Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From loser to leader – and beyond

135

Comments

  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    DM_Andy said:

    dixiedean said:

    HaroldO said:

    My local Momentum group is applying pressure to Chris Leslie to stop talking about Saint Jez in public, the civil war rumbles on unabated.

    I don't think I'd call it civil war - constructive pieces like Joff's are what's needed now from the centre. I think it's reasonable to ask Chris to restrain himself for a few months while we see how things work out.
    1 Ring round, and see who will serve in Shadow Cabinet. Appoint on merit.
    2 Tell PLP bygones are bygones. Get behind popular manifesto.
    3 Discipline anyone making statements/ snarky tweets like Leslie and Phillips today.
    4 If they persist, suggest another Party. Last resort de-selection.

    Shit got real on Thursday. There is a very real prospect of a Labour government now.

    This is absolutely right. Labour needs a swing of under 4% to won the next general election. It has to be seen as a government in waiting. That means discipline on all sides. If Corbyn does extend the hand of friendship, woe betide anyone who refuses it.

    The people Westminster-watchers like are not the people who actually have talent, though. I think all the years of yearning for the utterly mediocre David Miliband shows that. The Jess Phillipses who play well with journalists are just not the cream of the party. And they simply will not get behind a left-wing leader, they've shown they would rather plunge the party into months of bitter infighting to try and get him out when anybody should have known Owen Smith had no chance
    When everyone's written their memoirs we'll find out what really happened. The plan can't have been for Owen Smith to be the candidate so someone heavyweight must have been in line to challenge but got cold feet at the end and left Owen to take the blame. Shades of Purnell quitting only for DMiliband to abandon his coup attempt at the last moment.
    There was an article from just before the Brexit referendum that mentioned Angela Eagle as the planned candidate, I'll try and find it because it's fascinating when compared with the after-the-fact protestations that it was a spontaneous reaction to Brexit. Maybe if they'd done as many pro-Remain events as Corbyn during the referendum campaign instead of planning to remove him it would have gone better for them.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,528
    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 80,846
    edited June 2017

    Labour actually needs a swing of 3.3% to win the next GE:

    Reality is Labour only needs to win 15 seats to head a government, so 0.6% should do it.
  • Pong said:

    HaroldO said:

    AndyJS said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
    I was about the post that, the youth vote did surge but other groups fell back.
    I will be interested to note if YouGov? last poll vote which showed by age, and the Tories were only winning with the oldies was the case.

    Did some oldies sit it out, middle aged did vote more for Labour than Tories, or it was student surge.
    Would particularly be interesting to know whether the middle-aged Labour majority was due to a lot of late Labour-Tory switching in that demographic, or because (as I suspect happened with older folk) people who would have tempted Tory were so untempted by what was on offer that they didn't show up...


    Ouch.

    That really does lay bare the generational dynamic.

    The tories are the old peoples party.
    They have been for a long time and it's not in itself a major problem. Everyone gets old and that retired demographic is the biggest and getting bigger. People have forecasted the literal death of the Tory party as long as I've been an adult and they have just been returned as the largest party for the third time. Anyone who relies on demographics to deliver victory is waiting for a long time.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 150

    GIN1138 said:

    The Tories fought the most indescribably poor and inept campaign imagineable and still won 56 more seats than labour. The election was not about whether May or Corbyn governed the UK, it was about how big the Tory majority was. In that respect voting against May was a free hit for many people. The dynamics of the next election, whenever it is will be very different. At the next election Labour's programme for government will be scrutinised a 100 times more than at this election.

    Problem is that Labour's response will be the perfectly reasonable "there you go again". The Tories need to find a positive reason or two for people to support them.

    SO, you must be concerned that Corbyn is unstoppable now? OK, that may give you a temporary buzz of seeing Labour returned to government and the Tories out on their arses, but you know in your heart of hearts that Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister and in office will quickly prove to be a disaster that will destroy the Labour Party.

    I'd have thought you'd be depressed at this electon result because it means sensible Labour people like yourself can't get Corbyn out and it seems almost inevitable now that he will be Prime Minister?

    Yep - these are all very real risks. But there is a also a huge risk that this government will cause major long-term damage to the UK in the way that it handles Brexit. A united Labour party in which there is a communal approach to policy making has a better chance of winning power and then governing effectively than one in which policy is created by a few Marxist-Leninists locked away in an office in the House of Commons. Given that the choice is now clearly Labour or Conservative, those of us who are not Tories maybe have the duty to give Labour our best shot. If we are rebuffed, then at least we have tried. We can do nothing if we just stand by and watch.

    But Labour already do have a communal approach to policy making, through the democratically elected National Policy Forum and approved by the Clause V meeting of NEC, Shadow Cabinet, backbench reps and NPF chairs. It's not how you portray it at all.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,481
    DM_Andy said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:


    I don't think it will do much good. The Cult Of Corbyn is only going to grow - Unless the Tories find there own anti-politics populist leader (and that can be only Boris really) Corbyn WILL be Prime Minister whenever there's a new general election and even then the Cult Of Corbyn may be more popular ultimately.

    The only way to truly stop him is to let him seize power and let people experience the true horror of his brand of "pure" socialism I'm afraid.

    I am not at all sure about that though I do remember the IMF being called in under labour
    Corbyn is waaaaaaayyyy more extreme than anything we experienced in the 1970's.
    In the 1970s Pickfords and Thomas Cook were in state ownership, how is anything in the Labour Manifesto more extreme than that?
    Not in the Labour manifesto perhaps (Corbyn isn't *that* daft) but Corbyn himself is very, very, very extreme left wing... And once in office those rather moderate left wing proposals from the manifesto would inevitably be discarded for his brand of "pure" marxism.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582
    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,528
    Lab needs to win 64 seats for a traditional majority - ie 326 seats.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690


    I am not at all sure about that though I do remember the IMF being called in under labour

    Do you also remember that Healey then improved the public finances so much that not a penny was ever borrowed from the IMF?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,299
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:


    I don't think it will do much good. The Cult Of Corbyn is only going to grow - Unless the Tories find there own anti-politics populist leader (and that can be only Boris really) Corbyn WILL be Prime Minister whenever there's a new general election and even then the Cult Of Corbyn may be more popular ultimately.

    The only way to truly stop him is to let him seize power and let people experience the true horror of his brand of "pure" socialism I'm afraid.

