Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.
He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.
Clarke's reputation seems to have grown largely since he left the Conservative front bench, a lot of people praising him now had little time for him as Health Secretary or Chancellor.
Isn't that part of the rationale as presented by Ms C?
Amazing how instantly recognisable his look is throughout his life. Interesting article, intelligently served up by Cyclefree - thank you.
He doesn't walk very well these days, and I think he's genuinely calling it a day - perhaps partly because of that, but also because he doesn't really fit with any of the parties. Not a Tory nationalist seduced by Boris, not a socialist delighted by Corbyn, and not really a LibDem either. But I do hope they put him in the Lords - he'd make an outstanding cross-bencher.
Amazing how instantly recognisable his look is throughout his life. Interesting article, intelligently served up by Cyclefree - thank you.
He doesn't walk very well these days, and I think he's genuinely calling it a day - perhaps partly because of that, but also because he doesn't really fit with any of the parties. Not a Tory nationalist seduced by Boris, not a socialist delighted by Corbyn, and not really a LibDem either. But I do hope they put him in the Lords - he'd make an outstanding cross-bencher.
A posh boy who's thinking that this entitlement lark isn't what it's cracked up to be.
A principled MP who has put his career on the line, in contrast to the toadies who have stayed in the Conservative and Labour Parties despite the fact that neither is now even pretending to be a serious party of government. Good for him.
I wish the pollsters would ask people who they would choose if they had to preference Conservative and Labour. I think at least 25% of LD voters would prefer Johnson over Corbyn, (probably more).
Remaining lib dems maybe
There have been a few polls that did. From memory, it was something like 55% preferred Lab/Corbyn to Con/Johnson, 20% the reverse, the remainder declined to respond.
Squeaky bum time for the SNP? Black dashed is 2017, gold is 2019. National polls only so rounding is an issue!
Difficult to tell what the election is about up there. I have good friends up there, traditional labour but hating the SNP. They live in Glasgow. Where to go?
Squeaky bum time for the SNP? Black dashed is 2017, gold is 2019. National polls only so rounding is an issue!
Difficult to tell what the election is about up there. I have good friends up there, traditional labour but hating the SNP. They live in Glasgow. Where to go?
This might be showing that pollsters are doing a better job. In 2017 they got 3.1% nationally, and the latest Scottish polls show them to be in a similar position to last time.
I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.
Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.
The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?
Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?
What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...
We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.
your maths is off
2019 - 871 > 1000
Bullshit maths is a pretty common currency with some posters on here
i’m just surprise no one has questioned my choice of 871
I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.
Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.
The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?
Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?
What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...
We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.
your maths is off
2019 - 871 > 1000
Bullshit maths is a pretty common currency with some posters on here
i’m just surprise no one has questioned my choice of 871
We all just assumed it was some important family birthday.
A posh boy who's thinking that this entitlement lark isn't what it's cracked up to be.
A principled MP who has put his career on the line, in contrast to the toadies who have stayed in the Conservative and Labour Parties despite the fact that neither is now even pretending to be a serious party of government. Good for him.
You give him more credit than I do. I think he thought he'd get away with it - like many others. I can't begin to consider politicians principled these days, KC an exception.
Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.
He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.
It wouldn't surprise me if even William Hague today thinks that Ken Clarke should have won the 1997 Tory leadership contest instead of William Hague. Hague was far too young for the job at that time IMO.
I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.
Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.
The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?
Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?
What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...
We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.
your maths is off
2019 - 871 > 1000
Bullshit maths is a pretty common currency with some posters on here
i’m just surprise no one has questioned my choice of 871
We all just assumed it was some important family birthday.
Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.
He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.
It wouldn't surprise me if even William Hague today thinks that Ken Clarke should have won the 1997 Tory leadership contest instead of William Hague. Hague was far too young for the job at that time IMO.
Do you have a spreadsheet of the first YouGov MRP from 2017?
Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.
He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.
It wouldn't surprise me if even William Hague today thinks that Ken Clarke should have won the 1997 Tory leadership contest instead of William Hague. Hague was far too young for the job at that time IMO.
In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?
It's a very good question.
Maybe poor voters don't care about the mega-rich. Maybe they don't believe anything can be done about it. Maybe they just don't like what Labour are proposing. Maybe they have been scared off progressive taxes by the mega-rich controlled press. I don't know.
But it is a good question.
It's been like that up to a point for a long time. There's a little estate in Broxtowe where people are really seriously poor. Lots of single parents, some elderly people down on their luck, some drug-dealers, nothing much to do. Most people living there are better off under Labour governments, but by and large they don't vote - life is rough, politics is for other people. What's changing is that a proportion of them voted Brexit and have now moved on to voting Tory.
It's a problem for the left that the people we think we're about helping are mostly disengaged. Just as in the US the Democrats look for votes from schoolteachers more thantrailer parks, in Britain Labour has rarely done much to try to mobilise the very poor, simply because it's so difficult - I often puzzled over it, and tried many times to interest that estate, but they were perfectly politely just not interested. At election time, it was always more promising to canvass an area with more people in work and getting something out of life.
I'm not proud of it, and one can argue that if the Tories win desperate Northern seats we had it coming. But I don't think they'll be happy with a Tory government either. A grim life is a grim life, and the differences that we all make are on the margins.
I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.
Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.
