public at large realise that a Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott government are just a tick away and that that tick moves decisively to conservative.
Are we really going to elect a marxist socialist government under the power of the trade unions.
Re labour and their 10,000 police Abbott confirmed today that they will not be in place before the end of the Parliament. Wonder how many expect them on the streets next week
Big G unfortunately they are waking up too early to teh train wreck that Saint Theresa is , an empty bag. Tories look like doing a Gordon.
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
Today's Times newspaper. Claimed top Tory source (anon of course)
Top Tory? Must be a backbencher then. Sacking the Brexit secretary would be utterly stupid.
Read it again. How is becoming FS a "sacking"??
Ah cheers. Still think it's utterly stupid to move him 11 days before negotiations start.
Someone intelligent -> Brexit Someone credible and diplomatic -> Foreign Office Someone unpredictably idiotic -> Out of harms way
If the polls are right, I think people saw that May was offering more of the same, and they simply can't face another five years of that.
I think you're probably right. Not a lot of potential sunshine on the horizon.
The irony is that after a near decade it took to wipe out the deficit, a huge chunk of people are going to vote for someone who'll send it right back to -100bn a year. We'll have austerity until the 2030s.
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I agree Boris needs to be moved.
Davis seems to be doing a good job to me.
Agree re Davis, though if there's going to be a Brexit department, it doesn't seem very sensible to switch the Sec of State after he's spent a year getting to grips with the job.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
Not sure there is anywhere else to promote him to is there? I am not sure he has the temperament for Chancellor and anything else would be a demotion.
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I agree Boris needs to be moved.
Davis seems to be doing a good job to me.
Agree re Davis, though if there's going to be a Brexit department, it doesn't seem very sensible to switch the Sec of State after he's spent a year getting to grips with the job.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I agree Boris needs to be moved.
Davis seems to be doing a good job to me.
Agree re Davis, though if there's going to be a Brexit department, it doesn't seem very sensible to switch the Sec of State after he's spent a year getting to grips with the job.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
Not sure there is anywhere else to promote him to is there? I am not sure he has the temperament for Chancellor and anything else would be a demotion.
Rudd to Chancellor, Boris to home office, Hammond to the back benches
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I agree Boris needs to be moved.
Davis seems to be doing a good job to me.
Agree re Davis, though if there's going to be a Brexit department, it doesn't seem very sensible to switch the Sec of State after he's spent a year getting to grips with the job.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
» show previous quotes My god, are you actually admitting that Cameron is less than perfect? And has fucked this up? Because he has. And we can all see it. The renegotiation was horribly oversold, and the endless lies from Cameron, ever since, have made it all so much worse.
He turned out to be a much lesser politician than we thought. And nearing the end of his utility, anyway.
I agree that we will move on. But I expect it to be under some mind of eurosceptic Tory prime minister. Perhaps May at a pinch (who is clearly maneuvering towards LEAVERS). An avowed REMAINER would split the party in two.
We'll have a 2nd referendum within 10-15 years. Movements inside the eurozone will make it inevitable."
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I agree Boris needs to be moved.
Davis seems to be doing a good job to me.
Agree re Davis, though if there's going to be a Brexit department, it doesn't seem very sensible to switch the Sec of State after he's spent a year getting to grips with the job.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I think Theresa had better wait and see whether she even has a job this time next week before thinking too much about who gets what job...
Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
As I said earlier, all a bit too much like Clinton on her plane the day before polling, picking her new Cabinet.
The interviews he's done, and publications I've seen from his department, as well as anecdotal evidence, suggest to me he's working hard, and well on top of his brief.
I think that the Tories plus sympathetic business types (with credibility) need to attack Corbyn on the economic front - especially mortgages and jobs. I'm nervous and was made more so by a conversation in the office yesterday. An intelligent but not politically engaged middle aged co-worker stated he was tempted by Labour over the student fees pledge. He has children in secondary school. A hell of a lot of people have only a partial grasp and Labour have fought a good but unscrupulous campaign. To me the Labour manifesto would be an economic disaster but the main objection to Corbyn and the unholy trinity is moral repugnance over terrorism and support for vile anti-western groups.