    I am not at all sure about that though I do remember the IMF being called in under labour
    Corbyn is waaaaaaayyyy more extreme than anything we experienced in the 1970's.
    No, he really isn't. And I seem to remember 3-day week and power cuts under Ted Heath. The Tories were in power for half the Seventies! A little more listening and learning rather than repeating slogans might not go amiss. Particularly ones you have to be 50+ (who vote for you anyway), to have any relevance.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434

    DM_Andy said:


    When everyone's written their memoirs we'll find out what really happened. The plan can't have been for Owen Smith to be the candidate so someone heavyweight must have been in line to challenge but got cold feet at the end and left Owen to take the blame. Shades of Purnell quitting only for DMiliband to abandon his coup attempt at the last moment.

    There was an article from just before the Brexit referendum that mentioned Angela Eagle as the planned candidate, I'll try and find it because it's fascinating when compared with the after-the-fact protestations that it was a spontaneous reaction to Brexit. Maybe if they'd done as many pro-Remain events as Corbyn during the referendum campaign instead of planning to remove him it would have gone better for them.
    Here we go: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-is-gearing-itself-up-to-oust-corbyn-but-other-candidates-for-leadership-arent-who-you-might-a7013231.html

    Mentions a few potentials:

    "Some Blairites believe their best bet is to endorse a “soft left” figure, probably one serving on Corbyn’s frontbench rather than a backbench refusenik, to boost the chances of the party uniting behind him or her. Angela Eagle, the shadow Business Secretary, is the most likely to fit that bill."
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582
    GIN1138 said:

    DM_Andy said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:


    I don't think it will do much good. The Cult Of Corbyn is only going to grow - Unless the Tories find there own anti-politics populist leader (and that can be only Boris really) Corbyn WILL be Prime Minister whenever there's a new general election and even then the Cult Of Corbyn may be more popular ultimately.

    The only way to truly stop him is to let him seize power and let people experience the true horror of his brand of "pure" socialism I'm afraid.

    I am not at all sure about that though I do remember the IMF being called in under labour
    Corbyn is waaaaaaayyyy more extreme than anything we experienced in the 1970's.
    In the 1970s Pickfords and Thomas Cook were in state ownership, how is anything in the Labour Manifesto more extreme than that?
    Not in the Labour manifesto perhaps (Corbyn isn't *that* daft) but Corbyn himself is very, very, very extreme left wing... And once in office those rather moderate left wing proposals from the manifesto would inevitably be discarded for his brand of "pure" marxism.
    So, no actual evidence at all then?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,924
    GeoffM said:

    Not sure of his point, as a solid Brexit will be good for jobs and the economy.
    Seems pretty obvious to me that it is code for prioritising the SM over FOM, same as Ruth D this afternoon
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,383
    DM_Andy said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The Tories fought the most indescribably poor and inept campaign imagineable and still won 56 more seats than labour. The election was not about whether May or Corbyn governed the UK, it was about how big the Tory majority was. In that respect voting against May was a free hit for many people. The dynamics of the next election, whenever it is will be very different. At the next election Labour's programme for government will be scrutinised a 100 times more than at this election.

    Problem is that Labour's response will be the perfectly reasonable "there you go again". The Tories need to find a positive reason or two for people to support them.

    SO, you must be concerned that Corbyn is unstoppable now? OK, that may give you a temporary buzz of seeing Labour returned to government and the Tories out on their arses, but you know in your heart of hearts that Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister and in office will quickly prove to be a disaster that will destroy the Labour Party.

    I'd have thought you'd be depressed at this electon result because it means sensible Labour people like yourself can't get Corbyn out and it seems almost inevitable now that he will be Prime Minister?

    Yep - these are all very real risks. But there is a also a huge risk that this government will cause major long-term damage to the UK in the way that it handles Brexit. A united Labour party in which there is a communal approach to policy making has a better chance of winning power and then governing effectively than one in which policy is created by a few Marxist-Leninists locked away in an office in the House of Commons. Given that the choice is now clearly Labour or Conservative, those of us who are not Tories maybe have the duty to give Labour our best shot. If we are rebuffed, then at least we have tried. We can do nothing if we just stand by and watch.

    But Labour already do have a communal approach to policy making, through the democratically elected National Policy Forum and approved by the Clause V meeting of NEC, Shadow Cabinet, backbench reps and NPF chairs. It's not how you portray it at all.

    I meant the policy making that happens over the course of the Parliament - how to respond to events, to bills, in debates and so on. The leader also has a lot of leeway generally between elections. If moderates are not involved in Labour generally, then they get no say in the manifesto or what goes before conference, let alone how policy issues are managed on a day to day basis.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,528
    I would expect LDs to gain further at next GE - which will increase the swing both Con and Lab will need.

    Also, whilst it's a very low hurdle for Lab to get into Government it'll be a much higher one to bring in their economic policies because I can't imagine the LDs supporting Corbyn style tax rises.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited June 2017


    I am not at all sure about that though I do remember the IMF being called in under labour

    Do you also remember that Healey then improved the public finances so much that not a penny was ever borrowed from the IMF?
    Because the IMF came in and dictated to Healey what to do. Healey deserves no credit for that national humiliation.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,832

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    Hard to believe there aren't the half dozen government MPs needed to rebel to stop it. 50 MPs would lose their seats, presumably a good slug of those would be Tory and not happy.

    Also, with votes so hard to pass and so much secondary Brexit legislation the truth is anything not top priority may have to be shelved in any case.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    edited June 2017

    HaroldO said:

    AndyJS said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
    I was about the post that, the youth vote did surge but other groups fell back.
    I will be interested to note if YouGov? last poll vote which showed by age, and the Tories were only winning with the oldies was the case.

    Did some oldies sit it out, middle aged did vote more for Labour than Tories, or it was student surge.
    Would particularly be interesting to know whether the middle-aged Labour majority was due to a lot of late Labour-Tory switching in that demographic, or because (as I suspect happened with older folk) people who would have tempted Tory were so untempted by what was on offer that they didn't show up...


    Tories have a serious problem with middle aged people. I am sure the lack of any aspirational stuff in the manifesto didn't help with that.

    Forget the student surge, what killed May was those 30 and 40 year olds voting Labour in big numbers. When she was miles ahead in the polls, she was doing well among that demographic.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,528

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    They have to be voted through.