The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?
Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?
What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...
We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.
your maths is off
2019 - 871 > 1000
Bullshit maths is a pretty common currency with some posters on here
i’m just surprise no one has questioned my choice of 871
We all just assumed it was some important family birthday.
I don’t think i’m related to Alfred 😆
You almost certainly are! I would expect that the chances of being white British and not being descended from Alfred must be so slim as to be effectively zero.
Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.
He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.
It wouldn't surprise me if even William Hague today thinks that Ken Clarke should have won the 1997 Tory leadership contest instead of William Hague. Hague was far too young for the job at that time IMO.
Do you have a spreadsheet of the first YouGov MRP from 2017?
I've done one although it's based on the last update they did to the data before the election, so it's not the first version which got most of the publicity at the time. Ironically, this final version was not as good as the first version. The first version had totals of Con 310, Lab 257. The final version had Con 303, Lab 269. The actual result was Con 318, Lab 262.
UKIP Manifest Part 1o - 48 pages - much shorter than anyone bar the Brexit Party 'not a manifesto' manifesto.
Says only they will cut immigration to below 10000 net per annum and protect the countryside from rampant 'development'. Not sure why those two things are in the same sentence, but never mind.
The intro clarifies that 'this manifesto tells the truth about what UKIP stands for', and has the interim leader thank by name two figures who helped prepare it.
Layout is amateurish, but as a result virtually every page is a simple title of a new subject and bullet points of arguments, so it is not actually ineffective.
Brexit section is pretty typical, I cannot tell if it is any different to BXP.
Social care is about as detailed as anyone elses, that is not detailed, but does say funding will increase by 5 billion and the possibility of supporting it via national insurance.
UK State Pension is run like a ponzi scheme it says.
'UKIP understands that 1950s born women have been affected by changes to the state pension age and we work to deliver a solution'. What an odd way to put it. It's like they saw it on the news and thought 'Shit, better put something about that in, whatever it is'.
Workers rights protected when leaving the EU, minimise zero hour contracts, tax credits only to UK citizens. Scrapping the bedroom tax (2015 called, and want its policy back). They clarify they ar opposed to the 'marcist idea' of a basic state income or universal citizens income. I guess they read the Green manifesto too.
Foreign students capped at 500k. time limited work visas for scarce skills, and only to english speakers. New Migration Control Department - even they want new departments.
10 continuous years of work for migrants before they can can obtain citizenship.
Right to buy to end. Green built protected from housing, maximum housing density to be set, minimum size homes 'such as in Denmark'. Grenfell gets a mention.
UKIP manifesto part 2 Encourage new grammar schools and faith schools. Introduce an Act 'to precent damaging political propaganda being passed off as fact'. This bit gets emotional, clearly the author was worked up about it. Will repeal LGBT education. Drop 50% target for university. Waive tuition fees for science, engineering medicine, maths.
Scrap HS2. Like everyone else they will restore bus services. Oppose heathrow expansion. Scrap all road tolls.
Scrap overseas aid. 7bn a year more for armed forces. Veterans administration department. reverse direct entry to senior ranks of police.end politically correct policing (no examples given).
While section on fisheries.
Very woolly on wanting to lower tax. Free ports.
Build business incubators (Net centres) in digitally deprived areas. I don't know what that means.
Moratoriam on roll out of 5G due to health concerns. This bit is in bold, so must be important.
Energy policy is all over the place, lots of maybes, in the medium terms and so on.
'Separate the dogma of anthropogenic climate change from conservation'. There is no climate emergency - in fairness, until this year few people used that phrase a lot, but I get the impression they realllllly hate it.
Long term aim of 2 tax bands. abolish inheritance taz and stamp duty.
Marriage allowance raised from 10% to 100% for married couples with dependent children. Seek to reduce abortions. The state should not give active or passive acceptance to underage sex - was it doing that?
Voting for UK citizens only. ABolish the supreme court in its current form. Referendums on abolishing devolved assemblies. local referenda on important things like out of town supermarkets (yes really)
Whole section on political correctness.
They do have a table of spending and funding. I don't buy it.
In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?
It's a very good question.
Maybe poor voters don't care about the mega-rich. Maybe they don't believe anything can be done about it. Maybe they just don't like what Labour are proposing. Maybe they have been scared off progressive taxes by the mega-rich controlled press. I don't know.
But it is a good question.
It's been like that up to a point for a long time. There's a little estate in Broxtowe where people are really seriously poor. Lots of single parents, some elderly people down on their luck, some drug-dealers, nothing much to do. Most people living there are better off under Labour governments, but by and large they don't vote - life is rough, politics is for other people. What's changing is that a proportion of them voted Brexit and have now moved on to voting Tory.
It's a problem for the left that the people we think we're about helping are mostly disengaged. Just as in the US the Democrats look for votes from schoolteachers more thantrailer parks, in Britain Labour has rarely done much to try to mobilise the very poor, simply because it's so difficult - I often puzzled over it, and tried many times to interest that estate, but they were perfectly politely just not interested. At election time, it was always more promising to canvass an area with more people in work and getting something out of life.
I'm not proud of it, and one can argue that if the Tories win desperate Northern seats we had it coming. But I don't think they'll be happy with a Tory government either. A grim life is a grim life, and the differences that we all make are on the margins.
