Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ OPINION POLLS 2017
Posted by: Qassändra May 9 2015, 11:11 PM
First poll for the next general election out - 9 point Tory lead on 40, Labour on 31. The polls are now weighted to the 2015 results rather than the 2010 ones, so they'll likely show fairly big Tory leads until the Labour leader's elected at the very earliest, not least because of the slightly weird honeymoon effect where a load of people who didn't vote for the winner decide they support them because they won.
Still in a state of anguished horror.
Posted by: Danny May 9 2015, 11:30 PM
Who do you think will/should be the next leader?
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 9 2015, 11:41 PM
Predictably enough, it has got even worse.
The appalling Gove, having turned the education system into a complete shambles, has been made Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. The Tories screamed blue murder when Jack Straw was made Lord Chancellor. They said it was outrageous that the job should go to a politician rather than, as before, to someone chosen for their legal qualifications. At least Straw was a qualified lawyer. That is more than be said of Gove and his Tory predecessor Chris Grayling. Grayling was dreadful; Gove will be worse. He will probably insist that courts with an insufficiently high conviction rate must become sponsored academies.
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 12:11 AM
Now now, there's plenty enough to be worth taking up noosemaking lessons from this election without taking them up for everything. Hard though it may be to believe, Gove's more liberal than Grayling, and at least shows the semblance of a working brain once every so often.
Still, let's take a moment to mourn the Human Rights Act.
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 12:12 AM
My answer to the former depends entirely on how long the NEC schedules for the leadership election.
Should be is no question. Dan Jarvis is the only person I can think of capable of meeting our current threats without creating any more.
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 12:23 AM
To bring over an essay I did elsewhere:
The Labour Party has four electoral threats right now:
1) The SNP in Scotland. Being 40 seats down there leaves us with a twenty seat built-in disadvantage on the current boundaries. After boundary changes (which the Tories now have the majority to bring in) that will be a ~40/50 seat disadvantage, and the current Tory majority will go up to 44. Therefore, we desperately need a leader that can get some of those seats back.
2) The white working-class 'left behind' vote, which has gone to UKIP. This made Tory gains from Labour in places like Morley and Outwood/Southampton Itchen/Gower on Thursday possible, and is probably the biggest long-term threat to Labour, especially if UKIP elect Paul Nuttall as their next leader.
3) The traditional 'aspirational South' and apolitical middle class vote appealed to by Blair. Ed Miliband never had the former but the latter turned out really, really strongly on Thursday to vote Tory specifically because of the fear of a Labour government propped up by the SNP.
4) Civil war in Labour between the left and right of the party - not present now, but likely with a few of the potential leaders.
The only one of these Ed Miliband quelled was 4. Ignore people who act like Tony Blair would solve and know everything - in 1994 3 was our only problem.
Andy Burnham is one of the most effective options we have for 1 and 2, but he would basically be toxic to 3, which would make a majority unlikely, and he'd shed plenty of votes amongst socially liberal voters to the Greens et al given his fairly backwards views on homosexuality and LGBT adoption (though in part this kind of thing is why he would appeal to 2).
Yvette Cooper's kept a really low profile the last few years to avoid accusations of disloyalty, so it's difficult to know what message she would be fighting on. 4 would be very unlikely though - she doesn't have many enemies. I'm keeping an open mind on her - she's been very impressive shadowing Theresa May, albeit in a very unflashy way.
Chuka would storm 3 much like Blair did, but at the expense of 2 and possibly 1. If he were elected the unions would probably in the short term behave but grumble, unless things either started going badly or he started slaying a few too many sacred cows, at which point I could see Unite either pulling money or seriously threatening disaffiliation. Hence he could create a problem in 4.
Liz Kendall basically brings the same message as Chuka but in an earthy non-pretentious way, and has a Midlands working class upbringing which would make her probably more appealing to 2. She's such an unashamed Blairite though that 4 would probably be inevitable unless she won resoundingly (which would imply she'd tempered her messaging to make it much more palatable).
Tristram Hunt will not get the support to run, much though he'd like. He rouses Giuliani/Christie-like levels of heretical oppobrium amongst the membership (rule #1 of being involved in the Labour Party: you win no friends by crossing picket lines, before we even get onto the - unfair, though present - perception amongst the teaching union members that he's surrendered to Gove), and his grasp of social situations and political moods in rooms is, shall we say, a little lacking. He also suffers from the same issue that David Miliband did of never quite being able to hide his knowledge that he's the most intelligent person in the room.
Stella Creasey would be very interesting but I doubt she will run this time. Give her a Shadow Cabinet position and she's a gimme next time there's a vacancy.
John McDonnell will do his standard token hard left run and probably won't get enough nominations.
Mary Creagh and Angela Eagle are fairly unlikely to get the nominations.
Rachel Reeves has ruled out ever standing for leader, thankfully.
Dan Jarvis basically solves as many of the problems as possible, in my view. He's totally untainted by Blair/Brown, so 4 is unlikely, and I think he'd do more than most to finally turn the page on that era - particularly if Umunna gets the Blair endorsement. As an army man who is the absolute opposite of the career politician archetype that alienates 2 so much, he'd likely make pretty decent progress there. His politics are fairly aspirational and he's got ridiculously good leadership credentials (which would make Cameron look like a schoolboy by comparison), so I think he'd fare well at 3. And I always think it's a good idea to go with the leader who the other side would have no idea how to respond to, and he's one of the few Labour MPs pretty much all of the Tory benches respect for non-political reasons.
His only weaknesses are that he doesn't have an especially high profile or much specifically political experience, having not been given a Shadow Cabinet brief, and I'm unsure how much progress he would make in Scotland. But sorting three out of four of our big threats wouldn't be bad work at all, and he certainly wouldn't be incapable of making progress in Scotland.
And then the dream punt of GLORIA DE PIERO (which sadly probably won't happen but g'won for Deputy Leader)
Posted by: Danny May 10 2015, 01:33 AM
Really?!? I remember back in the last leadership contest reading a Pinknews piece, where he said he was for gay marriage (Ed Miliband by contrast gave a very weasel-wordy answer).
I know he's a bit against immigration and the EU, but I don't think that would push away too many liberal voters, unless he went the "full Farage" and started talking about Muslim fifth columns.
Posted by: steve201 May 10 2015, 01:35 AM
Probably the best analysis I've read there Qass!!
I was thinking those things when I was choosing who I wanted but obv couldn't articulate it like you just did. How do you know Dans politics are 'fairly aspirational'?
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 01:36 AM
He met a lesbian couple at a Pride event in 2009 and lectured them for twenty minutes on why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. There's also http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/05/19/andy-burnham-expected-to-enter-labour-leadership-contest/ from the time of the last contest.
I think he basically realised he couldn't be a frontbencher and get away with voting against gay marriage, but I've been told he keeps a lot under the bonnet.
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 01:38 AM
I was thinking those things when I was choosing who I wanted but obv couldn't articulate it like you just did. How do you know Dans politics are 'fairly aspirational'?
He's a Vice Chair of Progress, but also a member of a couple of unions. Essentially I think he'll be able to reframe a lot of the debates we've got at the moment in a way accessible to both aspirational Southerners and the Labour grassroots. This article from a very worried Tory sums it up better than I could:
“The strongest element of Mr Jarvis’s potential appeal is not ideological. It is that the standard critique, from disaffected voters who hate the out-of-touch Westminster elite, simply would not work against him. Here is a possible leader who can never be accused of lacking experience of the real world or of never having had a proper job. If he wins the Labour leadership, that pitch might win over voters who have tuned out.”
But the potential offer from Jarvis on economics is fascinating. He is, according to his friends, very much to the left on taxation. That rules him out, surely? Not necessarily. Not if he gets his message right, which I expect to run as follows.
In the Sunday Telegraph, I wrote:
“Mr Jarvis would not be a North London intellectual, like Mr Miliband, trying to impose his ivory tower theories on the country. Let’s have a little more fairness, he might say, and a proper contribution to defend the public realm – in all its manifestations – from those who can afford it.”
Imagine him saying that the troops he led as platoon commander in the Paras, and the people he served alongside in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, did not earn very much. They made sacrifices because they believed in their country and the notion of public service. While they were off fighting and trying to keep the peace, a minority of people back home were paying themselves many millions and blowing up the economy in alliance with a discredited class of politicians and regulators. The result was that the many suffered, in terms of lower living standards, while the minority who had caused the problem rescued themselves after the disaster with QE and other people’s money. Again, Jarvis could say, it is time for a little fairness.
This line of attack should worry anyone who is pro-market and it would give the Tories massive problems. A left-wing populist approach on economics, imbued with robust patriotism, and presented by a genuinely fresh face not from the political adviser class, could appeal to large numbers of voters. Dan Jarvis could be what the high tax, high spend left in Britain has been looking for since the financial crisis of 2008. My fellow capitalists, you have been warned.
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 01:43 AM
While we're at it, the New Statesman profile (and the source of Charlie's discontent *.*)
In 2007, Dan Jarvis led a unit of paratrooners in Helmand Province. Four years later, he became MP for Barnsley Central. Xan Rice meets him and asks: could he go even higher?
In 2007, four years before becoming a Labour MP, Major Dan Jarvis was asked to lead a company of 150 men on a six-month mission into Helmand Province in Afghanistan. His unit, mainly paratroopers, was part of the Special Forces Support Group, the newest wing of the UK special forces.
The full details of Jarvis’s task remain classified, but it involved recruiting and training local volunteers to serve in the Afghan Territorial Force, an elite unit charged with taking on the Taliban. Jarvis was 34 and highly experienced, having served in Kosovo, Northern Ireland and Sierra Leone and completed multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he knew this mission would be his most dangerous and challenging yet.
On a previous deployment to Helmand in 2005, as part of a small reconnaissance team helping the British army decide where to focus its efforts in southern Afghanistan, he had been able to walk through the streets and bazaars. Now, with the insurgency raging, the only way in and out was by helicopter. Jarvis’s unit would be based at a remote fort. In desert terrain littered with improvised explosive devices and mines, the men would travel long distances in Land Rovers lined with ballistic matting – “basically a reinforced car seat”.
“The level of threat was very high and the level of protection relatively low,” is how Jarvis puts it. It was the sort of mission he had dreamed of. “I had aspired throughout my army career to lead a company of paratroopers in these very difficult circumstances,” he told me. “It was a fantastic professional opportunity.”
But Jarvis was conflicted. Unlike some of the younger men on his team, he had a family. When he first went to Iraq, in 2003, during the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, it was only two days after his wife, Caroline, had given birth to a son by emergency Caesarean section. Now he also had a young daughter, born just days before he had returned from another tour of Iraq. Caroline was aware of the risks her husband faced; he had known ten of the first 100 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan. And she was fighting her own battle, having been diagnosed with bowel cancer the previous year.
“Quite a reasonable question to ask is, ‘Why the hell were you in Afghanistan at that point?’” Jarvis says. “It was because Caroline had undergone treatment for cancer and was in remission, and it was her profound wish that we would maintain as normal a life as we possibly could.”
Three years later, in July 2010, Caroline died from the disease at the age of 43.
The Helmand operation was as tough as Jarvis had expected. Vetting the Afghans was hazardous: the British soldiers never knew if people were coming forward for the right reasons. The “green on blue” attacks by Afghan forces on allied troops were just beginning. Jarvis also had to balance the military objectives with his desire to bring back all of his troops.
During the assignment, one Afghan soldier was killed and several others were injured. Some of Jarvis’s own men were badly hurt. But none died, which makes him immensely proud. “Those were formative times for me, frankly compounded by the constant self-doubt as to whether I should have been in that country,” says Jarvis, now a shadow justice minister. “It gives me perspective that I draw upon because, how ever tough things can be in politics, nothing will compare to that level of pressure and risk.”
In Jarvis’s constituency office at Barnsley Town Hall his staff joke about his fondness for military acronyms and mottos. When he writes RPE on a memo it means “relentless pursuit of excellence”. R&R is “ruthless and relentless”. “Ruthless with time,” Jason Keen, his press officer, clarifies.
I’ve arranged to meet Jarvis for a run at 8am on a late February morning. At 7.50am he is waiting outside the Premier Inn in the centre of Barnsley. “I thought we’d go out for an hour or so, a steady run,” he says. “One thing I must tell you is that it is hilly around here.”