    As DUP oppose them it looks as if they have zero chance.

    There just might be a possibility of putting the NI changes to one side and just voting through the changes for England, Scotland and Wales but I think that is very unlikely in practice.
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 387
    atia2 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Monkeys said:

    This might be the wrong time to ask but what's so bad about the Dementia Tax? Right now your house gets taken off you and sold if you go into care, and you keep about £25,000 or something.

    Actually there wans't anything particularly bad about the policy )that I could see)

    The problem was all in the timing (in the middle of an election campaign) and the messaging (you just can't "sell" a policy like this on the doorsteps in the middle of an election campaign)

    All they had to say in the manifesto is that they were committed to "looking" at various funding models for social care and we'll get back to you with the details after a consultation.

    That's it. That would've covered everything and nobody would've thought any more about it.
    The current policy is crap: it is essentially self-funding of dementia care until you're down to £23k, unless you have a spouse or dependent at home. The proposal was crap: removing the exemption on the house would have transferred even more of the burden from the state to the individual.

    Dementia is an illness. We should be collectivising its costs. Mitigating random catastrophic social costs is the natural business of government. Given that the state is necessarily underwriting costs for individuals who cannot meet them, it makes a lot of sense to collectivise fully and in a controlled manner. A thorough consultation (perhaps as a Royal Commission) is needed, as you say.

    I wrote in greater detail about this here: https://alex-adamou.github.io/dementia-tax/

    Unfortunately state-owned care homes can be pretty awful.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,299
    Pong said:

    HaroldO said:

    AndyJS said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
    I was about the post that, the youth vote did surge but other groups fell back.
    I will be interested to note if YouGov? last poll vote which showed by age, and the Tories were only winning with the oldies was the case.

    Did some oldies sit it out, middle aged did vote more for Labour than Tories, or it was student surge.
    Would particularly be interesting to know whether the middle-aged Labour majority was due to a lot of late Labour-Tory switching in that demographic, or because (as I suspect happened with older folk) people who would have tempted Tory were so untempted by what was on offer that they didn't show up...


    Ouch.

    That really does lay bare the generational dynamic.

    The tories are the old peoples party.
    It is a terrible position to be in. I am in my fifties and like to think I am young. I don't want to be associated with the old peoples party.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 150

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    I think the changes will be less beneficial for Tories than they would have appeared to be and with 50 less seats there will be some MPs that will have real concerns about themselves being shuffled out of Parliament or end up in a far less favourable seat, there's not a chance of it passing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,383
    MikeL said:

    I would expect LDs to gain further at next GE - which will increase the swing both Con and Lab will need.

    Also, whilst it's a very low hurdle for Lab to get into Government it'll be a much higher one to bring in their economic policies because I can't imagine the LDs supporting Corbyn style tax rises.

    There will be a lot more tactical voting generally at the next GE. The anti-Tory party is waking from its slumber in England.

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690

    How are people doing on the Labour next leader market?

    Not too bad. Starmer and Cooper still at much shorter odds than I took them at, although I wouldn't back Cooper at those odds now. Sadiq Khan still at long odds, but he does have an opportunity to get back into parliament before 2022 with a much enhanced prospect now of Corbyn carrying on until then.

    The main problem is that the prospect of any short term return has disappeared.

    Not that I would want to change the result on Thursday for a moment.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,924

    On topic SO tells Corbyns critics to lay off for the good of the party.

    Wonder if SO will vote Lab under Corbyn next time for the best opportunity to get rid of the Tories?


    A lot of us opposed Corbyn because we genuinely believed he was an electoral liability. I think it's fair to say there will be a certain amount of reassessment going on now - I abstained this time but if the party genuinely unites now I would probably be back on board at the next GE.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582
    Quincel said:

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    Hard to believe there aren't the half dozen government MPs needed to rebel to stop it. 50 MPs would lose their seats, presumably a good slug of those would be Tory and not happy.

    Also, with votes so hard to pass and so much secondary Brexit legislation the truth is anything not top priority may have to be shelved in any case.
    Thanks. That makes sense. Another reason the Tories will look on Theresa less than kindly in years to come. Could have had a couple more years of stable govt, complete the brexit negotiations, adopt the boundary changes, then go to the country on a sort of 'give us your approval for the brexit deal' ticket. Still, hindsight is wonderful !
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582
    OllyT said:

    On topic SO tells Corbyns critics to lay off for the good of the party.

    Wonder if SO will vote Lab under Corbyn next time for the best opportunity to get rid of the Tories?


    A lot of us opposed Corbyn because we genuinely believed he was an electoral liability. I think it's fair to say there will be a certain amount of reassessment going on now - I abstained this time but if the party genuinely unites now I would probably be back on board at the next GE.
    Ditto
  • If there was to be another general election this year, regardless of how you might vote, who do you think would win?
    Conservatives 33%
    Labour - 45%
    Another party - 3%
    Don’t know - 18%
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 833
    edited June 2017
    These polls immediately after elections always throw out stuff like that, you see parties who are seen to have a good campaign get a boost.

    But I will say if there was an election tomorrow Labour would probably win, could maybe stretch that to this year.

    There is no way I would have another election this year.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    DM_Andy said:

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    I think the changes will be less beneficial for Tories than they would have appeared to be and with 50 less seats there will be some MPs that will have real concerns about themselves being shuffled out of Parliament or end up in a far less favourable seat, there's not a chance of it passing.
    I think this is completely wrong. There are now fewer Tory MPs to placate, and the loss of the majority just shows how vital boundary changes are for the party's future, so it's more likely it will go through. The extension of the parliamentary term means they can even use the Parliament Act.

    They can buy the DUP off with peerages.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,832
    jonny83 said:

    These polls immediately after elections always throw out stuff like that, you see parties who are seen to have a good campaign get a boost.

    But I will say if there was an election tomorrow Labour would probably win, could maybe stretch that to this year.

    There is no way I would have another election this year.
    I'm torn. On the one hand it's clear to me why the Tories don't want an election this year. On the other it's clear to me why they might be forced to. If they can't get a deal on a government which can definitely stay together until Brexit and definitely 100% pass the final Brexit deal in parliament - don't they have to have a second election to get one?