Without being overly sympathetic, I feel for you Nick. But, for the present Labour party anyway, their kind of Socialism (Marxism?) is just inappropriate. People know when they're being shat on and better a nob than the bloke next door.
I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.
Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.
The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?
Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?
What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...
We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.
your maths is off
2019 - 871 > 1000
Bullshit maths is a pretty common currency with some posters on here
i’m just surprise no one has questioned my choice of 871
We all just assumed it was some important family birthday.
I don’t think i’m related to Alfred 😆
You almost certainly are! I would expect that the chances of being white British and not being descended from Alfred must be so slim as to be effectively zero.
I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.
Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.
The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?
Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?
What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...
We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.
your maths is off
2019 - 871 > 1000
That was then Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell in 1962 opposing British membership of the EEC!
UKIP manifesto part 2 Encourage new grammar schools and faith schools. Introduce an Act 'to precent damaging political propaganda being passed off as fact'. This bit gets emotional, clearly the author was worked up about it. Will repeal LGBT education. Drop 50% target for university. Waive tuition fees for science, engineering medicine, maths.
Scrap HS2. Like everyone else they will restore bus services. Oppose heathrow expansion. Scrap all road tolls.
Scrap overseas aid. 7bn a year more for armed forces. Veterans administration department. reverse direct entry to senior ranks of police.end politically correct policing (no examples given).
While section on fisheries.
Very woolly on wanting to lower tax. Free ports.
Build business incubators (Net centres) in digitally deprived areas. I don't know what that means.
Moratoriam on roll out of 5G due to health concerns. This bit is in bold, so must be important.
Energy policy is all over the place, lots of maybes, in the medium terms and so on.
'Separate the dogma of anthropogenic climate change from conservation'. There is no climate emergency - in fairness, until this year few people used that phrase a lot, but I get the impression they realllllly hate it.
Long term aim of 2 tax bands. abolish inheritance taz and stamp duty.
Marriage allowance raised from 10% to 100% for married couples with dependent children. Seek to reduce abortions. The state should not give active or passive acceptance to underage sex - was it doing that?
Voting for UK citizens only. ABolish the supreme court in its current form. Referendums on abolishing devolved assemblies. local referenda on important things like out of town supermarkets (yes really)
Whole section on political correctness.
They do have a table of spending and funding. I don't buy it.
In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?
It's a very good question.
Maybe poor voters don't care about the mega-rich. Maybe they don't believe anything can be done about it. Maybe they just don't like what Labour are proposing. Maybe they have been scared off progressive taxes by the mega-rich controlled press. I don't know.
But it is a good question.
It's been like that up to a point for a long time. There's a little estate in Broxtowe where people are really seriously poor. Lots of single parents, some elderly people down on their luck, some drug-dealers, nothing much to do. Most people living there are better off under Labour governments, but by and large they don't vote - life is rough, politics is for other people. What's changing is that a proportion of them voted Brexit and have now moved on to voting Tory.
It's a problem for the left that the people we think we're about helping are mostly disengaged. Just as in the US the Democrats look for votes from schoolteachers more thantrailer parks, in Britain Labour has rarely done much to try to mobilise the very poor, simply because it's so difficult - I often puzzled over it, and tried many times to interest that estate, but they were perfectly politely just not interested. At election time, it was always more promising to canvass an area with more people in work and getting something out of life.
I'm not proud of it, and one can argue that if the Tories win desperate Northern seats we had it coming. But I don't think they'll be happy with a Tory government either. A grim life is a grim life, and the differences that we all make are on the margins.
Wahey! I’ve received my Mike Smithson letter today. However, in an unexpected development i’ve now discovered that Richmond Park is a two horse race between Cons and LibDems. I had assumed Lib Dem’s were a shoo-in, and there was no point voting against them. Perhaps i’m now having second thoughts
In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?
It's a very good question.
Maybe poor voters don't care about the mega-rich. Maybe they don't believe anything can be done about it. Maybe they just don't like what Labour are proposing. Maybe they have been scared off progressive taxes by the mega-rich controlled press. I don't know.
But it is a good question.
It's been like that up to a point for a long time. There's a little estate in Broxtowe where people are really seriously poor. Lots of single parents, some elderly people down on their luck, some drug-dealers, nothing much to do. Most people living there are better off under Labour governments, but by and large they don't vote - life is rough, politics is for other people. What's changing is that a proportion of them voted Brexit and have now moved on to voting Tory.
It's a problem for the left that the people we think we're about helping are mostly disengaged. Just as in the US the Democrats look for votes from schoolteachers more thantrailer parks, in Britain Labour has rarely done much to try to mobilise the very poor, simply because it's so difficult - I often puzzled over it, and tried many times to interest that estate, but they were perfectly politely just not interested. At election time, it was always more promising to canvass an area with more people in work and getting something out of life.
I'm not proud of it, and one can argue that if the Tories win desperate Northern seats we had it coming. But I don't think they'll be happy with a Tory government either. A grim life is a grim life, and the differences that we all make are on the margins.
A creditably honest post. Bravo.
It might be pointed out that Labour’s original purpose was arguably to represent the working poor in Parliament. Not necessarily the very poorest in society. Not people who wanted state handouts for doing nothing, but who wanted a fair wage for a honest day’s work, and to be free from exploitation from unscrupulous employers.