Jarvis is training for the London Marathon, as I am. Or at least he should be. It’s only nine weeks to go until the race and he has managed a total of two practice runs. With the event due to take place just a fortnight before the general election, he would have been happy to skip it.
But since Caroline’s death, Jarvis has twice run the marathon for Cancer Research UK and it is the headline charity this year. Matching his time from 2014 will be hard, he says – he ran with his father and finished in three hours and 45 minutes – though he has no trouble answering questions as we run up a steep gradient. “You do 15 years in the Paras and you develop a bit of a mindset of getting tough at experiences,” he says. “There comes a point when the embarrassment of failure is much worse than the pain associated with trying to avoid failure.”
His lack of preparation is not laziness; he has little spare time. From Monday morning to Thursday night he is London, where he likes to be at his computer by 6am and finishes around midnight. Friday is a full day of constituency work in Barnsley and so is half of Saturday.
“I remember on my first day in the House of Commons [7 March 2011]a Conservative MP said to me: ‘The thing that you need to learn about this place is that it is only really a part-time job.’ I was pretty stunned to hear that and it’s completely not the case. You can potter around and do it as a part-time job if you want, but to do it effectively requires a huge amount of effort. I think people deserve that. I am not making any comment about whether I am effective or not. I think people will see that I put the work in.” (Three days later the Conservative MP Malcolm Rifkind is caught on a hidden camera saying he is “self-employed” and boasting about his free time.)
Jarvis arrived at Westminster as an outsider in both background and timing. He was not part of the Labour class of 2010 – he won his seat in Barnsley Central in 2011, replacing Eric Illsley, who had to stand down after being convicted of fraud for his part in the MPs’ expenses scandal. In doing so, Jarvis became the first person since the Second World War to resign a military commission to contest a by-election. Since then, his rise through the ranks – and in his standing among his peers on both sides of the House – has been swift.
Jarvis did not want to be typecast and so deliberately avoided being pushed towards defence and security. But he was eager to be challenged. After six months he agreed to become shadow arts minister, even though he says he knew little about culture. In parliament he drew attention for his robust defence of local libraries against the coalition cuts, and for championing the National Health Service, describing the excellent care his wife had received.
Jarvis is affable, relaxed and the same time deeply serious about his job as an MP and the concept of public service. Some things he professes to doing – such as a ritual pause to consider his constituents every time he steps into the Commons – could sound ridiculous, yet from him they feel sincere. “He comes across as a very real, authentic person, and that’s important in modern politics,” as Rory Stewart, the Conservative MP, writer and chair of the Commons defence select committee, who has worked with Jarvis in parliament, told me.
His value to his party is clear. Last year Jarvis edited a book called Why Vote Labour, part of a series explaining the main parties’ policies. And few Labour MPs can have knocked on as many doors as he has done in recent months. In January, he spent nine days touring 27 constituencies to assist the local candidates. It was a strong statement of loyalty and perhaps of ambition, too.
Writing at the time in the Telegraph, James Kirkup, the paper’s executive editor for politics, again noted the Tories’ respect for Jarvis and said he should be spoken of as serious leadership material. “How would the CCHQ attack machine approach a Labour leader who served his country in two wars? A man who is raising two children alone after losing his wife to cancer?”
The second line was incorrect: Jarvis remarried in 2013 to Rachel, a freelance graphic designer, and now has a third child. But the point was well made: Ladbrokes has Jarvis at 12/1 to be the next Labour leader, behind Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna. His ability to perform under extreme pressure may well be tested again before too long.
Military men are typically Tory supporters. The Conservatives have numerous MPs with army backgrounds, mostly with short periods of service. Labour has one – Jarvis – and with arguably the highest profile of all. (In 2011 he was awarded an MBE for military service, the only serving MP to achieve that honour during the Queen’s reign.)
Why did he choose Labour? It was not a sudden decision, he says. His parents were both Labour Party members; his father was a lecturer at a teacher training college in Nottingham and his mother a probation officer. They instilled in him the importance of public service. While still at school he came to the conclusion that he did not share Margaret Thatcher’s vision for Britain.
“The values of Labour are my values – the fundamental belief that collectively you achieve more together than you can alone,” he says. “The belief in the value of fairness, equality, the desire to stand up for the many, not just the few – giving representation to those without a voice.”
Jarvis became a member of the Labour Party while studying international politics at Aberystwyth University. By then he had already decided to become a soldier. Nobody in his family had served in the armed forces, so it was a “minor act of rebellion”, he says now. “I worked out early on that what you do for a job is an important part of your life. So do something you think is worthwhile and that gives you an opportunity to make a contribution.”
The army appealed to his sense of adventure. As one holiday approached at university, he and his younger brother, Rob, looked for something to do. “Some students went to Ibiza,” Jarvis says. “We went to K2” – the world’s second-highest mountain. Wearing their grandfather’s old tweed coats they made it up to 6,500 metres before accepting that they did not have the skills or equipment to climb higher. (Rob is now a professional mountain guide in Chamonix.)
After a year as a cadet at Sandhurst in 1997, Jarvis joined the Parachute Regiment. In Kosovo, he was appointed aide-de-camp to General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the UN force there. When Jackson returned to England in 2000 Jarvis accompanied him. He met Caroline at Jackson’s home in Wiltshire, where she worked as the family chef. They married the following year.
It was in Afghanistan in 2005, while following the UK general election at the end of a tour, that he first seriously considered a career in parliament. “My wife had not yet been diagnosed with cancer. I concluded that at some point, probably years ahead, I’d want to ease out of the army and get more involved in politics. My wife’s death accelerated that process.”
He has said that telling his children that their mother had died was the most difficult thing he has done. “It’s been hard for them. The only kind of minor saving grace was the fact my kids were so young [seven and five]. The magnitude of it was not completely lost, but if they had been the age they are now it would have been harder.
“It’s just one of those dreadful situations that you find yourself in and you’ve got two options: you can come through it or you can sink. Sinking was never an option because I had two small kids who wanted to go back to school quite quickly.”
He knew he could not return to war zones. But he did not want a desk job in the army. He quietly applied to be Labour’s candidate in Islwyn, south Wales, in 2010 and made the shortlist. The following year, the Barnsley Central seat became vacant.
Jarvis thought he stood little chance. The town has a long history of coal mining and union ties; on our run, we passed the house owned by Arthur Scargill, who Jarvis says is now a recluse. Every local MP for the previous 70 years had been from Barnsley or nearby, and most had been miners. And Nottingham, where Jarvis is from, is still associated with miners who kept working during the great strike of the mid-1980s.
“The only thing in my favour was that my predecessor was going to prison and there was huge discontent with the political classes. As someone untouched by all that, with a proven track record of service, I thought maybe I could be considered.”
He won selection through hard work and luck; at one point in the hustings when he tied with another candidate, they drew lots to see who would proceed. The by-election was more of a formality, as Barnsley Central is a safe Labour seat. But Jarvis was determined to make a point. He code-named his campaign “Operation Honey Badger” – the animal looks cuddly but is known for its strength and ferocity – and knocked on several thousand doors. He won 61 per cent of the vote, compared to the 47 per cent that Illsey had polled for Labour a year earlier.
After his victory, Jarvis moved the family home from Salisbury in Wiltshire to Barnsley. “Some people [MPs] decide that they want to be based in London,” he says. “I wanted to be rooted here. The kids are very settled and love the town.”
Initially, his parents – now divorced and both remarried – and his in-laws helped look after the children. Now Rachel takes care of most of the parental duties. Jarvis’s 12-year-old son and ten-year-daughter attend local state schools. “A bit of me thinks that it is kind of selfish for me to do it [being an MP and spending so much time away from home] . . . But we make it work.”
He thinks his children are proud that he is a politician, although his son was more impressed when he was soldier. They will help him campaign closer to the election in May.
Jarvis says Barnsley still suffers from misconceptions, with many people assuming that it is a heavily industrialised urban area. The last of the coal pits closed decades ago and three-quarters of the borough is green belt. The M1 passes close to the town and the Peak District is nearby.
Yet there are challenges. Barnsley Central is the 132nd worst of Britain’s 650 constituencies for unemployment. Underemployment is also a problem, with people who want permanent work having to settle for zero-hours or other part-time contracts.
“A lot of people are really struggling at the moment, making hard choices. This talk of an economic recovery: it’s a very different climate in London from the rest of Britain. In swaths of the country people are worse off by every metric than they were in 2010.”
Yet the Tories lead when it comes to economic stewardship and Labour is considered less friendly – even unfriendly – to business. Why is this?
“It’s because there is an election!” Jarvis says. “There are some clever election strategists paid a lot of money to run us down. There’s an absolute recognition [by Labour] that the private sector is an important part of the economy and that we can encourage business people to create wealth.”
I ask him about Ed Miliband: why are his approval ratings so poor? Opposition leaders have it tough compared to prime ministers, who have the benefit of incumbency, he says. Before they became prime minister, Jarvis recalls, Tony Blair was called “Bambi” and David Cameron was mocked for hugging huskies and cycling to work with his chauffeur behind him.
“When I talk to people about Ed, they do see him as a decent, well-meaning politician. But there is constant scrutiny upon him. I am not going to blame it all on the media but I think there’s a basic unfairness in the way the media have covered him. My take on Ed Miliband is that he’s an incredibly bright, thoughtful, decent guy who is doing the job for the right reasons.”
It’s now late morning and Jarvis is in his campaign gear: blue suit, comfortable brown walking shoes and a black waterproof jacket. As we approach the main shopping district, one of his constituents grips his hand and says: “We will beat Farage.”
Ukip isn’t a strong threat in Barnsley Central but it is in other areas nearby, including Rotherham. Labour supporters and politicians are concerned. (Later, Jarvis tells me that although the online version of Why Vote Labour initially sold better than the Conservative, Lib Dem and Ukip titles, the Ukip book is now the biggest seller. “Not that I’m competitive,” he says.)
“I am not remotely complacent about Ukip. They have successfully tapped in to a broader discontent about politics and politicians,” he says. But he thinks that support for Ukip has peaked. “They don’t have the momentum that they had at the time of the EU elections” in May last year.
The main market is busy with shoppers. Jarvis stops to talk to two female police officers and asks if they are having a quiet morning. “We don’t say the Q word!” one of
them replies in mock anger. They talk about the problem of local shops offering “legal highs”, products containing chemical substances that produce similar effects to cocaine or cannabis but not covered by current misuse of drugs laws. Jarvis is working with the government to have them banned.
We eat lunch at an Italian family restaurant. Out of earshot of Jarvis, I ask the two young waitresses if their MP is representing them well. The first says yes; she recognised him when he walked in. The second has no idea who her representative at Westminster is, and is only humouring me with an answer. “She [sic] is doing a good job,” the waitress says.
Jarvis chuckles when I tell him. I ask him what has gone wrong. “Many people think that our problems have outgrown our politics,” he says. “They feel lost in this rapidly changing world. Globalisation offers many opportunities but many challenges as well. We’ve seen how an economic crisis that had its roots on the other side of the world has had a direct impact on the livelihoods of people in this country and in my constituency. Technological improvements mean there is not as much of a role for those previously unskilled opportunities, so that brings pressures and challenges.”
The “established political order” also bears blame, he says. “Far too many politicians would never dream of knocking on people’s doors to ask them what they think. In many of the heartlands, Conservative and Labour, people sat on these big majorities and didn’t need to put the work in. The public was something of an afterthought. This has led to a breakdown of trust.
“Some people will try to simplify it and say it’s the expenses scandal. But that’s a tiny part of all this. Over many years there’s been a gradual separation between the political establishment and the people that they are there to serve.”
If the public’s confidence is to be won back, parliament needs to change. There are too few working-class people, too few women and too many career politicians, he says. “The public wants more people with life experience.”
He mentions one of Barnsley’s best-known MPs, Roy Mason, who worked underground as a coal miner at 14 and went on to represent the town from 1953 to 1987. “I suspect what he did would be much harder to do now and it’s a question of social mobility. It’s what gets me out of bed in the morning: that kids who grow up here should have the same opportunities as those children in more affluent areas.”
I ask if he thinks what the New Statesman has called the 7 per cent problem – the domination of public life by a privately educated minority, as well as the correlation between poverty and educational failure – is also an issue at Westminster. “There is an over-representation of people [in parliament] who have been to public schools. That is a fact of life that we should seek to address.