    I dunno.
  • spire2spire2 Posts: 170
    I dont see why corbyn should show magnanimity to the time serving mediocrities that have tried to stab him in the back for the last 2 years. He'd do beter to get them deselected and get candidates chosen that he could trust
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,862
    edited June 2017
    FF43 said:

    kjohnw said:

    is there a sort brexit option which allows single market/freedom of labour (not right to live) and also allows us to negotiate our own trade deals around the world ?

    The EEA allows both those things. If we are in a Customs Union with the EU (not necessary for the EEA) , we can still negotiate trade deals with third party countries but the tariffs would have to be the same as the EU ones. Being in a Customs Union makes trade with the EU both easier and cheaper.
    No. It makes things far more difficult. We can be in the Single Market but being in the Customs Union severely restricts our ability to make our own trade deals. All trade deals have to be negotiated by the European Commission for all members of the EU Customs Union. It is the very reason the EFTA members of the EEA are not in the Customs Union.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,299

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    Was hoping to submit a debut thread header on that very subject if anyone was interested. We have bigger fish to fry right now though. Not in their currrent form.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    DM_Andy said:

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    I think the changes will be less beneficial for Tories than they would have appeared to be and with 50 less seats there will be some MPs that will have real concerns about themselves being shuffled out of Parliament or end up in a far less favourable seat, there's not a chance of it passing.
    I think this is completely wrong. There are now fewer Tory MPs to placate, and the loss of the majority just shows how vital boundary changes are for the party's future, so it's more likely it will go through. The extension of the parliamentary term means they can even use the Parliament Act.

    They can buy the DUP off with peerages.
    The DUP will not be supporting boundary changes.

    Boundary changes in Northern Ireland screw the following

    1) The DUP

    2) Unionists in general
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited June 2017
    Good article from Southam.

    Labour need to urgently get their best talent back in the Shadow Cabinet, and fine-tune parts of their manifesto to make sure all the sums really do "add up" and that everything is workable. The next election is Labour's for the taking, and it could well be coming very soon.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 2,748
    Every single poll, and every single supplemental in each and every poll show that the Tories are currently fucked, and fucked at the next election (be that in 1 or 5) unless they go for a really left-field leader, and soon. The newspaper headlines aren't pretty either.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,832
    spire2 said:

    I dont see why corbyn should show magnanimity to the time serving mediocrities that have tried to stab him in the back for the last 2 years. He'd do beter to get them deselected and get candidates chosen that he could trust

    Not sure what he'd gain by doing that. Firstly why go to the effort of removing MPs just when they stop trying to remove him? Secondly why waste a chance at unity when the Tories are weak?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,383
    spire2 said:

    I dont see why corbyn should show magnanimity to the time serving mediocrities that have tried to stab him in the back for the last 2 years. He'd do beter to get them deselected and get candidates chosen that he could trust

    That. of course, is the one way to guarantee that Labour goes backwards at the next general election.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582
    edited June 2017
    spire2 said:

    I dont see why corbyn should show magnanimity to the time serving mediocrities that have tried to stab him in the back for the last 2 years. He'd do beter to get them deselected and get candidates chosen that he could trust

    But I think he will show magnanimity, because that's the type of person he is. That's a part of his USP
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 381
    edited June 2017
    I don't think it will do much good. The Cult Of Corbyn is only going to grow - Unless the Tories find there own anti-politics populist leader (and that can be only Boris really) Corbyn WILL be Prime Minister whenever there's a new general election and even then the Cult Of Corbyn may be more popular ultimately.

    The only way to truly stop him is to let him seize power and let people experience the true horror of his brand of "pure" socialism I'm afraid.

    Tories would have been better off letting Corbyn try to knock up some kind of coalition of chaos in order to let him discredit himself and Labour for another decade. The election was best possible result for Corbyn - cemented his position, totally shot the Tories but he doesn't have to deliver anything.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,383
    Danny565 said:

    Good article from Southam.

    Labour need to urgently get their best talent back in the Shadow Cabinet, and fine-tune parts of their manifesto to make sure all the sums really do "add up" and that everything is workable. The next election is Labour's for the taking, and it could well be coming very soon.

    Cheers - as @dixiedean says down-thread: "This shit has just got real"!!!

  • tysontyson Posts: 5,526
    OllyT said:

    On topic SO tells Corbyns critics to lay off for the good of the party.

    Wonder if SO will vote Lab under Corbyn next time for the best opportunity to get rid of the Tories?


    A lot of us opposed Corbyn because we genuinely believed he was an electoral liability. I think it's fair to say there will be a certain amount of reassessment going on now - I abstained this time but if the party genuinely unites now I would probably be back on board at the next GE.
    I was never against Corbyn on policy....solely because I viewed him as an electoral liability....I viewed him as a hopeless manager.....

    Now that he has proved me wrong I am a convert.....

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,862
    More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    An excellent thread header from Joff. I can say in my own mind that Corbyn is more electable now. This mental shift alone will help him in marginals - of which he has created a path to victory for Labour for sure.

    & By God do the DUP have the Tories by the bollocks now.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    edited June 2017
    Alistair said:

    How are people doing on the Labour next leader market?

    AN Other perhaps - won't pay out for years. Definitely NOT D Miliband still :)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383
    edited June 2017
    RoyalBlue said:

    DM_Andy said:

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    I think the changes will be less beneficial for Tories than they would have appeared to be and with 50 less seats there will be some MPs that will have real concerns about themselves being shuffled out of Parliament or end up in a far less favourable seat, there's not a chance of it passing.
    I think this is completely wrong. There are now fewer Tory MPs to placate, and the loss of the majority just shows how vital boundary changes are for the party's future, so it's more likely it will go through. The extension of the parliamentary term means they can even use the Parliament Act.

    They can buy the DUP off with peerages.
    No.

    Firstly the government has to last into 2019 to see the legislation carried through parliament.

    Secondly the fact that the review criteria were too inflexible is understood by many Tories and there will be a number horrified by the proposals in their local area. It will only take a handful of people to sink the bill.

    Thirdly, the reduction to 600 MPs was proposed at a time of austerity when MPs felt they had to be seen to make a contribution. This imperative no longer exists. It is the reduction in seats that forces the commission to radically redraw every single seat, causing huge disruption to politicians and the organisation of political parties. A 650 review can be achieved mostly by tinkering around the edges of existing seats, which politicians will find a hugely less threatening prospect. Politics has been turned upside down by the events of the last year; don't underestimate the fear of introducing more risk and uncertainty amongst our political class.