I'm not an economist but my basic understanding would be if Lab won - the cost of servicing the UK's vast national debt would increase so there would be even less money for Labour's free owls than before. The rest of us would just be paying more in interest for our mortgages and watching house prices and job opportunities decline as the UK went into a slow down.
You need to get out more. Debt servicing costs may well be a real concern, but it is not what is keeping potential anti-Tory voters awake at night.
More fool them. If they still believe in the magic money tree they deserve all they get. It is just a shame they will drag the rest of us down with them.
People should re read the threads on here from the weeks preceding GE2015 and last years EU ref.
The narrative was NOM was value at 1.1 and Leave were fucked. Remainers used to post the Leave price every time it drifted as a troll! People accepted these narratives and managed to save face by reacting to the exit poll and using @AndyJS spreadsheet
Why would it be different this time?
It won't be.
Where on Earth is this groundswell for a socialist revolution - sufficient to put Labour under Corbyn on 40%, in the universe according to Ipsos - meant to be coming from? A figure like that suggests that Labour is within MOE of matching its vote share in 2001. Given the current strength of the SNP, that probably implies that it is doing as well or better, on that measure, than in 2001 in England.
Even if we accept the likelihood that we're moving back toward a two-party system in England and Wales, which in turn implies that Labour really ought to be doing better than last time, that still sounds like crap - because it is. It's suggestive of Labour consistently racking up vote shares of 30-35% in seats all over Southern England and the rural Midlands, and winning absolute majorities right across its traditional heartlands, and not just in the inner city cores. It requires one to believe that there has been a massive sea-change in public opinion nationwide since the local elections only a few weeks ago, and that all of the scepticism about Labour's leadership and policies - especially amongst the less affluent and Leave-leaning parts of its old core vote - have vanished in a puff of smoke since the start of the campaign.
If this is all meant to make some sort of sense then I give up, because I don't understand how.
In 2015 & 16 we had real national votes, not skewed surveys of the politically engaged, and over 50% voted for Con+Ukip and Leave. I can't imagine many of those people are Corbynites.
You said only yesterday you want to vote Labour again.
There has been a lot of excitement about a video racking up a lot of views on Facebook. There's another video that's also been racking up a lot of views that hasn't been commented on but I suspect is also having its influence:
She can certainly be trusted more the Corbyn and McDonnel who have lied through their teeth the whole campaign. Even if truthfulness was an issue, its a poor second to support for terrorists and anti-British groups, and economic illiteracy.
mind you - the negative ratings of a Labour / SNP crap fest government would be a sight to behold within a year.
Bricking it floater, you will be flushed away like the Tories
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I think Theresa had better wait and see whether she even has a job this time next week before thinking too much about who gets what job...
Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
As I said earlier, all a bit too much like Clinton on her plane the day before polling, picking her new Cabinet.
If it is happening, maybe just someone causing mischief.
There has been a lot of excitement about a video racking up a lot of views on Facebook. There's another video that's also been racking up a lot of views that hasn't been commented on but I suspect is also having its influence:
"3.7 million children currently live in poverty in the UK"
No they don't. Really, they don't.
Mr @AlsoIndigo's neighbour's children might live in poverty, the number living in anything approaching actual poverty in the UK is statistically close to zero.
Even the academics who proposed relative poverty now say it is totally misused for purposes that were not its intentions.
Anyone who wants to see children living in poverty needs to go to the slums of Indian and South American cities . There may well be some poor children living in the UK but no one lives in poverty .
And child poverty is lower now than when the Tories took charge in 2010.
YOu will be saying "Let tehm eat cake" next Tory boy
I think that the Tories plus sympathetic business types (with credibility) need to attack Corbyn on the economic front - especially mortgages and jobs. I'm nervous and was made more so by a conversation in the office yesterday. An intelligent but not politically engaged middle aged co-worker stated he was tempted by Labour over the student fees pledge. He has children in secondary school. A hell of a lot of people have only a partial grasp and Labour have fought a good but unscrupulous campaign. To me the Labour manifesto would be an economic disaster but the main objection to Corbyn and the unholy trinity is moral repugnance over terrorism and support for vile anti-western groups.