“It’s not to say we have not got exceptional people who went to public schools who can do exceptional things. But we need a parliament that is truly representative of the public that it is there to serve.”
Like Jarvis, Rory Stewart – who made his name as a diplomat and author of books on Afghanistan and Iraq – entered parliament as a political novice, winning a seat in 2010. In an interview with the American magazine the New Republic last year, Stewart said: “It is difficult to work out what an MP is, what an MP does, what the role of the public servant today is supposed to be. Is this a useful way of contributing, and shaping things? I guess before I did this, it seemed much more obvious.”
When I ask Jarvis about it, he says, “I mean this in an entirely complimentary way – Rory tends to overthink things.”
He expands: “I am pretty clear what I am here to do. I am there to champion my constituents and make sure their voices are heard and to stand up for them. I think I have learned a bit about how you get things done and how parliament works.”
There are frustrations. One is a consequence of being in opposition and not being able to influence government policy. Another dislike is the “political pantomime” of Prime Minister’s Questions. “When I go round the schools I cannot justify that level of behaviour to kids who see it and ask me about it. Some people say it makes it more of a spectacle and fewer people would watch if it was not that sort of confrontational environment. I don’t really buy that.”
In a 2012 interview with the Spectator, Jarvis expressed admiration for David Miliband, describing his role as vice-chairman of the Blairite think tank Progress as evidence of him “seeing the importance of the centre ground”. When I ask him about this, he says he is also a member of Unison, Unite, the Fabian Society and the Co-operative Party. “In politics there are those who will always try to pigeonhole you. I have frustrated people by not allowing them to do that, and been very careful not to be linked with any one bit of the party.”
I ask what he thinks of David Cameron. “I have a huge amount of respect for the office of the PM and it’s the most incredibly difficult job. While [Cameron] has always been personally charming to me, I don’t know what he is about and what he stands for. He has never convinced me that he gets up in the morning filled with some ideological vigour to make the country a better place. With a number of that cohort, it’s about holding and wielding the influence and power of office for its own ends, rather than for the greater good.”
Does he aspire to be PM? He must be aware of the talk of him as a future Labour leader? He pauses. “I don’t spend much time thinking about that, to be honest. I am utterly focused on winning the election and that Ed will be prime minister. The consequences of not doing so are severe for this country. It is said of Michael Heseltine that from school he had this grand plan that he was going to do a bit of time in the army, make money in business, go into politics, go into the cabinet and be prime minister. I am always suspicious of those sorts of people. I just want to do the best job that I can.”
With a close election predicted, one might have thought that Labour would be exploring the possibility of an alliance with the Liberal Democrats. Jarvis rejects this. “We need to do everything we can to avoid the scenario of going in with the Lib Dems. Our focus is on beating them, not war-gaming on a scenario that may or may not come.”
After lunch, Jarvis’s office manager drives us to Sheffield Hallam, Nick Clegg’s constituency. Polls show that the Labour candidate here, Oliver Coppard, is within a few percentage points of defeating Clegg. Coppard and a dozen volunteers are gathered at Crookes Social Club and when Jarvis arrives they fan out into the surrounding streets to campaign. Few people are at home. “It can be a bit soul-destroying, knocking on 15 doors when there’s nobody in,” Jarvis says.
When someone does answer, he introduces himself as a Labour member campaigning for Coppard. He only lets on that he is an MP when called over to chat to a woman who wants to join the party. He asks her why. “Ukip is getting more powerful and I find that really worrying,” she says. “The only good thing is that it is getting people angry and doing things.”
After 90 minutes, it’s time to go. Jarvis is dropped off at Sheffield Station and rushes to buy a ticket before boarding a crowded train to Barnsley. His monthly meeting with local Labour Party members begins at 5pm in the town hall. Though he will be late, he will not cancel; he has missed only two of these Friday-evening meetings in four years – once to get married and once to appear on Any Questions. In the morning he will be back on Barnsley’s streets, knocking on doors. “The honey badger,” he said on the way to the station, “lives on.”
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 01:53 AM
I also think he's literally the only sensible choice for the forthcoming EU referendum. It would be nightmarish going into that campaign with Chuka making the case for why we should stay in - it would literally confirm all of the worst accusations about who the EU works for and who it serves.
On the flipside, with Dan as leader, imagine the kind of mincemeat he would make of some overgrown schoolboy like Tim Aker accusing the pro-EU position of being traitorous. Or even Farage, who was filling his boots with EU expenses while Dan was serving in Helmand.
Posted by: steve201 May 10 2015, 01:57 AM
Yeh read that NS interview a few months back, I like the sound of him, not sure if he has the right experience tho for some reason.
Can I ask something is any people on here in any political parties?
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 02:00 AM
Life-long UKIP member.
In honesty I can't really say having political experience shows itself up much. Tony Blair was probably the most inexperienced leader of the Labour Party we'd ever had on election. Ed Miliband would have been the most experienced before becoming PM since Callaghan had he won.
Posted by: Danny May 10 2015, 02:26 AM
In honesty I can't really say having political experience shows itself up much. Tony Blair was probably the most inexperienced leader of the Labour Party we'd ever had on election. Ed Miliband would have been the most experienced before becoming PM since Callaghan had he won.
That depends what type of experience we're talking about, surely? Arguably the "experience" that really matters is the experience of actually campaigning and learning how to persuade people of an argument in a way they'd relate to, something Miliband had never been forced to do, for all his back-room wonk experience.
Posted by: Soy Adrián May 10 2015, 03:38 AM
I understand completely that Jarvis, at least in theory, covers pretty much all bases (besides the liberation groups and the general left suspicion of the armed forces, the latter of which isn't actually massive electorally) but I wasn't fully convinced when he came to speak to us a couple of months ago. Hugely amiable, but very vague and his best campaigning asset seems to be his energy.
Burnham's LGBT record is rather suspect but I think he at least acknowledges (far moreso than any of the more New Labour candidates on economics) that his views are difficult for many sympathisers to swallow. If he tones down the Catholic-ness he could be rather formidable, particularly as I think he'd look good to a lot of the supposedly "centrist" and "aspirational" voters in the South who went UKIP just as much as their Northern counterparts.
Stella Creasy is by far my favourite of the supposed right wing because she's the only one who is decidedly post-Blair. However, that's exactly the reason she won't garner enough support- this time at least. Still hoping for Creasy v Nandy if we cock it up in 2020.
Posted by: Silas May 10 2015, 09:49 AM
I'm an SNP member!
Looking forward to total dominance continuing into 2016.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 10 2015, 10:40 AM
Jarvis wouldn't be the first Major to lead the Labour party. A previous one, Major Attlee, did rather well.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 10 2015, 10:48 AM
Still, let's take a moment to mourn the Human Rights Act.
How many Tories support the HRA? Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve have been critical of the plan to scrap it, but whether they would vote against such a measure is more doubtful.
Posted by: Danny May 10 2015, 11:31 AM
Burnham's LGBT record is rather suspect but I think he at least acknowledges (far moreso than any of the more New Labour candidates on economics) that his views are difficult for many sympathisers to swallow. If he tones down the Catholic-ness he could be rather formidable, particularly as I think he'd look good to a lot of the supposedly "centrist" and "aspirational" voters in the South who went UKIP just as much as their Northern counterparts.
Stella Creasy is by far my favourite of the supposed right wing because she's the only one who is decidedly post-Blair. However, that's exactly the reason she won't garner enough support- this time at least. Still hoping for Creasy v Nandy if we cock it up in 2020.
Yeah, I think what's often forgotten is the type of voters Labour needs to win in the South are in many cases more working-class (we're largely talking about Kent and Essex after all), and in many ways would be more responsive to a no-nonsense down-to-earth normal human. The only worry is a cultural jingoistic campaign about "northerners coming down to rob the southerners" might be whipped up -- though on the other hand, the Tories actually have something to lose from the North if they do that, whereas they didn't in Scotland, so maybe they wouldn't risk it.
Posted by: Soy Adrián May 10 2015, 01:11 PM
Exactly, the UKIP voters in southern seats weren't exclusively natural Tories.
Posted by: Danny May 10 2015, 01:34 PM
Just seen that Labour have taken West Cheshire council 
I thought the Tories from the "deep south" of Cheshire would always overwhelm here, Labour couldn't even take it in mid-term.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 10 2015, 01:35 PM
That statement isn't backed up by Gove's support for hanging.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/597371174033694720
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 10 2015, 01:35 PM
I thought the Tories from the "deep south" of Cheshire would always overwhelm here, Labour couldn't even take it in mid-term.They won the seat that gave them a majority by just a few dozen votes.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 10 2015, 01:38 PM
Thanks all for the articles. Dan Jarvis has the background to convince me he's worth watching.
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 01:55 PM
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/597371174033694720
I'm in an actual state of SHOCK at that!
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 10 2015, 01:57 PM
It surprised me as well.
Posted by: Red Blooded Man May 10 2015, 02:51 PM
Cameron has SNP to thank for this election win.
Posted by: Common Sense May 10 2015, 03:47 PM
No. He'd have still won a majority if Labour had won every seat in Scotland.
Posted by: Qassändra May 10 2015, 04:34 PM
This really ignores just how influential the line on 'Labour propped up by SNP chaos' was. The Liberal Democrats have already said it was *the* big shift in the last week of the campaign that lost them pretty much every Tory-Lib Dem marginal and took everyone by surprise - they were all expecting 20 seats at worst until a dramatic shift amongst softer apolitical Lib Dem supporters who decided they wanted Tory certainty.
Posted by: Qassändra May 11 2015, 01:49 AM
I've entered screaming mode. I've seen the seats we have to win to get to a majority of 10, and they include Canterbury and Chingford & Wood Green. A 10% swing in 2020 gets us to a majority of 20.
Posted by: Silas May 11 2015, 10:01 AM
Does that recovery include Scotland?
Posted by: Danny May 11 2015, 11:21 AM
Is there an updated list of Labour's "targets" after the new election anywhere?
Posted by: Danny May 11 2015, 11:22 AM
Ironically, Labour would now have a better chance of getting a majority if Scotland went independent before the next election.
Posted by: Qassändra May 11 2015, 12:55 PM
There are only 7 seats the SNP gained from Labour that have majorities of less than 10,000.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 11 2015, 01:03 PM
Ouch.
The electoral calculus website has now got the 2015 results plugged in. I tried reversing the Tory and Labour share of the vote to see what happened. Labour would be some way short of a majority. Still, I'm sure the Tories will continue to peddle their lies about how the boundaries currently favour Labour.