    If the government falls in the next year or so, there will be another election on the old boundaries, and trying to push ahead with the proposals meantime will prove a fruitless waste of time.

    If on the other hand the Tory/DUP arrangement provides unexpectedly long-lasting, there is time to start the review again, using more sensible criteria and a less threatening 650 target number. This is what MPs will decide to do, probably later this year.

    If they need an excuse, they can say that losing MEPs saves a lot of money - and means more casework and legislation for MPs, hence Brexit means we need more of them.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    spire2 said:

    I dont see why corbyn should show magnanimity to the time serving mediocrities that have tried to stab him in the back for the last 2 years. He'd do beter to get them deselected and get candidates chosen that he could trust

    That. of course, is the one way to guarantee that Labour goes backwards at the next general election.

    The Blairites are utterly toxic. Corbyn must under no circumstances collaborate with them. They have to be eradicated.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,481
    Nigel Evans not mincing his words


  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582

    spire2 said:

    I dont see why corbyn should show magnanimity to the time serving mediocrities that have tried to stab him in the back for the last 2 years. He'd do beter to get them deselected and get candidates chosen that he could trust

    That. of course, is the one way to guarantee that Labour goes backwards at the next general election.

    The Blairites are utterly toxic. Corbyn must under no circumstances collaborate with them. They have to be eradicated.
    Oh dear that post came through in a Dalek voice :-)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    AndyJS said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
    Some Tories stayed at home I think actually - I think they probably did get most of the kippers..
  • atia2atia2 Posts: 207
    Monkeys said:

    atia2 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Monkeys said:

    This might be the wrong time to ask but what's so bad about the Dementia Tax? Right now your house gets taken off you and sold if you go into care, and you keep about £25,000 or something.

    Actually there wans't anything particularly bad about the policy )that I could see)

    The problem was all in the timing (in the middle of an election campaign) and the messaging (you just can't "sell" a policy like this on the doorsteps in the middle of an election campaign)

    All they had to say in the manifesto is that they were committed to "looking" at various funding models for social care and we'll get back to you with the details after a consultation.

    That's it. That would've covered everything and nobody would've thought any more about it.
    The current policy is crap: it is essentially self-funding of dementia care until you're down to £23k, unless you have a spouse or dependent at home. The proposal was crap: removing the exemption on the house would have transferred even more of the burden from the state to the individual.

    Dementia is an illness. We should be collectivising its costs. Mitigating random catastrophic social costs is the natural business of government. Given that the state is necessarily underwriting costs for individuals who cannot meet them, it makes a lot of sense to collectivise fully and in a controlled manner. A thorough consultation (perhaps as a Royal Commission) is needed, as you say.

    I wrote in greater detail about this here: https://alex-adamou.github.io/dementia-tax/

    Unfortunately state-owned care homes can be pretty awful.
    But, like many other state-owned enterprises, they aren't on the continent. There is no fundamental reason why they should be here.

    What makes the British incapable of operating a decent state? I wonder if the electoral system promotes game-playing over nation-building.
  • spire2spire2 Posts: 170
    Perhaps you're right. Offer chuka umuna shadow n ireland secretary and hilary benn shadow spors minister

    spire2 said:

    I dont see why corbyn should show magnanimity to the time serving mediocrities that have tried to stab him in the back for the last 2 years. He'd do beter to get them deselected and get candidates chosen that he could trust

    But I think he will show magnanimity, because that's the type of person he is. That's a part of his USP
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,663
    LOL an agreement hasn't been reached yet (Sky News). What a shambles. Reports said otherwise literally hours to go.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 150
    RoyalBlue said:

    DM_Andy said:

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    I think the changes will be less beneficial for Tories than they would have appeared to be and with 50 less seats there will be some MPs that will have real concerns about themselves being shuffled out of Parliament or end up in a far less favourable seat, there's not a chance of it passing.
    I think this is completely wrong. There are now fewer Tory MPs to placate, and the loss of the majority just shows how vital boundary changes are for the party's future, so it's more likely it will go through. The extension of the parliamentary term means they can even use the Parliament Act.

    They can buy the DUP off with peerages.
    You're still working on the assumption that the 2018 review benefits the Conservatives massively, I don't think it will.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,862
    nunu said:
    Trouble is that every time I now see a post like this from a police group, informal or not, it alienates me even further against them. I would feel exactly the same if they were doing this about Corbyn. My trust and faith in the police has collapsed utterly over the last decade or so to the extent that although I would not dream of committing a crime I would seriously have to think twice before helping them in any way. There are of course large sections of our society who have justifiably felt this way for many years but it is unusual and disturbing for me to find myself feeling this way.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    tlg86 said:

    YouGov finds for the first time, Corbyn has drawn level with Mrs May on who would make the best Prime Minister

    He really is crap if he's not ahead now!
    Give it a week, he will be.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    edited June 2017

    I suspect the next shadow Cabinet reshufffle will be much quicker than previous iterations.

    Indeed, the current Cabinet reshuffle is strikingly slow. The lack of comment about that is also striking.

    I guess MPs are deciding whether or not they want to be in Weak & Wobbly's cabinet.

    Has there ever been a PM in a weaker position in recent memory ? Major had a de-facto majority in the run up to 1997.
    Cameron locked in with Clegg for national stability.
    May's position is far far worse than either.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,383
    Night all. I will leave you with this absolute corker:
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    spire2 said:

    I dont see why corbyn should show magnanimity to the time serving mediocrities that have tried to stab him in the back for the last 2 years. He'd do beter to get them deselected and get candidates chosen that he could trust

    That. of course, is the one way to guarantee that Labour goes backwards at the next general election.

    The Blairites are utterly toxic. Corbyn must under no circumstances collaborate with them. They have to be eradicated.
    Oh dear that post came through in a Dalek voice :-)
    Is there anything more revolting than the sight of vermin like Campbell sidling up to Corbyn ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 32,001

    More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
    No they don't. The number explicitly supporting a second referendum is up around 10%. The trend is diminishing support for Brexit.