I agree. The week ahead has to be on economic competence. Many people will be naive about Corbyn, ignorant of both his past terrorist sympathies and his crazy economic plans.
But the only one they will care about is when it hits them in the wallet, and they need to know that their children will be far worse off with Corbyn (pledge or no pledge).
The Tories who gave us Brexit have no right to talk about economic competence my friend, or stability... leaving the country at the mercy of a coterie of right wing, lunatic zealots.
I knew that Brexit would harm the country. I just did not foresee this election as the mechanism for that. Then again, neither did anyone else.
Very unimpressed by what OGH has done in Carshalton and Wallington. Think you may have set yourself up for a fall Mike. Have you done this in other constituencies as well
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I agree Boris needs to be moved.
Davis seems to be doing a good job to me.
Agree re Davis, though if there's going to be a Brexit department, it doesn't seem very sensible to switch the Sec of State after he's spent a year getting to grips with the job.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
Not sure there is anywhere else to promote him to is there? I am not sure he has the temperament for Chancellor and anything else would be a demotion.
Rudd to Chancellor, Boris to home office, Hammond to the back benches
I can't imagine for a second she'd put Bozza in charge of a notoriously booby trapped, hard to run department. He's simply too personally chaotic.
There has been a lot of excitement about a video racking up a lot of views on Facebook. There's another video that's also been racking up a lot of views that hasn't been commented on but I suspect is also having its influence:
"3.7 million children currently live in poverty in the UK"
No they don't. Really, they don't.
Mr @AlsoIndigo's neighbour's children might live in poverty, the number living in anything approaching actual poverty in the UK is statistically close to zero.
Even the academics who proposed relative poverty now say it is totally misused for purposes that were not its intentions.
Yes, by no reasonable definition is only being able to afford an iPhone 6 when your neighbour has an iPhone 7 "poverty"
One of the relative measures reduced massively during the last recession, purely due to a reduction in the incomes of the top decille. At best it's a measure of inequality, at worst it's outright bollocks.
I wonder how many "children living in poverty" watch Sky TV?
So hammer the top decile and child poverty is reduced? Even if no child is better off?
Very unimpressed by what OGH has done in Carshalton and Wallington. Think you may have set yourself up for a fall Mike. Have you done this in other constituencies as well
Based on the Tory campaign visits perhaps they have. If they are utterly wrong, a discussion needs to be has about their influence.
I think maybe we need to remind ourselves of how the last week of both GE 2015 and EU ref felt. While back then in regard to the former, I wasn't sure that Ed M was going to PM, I did believe that we'd have a hung parliament. I certainly could not believe, in my wildest dreams that the Conservatives would get a majority - which is why the exit poll literally shocked the sh*t out of me at the time. EUref - I always told myself internally that Remain would win, and it looked that way in the last week when all the polls herded at that time. I was in a bit of disbelief when the result came in and we actually had voted to Leave.
Right now I am thinking several things:
* Polls are getting this wrong: May will win, by how much I don't know. * Labour minority government - which may not be able to do anything too radical * Labour majority government - especially if the Tories internal polling was showing them as winning 50 seats at the start, like the story posted said it was. But then again we've got mixed stories in what internal polling looked like. *Labour government - maybe it won't be all that bad. Labour so far have proved the consensus wrong, and maybe they'll surprise us all.
There has been a lot of excitement about a video racking up a lot of views on Facebook. There's another video that's also been racking up a lot of views that hasn't been commented on but I suspect is also having its influence:
The reality is none of them can be trusted. They are all not being truthful to the public about what the future will be like.
The Tories tried a bit of honesty over social care, and look what happened next!
Sadly, it looks increasingly like the electorate want to both have cake and eat cake - and think someone else should pay the baker's bill.
People are desperate.
If the polls are right, I think people saw that May was offering more of the same, and they simply can't face another five years of that. Just like people believed 350m would go to the NHS a week because Leavers told them so, they believe they will get a free owl - not in the least because Corbyn comes across as more competent/reasonable on TV during this campaign than how the right-wing press have characterised him.
I agree, the message hasn't stuck (despite Diane's early attempt as maths on police numbers) that Corbyn's sums just don't add up. I'm hoping he Tories go very hard on the economy in the last week.