Posted by: Qassändra May 11 2015, 01:03 PM
No, but I've done them off the back of calculation. This is all pre-boundary changes as well, I should add:
(Please can Buzzjack install some kind of tabulation function thanks)
# Constituency Result Majority Maj %
1 Derby North LAB->CON 41 0.1
2 Gower LAB->CON 27 0.1
3 Croydon Central CON HOLD 165 0.3
4 Vale of Clwyd LAB->CON 237 0.7
5 Bury North CON HOLD 378 0.8
6 Morley & Outwood LAB->CON 422 0.9
7 Plymouth Sutton & Devonport CON HOLD 523 1.1
8 Thurrock CON HOLD 536 1.1
9 Brighton Kemptown CON HOLD 690 1.5
10 Bolton West LAB->CON 801 1.6
11 Weaver Vale CON HOLD 806 1.7
12 Bedford CON HOLD 1097 2.4
13 Plymouth Moor View LAB->CON 1026 2.4
14 Lincoln CON HOLD 1443 3.1
15 Peterborough CON HOLD 1925 4.1
16 Sheffield Hallam LD HOLD 2353 4.2
17 Cardiff North CON HOLD 2137 4.2
18 Corby LAB->CON 2412 4.3
19 Warrington South CON HOLD 2750 4.6
20 Waveney CON HOLD 2408 4.6
21 Southampton Itchen LAB->CON 2316 5.2
22 Keighley CON HOLD 3053 6.2
23 Warwickshire North CON HOLD 2973 6.3
24 Carlisle CON HOLD 2774 6.5
25 Renfrewshire East LAB->SNP 3718 6.6
26 Leeds North West LD HOLD 2907 6.7
27 Halesowen & Rowley Regis CON HOLD 3082 7
28 Crewe & Nantwich CON HOLD 3620 7.3
29 Erewash CON HOLD 3584 7.4
30 Hendon CON HOLD 3724 7.5
31 Ipswich CON HOLD 3733 7.7
32 Broxtowe CON HOLD 4287 8
33 Stroud CON HOLD 4866 8
34 Northampton North CON HOLD 3245 8.2
35 Calder Valley CON HOLD 4427 8.3
36 Blackpool North & Cleveleys CON HOLD 3340 8.5
37 Pudsey CON HOLD 4501 8.8
38 Amber Valley CON HOLD 4205 9.2
39 Sherwood CON HOLD 4647 9.2
40 Hastings & Rye CON HOLD 4796 9.4
41 Bristol North West CON HOLD 4944 9.5
42 Colne Valley CON HOLD 5378 9.5
43 High Peak CON HOLD 4894 9.6
44 Edinburgh North & Leith LAB->SNP 5597 9.6
45 Harrow East CON HOLD 4757 9.7
46 Stockton South CON HOLD 5046 9.7
47 Northampton South CON HOLD 3793 9.8
48 Norwich North CON HOLD 4463 10.2
49 Enfield Southgate CON HOLD 4753 10.4
50 Stevenage CON HOLD 4955 10.4
51 Cannock Chase CON HOLD 4923 10.5
52 Morecambe & Lunesdale CON HOLD 4590 10.6
53 Nuneaton CON HOLD 4882 10.7
54 Dudley South CON HOLD 4270 11.2
55 Finchley & Golders Green CON HOLD 5662 11.2
56 South Ribble CON HOLD 5945 11.4
57 Worcester CON HOLD 5646 11.4
58 Rossendale & Darwen CON HOLD 5654 11.5
59 Dumfries & Galloway LAB->SNP 6514 11.5
60 East Lothian LAB->SNP 6803 11.5
61 Swindon South CON HOLD 5785 11.7
62 Pendle CON HOLD 5453 12.3
63 Paisley & Renfrewshire South LAB->SNP 5684 12.3
64 Preseli Pembrokeshire CON HOLD 4969 12.3
65 Dover CON HOLD 6294 12.5
66 Reading East CON HOLD 6520 12.9
67 Scarborough & Whitby CON HOLD 6200 13
68 Warwick & Leamington CON HOLD 6606 13.1
69 Aberconwy CON HOLD 3999 13.3
70 Crawley CON HOLD 6526 13.4
71 Vale of Glamorgan CON HOLD 6880 13.4
72 Reading West CON HOLD 6650 13.7
73 Arfon PC HOLD 3668 13.7
74 Gloucester CON HOLD 7241 13.8
75 Great Yarmouth CON HOLD 6154 13.8
76 Carmarthen East & Dinefwr PC HOLD 5599 14.2
77 Thanet South CON HOLD 7098 14.3
78 Chipping Barnet CON HOLD 7656 14.4
79 Stourbridge CON HOLD 6694 14.5
80 Brighton Pavilion GRN HOLD 7967 14.6
81 Elmet & Rothwell CON HOLD 8490 14.7
82 Milton Keynes South CON HOLD 8672 14.7
83 Aberdeen South LAB->SNP 7230 14.9
84 Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South CON HOLD 6054 15
85 Camborne & Redruth CON HOLD 7004 15.3
86 Battersea CON HOLD 7938 15.6
87 Edinburgh South West LAB->SNP 8135 15.8
88 Redditch CON HOLD 7054 16
89 Gravesham CON HOLD 8370 16.7
90 Milton Keynes North CON HOLD 9753 16.9
91 Basildon South & Thurrock East CON HOLD 7691 16.9
92 Rutherglen & Hamilton West LAB->SNP 9975 17.3
93 Watford CON HOLD 9794 17.4
94 Cleethorpes CON HOLD 7893 17.5
95 Ochil & South Perthshire LAB->SNP 10168 17.6
96 Loughborough CON HOLD 9183 17.7
97 Shrewsbury & Atcham CON HOLD 9565 17.7
98 Clwyd West CON HOLD 6730 17.7
99 Paisley & Renfrewshire North LAB->SNP 9076 18
100 Canterbury CON HOLD 9798 18.3
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 11 2015, 01:14 PM
I'll comment more on the Labour target list later but I do have a question. Does anybody know anything about Bedford? The Lib Dems came a very distant fourth in the general election, yet another deposit-losing performance. However, the Lib Dems also won the Mayoral contest in Bedford. Even if the boundaries are not quite the same, this is an extraordinary difference in results.
Posted by: Qassändra May 11 2015, 01:40 PM
I presume it's a local champion who stood for the mayoral and the appeal didn't quite translate to national votes. The very popular Lib Dem mayor of Watford came a very poor third there on Thursday - swept out mostly by the national picture I think.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 11 2015, 04:24 PM
dunno that but I notice an almost clean sweep in the council I work for of Blue, bar a couple of independents, a UKIP gain, a Libdem (I think) and 1 brand new Green courtesy of the local Uni students unifying and almost getting 3 of them in. Labour gone completely.
In answer to earlier comments about northerners heading south and annoying the locals: we've been here for decades, we invaded the South during the last Conservative era when there were no jobs, that includes Scottish, North, Midlands, Welsh, South-West, Londoners, and I think you'll find no moaning about us cos those predisposed to moan about invaders are too busy whinging about the Poles and other EU nationals. Oddly, in the case of towns like Bournemouth who get a lot of income from foreign students from all over the world. Then again, logic has nothing to do with voting and personal bigotry.
Posted by: Silas May 11 2015, 04:45 PM
So you think you'll be up to 8 MPs in 2020 then?
The more likely path I see right now, assuming FPTP remains, is that Scotland becomes a single party state in 2020 or a repeat of 2010 where no seats change hands.
My assumptions:
-Labour doesn't properly understand the reason for it's Scottish losses and moves right to placate England/Wales which then strengthens the SNP in Scotland.
-LibDems are done in Scotland forever for bringing in a Tory Government.
-That the 2016 victory and the next 5 years of power in Holyrood doesn't lead to any major f***-ups that causes an SNP downfall.
Posted by: Qassändra May 11 2015, 06:11 PM
I don't count on any Scottish seats returning for certain, but any future leader faces the choice of tackling 10k+ majorities for the SNP or aiming for mainly Tory seats with majorities of less than 10k. I presume it will be left to Scottish Labour to decide the best route towards winning back the former, so a national leader would likely focus on the latter.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 11 2015, 07:31 PM
(Please can Buzzjack install some kind of tabulation function thanks)
# Constituency Result Majority Maj %
1 Derby North LAB->CON 41 0.1
2 Gower LAB->CON 27 0.1
3 Croydon Central CON HOLD 165 0.3
4 Vale of Clwyd LAB->CON 237 0.7
5 Bury North CON HOLD 378 0.8
6 Morley & Outwood LAB->CON 422 0.9
7 Plymouth Sutton & Devonport CON HOLD 523 1.1
8 Thurrock CON HOLD 536 1.1
9 Brighton Kemptown CON HOLD 690 1.5
10 Bolton West LAB->CON 801 1.6
11 Weaver Vale CON HOLD 806 1.7
12 Bedford CON HOLD 1097 2.4
13 Plymouth Moor View LAB->CON 1026 2.4
14 Lincoln CON HOLD 1443 3.1
15 Peterborough CON HOLD 1925 4.1
16 Sheffield Hallam LD HOLD 2353 4.2
17 Cardiff North CON HOLD 2137 4.2
18 Corby LAB->CON 2412 4.3
19 Warrington South CON HOLD 2750 4.6
20 Waveney CON HOLD 2408 4.6
21 Southampton Itchen LAB->CON 2316 5.2
22 Keighley CON HOLD 3053 6.2
23 Warwickshire North CON HOLD 2973 6.3
24 Carlisle CON HOLD 2774 6.5
25 Renfrewshire East LAB->SNP 3718 6.6
26 Leeds North West LD HOLD 2907 6.7
27 Halesowen & Rowley Regis CON HOLD 3082 7
28 Crewe & Nantwich CON HOLD 3620 7.3
29 Erewash CON HOLD 3584 7.4
30 Hendon CON HOLD 3724 7.5
31 Ipswich CON HOLD 3733 7.7
32 Broxtowe CON HOLD 4287 8
33 Stroud CON HOLD 4866 8
34 Northampton North CON HOLD 3245 8.2
35 Calder Valley CON HOLD 4427 8.3
36 Blackpool North & Cleveleys CON HOLD 3340 8.5
37 Pudsey CON HOLD 4501 8.8
38 Amber Valley CON HOLD 4205 9.2
39 Sherwood CON HOLD 4647 9.2
40 Hastings & Rye CON HOLD 4796 9.4
41 Bristol North West CON HOLD 4944 9.5
42 Colne Valley CON HOLD 5378 9.5
43 High Peak CON HOLD 4894 9.6
44 Edinburgh North & Leith LAB->SNP 5597 9.6
45 Harrow East CON HOLD 4757 9.7
46 Stockton South CON HOLD 5046 9.7
47 Northampton South CON HOLD 3793 9.8
48 Norwich North CON HOLD 4463 10.2
49 Enfield Southgate CON HOLD 4753 10.4
50 Stevenage CON HOLD 4955 10.4
51 Cannock Chase CON HOLD 4923 10.5
52 Morecambe & Lunesdale CON HOLD 4590 10.6
53 Nuneaton CON HOLD 4882 10.7
54 Dudley South CON HOLD 4270 11.2
55 Finchley & Golders Green CON HOLD 5662 11.2
56 South Ribble CON HOLD 5945 11.4
57 Worcester CON HOLD 5646 11.4
58 Rossendale & Darwen CON HOLD 5654 11.5
59 Dumfries & Galloway LAB->SNP 6514 11.5
60 East Lothian LAB->SNP 6803 11.5
61 Swindon South CON HOLD 5785 11.7
62 Pendle CON HOLD 5453 12.3
63 Paisley & Renfrewshire South LAB->SNP 5684 12.3
64 Preseli Pembrokeshire CON HOLD 4969 12.3
65 Dover CON HOLD 6294 12.5
66 Reading East CON HOLD 6520 12.9
67 Scarborough & Whitby CON HOLD 6200 13
68 Warwick & Leamington CON HOLD 6606 13.1
69 Aberconwy CON HOLD 3999 13.3
70 Crawley CON HOLD 6526 13.4
71 Vale of Glamorgan CON HOLD 6880 13.4
72 Reading West CON HOLD 6650 13.7
73 Arfon PC HOLD 3668 13.7
74 Gloucester CON HOLD 7241 13.8
75 Great Yarmouth CON HOLD 6154 13.8
76 Carmarthen East & Dinefwr PC HOLD 5599 14.2
77 Thanet South CON HOLD 7098 14.3
78 Chipping Barnet CON HOLD 7656 14.4
79 Stourbridge CON HOLD 6694 14.5
80 Brighton Pavilion GRN HOLD 7967 14.6
81 Elmet & Rothwell CON HOLD 8490 14.7
82 Milton Keynes South CON HOLD 8672 14.7
83 Aberdeen South LAB->SNP 7230 14.9
84 Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South CON HOLD 6054 15
85 Camborne & Redruth CON HOLD 7004 15.3
86 Battersea CON HOLD 7938 15.6
87 Edinburgh South West LAB->SNP 8135 15.8
88 Redditch CON HOLD 7054 16
89 Gravesham CON HOLD 8370 16.7
90 Milton Keynes North CON HOLD 9753 16.9
91 Basildon South & Thurrock East CON HOLD 7691 16.9
92 Rutherglen & Hamilton West LAB->SNP 9975 17.3
93 Watford CON HOLD 9794 17.4
94 Cleethorpes CON HOLD 7893 17.5
95 Ochil & South Perthshire LAB->SNP 10168 17.6
96 Loughborough CON HOLD 9183 17.7
97 Shrewsbury & Atcham CON HOLD 9565 17.7
98 Clwyd West CON HOLD 6730 17.7
99 Paisley & Renfrewshire North LAB->SNP 9076 18
100 Canterbury CON HOLD 9798 18.3
As in 1992, one of the depressing things about this list is just how few votes delivered a Tory majority. Assuming there are no ultra-marginal Con / Lib Dem seats (I don't think there are), the total majority in the six most marginal seats is just 1,270. In 1992, the 11 lowest majorities (giving them their Commons majority of 21) added up to a mere 2,478.