UKIP manifesto part 2 Encourage new grammar schools and faith schools. Introduce an Act 'to precent damaging political propaganda being passed off as fact'. This bit gets emotional, clearly the author was worked up about it. Will repeal LGBT education. Drop 50% target for university. Waive tuition fees for science, engineering medicine, maths.
Scrap HS2. Like everyone else they will restore bus services. Oppose heathrow expansion. Scrap all road tolls.
Scrap overseas aid. 7bn a year more for armed forces. Veterans administration department. reverse direct entry to senior ranks of police.end politically correct policing (no examples given).
While section on fisheries.
Very woolly on wanting to lower tax. Free ports.
Build business incubators (Net centres) in digitally deprived areas. I don't know what that means.
Moratoriam on roll out of 5G due to health concerns. This bit is in bold, so must be important.
Energy policy is all over the place, lots of maybes, in the medium terms and so on.
'Separate the dogma of anthropogenic climate change from conservation'. There is no climate emergency - in fairness, until this year few people used that phrase a lot, but I get the impression they realllllly hate it.
Long term aim of 2 tax bands. abolish inheritance taz and stamp duty.
Marriage allowance raised from 10% to 100% for married couples with dependent children. Seek to reduce abortions. The state should not give active or passive acceptance to underage sex - was it doing that?
Voting for UK citizens only. ABolish the supreme court in its current form. Referendums on abolishing devolved assemblies. local referenda on important things like out of town supermarkets (yes really)
Whole section on political correctness.
They do have a table of spending and funding. I don't buy it.
Johnson, Corbyn and Swinson to all win their seats? 4/6
(SkyBet)
Waste of cash. Corbyn is a dead cert and Johnson is almost certain, so this is really a bet about Swinson. Why take a measly 4/6 when you can get 11/4 on the SNP gaining East Dunbartonshire?
"Another candidate said the party had not bothered to include a promised rail fare reduction announced on Monday on their campaign Facebook page, because it was just likely to increase voter scepticism about whether the party’s programme is deliverable."
The morph-ing of the Labour Party into Moneysavingexpert.com has been one of the strangest things about this election.
There are retail offers on train fares. There is free super-fast broadband. There is more money saving on childcare and utility bills. WASPI women can grab their cash with a handy calculator on the Labour party website. Students can reclaim tuition fees -- and you can get a bit more cash back if you click through on the link on the Labour party website.
It seems Labour's vision for the future of Britain is Martin Lewis on steroids.
Martin Lewis's solution to tuition fees is to rename them as 'graduate contribution scheme'....
It’s the obvious answer for the Tories in my view. Switch tuition fees to a graduate tax for life; gets rid of the interest and debt optics and makes it more progressive as everyone pays, and there’s none of this nonsense of writing it all off in 30 years time.
You could keep maintenance loans as loans, or switch to an additional tax.
Not sure what to do with existing loans though - probably convert to graduate tax too.
Don’t know the numbers - but if it worked at a 1% income tax supplement for life it would be great. “A penny for a world-class university education”.
"Another candidate said the party had not bothered to include a promised rail fare reduction announced on Monday on their campaign Facebook page, because it was just likely to increase voter scepticism about whether the party’s programme is deliverable."
The morph-ing of the Labour Party into Moneysavingexpert.com has been one of the strangest things about this election.
There are retail offers on train fares. There is free super-fast broadband. There is more money saving on childcare and utility bills. WASPI women can grab their cash with a handy calculator on the Labour party website. Students can reclaim tuition fees -- and you can get a bit more cash back if you click through on the link on the Labour party website.
It seems Labour's vision for the future of Britain is Martin Lewis on steroids.
Martin Lewis's solution to tuition fees is to rename them as 'graduate contribution scheme'....
It’s the obvious answer for the Tories in my view. Switch tuition fees to a graduate tax for life; gets rid of the interest and debt optics and makes it more progressive as everyone pays, and there’s none of this nonsense of writing it all off in 30 years time.
You could keep maintenance loans as loans, or switch to an additional tax.
Not sure what to do with existing loans though - probably convert to graduate tax too.
Don’t know the numbers - but if it worked at a 1% income tax supplement for life it would be great. “A penny for a world-class university education”.
The problem with existing graduates is that conversion to a tax it is terribly unfair if you've paid back £29,000 of your £30,000 in debt, while your friend has paid back nothing.
10-19 10/11 20-29 7/4 9 seats and under 10/1 30-39 10/1 40-49 25/1 50-59 40/1
ie. n/c
Hard to credit given the hype 3 months ago.
It does make you wonder what their fortunes would have been if rather than adopting shrill obstinacy on the question of Brexit the past 3 years, they had accepted the result. In this election they could then have instead said:
"We are democrats above all else. We were the first national party to propose a referendum on EU membership and while we are disappointed with the outcome, we respect the UK's historic vote to leave the EU. It is our belief that leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market is the best economic course, is the path best placed to bind our Union and would be the best compromise for a country that desperately wants to come back together and move on. We'd get the benefits of leaving the common farming and fisheries policies, the ability to strike independent trade deals in the UK's interests and our annual payments to Brussels would fall sharply.
We will not enter coalition talks with any party that seeks to block the first referendum result or pursue a needless second referendum. But we will also make it our red-line in any potential coalition talks that the UK in entirety remains in the Single Market after Brexit."