Non-politicians have been conspicuous by their absence this campaign. We know the Tories have a lot of well respected medium sized business leaders and entrepreneurs on side, hopefully they'll start to become a bit more visible in the next few days.
Very unimpressed by what OGH has done in Carshalton and Wallington. Think you may have set yourself up for a fall Mike. Have you done this in other constituencies as well
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I agree Boris needs to be moved.
Davis seems to be doing a good job to me.
Agree re Davis, though if there's going to be a Brexit department, it doesn't seem very sensible to switch the Sec of State after he's spent a year getting to grips with the job.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
He is as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike, how do the Tories get in with the amount of turkeys they have in cabinet.
Very unimpressed by what OGH has done in Carshalton and Wallington. Think you may have set yourself up for a fall Mike. Have you done this in other constituencies as well
If the polls are right, I think people saw that May was offering more of the same, and they simply can't face another five years of that.
I think you're probably right. Not a lot of potential sunshine on the horizon.
The irony is that after a near decade it took to wipe out the deficit, a huge chunk of people are going to vote for someone who'll send it right back to -100bn a year. We'll have austerity until the 2030s.
They are hardly near halfway to getting rid of it, failed miserably.
Very unimpressed by what OGH has done in Carshalton and Wallington. Think you may have set yourself up for a fall Mike. Have you done this in other constituencies as well
So, Leavers. If you had your time over again and were able to choose where Britain should be on 9 June 2017, would you prefer:
1) David Cameron as Prime Minister in a Britain that remained in the EU; or
2) Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister in a Britain that had left the EU?
Said it a dozen times (2).
Can't argue against democracy. If that's what the British people decide, so be it. If he turns us into a socialist mass immigration hell hole, which I think he will, we will vote him out
The Political Studies Association have published a report having taken predictions from 335 experts including 280 politics academics. The mean prediction is a 95-seat Tory majority. They gathered their data before the Tory manifesto was published.
In 2016 they predicted that Remain would win by a 10% margin. In 2015 they predicted a hung parliament. Their latest report may be good news for Labour! Got to wonder how many times an "expert" is allowed to get it wrong and retain that appellation.
So, Leavers. If you had your time over again and were able to choose where Britain should be on 9 June 2017, would you prefer:
1) David Cameron as Prime Minister in a Britain that remained in the EU; or
2) Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister in a Britain that had left the EU?
Yes, it must be a bitter pill for the eurosceptic Right to swallow. If not now then in 2022, Brexit has enabled the hard Left to seize control of Britain.
Polls have come to shape the entire political narrative. Without them, there is no political narrative. That's why there is a compulsion to believe polls - even during a period when pollsters have got it spectacularly wrong - EUref, GE 2015 etc. Even I am starting to think the polls might be right, because right now it seems delusional to totally dismiss them. But hey, we could be on course for another polling disaster. If that's the case, then I think those interested in politics must let go of looking too much into polls.
I have been thinking the same thing myself for some time. In the last election, thousands of hours were wasted by idiotic media outlets debating Hung Parliament scenarios. In this one, the press first started by assuming that the Tories would win by about 200 seats (and, therefore, spent an inordinate amount of time picking the Conservative manifesto to pieces, whilst only paying any attention e.g. to the cost of Labour's great herds of "free" ponies when Diane Abbott said something funny.) And now we have this new narrative of panic over Downing St incompetence and disappearing majorities, again because a handful of clever guesstimators in offices in London have said that this is what their dodgy numbers would suggest. We don't know if the numbers are anywhere close to being true - and, frankly, if they are then we'll probably never know how much the pollsters and the lazy hacks who report on them made the second scenario come true because they created the first one.
Of course, even if the polls fail again - and fail worse than last time - then come the next General Election the narrative will, yet again, be dominated by them. Because opinion polling has acquired this air of pseudo-scientific legitimacy, when in fact it is nothing more than guesswork, and *may* be no more valid an indicator of the political mood of the nation than looking at real wages, unemployment, mortgage interest rates and other economic indicators, for example.
Apologies if this has been answered, but in light of the IPSOS Mori phone call, I was interested to discover if phone polls are conducted on a panel basis (a la YouGov)?