It is notable that most of the seats near the top of the list are ones which Labour have won at some stage (Sheffield Hallam is a notable exception). It is rather more alarming to see how far down the list some of the seats they won in 2005 have fallen. Crawley is one example, even though they did only win by 37 votes in that election.
You mention that Labour need to win Chingford & Wood Green to get a majority of ten. On the bright side, there couldn't be many better scalps than Iain Duncan Smith (unless he retires back to his coffin at the next election).
Both Labour and the Lib Dems need to see the reversal (at least in part) of the demonising of the SNP. I have been hearing from some Lib Dems that the Tories' scare stories struck a chord. I assume Labour found the same. Paddy Ashdown has suggested that, if the polls had been more accurate, fewer people would have fallen for it as a Labour-led government would have seemed less likely. Unfortunately, the London-based news media ignores Scotland most of the time, so information about what the SNP are actually doing is somewhat lacking south of the border. That is one reason why the Tory message was so effective.
Other seats will depend on whether the incumbent stands. I assume Caroline Lucas is now safe for as long as she wants the seat. When she steps down, Brighton Pavilion will be up for grabs again. Brighton & Hove is a bit of a world unto itself, so Labour would have a decent chance there.
Of course, the boundary changes complicate matters, particularly if the number of seats is reduced. Effectively, parties cannot do much about selecting candidates until the proposed boundaries are known. That means that the challenging candidates will have a lot less time to establish themselves.
Posted by: Qassändra May 11 2015, 07:39 PM
They've said they're scrapping the reduction of MPs to 600 - presumably they know that would stop some backbenchers voting for the reforms - so it's just changes to the boundaries but sticking to 650.
Posted by: Danny May 11 2015, 08:06 PM
Tbh, I've changed my mind completely and think Labour and the Lib Dems should have a pact at the next election (much as many Labour members won't like that). Labour have to face facts that they're probably not going to win a majority on their own, so they need the LDs to knock out as many Tories as possible in seats which are no hopes for Labour (though the reverse might not work so well, I'm not sure if all remaining Lib Dem voters in a lot of Con-Lab marginals would necessarily go Labour).
Plus, it might help Labour neutralise the SNP line next time because they could say they'd go into coalition with the LDs instead.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 11 2015, 08:16 PM
Is that confirmed? I saw a suggestion that they would, but nothing definite.
The case for a reduction was always very weak. It was just a vote-winnng gimmick on Cameron's part. I know that the Lib Dems proposed an even bigger reduction, but that was part of a package that included an elected second chamber as well as other reforms.
We have had around 620 - 650 MPs for many decades. In that time, the population has increased substantially, so the average number of constituents has gone up. The days when an MP's annual visit to his constituency was a big event are, thankfully, long gone. The old Liberal Party played a big part in that change. The advent of e-mail means that an MP now receives far more correspondence than at any time in the past. Therefore, an MP's workload has increased massively. Reducing the number of MPs will just make things worse.
It is, of course, true that the House Of Commons is larger than the parliaments of similar-sized countries. However, those countries devolve a lot more power to local and regional authorities, so there is a good deal less for the parliament to do. If we had proper regional government, it would be possible to reduce the size of the House Of Commons.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 11 2015, 08:25 PM
Plus, it might help Labour neutralise the SNP line next time because they could say they'd go into coalition with the LDs instead.
The big problem with that is that the Lib Dems are now in a very weak position. Lib Dem members would resist a deal that they thought exploited that weakness too much. Similarly, Labour members would resist a deal which they felt offered the Lib Dems too much.
I can only see there being any chance of it working if Labour bit the bullet and offered electoral reform. They could go into an election with that as a key part of their platform, and with the intention of calling an election after the reforms have been introduced and boundaries set. Assuming the Tories haven't cynically repealed the Fixed Term Parliament Act (in order to cut and run two some point), that might need some sort of manipulation, but it could be justified if it was part of their election programme.
Posted by: Qassändra May 11 2015, 08:26 PM
Oh CHRIST I'd forgotten they'd be able to scrap Fixed Term Parliaments on their own.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 11 2015, 08:36 PM
I'm quite surprised not to have read any suggestion that they might do this.
Posted by: steve201 May 11 2015, 09:44 PM
The more likely path I see right now, assuming FPTP remains, is that Scotland becomes a single party state in 2020 or a repeat of 2010 where no seats change hands.
My assumptions:
-Labour doesn't properly understand the reason for it's Scottish losses and moves right to placate England/Wales which then strengthens the SNP in Scotland.
-LibDems are done in Scotland forever for bringing in a Tory Government.
-That the 2016 victory and the next 5 years of power in Holyrood doesn't lead to any major f***-ups that causes an SNP downfall.
I also wouldn't be surprised if another choice was that things turn more into a NI situation where the Tories squeeze out the lib dems/labour completely and it becomes a unionist vs SNP issue although that would be probably unlikely given the Tories are hated up north.
I also think this division could see a realigning of politics in England where the Tories are like a liberal party, the success of UKIP (120 second places, 360 odd third places) means they are the right wing party winning votes from right and left and labour/lib dems become the centre left party with greens as the anti austerity left wingers?!
Posted by: steve201 May 11 2015, 09:53 PM
Are the Tories really going one nation with their cabinet appointments _
Amber Rudd - Energy - climate change believer
Grant Shapps gone
Rob Halthone - Deputy Chairman - a guy who's argued for a higher min wage and Tory trade unions
Vs balancing the right with
Iain Duncan Smith still at welfare
Michael Gove
Boris
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 11 2015, 10:08 PM
Various environmental groups have reacted positively to Amber Rudd's appointment, so there could be some hope.
Posted by: Dunning–Kruger May 14 2015, 05:35 PM
A short but sweet satire of opinion polls, from the occasionally funny Newzoids -
Posted by: Silas May 16 2015, 09:21 PM
Murphy gone. What a wonderful week and a half this has been
Posted by: steve201 May 16 2015, 10:12 PM
Well that's good news lol
Posted by: Soy Adrián May 17 2015, 07:53 AM
The only good thing for anyone even pretending to be left-wing is the fact that Eric Pickles is no longer DCLG Secretary. Well, and Esther McVey.
Posted by: Dunning–Kruger May 17 2015, 05:03 PM
Another possible, scientific, explaination as to why the Conservatives did so much better in the election than was predicted in opinion polls - according to a 2011 study by Cornell University, people are more likely to vote conservatively if they are http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/dirty-Liberals!-reminders-of-physical-cleanliness-influence-moral-and-political-attitudes-2011.pdf(i.e seeing soap or hand sanitiser). I don't know what the rules are about allowing such products to be on display in voting halls, but if the study is correct, it could have been an unconscious factor in people's voting habits.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 17 2015, 08:10 PM
I concur. It's effing depressing from my point of view as a beleaguered council worker having to work from home to meet deadlines while caring for mum with rapidly advancing alzheimers, ailing dad following a big heart attack, multi-problems and more surgery, and personal depression and exhaustion. I get no actual practical help. I get lip service. The mythical marvellous NHS bullshit about support for carers, available local gov bureaucracy to cutback on spouted by all politicians is lies. They can all go proverbially do unto themselves as can anyone who remotely thinks the current political and financial situation is a good thing, from my point of view...
There is no
Posted by: Suedehead2 Sep 22 2015, 10:15 PM
Some interesting points from the last few days.
It has been claimed that seven Tory wins on 7 May can be attributed specifically to people switching from Lib Dem to Labour. That's just enough to account for their majority. Obviously, if they had fallen just sort of a majority, it is almost certain that they would have formed a minority government.
Second, I heard that large numbers of Labour members in Ed Balls' constituency spent a lot of the campaign in Sheffield Hallam. Therefore, their desperate (and unsuccessful) attempt to oust Nick Clegg may have cost them their Shadow Chancellor.
I also heard some interesting stories about the Lib Dem campaign. Some of the Scottish MPs found it a little embarrassing to have to change their main message to potential Tory voters from "Vote Lib Dem to stop Labour winning" to "Vote Lib Dem to stop the SNP winning" almost overnight after the referendum. Still in Scotland, apparently the Tories spent a lot of money in some Scottish Lib Dem seats where their own chances of winning were precisely zero. However, they may have been trying to persuade their supporters to stick with voting Tory rather than switching to the Lib Dems. In most seats, that won't have made a significant difference, but it might have saved one or two Lib Dems if the Tories had kept quiet.
The Lib Dems' private polling showed that the "incumbency effect" was almost non-existent. The defeats of popular, long-standing and hard-working MPs such as Charles Kennedy and Simon Hughes adds weight to that.
Posted by: Qassändra Sep 22 2015, 10:41 PM
Not quite. There was an incumbency effect - people recognised in private polling they had good local Lib Dem MPs who they'd be ordinarily favourable to voting for under ordinary circumstances. It just wasn't strong enough to stand up to the overriding 'vote Tory this time for stability' message. It's telling that the seats the Lib Dems lost where they generally stood up best were in Scotland.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Sep 22 2015, 10:48 PM
Yes, so when it came to how people actually voted, the incumbency effect was minimal.
One of the reasons why the Lib Dems came close to saving a few Scottish seats may have been that the SNP scare stories played differently in Scotland. I've heard a lot of Lib Dem activists say over the last few months that the anti-SNP message was one of the most effective messages of the campaign. In many Scottish seats, the same message was almost an invitation to vote Lib Dem to defeat the SNP.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Sep 23 2015, 12:17 AM
I was campaigning in Hallam for two years and I never met anyone from Morley and Outwood. Most of Yorkshire were discouraged from coming because until very near polling day it was seen as unwinnable. We ended up coming far closer than in many target seats.
Posted by: Qassändra Sep 23 2015, 01:50 PM
Morley and Outwood definitely would've spent a lot of time in target seats though - nobody thought there was a chance of us losing it until the night.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Sep 23 2015, 04:46 PM
Yeah definitely, I'm guessing they were in Elmet & Rothwell and Dewsbury most of the time though.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Sep 23 2015, 08:41 PM
Any Tory with a brain (insert your own oxymoron joke here) should be eternally grateful to Crispin Blunt. Of course, a certain type of Tory will never forgive him for leaving his wife for another man, but they should look beyond their prejudice.
Blunt was the first Tory MP openly to challenge Iain Duncan Smith's leadership. Ultimately, Duncan Smith was toppled with Michael Howard replacing him. While Howard was another unpopular leader with the public, he made some very important changes to the Tory party. Before that, both Labour and the Lib Dems had some very good strategists. Those strategists were very good at identifying where the party's efforts should be targeted. As a result, both parties took seats from the Tories which they would not have won on a uniform swing. Howard was the first Tory leader to try the same strategy. As a result, his party did better in 2005 than they would otherwise have done.
By 2010, the Tories had perfected that strategy (with a lot of help from Michael Ashcroft's money). However, partly because of Ashcroft, they were able to take it a step further. My own constituency of Bournemouth (after boundary changes took me out of the Poole constituency) was, at one time, a Lib Dem target. However, Ashcroft poured a lot of money into the nearby seat of Mid Dorset ands North Poole. The Lib Dems won it (just) in 2001 before winning it easily in 2005. For a long time, that meant that it was regarded as reasonably safe for 2010. The Ashcroft money changed that. When it became evident that Mid Dorset and North Poole could be lost, Bournemouth W ceased to be a priority. In other words, the Ashcroft money didn't just affect the targets seats.
Before 1997, the Lib Dems (and the Liberals) had been very good at taking seats by stealth. They were better at winning seats from several thousand votes behind than seats where they had come close at the previous election. In short, they exploited Tory complacency. In seats like Morley and Outwood, the Tories may have pulled off the asme trick themselves (although it should be remembered that Balls didn't win by much in 2010).
Posted by: Soy Adrián Sep 23 2015, 09:02 PM
Blunt was the first Tory MP openly to challenge Iain Duncan Smith's leadership. Ultimately, Duncan Smith was toppled with Michael Howard replacing him. While Howard was another unpopular leader with the public, he made some very important changes to the Tory party. Before that, both Labour and the Lib Dems had some very good strategists. Those strategists were very good at identifying where the party's efforts should be targeted. As a result, both parties took seats from the Tories which they would not have won on a uniform swing. Howard was the first Tory leader to try the same strategy. As a result, his party did better in 2005 than they would otherwise have done.