    The crucial poll will be YouGov because they've had consistent methodology and shown that the country has remained divided. If it now shows a shift to Remain then the writing is on the wall.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910

    Everyone gets old and that retired demographic is the biggest and getting bigger. People have forecasted the literal death of the Tory party as long as I've been an adult and they have just been returned as the largest party for the third time. Anyone who relies on demographics to deliver victory is waiting for a long time.

    Good point, but there are nuances. The first baby boom (born 1945-49 post WWII) are working their way thru the system and will age out at around 2025. The second baby boom (born 1955-64 post NHS vaccination implementation) will age out about ten-15 years later). But the third baby boom (1995-2010 post immigration - migrants are fecund) started voting about now, and there's quite a lot of them too.

    If this was Attack of the Clones I'd be saying "Begun the generational war has" as Theresa May reviewed the stormtroopers... :)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Pulpstar said:

    AndyJS said:

    I was ready to be suspicious of the polls but the real reason that I thought the Tories would get a substantial majority was the sense of dread amongst Labour MPs. Many clearly expected to lose their seats. Now there wasn't much marginals polling done so why was that? Why weren't they able to see that the situation for them was much better than it seemed? Did they just ignore the young voters who they assumed couldn't be relied upon.

    Turnout was only up by 2.6%. Was that enough to generate the huge youth turnout? Perhaps, if turnout was down amongst some other groups.
    Some Tories stayed at home I think actually - I think they probably did get most of the kippers..
    On the other hand I think in some seats the Tories failed to win because there wasn't a UKIP candidate, chief among them Newcastle-under-Lyme where there Labour clung on by 30 votes.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,526
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    YouGov finds for the first time, Corbyn has drawn level with Mrs May on who would make the best Prime Minister

    He really is crap if he's not ahead now!
    Give it a week, he will be.
    I think the only person capable of stopping the Corbyn juggernaut heading into number 10 is Ruth Davidson, and even then I have my doubts.

    I think Cameron's and May's antics in playing politics with elections has well and truly fucked the Tories for a generation......and laid the bedrock for a left wing, populist revolution...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,862

    More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
    No they don't. The number explicitly supporting a second referendum is up around 10%. The trend is diminishing support for Brexit.

    The crucial poll will be YouGov because they've had consistent methodology and shown that the country has remained divided. If it now shows a shift to Remain then the writing is on the wall.
    Excluding don't knows the number saying they don't want a second referendum is 60%. That is substantially higher than the number who actually voted Leave. We are leaving. Get used to it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    RoyalBlue said:

    DM_Andy said:

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    I think the changes will be less beneficial for Tories than they would have appeared to be and with 50 less seats there will be some MPs that will have real concerns about themselves being shuffled out of Parliament or end up in a far less favourable seat, there's not a chance of it passing.
    I think this is completely wrong. There are now fewer Tory MPs to placate, and the loss of the majority just shows how vital boundary changes are for the party's future, so it's more likely it will go through. The extension of the parliamentary term means they can even use the Parliament Act.

    They can buy the DUP off with peerages.
    The DUP will want more than a few peerages, indeed I think they'll block the boundary changes as they are poor for the Ulstermen.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,299
    RoyalBlue said:

    DM_Andy said:

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    I think the changes will be less beneficial for Tories than they would have appeared to be and with 50 less seats there will be some MPs that will have real concerns about themselves being shuffled out of Parliament or end up in a far less favourable seat, there's not a chance of it passing.
    I think this is completely wrong. There are now fewer Tory MPs to placate, and the loss of the majority just shows how vital boundary changes are for the party's future, so it's more likely it will go through. The extension of the parliamentary term means they can even use the Parliament Act.

    They can buy the DUP off with peerages.
    No plan for the country then? Just ways to keep hold of power, How about addressing people's legitimate concerns? That may work better.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
    No they don't. The number explicitly supporting a second referendum is up around 10%. The trend is diminishing support for Brexit.

    The crucial poll will be YouGov because they've had consistent methodology and shown that the country has remained divided. If it now shows a shift to Remain then the writing is on the wall.
    Several of the diehard Remainer Tory MPs don't appreciate that their party is now irretrievably tied to Brexit. If they fail to deliver it, the party will split and face utter collapse.

    Hopefully they will realise this.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2017
    I think if you'd offered the Tories 43.5% of the GB vote at the start of the campaign they probably would have taken it. After all, that's exactly the same share of the vote that Thatcher obtained at the 1983 election. What they, and many others, probably didn't expect was that the LDs would languish at 8% and that therefore 43.5% wouldn't provide a sufficient lead over Labour to get a good majority.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,174
    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DM_Andy said:

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    I think the changes will be less beneficial for Tories than they would have appeared to be and with 50 less seats there will be some MPs that will have real concerns about themselves being shuffled out of Parliament or end up in a far less favourable seat, there's not a chance of it passing.
    I think this is completely wrong. There are now fewer Tory MPs to placate, and the loss of the majority just shows how vital boundary changes are for the party's future, so it's more likely it will go through. The extension of the parliamentary term means they can even use the Parliament Act.

    They can buy the DUP off with peerages.
    The DUP will want more than a few peerages, indeed I think they'll block the boundary changes as they are poor for the Ulstermen.
    I note that the idea that the boundary changes are for anything except party advantage is no longer concealed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383
    AndyJS said:

    I think if you'd offered the Tories 43.5% of the GB vote at the start of the campaign they probably would have taken it. After all, that's exactly the same share of the vote that Thatcher obtained at the 1983 election. What they, and many others, probably didn't expect was that the LDs would languish at 8% and that therefore 43.5% wouldn't provide a decent lead over Labour.

    So much for 'never mind the lead, watch the share' ....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 32,001

    More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
    No they don't. The number explicitly supporting a second referendum is up around 10%. The trend is diminishing support for Brexit.

    The crucial poll will be YouGov because they've had consistent methodology and shown that the country has remained divided. If it now shows a shift to Remain then the writing is on the wall.
    Excluding don't knows the number saying they don't want a second referendum is 60%. That is substantially higher than the number who actually voted Leave. We are leaving. Get used to it.
    Those who want a second referendum will almost all want to vote Remain. Those who don't want a second referendum will have a huge variety of views.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    DanSmith said:

    This is very likely isn't it? Especially when the polling companies take out their corrections which dampen the Labour score.
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2017-united-kingdom-general-election

    Those were always the real polls. Normally inaccurate due to terrible youth turnout - not this time though. In fact as one off Brexiteers don't show up for the next one, the 'raw' numbers may well understate Labour...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383
    RoyalBlue said:

    More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
    No they don't. The number explicitly supporting a second referendum is up around 10%. The trend is diminishing support for Brexit.