Very unimpressed by what OGH has done in Carshalton and Wallington. Think you may have set yourself up for a fall Mike. Have you done this in other constituencies as well
So it doesn't have an imprint..does it go down as a local expense.. who paid for it? Also what polling data have you been using for C&W Mike.. please tell us. You are quick to slate other pollsters when they don't release their data.
There has been a lot of excitement about a video racking up a lot of views on Facebook. There's another video that's also been racking up a lot of views that hasn't been commented on but I suspect is also having its influence:
"3.7 million children currently live in poverty in the UK"
No they don't. Really, they don't.
Mr @AlsoIndigo's neighbour's children might live in poverty, the number living in anything approaching actual poverty in the UK is statistically close to zero.
Even the academics who proposed relative poverty now say it is totally misused for purposes that were not its intentions.
Yes, by no reasonable definition is only being able to afford an iPhone 6 when your neighbour has an iPhone 7 "poverty"
One of the relative measures reduced massively during the last recession, purely due to a reduction in the incomes of the top decille. At best it's a measure of inequality, at worst it's outright bollocks.
I wonder how many "children living in poverty" watch Sky TV?
So hammer the top decile and child poverty is reduced? Even if no child is better off?
Correct. It's based on something like family income under 60% of mean average wages. It's lies, damn lies and statistics in action.
IIRC there was a prediction 6 months before the last election that based on the trend in locals the Tories would win a majority.
Doesn't the same trend still say that?
The point of a poll is to determine how people will vote. If their mistakes can be explained away as how people would have voted last Thursday, they're not fit for purpose, though I can see why a pollster would like that get out.
But are polls even the right way to answer this sort of question? You don't determine the speed of light by asking people to vote on it. You measure it. Likewise, if you want to know how much water there is in your bath, you could estimate the rate of flow and how long the taps are on for; or you could just measure what is actually in it and get a much better answer.
History is full of examples of one discipline coming along and solving the mystery of another. Clockmakers rather than navigators determined longitude, an astrophysicist explained the demise of the dinosaurs to palaeontologists, an astronomer worked out the speed of light for physicists, a statistician debunked the doctors' idea that cot deaths were done by the parents, and so on.
Maybe we need statisticians to explain to pollsters the errors of their ways.
Based on the Tory campaign visits perhaps they have. If they are utterly wrong, a discussion needs to be has about their influence.
I think maybe we need to remind ourselves of how the last week of both GE 2015 and EU ref felt. While back then in regard to the former, I wasn't sure that Ed M was going to PM, I did believe that we'd have a hung parliament. I certainly could not believe, in my wildest dreams that the Conservatives would get a majority - which is why the exit poll literally shocked the sh*t out of me at the time. EUref - I always told myself internally that Remain would win, and it looked that way in the last week when all the polls herded at that time. I was in a bit of disbelief when the result came in and we actually had voted to Leave.
Right now I am thinking several things:
* Polls are getting this wrong: May will win, by how much I don't know. * Labour minority government - which may not be able to do anything too radical * Labour majority government - especially if the Tories internal polling was showing them as winning 50 seats at the start, like the story posted said it was. But then again we've got mixed stories in what internal polling looked like. *Labour government - maybe it won't be all that bad. Labour so far have proved the consensus wrong, and maybe they'll surprise us all.
It will be impossible to have a Labour majority government. You would need SNP kind of swing for that.
His judgement may be proved right. His conclusion matches most of our instincts and most of our anecdotes, including my own.
The counter-argument is this. Our instincts, anecdotes, and even doorstep canvassing (which is informing the tactical decisions being made by the HQs) mostly consist of conversations with middle aged and older people. In the past this hasn't mattered too much, because the age-differential in voting patterns has never been as stark as it appears to be now, and because many young people tend not to vote anyway. You can complete this para yourselves.
@Sandpit Let's be honest, they haven't talked that much about Corbyn's sums not adding up. In any case, Remainers said this about many of the Leave campaign claims, and that didn't swing voters to the Remain side either.
@Stark_Dawning People never voted Leave because they wanted Britain to become Singapore. That much was obvious.