By 2010, the Tories had perfected that strategy (with a lot of help from Michael Ashcroft's money). However, partly because of Ashcroft, they were able to take it a step further. My own constituency of Bournemouth (after boundary changes took me out of the Poole constituency) was, at one time, a Lib Dem target. However, Ashcroft poured a lot of money into the nearby seat of Mid Dorset ands North Poole. The Lib Dems won it (just) in 2001 before winning it easily in 2005. For a long time, that meant that it was regarded as reasonably safe for 2010. The Ashcroft money changed that. When it became evident that Mid Dorset and North Poole could be lost, Bournemouth W ceased to be a priority. In other words, the Ashcroft money didn't just affect the targets seats.
Before 1997, the Lib Dems (and the Liberals) had been very good at taking seats by stealth. They were better at winning seats from several thousand votes behind than seats where they had come close at the previous election. In short, they exploited Tory complacency. In seats like Morley and Outwood, the Tories may have pulled off the asme trick themselves (although it should be remembered that Balls didn't win by much in 2010).
On the last point, the complacency comes from the fact that we weren't expected to lose any non-Scottish seats except a couple of ultra-marginals. It wasn't helped by the fact that Lancashire and West Yorkshire were both loaded with target seats so resources had plenty of other places to go.
Posted by: Danny Sep 24 2015, 04:29 PM
Very interesting analysis of Labour's problems:
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/content/uploads/2015/09/Is-%E2%80%98southern-discomfort%E2%80%99-spreading.pdf
Essentially, for all the Blairites witter on about the South, much of the south-east actually seems to be on the verge of trending Labour as it becomes more "Londonised" (more ethnic minorities, young people and uni graduates). On the other hand, it's the Midlands (outside of the big cities) which is going the wrong way for Labour, as their standing with the white working-class rapidly weakens.
Posted by: Qassändra Sep 24 2015, 04:49 PM
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/content/uploads/2015/09/Is-%E2%80%98southern-discomfort%E2%80%99-spreading.pdf
Essentially, for all the Blairites witter on about the South, much of the south-east actually seems to be on the verge of trending Labour as it becomes more "Londonised" (more ethnic minorities, young people and uni graduates). On the other hand, it's the Midlands (outside of the big cities) which is going the wrong way for Labour, as their standing with the white working-class rapidly weakens.
I mean, it's a bit of a stretch to say the South East is on the verge of trending Labour. What it means is that if 1997 happened today we'd probably win Broxbourne rather than it staying Tory (and vice versa if the Tories had 1983 tomorrow for some safe Midlands seats) - in practice, we aren't going to be winning those seats for a while.
Posted by: Danny Sep 24 2015, 04:55 PM
By "trending", I mean that it's got comparitively better for Labour compared to the national average changes in their vote.
In any case, it certainly gives the lie to this mantra that Labour's problems are with middle-class/"aspirational" voters.
Posted by: Qassändra Sep 24 2015, 05:42 PM
In any case, it certainly gives the lie to this mantra that Labour's problems are with middle-class/"aspirational" voters.
I mean...we do still have huge problems with that type of voter, it's just there are more of the sort of person who votes Labour moving into those seats. Those seats are still by and large dominated by Mondeo Man/Worcester Woman/Aldi Mum/other invariably narrow middle class generalisation of your choice.
Posted by: Danny Sep 24 2015, 06:28 PM
But that report shows that some of the London/southern areas which have seen huge increases in house prices/incomes have trended Labour, whereas some of the Midlands areas which have most strongly trended Tory are lagging behind on house prices/incomes. Their problems are mostly cultural, not wealth-related.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Sep 26 2015, 02:45 PM
The middle class voters - culturally at least - are still the ones in those Midlands seats. They might be going backwards, but they still don't feel like Labour is the party for them (witness how we've done so badly in Derbyshire). Those Labour-friendly voters moving into the SE aren't automatically middle class just because house prices are high around them. If they're young that often puts them in a worse position.
Posted by: Qassändra Oct 17 2015, 11:32 AM
The government will lose the next proper vote on tax credit cuts before it even goes into action I think. Zac Goldsmith has come out in opposition, bringing the number of open Tory rebels to five - Goldsmith, Boris, Guto Bebb, Andrew Percy and David Davis. Eight's the magic number for the tipping point where the government loses its notional majority.
Posted by: Qassändra Oct 20 2015, 11:28 PM
Seumas fucking Milne appointed as Head of Communications and Strategy. He of 'America brought this on themselves!!!' two days after 9/11, '7/7/the murder of Lee Rigby were justified as part of a global war', 'the West is causing the war in Ukraine, not Putin', and 'the Soviet Union wasn't all bad and Joseph Stalin DIDN'T kill 20 million people it was actually just 13 million so stop trying to discredit him thanks' fame.
Sorry Danny, I know you have your theories that Corbyn doesn't plan on sticking around, but this is more than 'moving the centre of gravity' stuff, this is stuff that's actively not only damaging his cause, but the Labour Party as a whole with it - particularly as you'd assume the intent is for Milne to stay on whatever happens now he's retained staff (otherwise, what's the point of hiring him?). The Tories will literally be able to print Milne quotes verbatim with nothing else other than 'Labour's Head of Strategy and Communications' as billboards at the next election, and most people - including solid Labour voters - will be viscerally disgusted.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Oct 21 2015, 05:51 AM
As someone on Twitter pointed out, OWEN JONES WAS RIGHT THERE.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Oct 21 2015, 09:55 AM
The number of Tory MPs to vote against the government on this last night - zero. It's the same old story. A threatened Tory rebellion ends up as the dampest of damp squibs.
Posted by: popchartfreak Oct 21 2015, 04:25 PM
the future's so bright i gotta wear shades. That'll be thd brightness of the nuclear inferno coming from somerset after a decade of right-wing selling-off uk property industry and the no-longer-working class. to add my 2pence worth corbyn is reminding me more of movie dr strangelove and the final scene of the movie - ironic given his nuclear stance, and the armageddon is just politically the labour party and any chance of getting the tories out.
Next general election is rumoured to be cancelled because there is literally no party worth voting for in england? !
Posted by: Brett-Butler Oct 21 2015, 07:08 PM
I'm guessing that that intellectually dishonest leprechaun took a look at how much The Guardian and Random House were paying him for his pontifications and decided against taking a massive pay cut.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Oct 21 2015, 09:07 PM
I'd take him over Milne (who will not be cheap, and hasn't even left his job at the Guardian) any day of the week.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Oct 21 2015, 09:30 PM
I don't know how much Owen Jones is paid by the Guardian, but I do know that his salary at the Independent was a lot lower than you might expect.
Posted by: Qassändra Oct 21 2015, 10:14 PM
Owen only got about 24k at The Independent, which is peanuts when you consider he was basically their flagship columnist. The Guardian burn through cash though so I'd be shocked if he wasn't getting a fair chunk more now.
--
Brett, why do you think Owen's intellectually dishonest? I think he's being schtum right now and probably evolving into Alastair Campbell by the second, but as high profile democratic socialists go I think he's by far the most tolerable.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Oct 21 2015, 10:24 PM
Owen Jones declared his own salary at the Independent, and did so with pride. I assume he is getting more at the Guardian, but it might not be a great deal more.
Posted by: Brett-Butler Oct 22 2015, 07:48 AM
He has a tendency to misrepresent figures and research in order to fit his overarching positions. Jeremy Duns (who admits that he agrees with many of the positions of Jones) looked at some of the research he carried out for his book, http://www.jeremy-duns.com/blog/2014/10/18/owen-jones-and-how-how-he-gets-away-with-it.
Posted by: Qassändra Oct 22 2015, 07:40 PM
Ha! I hadn't even noticed that piece the first time around, but it's not too surprising. Johann Hari basically took Owen under his wing for a good year or two, and Owen is his more Labour-affiliated successor in all but name.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Mar 21 2016, 11:39 PM
Labour is now ahead of the Tories in all national polls and Corbyn's grass roots movement and momentum keep on growing.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Mar 21 2016, 11:40 PM
This will be a landslide.
At least in votes now the Tories have gerrymandered to their liking.
Posted by: Qassändra Mar 25 2016, 09:40 PM
Uh, no. There was a one point lead in one poll. The Tories have been ahead of Labour in all the others since.
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 30 2016, 08:29 PM
Hah took you a while to retort that pro Corbyn news Qass!!!
Posted by: Doctor Blind Mar 30 2016, 08:46 PM
Less a retort, more a dose of realism.
Given the total disaster of the budget, and the ongoing fails over the junior doctors, schools and now the Steel industry - even a TUB OF LARD could be ahead of the polls against the Conservatives.
Posted by: Qassändra Mar 30 2016, 08:47 PM
Well it wasn't so much news as an active lie - Labour isn't ahead in all polls!
Posted by: Suedehead2 Mar 30 2016, 08:59 PM
Given the total disaster of the budget, and the ongoing fails over the junior doctors, schools and now the Steel industry - even a TUB OF LARD could be ahead of the polls against the Conservatives.
Talking of tubs of lard, I spent rather a lot of Monday watching the 1966 election results programme on BBC Parliament
Among the politicians interviewed was a very young Roy Hattersley.
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 30 2016, 10:51 PM
He got reelected in 66 didn't he?
I forgot all about it - is it on the iplayer?
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 31 2016, 09:18 AM
Corbyn won the PR battle yesterday with the steel controversy being able to go out to Port Talbot while alot of the tories were just getting back from holidays!
Posted by: Qassändra Mar 31 2016, 09:48 AM
Wonderful that he's decided to finally try. Would be nice to see him do it for an issue which isn't restricted to about five constituencies.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Mar 31 2016, 10:48 AM
I forgot all about it - is it on the iplayer?
Yes, it is
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 31 2016, 11:02 AM
Must download it, i love the bank holiday election repeats!!
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 31 2016, 11:02 AM
That sounds like a bit of a positive remark about Jezza for you Qass
Posted by: Suedehead2 Mar 31 2016, 11:06 AM
They're always a good watch for political nerds
Don't expect to see many women in the programme, apart from when they are being patronised in vox pops.
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 31 2016, 03:08 PM
I definately come under the political nerd category lol.
I watched the 1964 one last year as well as the first one they recorded ever in 1955. Gives me the shivers when they casually say Mrs.Thatcher relected for Finchly back then - little did they know what was to come with her simple election to a seat.
In the 64 one people like Nigel Lawson were in the commentators corner speaking from the view of a Daily Telegraph reporter - little did we know!
Posted by: Suedehead2 Mar 31 2016, 05:05 PM
Lawson was in the '66 version as well.
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 31 2016, 09:14 PM
He didn't get elected until 1970 didn't he not?
Posted by: Suedehead2 Mar 31 2016, 09:55 PM
February '74. He lost in Slough in 1970. It just confirms my geek status that I could reach for an old Times Guide to the HoC and go straight to his constituency without having to look it up!
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Mar 31 2016, 09:56 PM
Can we change the title please to reflect current reality?
Posted by: Danny Mar 31 2016, 10:05 PM
Even as someone who didn't vote for Corbyn, the last few weeks have made me glad he's leader tbh.
He has actually got RESULTS in terms of policies, in terms of making the Conservatives scrap the disability benefit cuts and now potentially forcing them into nationalising the steel industry. That is much better than one of the self-declared " credible moderates" who would've been busy abstaining on the benefit cuts and wittering on about how "globalisation" and being "pro-business" meant they had to accept the steel industry falling.
The fact that the "moderates" were all saying last week was a win for the Tories, because Corbyn didn't get some smart ripostes in at Prime Minister's Questions (which is apparently more important than ACTUALLY STOPPING DISABLED PEOPLE'S INCOMES GETTING CUT) only confirms to me that the "moderates" have completely lost all sense of what politics is supposed to be about.
Posted by: Brett-Butler Mar 31 2016, 10:18 PM
Sure.
Posted by: Brett-Butler Mar 31 2016, 10:24 PM
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
As you can see, of the 5 opinion polls from the past month, 3 give a Conservative lead, one gives Labour/Conservative on the same, whilst just one gives Labour a slight 1% lead.