Ally this with their fiscally dry spending and tax plans, as well as a firm refusal to countenance a second independence referendum, both of which have been drowned out in the noise.
And voila, they probably get a Cleggasm level of seats with strong recovery in SE England and Scotland and very possibly hold the balance of power.
Johnson, Corbyn and Swinson to all win their seats? 4/6
(SkyBet)
Waste of cash. Corbyn is a dead cert and Johnson is almost certain, so this is really a bet about Swinson. Why take a measly 4/6 when you can get 11/4 on the SNP gaining East Dunbartonshire?
So you can get 4/6 on Swinson winning and 11/4 on her losing? Sounds ok to me.
10-19 10/11 20-29 7/4 9 seats and under 10/1 30-39 10/1 40-49 25/1 50-59 40/1
ie. n/c
Hard to credit given the hype 3 months ago.
It does make you wonder what their fortunes would have been if rather than adopting shrill obstinacy on the question of Brexit the past 3 years, they had accepted the result. In this election they could then have instead said:
"We are democrats above all else. We were the first national party to propose a referendum on EU membership and while we are disappointed with the outcome, we respect the UK's historic vote to leave the EU. It is our belief that leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market is the best economic course, is the path best placed to bind our Union and would be the best compromise for a country that desperately wants to come back together and move on. We'd get the benefits of leaving the common farming and fisheries policies, the ability to strike independent trade deals in the UK's interests and our annual payments to Brussels would fall sharply.
We will not enter coalition talks with any party that seeks to block the first referendum result or pursue a needless second referendum. But we will also make it our red-line in any potential coalition talks that the UK in entirety remains in the Single Market after Brexit."
Ally this with their fiscally dry spending and tax plans, as well as a firm refusal to countenance a second independence referendum, both of which have been drowned out in the noise.
And voila, they probably get a Cleggasm level of seats with strong recovery in SE England and Scotland and very possibly hold the balance of power.
Not viable. Something like 2/3 of the LD membership joined after the referendum as rejectionists. I expect a Tory majority of about 40 seats, and Brexit to happen. At that point the party will switch to advocating a Norway plus relationship, with a view to later re-entry. Not that I am convinced that the EU would want us back.
Brexit is a crock of shit that solves none of the problems of the left behind areas, but they will take some time to realise that. What does concern me more is the plans in the Tory manifesto for constitutional reform, significantly reducing restraint on the executive by judiciary and parliament. Thinking Tories should pause and consider how they would feel if Jezza had those powers. One day, one of his lieutenants will.
I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.
Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.
The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?
Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?
What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...
We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.
your maths is off
2019 - 871 > 1000
Bullshit maths is a pretty common currency with some posters on here
i’m just surprise no one has questioned my choice of 871
I would if I'd been here earlier. 927 is the traditional date for the foundation of the Kingdom of England, and the Kingdom of Great Britain was, of course, only created in 1707. So there.
Aren’t they talking to Princess Anne? If Trump thinks Johnson’s been laughing at him there will be hell to pay.
If ever there was a leader of a democratic nation who would react in a seriously dumb and damaging way because of gentle ribbing from other leaders it is Donald Trump. Is there a more fragile ego on the planet?
KC was obviously hugely talented but he was never going to be accepted as leader by the membership, not just because of his views on Europe but also because of his part in orchestrating the fall of Margaret Thatcher.
In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?
They are interested in inequality, but mainly of the intersectional identity-based kind.
They are interested in redistributing wealth, but mainly to students, graduates and those affiliated in the public sector unions.
I think the rest is largely just a stick to beat the Tories with.
They are happy with WWC voters voting for them but, if they desert, they will see them as traitors.
I see Elon Musk is employing all the classic defences in his defamation case. Claim you were not being literal, as though labelling someone a pedo as a joke is not damaging enough anyway, spurious suggestions you meant something else even the vast number of people will take a different meaning, and make an overwrought apology, even though past actions suggests you'll repeat any such behaviour once heat dies down.
As I expected and asked last week, we’re now starting to get the luvvies (Hugh Grant and a couple of Lefty stand-up comics) standing up and saying we’re all going to hell in a handcart if we don’t kick the Tories out.
Squeaky bum time for the SNP? Black dashed is 2017, gold is 2019. National polls only so rounding is an issue!
Difficult to tell what the election is about up there. I have good friends up there, traditional labour but hating the SNP. They live in Glasgow. Where to go?
This might be showing that pollsters are doing a better job. In 2017 they got 3.1% nationally, and the latest Scottish polls show them to be in a similar position to last time.
@ RobD Thanks for the graphs you post. It struck me that a useful additional layer of analysis, rather than just looking at the voting intentions and the gap, might be a chart of the rate of Labour's closing the gap, 2017 vs now.
10-19 10/11 20-29 7/4 9 seats and under 10/1 30-39 10/1 40-49 25/1 50-59 40/1
ie. n/c
Hard to credit given the hype 3 months ago.