    The crucial poll will be YouGov because they've had consistent methodology and shown that the country has remained divided. If it now shows a shift to Remain then the writing is on the wall.
    Several of the diehard Remainer Tory MPs don't appreciate that their party is now irretrievably tied to Brexit. If they fail to deliver it, the party will split and face utter collapse.

    Hopefully they will realise this.
    Hopefully LABOUR will realise this.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    tyson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    YouGov finds for the first time, Corbyn has drawn level with Mrs May on who would make the best Prime Minister

    He really is crap if he's not ahead now!
    Give it a week, he will be.
    I think the only person capable of stopping the Corbyn juggernaut heading into number 10 is Ruth Davidson, and even then I have my doubts.

    I think Cameron's and May's antics in playing politics with elections has well and truly fucked the Tories for a generation......and laid the bedrock for a left wing, populist revolution...
    What will become of layabout rentier millionaires like yourself in the imminent red terror ?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,215
    LOL - screeching hand break turn from Southam.

    So, doesn't matter about all his *ahem* well known issues - he won you votes so all is forgiven

    He is still the same man with the same beliefs who YOU said should not be allowed near the levers of power.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,481

    Night all. I will leave you with this absolute corker:

    Nothing would surprise me...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911

    Labour actually needs a swing of 3.3% to win the next GE:

    Labour don't need a majority to win - indeed with a weakened SNP, Corbyn wouldn't nearly be in Nicola's pocket as much as Theresa is in Arlene's right now.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,215
    tyson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    YouGov finds for the first time, Corbyn has drawn level with Mrs May on who would make the best Prime Minister

    He really is crap if he's not ahead now!
    Give it a week, he will be.
    I think the only person capable of stopping the Corbyn juggernaut heading into number 10 is Ruth Davidson, and even then I have my doubts.

    I think Cameron's and May's antics in playing politics with elections has well and truly fucked the Tories for a generation......and laid the bedrock for a left wing, populist revolution...
    Yeah - you should have stayed in Italy because this is going to be a disaster.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,862

    More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
    No they don't. The number explicitly supporting a second referendum is up around 10%. The trend is diminishing support for Brexit.

    The crucial poll will be YouGov because they've had consistent methodology and shown that the country has remained divided. If it now shows a shift to Remain then the writing is on the wall.
    Excluding don't knows the number saying they don't want a second referendum is 60%. That is substantially higher than the number who actually voted Leave. We are leaving. Get used to it.
    Those who want a second referendum will almost all want to vote Remain. Those who don't want a second referendum will have a huge variety of views.
    You really think that anyone who now wants us to kill Brexit would argue against a second referendum? You are indeed delusional.
  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 132
    atia2 said:

    Monkeys said:

    atia2 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Monkeys said:

    This might be the wrong time to ask but what's so bad about the Dementia Tax? Right now your house gets taken off you and sold if you go into care, and you keep about £25,000 or something.

    Actually there wans't anything particularly bad about the policy )that I could see)

    The problem was all in the timing (in the middle of an election campaign) and the messaging (you just can't "sell" a policy like this on the doorsteps in the middle of an election campaign)

    All they had to say in the manifesto is that they were committed to "looking" at various funding models for social care and we'll get back to you with the details after a consultation.

    That's it. That would've covered everything and nobody would've thought any more about it.
    The current policy is crap: it is essentially self-funding of dementia care until you're down to £23k, unless you have a spouse or dependent at home. The proposal was crap: removing the exemption on the house would have transferred even more of the burden from the state to the individual.

    Dementia is an illness. We should be collectivising its costs. Mitigating random catastrophic social costs is the natural business of government. Given that the state is necessarily underwriting costs for individuals who cannot meet them, it makes a lot of sense to collectivise fully and in a controlled manner. A thorough consultation (perhaps as a Royal Commission) is needed, as you say.

    I wrote in greater detail about this here: https://alex-adamou.github.io/dementia-tax/

    Unfortunately state-owned care homes can be pretty awful.
    But, like many other state-owned enterprises, they aren't on the continent. There is no fundamental reason why they should be here.

    What makes the British incapable of operating a decent state? I wonder if the electoral system promotes game-playing over nation-building.
    I dont think there is any such thing as a state owned care home, ie owned by the national government, is there? There are Local Authority ones but very few now (maybe 10% of the market and declining very rapidly). All of them, private or local authority, are assessed by the CQC so the quality ratings are public data, I dont know for sure but my guess is that quality problems are much more focussed in the small private homes.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,526
    Pulpstar said:

    I suspect the next shadow Cabinet reshufffle will be much quicker than previous iterations.

    Indeed, the current Cabinet reshuffle is strikingly slow. The lack of comment about that is also striking.

    I guess MPs are deciding whether or not they want to be in Weak & Wobbly's cabinet.

    Has there ever been a PM in a weaker position in recent memory ? Major had a de-facto majority in the run up to 1997.
    Cameron locked in with Clegg for national stability.
    May's position is far far worse than either.
    Pulps...May's position is hopeless.....fuck wherever she looks there is shyte....the Scottish Cons, the Brexit headbangers, the Remainer Tories, Conniving enemies (Gove and Osborne), and that is before you factor in the DUP, the loss of her advisers, and a energised and united opposition...and she hasn't got a mandate or a majority.....the only political leader I can think of in a worse position is Mussolini before they stringed him up.......
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562

    More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
    No they don't. The number explicitly supporting a second referendum is up around 10%. The trend is diminishing support for Brexit.

    The crucial poll will be YouGov because they've had consistent methodology and shown that the country has remained divided. If it now shows a shift to Remain then the writing is on the wall.
    Excluding don't knows the number saying they don't want a second referendum is 60%. That is substantially higher than the number who actually voted Leave. We are leaving. Get used to it.
    Those who want a second referendum will almost all want to vote Remain. Those who don't want a second referendum will have a huge variety of views.
    The chances of a second referendum went when the LDs made only 4 net gains and Clegg lost his seat, even Corbyn backs Brexit though it may now be fudged Brexit rather than hard Brexit
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Pulpstar said:

    Labour actually needs a swing of 3.3% to win the next GE:

    Labour don't need a majority to win - indeed with a weakened SNP, Corbyn wouldn't nearly be in Nicola's pocket as much as Theresa is in Arlene's right now.
    Would LDs like Norman Lamb and Tom Brake vote for a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 32,001

    More importantly look at those numbers for Brexit. Puts the lie to all those claiming Brexit should be abandoned.
    No they don't. The number explicitly supporting a second referendum is up around 10%. The trend is diminishing support for Brexit.