Posted by: Qassändra Mar 31 2016, 10:31 PM
He has actually got RESULTS in terms of policies, in terms of making the Conservatives scrap the disability benefit cuts and now potentially forcing them into nationalising the steel industry. That is much better than one of the self-declared " credible moderates" who would've been busy abstaining on the benefit cuts and wittering on about how "globalisation" and being "pro-business" meant they had to accept the steel industry falling.
The fact that the "moderates" were all saying last week was a win for the Tories, because Corbyn didn't get some smart ripostes in at Prime Minister's Questions (which is apparently more important than ACTUALLY STOPPING DISABLED PEOPLE'S INCOMES GETTING CUT) only confirms to me that the "moderates" have completely lost all sense of what politics is supposed to be about.
Do you really think he was the driving force behind the disability benefit cuts being reversed?! As with the tax credits, it wasn't that Labour were opposing (pretty inadequately, given the lack of any coordinated media strategy on it) that was driving the issue, but that even Tory backbenchers were uneasy with the principle.
I'd also add that Community Union (the steelmakers union which has a lot of moderate MP affiliates) gets pretty regularly accused of being a load of Blairite stooges. They and the affiliated MPs are taking anything but an 'oh just let it fail' position.
Posted by: Qassändra Mar 31 2016, 10:31 PM
!
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 31 2016, 10:43 PM
Lol love that sort of info myself!
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 31 2016, 10:48 PM
He has actually got RESULTS in terms of policies, in terms of making the Conservatives scrap the disability benefit cuts and now potentially forcing them into nationalising the steel industry. That is much better than one of the self-declared " credible moderates" who would've been busy abstaining on the benefit cuts and wittering on about how "globalisation" and being "pro-business" meant they had to accept the steel industry falling.
The fact that the "moderates" were all saying last week was a win for the Tories, because Corbyn didn't get some smart ripostes in at Prime Minister's Questions (which is apparently more important than ACTUALLY STOPPING DISABLED PEOPLE'S INCOMES GETTING CUT) only confirms to me that the "moderates" have completely lost all sense of what politics is supposed to be about.
NOW DONT YOU DARE GO AND GIVE CORBYN ANY CREDIT IN HERE QASS WILL GO NUTS!!!
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 31 2016, 10:51 PM
I'd also add that Community Union (the steelmakers union which has a lot of moderate MP affiliates) gets pretty regularly accused of being a load of Blairite stooges. They and the affiliated MPs are taking anything but an 'oh just let it fail' position.
In ref to disability cuts - so you retort his anti austerity cuts position on the one hand and congratulate Tory backbenchers for getting the government to back down on this immoral position on the other as if he had nothing to do with it even when in his budget reply he highlighted it?
Posted by: burbe Mar 31 2016, 10:54 PM
As you can see, of the 5 opinion polls from the past month, 3 give a Conservative lead, one gives Labour/Conservative on the same, whilst just one gives Labour a slight 1% lead.
It says it all about how disastrous the current Labour leadership is, when they can't even gain a lead over a deeply unpopular and divided Tory government. The Opposition is weak. They aren't attacking in Parliament as they should when the Tories are pretty much handing them free reign to do so with their harsh policies. It's now they should be making real progress to win back voters, yet they're still stuck in this lull. No way should they be going into 2020 with Corbyn as leader, especially since the Tories will have a new leader by then.
Posted by: Danny Mar 31 2016, 10:54 PM
Labour opposing wouldn't have been sufficient on its own to get the cuts reversed, but it was a necessary pre-condition. In a parallel universe where one of the "moderates" was leader, and they were pledging to abstain on cuts, Cameron would've still had the arithmetic to get cuts through and he would've been able to credibly wave away IDS's resignation as just one man's ego rather than being about the substantial issue of the cuts being wrong.
As I say, the "moderates"' reaction last week when they were whining about how a "credible" leader would've scored more points at PMQs (the inference being that this is more important than actually affecting government policy) shows they haven't even started learning their lesson. I'm sorry but to me it does show that they STILL think getting their own backsides on the government benches is the most important thing, and that policy and the wellbeing of the country is secondary.
Do you really think Liz Kendall as leader would be supporting government intervention to save the steel industry? Her constant refrain in recent months (when she's not been uttering total banalities) has been how the Left is too hostile to "globalisation", and that they shouldn't stand in the way of "modernisation" and free-market-induced changes. Indeed her most recent tweet is words to that effect:
Liz Kendall @leicesterliz Mar 26
Liz Kendall Retweeted Janan Ganesh
"Leicester is the modern world. Do not hold out against change, this season teaches us, absorb & master it." on.ft.com/22zGtcB
Posted by: Qassändra Mar 31 2016, 11:11 PM
The Andrew Neil interview Liz Kendall did to kick off the leadership election was about how government should ensure people aren't left behind as a result of globalisation, something which she specified as one of New Labour's biggest failings. Not exactly 'let it collapse and let them eat cake'. For that matter, I don't think many MPs would avoid retweeting an article praising their constituency's football team's success as an example to all!
In a parallel universe where one of the moderates was leader, I don't think they'd have taken the view that disability cuts are fine (unless you think their position would have been that literally no cut to welfare would have been opposed...though I actually wouldn't be surprised if you did).
Posted by: Qassändra Mar 31 2016, 11:12 PM
I'm not congratulating, I'm literally stating facts. Corbyn mentioning it in his budget reply had nothing to do with Conservative backbenchers opposing the cuts. Osborne backing down was entirely to do with Conservative backbenchers opposing the cuts, not Corbyn.
Posted by: Steve201 Mar 31 2016, 11:16 PM
So it was nothing to do with the electorate reaction? Or Corbyn whatsoever?
As Danny highlighted above it takes various interest groups to create a U Turn and you not crediting the leader of the opposition shows your moderate bias in this case - and as I said JCs budget response is in Hansard that's all the FACTS I need!
Posted by: Danny Mar 31 2016, 11:19 PM
On the example they set in the last parliament, and especially what they did in the months after the last election, I highly doubt they would've opposed the disability cuts.
Posted by: Qassändra Mar 31 2016, 11:27 PM
As Danny highlighted above it takes various interest groups to create a U Turn and you not crediting the leader of the opposition shows your moderate bias in this case - and as I said JCs budget response is in Hansard that's all the FACTS I need!
The backbenchers were registering their anger with cuts to disability payments before the Budget had even been announced and before there had been any reaction - it was fairly heavily prebriefed! I don't think you realise just how much of a joke he is considered by Conservatives MPs at *all*. Just because it was in his response doesn't mean any of them were influenced by it.
Posted by: Qassändra Mar 31 2016, 11:32 PM
I think even if you're convinced they wouldn't oppose cuts to disability payments at the same time as tax cuts for higher rate taxpayers on a moral level (which I think all three candidates would have been), on a basic level of political intelligence none of them would have been in favour of cuts to the one group universally agreed from left to right to be deserving of welfare at the same time as tax cuts.
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 1 2016, 08:53 AM
I wasnt totally talking about Tory MPs on this though I was looking at the greater picture of disability cuts whereas you seem to be focused on how brave backbench MPs are at briefing against their chancellor - I only care about defending JC and what he has done and in this case predictably he defended the weak and vulnerable. I dont care or claim the Tories were influenced by him.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 1 2016, 09:06 AM
I'm not saying a thing on how 'brave' they are or complimenting them at all. Defend him all you like, but if you're trying to make the point that the reversal is something he can take credit for, it's just not true.
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 1 2016, 02:32 PM
I will and I think you have to on this point 
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 2 2016, 09:59 PM
sorry JC fans but I think he's been utterly wet as leader. It's a lovely ideal having a calm firm dignified response in parliament to make your case, but he could have said nothing and the result would have been the same. It was the Tory backlash (more to do with potential vote losses and Euro Out's getting the knife in than for any genuine heartfelt concern for people - allegedly by me) that won that argument, actually if not morally.
There has been a long list of immoral Tory policies since he got voted in and he should be doing his job properly, shouting it from the rooftops about each and every one, and using every mean at his disposal to support those that need support. Kinnock and Foot would have been whingeing on TV with bite. The Libdems in the House Of Lords have done more to change government policy than he has, and so have the SNP.
Too busy observing his cronies slag off his own party members, in my opinion. The best way to win support is to be good at your job and just dismiss rightfully any party moaners who will then just look silly. Jezza just isnt convincing. So far. Needs a huge metaphorical kick up the ass.
Posted by: Danny Apr 2 2016, 10:14 PM
Yeah, but why wasn't there that Tory backlash on various equally vile policies in the last parliament? I would argue it was precisely because Miliband was always desperately trying to compete with the Tories on being "tough on scroungers" and "credible about reducing the deficit" and all the rest of it. For all the mockery of the "Overton window", I do think it's pretty sure that Corbyn has moved the terms of debate to such an extent that even many Tories feel able/obligated to speak out against various measures, whereas they simply weren't before the election when Miliband and Labour were ensuring the whole political debate was conducted in a ridiculously narrow right-wing space.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 2 2016, 11:37 PM
Well given he wasn't 'always' trying to do those things (doing a one-off speech on it once a year when forced to hardly counts as going on about it) I'd argue it was much more to do with the solid majority the coalition had, which likely made most backbenchers that ever had an issue with a policy (or had an issue with Cameron and wanted to pick a fight) think it wasn't worth the bother because there wasn't a chance of success. Now they know they only need eight of each other.
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 3 2016, 08:53 AM
plus I'd add that the bulk of nasty policies were chopped off or toned down by the Libdems long before Miliband needed to criticise them - and a lot of which were Labour policy anyway. Just to remind everyone what i said when the coalition was in power and what would happen when the Tories weren't answerable to a party which had the best interests of the nation at heart, rather than it's own interest groups. It's happened, it's here.
Corbyn hasn't moved the moral argument in any significant way, he was elected because enough people already felt that way and wanted someone to represent their views where there was no-one available now that the LidDem brand had been tarnished. He was a joke backbencher candidate with no experience of being in government, and having to suddenly lead a party is outside his comfort zone - since he came to lead how have the Labour poll numbers done? Despite all that is going on....? At best it's a percentage higher than Miliband. Hardly a ringing endorsement...
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 3 2016, 10:33 AM
I think it's probably reaching a bit to suggest Corbyn was elected because the Lib Dems fell apart.
Posted by: Danny Apr 3 2016, 12:36 PM
Well, that's your opinion, but I don't agree - I think the Lib Dems allowed a whole host of nasty policies to pass in the Coalition years, and that the Tory majority government has thankfully been better than the Coalition so far, since they've been forced to drop several of their policies - due, I would argue, to Corbyn moving the debate to the Left.
I agree that, in traditional "leadership" terms, Corbyn's been a disaster. He's pathetic in Parliament, he doesn't have any political nous, and he looks and sounds like a hot mess everyday. However, for me, that is all less important than moderating Tory excesses and actually protecting poor people's livelihoods in practice, which Miliband never did and which the other 3 leadership candidates certainly wouldn't've done
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 3 2016, 12:43 PM
Er maybe if his MPs accepted his mandate then this would be easier? You say his cronies are complaining about them but what about the blairite cronies who constantly snip to the media? That IMO has been the basis of debate since he became leader - they are constantly on the sidelines instead of showing him support and helping the Tories by doing so!
Posted by: Doctor Blind Apr 3 2016, 12:55 PM
Maybe so, but he hasn't demonstrated strong leadership. The sniping has only grown because of his lack of leadership and that tends to lead to... yes, more sniping and 'loyalty letter leaks'.
Corbyn hasn't had much (if any) impact on the debate - Osborne has sensed the weakness of the opposition and tried to get through a lot of quite unpopular and aggressive cuts and shift the government from the centre ground. As Qassändra rightly points out, it is more to do with the majority of 12 as opposed to that of 70 that has encouraged the potential for rebellion and forced the government to re-think policy.
That and the actions of the Lords.
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 3 2016, 04:50 PM
I meant as a protest vote, the Libdems traditional position, leaving people veering more towards more extremes than is usual..and both left and right.
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 3 2016, 05:06 PM
I agree that, in traditional "leadership" terms, Corbyn's been a disaster. He's pathetic in Parliament, he doesn't have any political nous, and he looks and sounds like a hot mess everyday. However, for me, that is all less important than moderating Tory excesses and actually protecting poor people's livelihoods in practice, which Miliband never did and which the other 3 leadership candidates certainly wouldn't've done
a whole host?