Very unimpressed by what OGH has done in Carshalton and Wallington. Think you may have set yourself up for a fall Mike. Have you done this in other constituencies as well
Based on the Tory campaign visits perhaps they have. If they are utterly wrong, a discussion needs to be has about their influence.
I think maybe we need to remind ourselves of how the last week of both GE 2015 and EU ref felt. While back then in regard to the former, I wasn't sure that Ed M was going to PM, I did believe that we'd have a hung parliament. I certainly could not believe, in my wildest dreams that the Conservatives would get a majority - which is why the exit poll literally shocked the sh*t out of me at the time. EUref - I always told myself internally that Remain would win, and it looked that way in the last week when all the polls herded at that time. I was in a bit of disbelief when the result came in and we actually had voted to Leave.
Right now I am thinking several things:
* Polls are getting this wrong: May will win, by how much I don't know. * Labour minority government - which may not be able to do anything too radical * Labour majority government - especially if the Tories internal polling was showing them as winning 50 seats at the start, like the story posted said it was. But then again we've got mixed stories in what internal polling looked like. *Labour government - maybe it won't be all that bad. Labour so far have proved the consensus wrong, and maybe they'll surprise us all.
It will be impossible to have a Labour majority government. You would need SNP kind of swing for that.
Very unimpressed by what OGH has done in Carshalton and Wallington. Think you may have set yourself up for a fall Mike. Have you done this in other constituencies as well
So it doesn't have an imprint..does it go down as a local expense.. who paid for it? Also what polling data have you been using for C&W Mike.. please tell us. You are quick to slate other pollsters when they don't release their data.
A fake. The real Mike Smithson knows that "data" is plural, and doesn't claim to make predictions - only to identify value bets.
Based on the Tory campaign visits perhaps they have. If they are utterly wrong, a discussion needs to be has about their influence.
I think maybe we need to remind ourselves of how the last week of both GE 2015 and EU ref felt. While back then in regard to the former, I wasn't sure that Ed M was going to PM, I did believe that we'd have a hung parliament. I certainly could not believe, in my wildest dreams that the Conservatives would get a majority - which is why the exit poll literally shocked the sh*t out of me at the time. EUref - I always told myself internally that Remain would win, and it looked that way in the last week when all the polls herded at that time. I was in a bit of disbelief when the result came in and we actually had voted to Leave.
Right now I am thinking several things:
* Polls are getting this wrong: May will win, by how much I don't know. * Labour minority government - which may not be able to do anything too radical * Labour majority government - especially if the Tories internal polling was showing them as winning 50 seats at the start, like the story posted said it was. But then again we've got mixed stories in what internal polling looked like. *Labour government - maybe it won't be all that bad. Labour so far have proved the consensus wrong, and maybe they'll surprise us all.
It will be impossible to have a Labour majority government. You would need SNP kind of swing for that.
With the way things are going, I don't want to rule out anything! And it seems like many Scots are not happy with Nicola....
Not even comparable. Vote Leave had popular easy to remember policies (never mind if they were true or not they worked).
* Control our borders with an australian style points system
* £350million for the NHS
and a great slogan, you knew what they wnated to achieve and it was right for the time of people feeling powerless, it didn't just try to scare people it gave people a reason to vote FOR them. Theresa has done the opposite of this, if the tories retain power, she will be gone within 5 minutes I rekon, pushed out by the head bangers. She is more REMAIN and Hillary then Leave.
Just today we saw tory "sources" saying Davis will be replaced by a remainer *when* they win a landslide. Hubris much?
I thought the script was Gummer to replace Davis, Davis to replace Johnson, Johnson to go....wts?
Where has this thing about Gummer replacing Davis come from?
The Times.
Looks like Mrs May wants to promote David Davis to Foreign Secretary.
I agree Boris needs to be moved.
Davis seems to be doing a good job to me.
Agree re Davis, though if there's going to be a Brexit department, it doesn't seem very sensible to switch the Sec of State after he's spent a year getting to grips with the job.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
Not sure there is anywhere else to promote him to is there? I am not sure he has the temperament for Chancellor and anything else would be a demotion.
There is another job you've not mentioned, above that of Chancellor.