It does make you wonder what their fortunes would have been if rather than adopting shrill obstinacy on the question of Brexit the past 3 years, they had accepted the result. In this election they could then have instead said:
"We are democrats above all else. We were the first national party to propose a referendum on EU membership and while we are disappointed with the outcome, we respect the UK's historic vote to leave the EU. It is our belief that leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market is the best economic course, is the path best placed to bind our Union and would be the best compromise for a country that desperately wants to come back together and move on. We'd get the benefits of leaving the common farming and fisheries policies, the ability to strike independent trade deals in the UK's interests and our annual payments to Brussels would fall sharply.
We will not enter coalition talks with any party that seeks to block the first referendum result or pursue a needless second referendum. But we will also make it our red-line in any potential coalition talks that the UK in entirety remains in the Single Market after Brexit."
Ally this with their fiscally dry spending and tax plans, as well as a firm refusal to countenance a second independence referendum, both of which have been drowned out in the noise.
And voila, they probably get a Cleggasm level of seats with strong recovery in SE England and Scotland and very possibly hold the balance of power.
Not viable. Something like 2/3 of the LD membership joined after the referendum as rejectionists. I expect a Tory majority of about 40 seats, and Brexit to happen. At that point the party will switch to advocating a Norway plus relationship, with a view to later re-entry. Not that I am convinced that the EU would want us back.
Brexit is a crock of shit that solves none of the problems of the left behind areas, but they will take some time to realise that. What does concern me more is the plans in the Tory manifesto for constitutional reform, significantly reducing restraint on the executive by judiciary and parliament. Thinking Tories should pause and consider how they would feel if Jezza had those powers. One day, one of his lieutenants will.
In politics you reap what you sow. The Republicans will discover this in the US, too.
Fun article, Cyclefree. Ken Clark is one of the rare politicians who had a decent intellect which he applies in the cause of common sense. Shame he’s wrong about PR, though.
This campaign, unfortunately, has been full of hustings and meetings where opposition activists have attended to shout down abuse Conservative candidates.
On topic, Ken Clarke has simply been through the weathering and erosion processes of very old rocks, and has survived.
He is now officially a National Treasure, and people who never liked him and never voted for him have forgotten why.
The same happened to Tony Wedgwood Benn. The middle classes loathed and feared him when there was a real prospect of him gaining power and forcing change. Once that was no longer the case, he become a National Treasure, and the same people happily spent £50 a ticket to hear him reminisce fondly in theatres.
I expect the same thing will happen to Corby. Once he has been forced out of front line politics, the very people yelling anti-semitism at him will be penning thoughtful and regretful critiques about how the UK was not ready for the radicalism of our new National Treasure. Cyclefree will write a reflexive header for pb.com. There will be much talk of allotments and home-made jam (just like jazz and cigars for our Ken).
It is the fear of old age in all of us. We always feel sorry for the tiger who no longer roars, but moves awkwardly on arthritic legs.
This campaign, unfortunately, has been full of hustings and meetings where opposition activists have attended to shout down abuse Conservative candidates.
Hard to shout down Conservative candidates if they don't even turn up. Just another born to rule Tory who thinks that contact with the electorate is beneath them. Speaking of which, when is Johnson going to talk to Andrew Neil? Or is he too much of a liar, coward and cheat to do it? Sad.
At the risk of tweaking the nose of fate it is starting to feel like Labour's loss of momentum and the Tories safety first approach is sealing Corbyn's fate.
"Another candidate said the party had not bothered to include a promised rail fare reduction announced on Monday on their campaign Facebook page, because it was just likely to increase voter scepticism about whether the party’s programme is deliverable."
The morph-ing of the Labour Party into Moneysavingexpert.com has been one of the strangest things about this election.
There are retail offers on train fares. There is free super-fast broadband. There is more money saving on childcare and utility bills. WASPI women can grab their cash with a handy calculator on the Labour party website. Students can reclaim tuition fees -- and you can get a bit more cash back if you click through on the link on the Labour party website.
It seems Labour's vision for the future of Britain is Martin Lewis on steroids.
Martin Lewis's solution to tuition fees is to rename them as 'graduate contribution scheme'....
It’s the obvious answer for the Tories in my view. Switch tuition fees to a graduate tax for life; gets rid of the interest and debt optics and makes it more progressive as everyone pays, and there’s none of this nonsense of writing it all off in 30 years time.
You could keep maintenance loans as loans, or switch to an additional tax.
Not sure what to do with existing loans though - probably convert to graduate tax too.
Don’t know the numbers - but if it worked at a 1% income tax supplement for life it would be great. “A penny for a world-class university education”.
or we could just get rid of the nonsense of the mandatory foreign aid budget and pay for it out of taxation. The £13 billion we spend on imperial hangovers would fund the sector.
At the risk of tweaking the nose of fate it is starting to feel like Labour's loss of momentum and the Tories safety first approach is sealing Corbyn's fate.
Good. Any candidate who turns up at these things is their own worst enemy. There wouldn’t be a single supporter in the room. Environmentalism is riddled with far left extremism. Climate change is their canvas to redraw the world how they want it. A candidate could single handedly be saving the planet, but they would still boo him if he was a conservative advocating non socialist solutions.
On topic, fascinating digest by Cyclefree. Very very interesting. Thank you for writing it.
One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.
That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.
Good. Any candidate who turns up at these things is their own worst enemy. There wouldn’t be a single supporter in the room. Environmentalism is riddled with far left extremism. Climate change is their canvas to redraw the world how they want it. A candidate could be single handedly be saving the planet, but hey would still boo him if he was a conservative.