    The crucial poll will be YouGov because they've had consistent methodology and shown that the country has remained divided. If it now shows a shift to Remain then the writing is on the wall.
    Excluding don't knows the number saying they don't want a second referendum is 60%. That is substantially higher than the number who actually voted Leave. We are leaving. Get used to it.
    Those who want a second referendum will almost all want to vote Remain. Those who don't want a second referendum will have a huge variety of views.
    You really think that anyone who now wants us to kill Brexit would argue against a second referendum? You are indeed delusional.
    I said they will have a variety of views. People who don't want a second referendum include people who:

    - Are utterly committed to Brexit.
    - Don't care about Brexit at all.
    - Don't want Brexit but don't want to divide the country again.
    - Think parliament should be in control of what happens now.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,862
    rawzer said:

    atia2 said:

    Monkeys said:

    atia2 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Monkeys said:

    This might be the wrong time to ask but what's so bad about the Dementia Tax? Right now your house gets taken off you and sold if you go into care, and you keep about £25,000 or something.

    Actually there wans't anything particularly bad about the policy )that I could see)

    The problem was all in the timing (in the middle of an election campaign) and the messaging (you just can't "sell" a policy like this on the doorsteps in the middle of an election campaign)

    All they had to say in the manifesto is that they were committed to "looking" at various funding models for social care and we'll get back to you with the details after a consultation.

    That's it. That would've covered everything and nobody would've thought any more about it.
    The current policy is crap: it is essentially self-funding of dementia care until you're down to £23k, unless you have a spouse or dependent at home. The proposal was crap: removing the exemption on the house would have transferred even more of the burden from the state to the individual.

    Dementia is an illness. We should be collectivising its costs. Mitigating random catastrophic social costs is the natural business of government. Given that the state is necessarily underwriting costs for individuals who cannot meet them, it makes a lot of sense to collectivise fully and in a controlled manner. A thorough consultation (perhaps as a Royal Commission) is needed, as you say.

    I wrote in greater detail about this here: https://alex-adamou.github.io/dementia-tax/

    Unfortunately state-owned care homes can be pretty awful.
    But, like many other state-owned enterprises, they aren't on the continent. There is no fundamental reason why they should be here.

    What makes the British incapable of operating a decent state? I wonder if the electoral system promotes game-playing over nation-building.
    I dont think there is any such thing as a state owned care home, ie owned by the national government, is there? There are Local Authority ones but very few now (maybe 10% of the market and declining very rapidly). All of them, private or local authority, are assessed by the CQC so the quality ratings are public data, I dont know for sure but my guess is that quality problems are much more focussed in the small private homes.
    Having had to look at care homes in recent years it is very much the case that the council run ones are much poorer in terms of service and quality than the private ones.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,417
    viewcode said:

    ...Did make me wonder whether it was suppressing your pay somewhat, @viewcode - in principal someone with such in-demand STEM skills should be paying paid a princely ransom, but you don't seem to be on the receiving end of one!

    The problem with a tech job (and the reason why I got out of it and entered statistics) is that a) tech dates rapidly, and b) the required skillset is infinitely large. I've seen job ads that require C++, Javascript, VB, R, SAS and Hadoop, despite all six of those things reflecting different computer disciplines. Every year there is something new: for example Microsoft Azure is this years' new black that all the hipsters wear, and my tech skills date faster than my capacity to acquire new ones.

    This is why I prefer maths and stats: it doesn't date and every new job adds to my skillset instead of replacing it.
    Indeed. Though still, they should be paying you more!

    I have a rather old and decrepit law degree. It may have taught me a lot about how to think, write and argue, but the content of it doesn't age well at all. There are lots of things I'm half-sure I half-remember, but still can't be sure it hasn't changed completely since! Since people seem willing to pay me to do other things, which requires other knowledge/skills, I don't make any effort to keep up - in fact actively avoid doing it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 31,439
    Pulpstar said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DM_Andy said:

    MikeL said:

    Betfair already has a market up for next GE.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Con is favourite to win most seats.

    At GE 2017, Con got 56 more seats with a 2.4% lead.

    Does anyone yet have the figures for (assuming UNS):

    - Con lead needed for Con maj
    - Lab lead needed for equal Con/Lab seats (it must be a Lab lead I think)
    - Lab lead needed for Lab maj

    What likelihood is there of the boundary changes going through before the next election? Does it merely depend on the date of the election or does the current make up of parliament make it unlikely the boundary changes will progress. Anyone have a view?
    I think the changes will be less beneficial for Tories than they would have appeared to be and with 50 less seats there will be some MPs that will have real concerns about themselves being shuffled out of Parliament or end up in a far less favourable seat, there's not a chance of it passing.
    I think this is completely wrong. There are now fewer Tory MPs to placate, and the loss of the majority just shows how vital boundary changes are for the party's future, so it's more likely it will go through. The extension of the parliamentary term means they can even use the Parliament Act.

    They can buy the DUP off with peerages.
    The DUP will want more than a few peerages, indeed I think they'll block the boundary changes as they are poor for the Ulstermen.
    Reading Vince Cable's column in the Sunday Mail the lib dems are not looking to help labour under Corbyn and thinks that there is a good chance that the conservatives with the DUP could go the full term if they soften their Brexit stance ( which I think is inevitable)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383
    Pulpstar said:

    DanSmith said:

    This is very likely isn't it? Especially when the polling companies take out their corrections which dampen the Labour score.
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2017-united-kingdom-general-election

    Those were always the real polls. Normally inaccurate due to terrible youth turnout - not this time though. In fact as one off Brexiteers don't show up for the next one, the 'raw' numbers may well understate Labour...
    @TSE they don't need to "take out" their corrections, just keep on doing what they have been doing...use the actual pattern of turnout in the election preceeding.
This discussion has been closed.