I just had an interesting thought with regard to the election, Labour spokespeople keep reiterating that the UK should not sell arms to countries they deem to be unacceptable. Corbyn has said in the last couple of days and even Thornbury, whose brief it only tangentially connects with have been most vociferous on the issue.
Anyway, we know that some Labour seats are made vulnerable by the nuclear issue. Something that seems to have gone completely below the radar is the effect of Labour policy on curbing arms sales to overseas countries on other seats. I think it must have an affect, when one considers the thousands of people employed by BAE systems and other smaller companies linked in the supply chain or niche markets it may have a considerable influence on voting for 8th June. Given the backdrop of uncertainty on the economic future of the country, some voters may strongly resent a Labour government that gives business away to overseas competition, whatever the moral and ethical issues underpinning the policy.
In a funny way it is like Brexit, you saw people clapping in question time audiences about leaving the EU with no thought to those whose jobs might be destroyed and again with Labour's ethical arms policy other people will clap their hands at putting companies who sell arms out of business.
So, Leavers. If you had your time over again and were able to choose where Britain should be on 9 June 2017, would you prefer:
1) David Cameron as Prime Minister in a Britain that remained in the EU; or
2) Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister in a Britain that had left the EU?
Don't bait them it's cruel, they thought everyone loved them. Some of the less dimensional Tories amongst us have tried to point out the potential pitfalls of losing an election winner so rapidly.
So, Leavers. If you had your time over again and were able to choose where Britain should be on 9 June 2017, would you prefer:
1) David Cameron as Prime Minister in a Britain that remained in the EU; or
2) Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister in a Britain that had left the EU?
Several more preferable options, but of the two I'd take Corbyn. Unlike the EU, we can vote him out when we collectively realise he's a menace to society. We can't vote out that other menace Junker.
Let's face it, a Corbyn-led coalition government ain't gonna last the summer.
Comments
If the polls are right, I think people saw that May was offering more of the same, and they simply can't face another five years of that. Just like people believed 350m would go to the NHS a week because Leavers told them so, they believe they will get a free owl - not in the least because Corbyn comes across as more competent/reasonable on TV during this campaign than how the right-wing press have characterised him.
As for Boris, promote him. When he knuckles down, he can do detail.
"SeanT said:
» show previous quotes
My god, are you actually admitting that Cameron is less than perfect? And has fucked this up? Because he has. And we can all see it. The renegotiation was horribly oversold, and the endless lies from Cameron, ever since, have made it all so much worse.
He turned out to be a much lesser politician than we thought. And nearing the end of his utility, anyway.
I agree that we will move on. But I expect it to be under some mind of eurosceptic Tory prime minister. Perhaps May at a pinch (who is clearly maneuvering towards LEAVERS). An avowed REMAINER would split the party in two.
We'll have a 2nd referendum within 10-15 years. Movements inside the eurozone will make it inevitable."
Someone credible and diplomatic -> Foreign Office
Someone unpredictably idiotic -> Out of harms way
Be honest, May has had worse ideas?
P.s. Gummer is the shining light of the Brexit committee, so he isn't coming to it completely anew
The irony is that after a near decade it took to wipe out the deficit, a huge chunk of people are going to vote for someone who'll send it right back to -100bn a year. We'll have austerity until the 2030s.
Shadow Deputy PM Davis would be best
But alas TMICIPM ON 9/6/17
https://order-order.com/2017/06/02/tory-and-labour-candidates-all-believe-may-heading-for-comfortable-win/
If it is happening, maybe just someone causing mischief.
I knew that Brexit would harm the country. I just did not foresee this election as the mechanism for that. Then again, neither did anyone else.
And it has not happened yet.
Think you may have set yourself up for a fall Mike.
Have you done this in other constituencies as well
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBUUZrEXkAAXqO-.jpg
The only position "above" Foreign Sec is CotE (or PM)
Boris for Chancellor?
1) David Cameron as Prime Minister in a Britain that remained in the EU; or
2) Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister in a Britain that had left the EU?
Well done Mike
Right now I am thinking several things:
* Polls are getting this wrong: May will win, by how much I don't know.