XR are putting cause of climate change mitigation back every time they open their mouths.
Good. Any candidate who turns up at these things is their own worst enemy. There wouldn’t be a single supporter in the room.
Just listen to yourself.
When this election is over, whether right or left win or a combination, the climate will still be a central issue and everyone needs to listen and change.
In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?
They are interested in inequality, but mainly of the intersectional identity-based kind.
They are interested in redistributing wealth, but mainly to students, graduates and those affiliated in the public sector unions.
I think the rest is largely just a stick to beat the Tories with.
They are happy with WWC voters voting for them but, if they desert, they will see them as traitors.
Labour's manifesto promises to repeal Tory cuts to benefits, increase the minimum wage, increase workers' rights, improve local public transport, fund public services properly, build more social housing and pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. I don't think your analysis stands up to scrutiny.
Comments
He doesn't walk very well these days, and I think he's genuinely calling it a day - perhaps partly because of that, but also because he doesn't really fit with any of the parties. Not a Tory nationalist seduced by Boris, not a socialist delighted by Corbyn, and not really a LibDem either. But I do hope they put him in the Lords - he'd make an outstanding cross-bencher.
Even I didn't read their manifesto, if they have one, and I read the Green Party manifesto for heaven's sake.
It's a problem for the left that the people we think we're about helping are mostly disengaged. Just as in the US the Democrats look for votes from schoolteachers more thantrailer parks, in Britain Labour has rarely done much to try to mobilise the very poor, simply because it's so difficult - I often puzzled over it, and tried many times to interest that estate, but they were perfectly politely just not interested. At election time, it was always more promising to canvass an area with more people in work and getting something out of life.
I'm not proud of it, and one can argue that if the Tories win desperate Northern seats we had it coming. But I don't think they'll be happy with a Tory government either. A grim life is a grim life, and the differences that we all make are on the margins.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/09/how-yougovs-election-model-compares-final-result
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3686937/pollster-yougov-is-mocked-over-utter-tripe-poll-which-shows-theresa-may-losing-her-majority-in-election/
Spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b6kLdtrOA4WB1P8y9gqF3TLeasPuQYgIyFgsowUk1PI/edit#gid=0
Says only they will cut immigration to below 10000 net per annum and protect the countryside from rampant 'development'. Not sure why those two things are in the same sentence, but never mind.
The intro clarifies that 'this manifesto tells the truth about what UKIP stands for', and has the interim leader thank by name two figures who helped prepare it.
Layout is amateurish, but as a result virtually every page is a simple title of a new subject and bullet points of arguments, so it is not actually ineffective.
Brexit section is pretty typical, I cannot tell if it is any different to BXP.
Social care is about as detailed as anyone elses, that is not detailed, but does say funding will increase by 5 billion and the possibility of supporting it via national insurance.
UK State Pension is run like a ponzi scheme it says.
'UKIP understands that 1950s born women have been affected by changes to the state pension age and we work to deliver a solution'. What an odd way to put it. It's like they saw it on the news and thought 'Shit, better put something about that in, whatever it is'.
Workers rights protected when leaving the EU, minimise zero hour contracts, tax credits only to UK citizens. Scrapping the bedroom tax (2015 called, and want its policy back). They clarify they ar opposed to the 'marcist idea' of a basic state income or universal citizens income. I guess they read the Green manifesto too.
Foreign students capped at 500k. time limited work visas for scarce skills, and only to english speakers.
New Migration Control Department - even they want new departments.
10 continuous years of work for migrants before they can can obtain citizenship.
Right to buy to end. Green built protected from housing, maximum housing density to be set, minimum size homes 'such as in Denmark'. Grenfell gets a mention.
Encourage new grammar schools and faith schools. Introduce an Act 'to precent damaging political propaganda being passed off as fact'. This bit gets emotional, clearly the author was worked up about it. Will repeal LGBT education. Drop 50% target for university. Waive tuition fees for science, engineering medicine, maths.
Scrap HS2. Like everyone else they will restore bus services. Oppose heathrow expansion. Scrap all road tolls.
Scrap overseas aid. 7bn a year more for armed forces. Veterans administration department. reverse direct entry to senior ranks of police.end politically correct policing (no examples given).
While section on fisheries.
Very woolly on wanting to lower tax. Free ports.
Build business incubators (Net centres) in digitally deprived areas. I don't know what that means.
Moratoriam on roll out of 5G due to health concerns. This bit is in bold, so must be important.
Energy policy is all over the place, lots of maybes, in the medium terms and so on.
'Separate the dogma of anthropogenic climate change from conservation'. There is no climate emergency - in fairness, until this year few people used that phrase a lot, but I get the impression they realllllly hate it.
Long term aim of 2 tax bands. abolish inheritance taz and stamp duty.
Marriage allowance raised from 10% to 100% for married couples with dependent children. Seek to reduce abortions. The state should not give active or passive acceptance to underage sex - was it doing that?
Voting for UK citizens only. ABolish the supreme court in its current form. Referendums on abolishing devolved assemblies. local referenda on important things like out of town supermarkets (yes really)
Whole section on political correctness.
They do have a table of spending and funding. I don't buy it.
There, now I feel grubby for reading that.
"‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ The letter I will regret for ever
Liam Byrne
Liam Byrne, chief secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for his successor that proved to be a gift for the Conservatives"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1201993889747476481?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAtuMu_ph4
https://capx.co/the-tories-are-spending-much-less-than-labour-online-for-a-good-reason/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/03/diane-abbotts-son-accused-assaulting-officer-outside-foreign/
Will OAPs be willing to risk life and limb on slippy pavements and steps?
Will young people be willing to put on some proper footwear and a coat?
https://hub.united.com/2019-12-03-united-airlines-sets-a-course-for-the-future-with-order-of-50-airbus-a321xlr-aircraft-2641509684.html
10-19 10/11
20-29 7/4
9 seats and under 10/1
30-39 10/1
40-49 25/1
50-59 40/1
ie. n/c
Hard to credit given the hype 3 months ago.
(SkyBet)
Waste of cash. Corbyn is a dead cert and Johnson is almost certain, so this is really a bet about Swinson. Why take a measly 4/6 when you can get 11/4 on the SNP gaining East Dunbartonshire?
You could keep maintenance loans as loans, or switch to an additional tax.
Not sure what to do with existing loans though - probably convert to graduate tax too.
Don’t know the numbers - but if it worked at a 1% income tax supplement for life it would be great. “A penny for a world-class university education”.
https://twitter.com/jim_cornelius/status/1201793062957178881?s=21
"We are democrats above all else. We were the first national party to propose a referendum on EU membership and while we are disappointed with the outcome, we respect the UK's historic vote to leave the EU. It is our belief that leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market is the best economic course, is the path best placed to bind our Union and would be the best compromise for a country that desperately wants to come back together and move on. We'd get the benefits of leaving the common farming and fisheries policies, the ability to strike independent trade deals in the UK's interests and our annual payments to Brussels would fall sharply.
We will not enter coalition talks with any party that seeks to block the first referendum result or pursue a needless second referendum. But we will also make it our red-line in any potential coalition talks that the UK in entirety remains in the Single Market after Brexit."
Ally this with their fiscally dry spending and tax plans, as well as a firm refusal to countenance a second independence referendum, both of which have been drowned out in the noise.
And voila, they probably get a Cleggasm level of seats with strong recovery in SE England and Scotland and very possibly hold the balance of power.
Brexit is a crock of shit that solves none of the problems of the left behind areas, but they will take some time to realise that. What does concern me more is the plans in the Tory manifesto for constitutional reform, significantly reducing restraint on the executive by judiciary and parliament. Thinking Tories should pause and consider how they would feel if Jezza had those powers. One day, one of his lieutenants will.
https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1202008446083698689?s=19
Such a great man.
What a wretched choice the two main parties offer. What is even more dispiriting is that large numbers will vote for them anyway.
They are interested in redistributing wealth, but mainly to students, graduates and those affiliated in the public sector unions.
I think the rest is largely just a stick to beat the Tories with.
They are happy with WWC voters voting for them but, if they desert, they will see them as traitors.
Time decay driving the price action or did I miss something?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50653531
The Guardian letter can only be days away.
Ken Clark is one of the rare politicians who had a decent intellect which he applies in the cause of common sense.
Shame he’s wrong about PR, though.
This campaign, unfortunately, has been full of hustings and meetings where opposition activists have attended to shout down abuse Conservative candidates.
He is now officially a National Treasure, and people who never liked him and never voted for him have forgotten why.
The same happened to Tony Wedgwood Benn. The middle classes loathed and feared him when there was a real prospect of him gaining power and forcing change. Once that was no longer the case, he become a National Treasure, and the same people happily spent £50 a ticket to hear him reminisce fondly in theatres.
I expect the same thing will happen to Corby. Once he has been forced out of front line politics, the very people yelling anti-semitism at him will be penning thoughtful and regretful critiques about how the UK was not ready for the radicalism of our new National Treasure. Cyclefree will write a reflexive header for pb.com. There will be much talk of allotments and home-made jam (just like jazz and cigars for our Ken).
It is the fear of old age in all of us. We always feel sorry for the tiger who no longer roars, but moves awkwardly on arthritic legs.
Speaking of which, when is Johnson going to talk to Andrew Neil? Or is he too much of a liar, coward and cheat to do it? Sad.
At the risk of tweaking the nose of fate it is starting to feel like Labour's loss of momentum and the Tories safety first approach is sealing Corbyn's fate.
Very dangerous to call this election but it looks like a comfortable Tory (anywhere between 20 and 60) majority.
A crying shame as this incoming Government will be truly calamitous for this country but it is what it is.
Sadly you are almost certainly right.
Only the holy Scottish sub-samples matter.
One point that struck me: in engaging with voters to challenge them interviewers have an important to interrogate, as well as politicians do to explain. But, interviewers need to understand that interrogation doesn’t mean going aggressively for a “gotcha” moment but to actually get them to clarify and explain all those arguments for the benefit of the viewers.
That means they too need to take their own agendas off the table and their egos out of the equation.
You can still just-about get 7/4 on her. Trust me: definitely worth a punt.
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/tv/the-michael-crick-report/781/our-man-visits-tory-held-exmouth-to-assess-the-threat-of-the-independents
When this election is over, whether right or left win or a combination, the climate will still be a central issue and everyone needs to listen and change.