* Labour minority government - which may not be able to do anything too radical
* Labour majority government - especially if the Tories internal polling was showing them as winning 50 seats at the start, like the story posted said it was. But then again we've got mixed stories in what internal polling looked like.
*Labour government - maybe it won't be all that bad. Labour so far have proved the consensus wrong, and maybe they'll surprise us all.
Non-politicians have been conspicuous by their absence this campaign. We know the Tories have a lot of well respected medium sized business leaders and entrepreneurs on side, hopefully they'll start to become a bit more visible in the next few days.
This guy is a good example:
https://twitter.com/PimlicoPlumbers/status/870257411231240193
"Not one Tory candidate has indicated to Guido they believe there is a problem in their seat."
Where's the bar chart?
*best brian blessed voice*
HE'S ALIVE, HAMMOND'S ALIVE...
Do they get paid to write this stuff?
"PS I have placed a large sum of money on the Lib Dems to take this seat at 11/8 and would be much obliged if you would bear that in mind also."
Can't argue against democracy. If that's what the British people decide, so be it. If he turns us into a socialist mass immigration hell hole, which I think he will, we will vote him out
In 2016 they predicted that Remain would win by a 10% margin. In 2015 they predicted a hung parliament. Their latest report may be good news for Labour! Got to wonder how many times an "expert" is allowed to get it wrong and retain that appellation.
Complacency?
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/870524718658408448/photo/1
Of course, even if the polls fail again - and fail worse than last time - then come the next General Election the narrative will, yet again, be dominated by them. Because opinion polling has acquired this air of pseudo-scientific legitimacy, when in fact it is nothing more than guesswork, and *may* be no more valid an indicator of the political mood of the nation than looking at real wages, unemployment, mortgage interest rates and other economic indicators, for example.
Also what polling data have you been using for C&W Mike.. please tell us. You are quick to slate other pollsters when they don't release their data.
Doesn't the same trend still say that?
The point of a poll is to determine how people will vote. If their mistakes can be explained away as how people would have voted last Thursday, they're not fit for purpose, though I can see why a pollster would like that get out.
But are polls even the right way to answer this sort of question? You don't determine the speed of light by asking people to vote on it. You measure it. Likewise, if you want to know how much water there is in your bath, you could estimate the rate of flow and how long the taps are on for; or you could just measure what is actually in it and get a much better answer.
History is full of examples of one discipline coming along and solving the mystery of another. Clockmakers rather than navigators determined longitude, an astrophysicist explained the demise of the dinosaurs to palaeontologists, an astronomer worked out the speed of light for physicists, a statistician debunked the doctors' idea that cot deaths were done by the parents, and so on.
Maybe we need statisticians to explain to pollsters the errors of their ways.
The counter-argument is this. Our instincts, anecdotes, and even doorstep canvassing (which is informing the tactical decisions being made by the HQs) mostly consist of conversations with middle aged and older people. In the past this hasn't mattered too much, because the age-differential in voting patterns has never been as stark as it appears to be now, and because many young people tend not to vote anyway. You can complete this para yourselves.
I wonder what will ACTUALLY happen? Roll on Thursday...
(BTW, I am expecting a Tory win, less than 50 seats)
@Stark_Dawning People never voted Leave because they wanted Britain to become Singapore. That much was obvious.
This is why I'm not a politician.
Ohh.... oops!
What does Not one Tory candidate mean
Would have thought Rotherham Tory would have some concerns
Anyway, we know that some Labour seats are made vulnerable by the nuclear issue. Something that seems to have gone completely below the radar is the effect of Labour policy on curbing arms sales to overseas countries on other seats. I think it must have an affect, when one considers the thousands of people employed by BAE systems and other smaller companies linked in the supply chain or niche markets it may have a considerable influence on voting for 8th June. Given the backdrop of uncertainty on the economic future of the country, some voters may strongly resent a Labour government that gives business away to overseas competition, whatever the moral and ethical issues underpinning the policy.
In a funny way it is like Brexit, you saw people clapping in question time audiences about leaving the EU with no thought to those whose jobs might be destroyed and again with Labour's ethical arms policy other people will clap their hands at putting companies who sell arms out of business.
Let's face it, a Corbyn-led coalition government ain't gonna last the summer.