I counted the student fees thingy (which was a Labour policy originally and not a Libdem policy), the cuts (which Labour were also in favour of, they just had whinges about timing), and you haven't been paying attention - there are LOADS of policies that have now passed that they wouldn't have dared to try passing before - they are resorting to quite undemocratic procedures to try and sneak as many through parliament as possible - and which Labour seem to flail about over missing the point of each and every one.
Have a look at the thread for Tory lies to find just a few examples. I've actually given up listing them, it's just endless and Corbyn either ignores, agrees with, or is just too stupid to notice half of them.
In terms of protecting the poor, that has always been a LibDem thing, there are plenty of examples of that in the coalition (and which the Tories took credit for). The last parliament can roughly split into a few decent policies (Lid Dem) and the rest (Tory), but Labour were too busy ignoring facts to try and wipe out the LIbDems. Which they did beautifully. Consequence: Tory government and Corbyn.
It's the job of the opposition to reign in and criticise the government of the day when it goes too far in it's ideology and ignoring procedures. Both Miliband and Corbyn have been failures at the job they were supposed to be doing. Their primary function. Personally I think both of them have been the weakest Labour party leaders in my lifetime (that's going back to Harold Wilson), give or take Foot - who was trying to hold a party divided together and take it to the left. Clever man, man of principle, but it gave us Thatcher.
History does repeat....
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 3 2016, 10:40 PM
Corbyn hasn't had much (if any) impact on the debate - Osborne has sensed the weakness of the opposition and tried to get through a lot of quite unpopular and aggressive cuts and shift the government from the centre ground. As Qassändra rightly points out, it is more to do with the majority of 12 as opposed to that of 70 that has encouraged the potential for rebellion and forced the government to re-think policy.
That and the actions of the Lords.
But the sniping began from the moment Corbyn was elected leader - see Jamie Reeds tweet that day last September.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 3 2016, 11:16 PM
If you ask people why they aren't voting Labour anymore, 'the MPs are having a go at Corbyn' is not the reason they give.
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 4 2016, 09:17 AM
But the affect that the divisions cause creates a view in the media and hence the floating voter that the party is a shambles so surely the lack of support from the right of the LPP is one factor which is bringing the party as a whole down. Unfort the right lay the seeds of this destruction and then complain when the opinion polls are showing no inroads being made on the tory lead?!
Posted by: Soy Adrián Apr 4 2016, 08:13 PM
Corbyn himself is currently an electoral liability and would continue to be one even if the right weren't leaking to the press to undermine him. Frankly both camps deserve each other, they'll both be to blame when we inevitably lose in 2020. Is it too much to ask for a leadership which both votes against legislation such as the welfare bill and resists the urge to quote Mao in the Commons?
For the record, so far I think this government has brought out worse and more right wing than the coalition did in its first year. That's partly because the coalition had already laid the groundwork for Osborne to take more extreme action now, though.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 4 2016, 08:33 PM
One considerably moreso than the other.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Apr 4 2016, 08:47 PM
Yes, but it's still not an excuse. Some MPs don't seem to have grasped the idea that a failed coup will merely strengthen his position and the constant sniping will only provide an excuse when he fails.
Posted by: Danny Apr 4 2016, 10:46 PM
It shouldn't be, but unfortunately on the evidence of the last 5 years, and especially in the months after the election, it is.
Given the choice between those two far-from-ideal choices, I'd rather take the one which doesn't result in the incomes of the poorest people in the country getting cut.
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 4 2016, 11:05 PM
Who will be that in between figure then - Owen Smith/Lisa Nandy from the left or Chucka/Tristam/or other uber gladstonian liberal - And will they be a Kinnock (Not literally) or will Labour just jump straight to a Blair?
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 4 2016, 11:25 PM
You do know that Gladstonian Liberal for all intents and purposes = nightwatchman state, right? You'd be hard pressed to find many of those even in the Tories, let alone Labour.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 4 2016, 11:27 PM
Given the choice between those two far-from-ideal choices, I'd rather take the one which doesn't result in the incomes of the poorest people in the country getting cut.
Given two of the three moderate candidates only abstained on the Welfare Bill on the principle that if they disobeyed the leader they couldn't well turn around and tell other MPs to obey them (christ, talk about small beer dilemmas in retrospect), I don't think it really is too much to ask.
Nonetheless, you are taking the one which will result in the incomes of the poorest people in the country getting cut. What do you think is going to happen after 2020?
Posted by: Harve Apr 4 2016, 11:49 PM
IN THE MEANTIME
Are the Panama papers actually going to amount to anything, or are the revelations all too predictable to capture anyone's interest?
Posted by: Danny Apr 4 2016, 11:58 PM
But it wasn't just the leader at the time who wanted to abstain. The New Statesman said at the time that only THREE shadow cabinet members wanted to vote against the Bill ( http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/labours-week-crisis-inside-story ). Something had gone horribly wrong with the whole of the "ancien regime" that they didn't think protecting poor people was something they had to go to the mattresses to defend.
I don't doubt that Ed Miliband, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper et al would privately have had concerns about many of the vile Tory policies (though I'm not sure about Liz Kendall and the ultra-ideological Progress sect), but they showed themselves to be utterly gutless -- I have no faith at all that, if they had still been in charge the last few weeks, that they would've stood firm on the disability benefit cuts if they were being sneered at by the Tories and the press for "supporting scroungers".
Posted by: Danny Apr 5 2016, 12:00 AM
But it wasn't just the leader at the time who wanted to abstain. The New Statesman said at the time that only THREE shadow cabinet members wanted to vote against the Bill ( http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/labours-week-crisis-inside-story ). Something had gone horribly wrong with the whole of the "ancien regime" that they didn't think protecting poor people was something they had to go to the mattresses to defend.
I don't doubt that Ed Miliband, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper et al would privately have had concerns about many of the vile Tory policies (though I'm not sure about Liz Kendall and the ultra-ideological Progress sect), but they showed themselves to be utterly gutless -- I have no faith at all that, if they had still been in charge the last few weeks, that they would've stood firm on the disability benefit cuts if they were being sneered at by the Tories and the press for "supporting scroungers".
Posted by: Danny Apr 5 2016, 12:01 AM
But it wasn't just the leader at the time who wanted to abstain. The New Statesman said at the time that only THREE shadow cabinet members wanted to vote against the Bill ( http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/labours-week-crisis-inside-story ). Something had gone horribly wrong with the whole of the "ancien regime" that they didn't think protecting poor people was something they had to go to the mattresses to defend.
I don't doubt that Ed Miliband, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper et al would privately have had concerns about many of the vile Tory policies (though I'm not sure about Liz Kendall and the ultra-ideological Progress sect), but they showed themselves to be utterly gutless -- I have no faith at all that, if they had still been in charge the last few weeks, that they would've stood firm on the disability benefit cuts if they were being sneered at by the Tories and the press for "supporting scroungers".
Posted by: Soy Adrián Apr 5 2016, 10:11 AM
Given the choice between those two far-from-ideal choices, I'd rather take the one which doesn't result in the incomes of the poorest people in the country getting cut.
That'll be neither, then.
I'd gladly take either of the former.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 5 2016, 10:24 AM
I think you've built up a parody world in your head if you think any of them would've just simply backed down over a measure which was literally based on 'you're certified disabled enough to need a wheelchair or a walking stick, but we'll decide this qualifies you for less money anyway' just because someone shouted 'scrounger', rather than calling that out. *Especially* when it's funding tax cuts for the wealthiest!
Posted by: Danny Apr 5 2016, 11:08 AM
Except we just saw cuts to disabled people kiboshed barely two weeks ago...
I don't see why that's any more inconceivable than them supporting a measure which was literally based on "you've gone over our two-child limit, so we'll decide that third kid shouldn't qualify for any money".
And if anything, the fact they were funding tax cuts for the wealthiest would've made it even less likely they would've taken a stand over it. Burnham, Cooper and especially Kendall were all saying even the laughably feeble tax rises in Labour's 2015 manifesto were "anti-aspiration" and "the politics of envy".
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 5 2016, 11:36 AM
Dan jarvis. The left are already running scared, and they should be.
Re: coalition laying the groundwork for the Tory hatchet jobs. Presumably in the same way Thatcher and Major laid the groundwork for Blair. What you don't change in government speaks volumes as much as what you do change. Also add, the groundwork for the coalitions' student fees policy was laid by Labour, and the groundwork for the cuts was also laid by Labour (who ran an election or two on cuts, having allowed overspending to happen in the first place).
Yes, I know I'm constantly repeating myself, but hey, I'm also very right (but not politically).
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 5 2016, 11:42 AM
Labour didn't overspend.
You are also missing out factoring in right wing, terrified of the post war Thatcher consesus being changed, terrified of nationalisation, hysteric anti-Corbyn propaganda. Even with propaganda over his tie and having journos measure his bow with measuring tape almost,and they STILL CAN'T PUT HIM AWAY!! Like Clinton with Danders, who is now tipped to win New York and the nomination through his momentum, Socialism is hur to stay.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 5 2016, 01:02 PM
Because taking money away from people who are in no way contestable as disabled is almost universally seen as unfair, whereas stopping child benefit for more than two children *in future* (i.e. families with more than two children now aren't affected) is not? I don't agree with limiting child benefit, but one is kicking the stick under from people commonly agreed in need. It isn't commonly agreed at all that the government should provide benefits for more than two children. As it isn't a retroactive measure it isn't even that comparable in its effects either.
You're taking the piss. There's a difference between 'okay, probably better to stick with where taxes are now because people don't really trust us with money' and 'yep, let's support tax cuts for people at the top and cuts for disabled people because aspiration', as if the only problem disabled people have is a lack of aspiration. This is pure parody of what a centre-left position would be.
You seem to be stuck in this idea that merely because Ed Miliband wouldn't vote against a welfare cap and three candidates abstained at the order of a leader on more than two children receiving child benefit in the future, this means moderate candidates would enthusiastically vote for the abolition of the whole welfare state (because if they wouldn't disagree with cuts against disabled people, what would they conceivably disagree with? It's *the* definitive example of what the welfare state is there for, in a way 'future third children' is not.) and all tax cuts for the wealthiest. The former doesn't give you a blank cheque for the latter.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Apr 5 2016, 01:19 PM
The restrictions on child benefit still punish the blameless though. After all, the children will suffer and there isn't a child on Earth who chose to be born, let alone chose which woman would give birth to them.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 5 2016, 01:51 PM
That still ignores that there is a key distinction in the eyes of the many who see one as unfair and the other as not - you can't choose whether or not to be disabled. You can choose whether or not to have a third child. I think it's wrong to effectively put a barrier on whether people can have more than two children or not, but the notion that one punishes people for forces beyond their control and the other doesn't has a lot to do with the difference in attitudes towards the two.
Posted by: Danny Apr 5 2016, 02:02 PM
You're taking the piss. There's a difference between 'okay, probably better to stick with where taxes are now because people don't really trust us with money' and 'yep, let's support tax cuts for people at the top and cuts for disabled people because aspiration', as if the only problem disabled people have is a lack of aspiration. This is pure parody of what a centre-left position would be.
You seem to be stuck in this idea that merely because Ed Miliband wouldn't vote against a welfare cap and three candidates abstained at the order of a leader on more than two children receiving child benefit in the future, this means moderate candidates would enthusiastically vote for the abolition of the whole welfare state (because if they wouldn't disagree with cuts against disabled people, what would they conceivably disagree with? It's *the* definitive example of what the welfare state is there for, in a way 'future third children' is not.) and all tax cuts for the wealthiest. The former doesn't give you a blank cheque for the latter.
I'm starting to think you're genuinely unaware of a lot of the welfare stances Labour took in the last parliament. They supported changes to the Disability Living Allowance which were just as punitive as the recent PIP proposals. They supported the household benefits cap. They abstained when the Tories wanted to overturn a court ruling against their ridiculous sanctions regime. They didn't even oppose the bedroom tax at first. They said Jobseekers Allowance for under-25s would be means-tested. Not to mention Rachel Reeves popping up every other week to say how unacceptable it was for people to "linger on benefits" and how Labour would be "tougher than the Tories on welfare".
Like it or not, Labour were complicit in allowing the Tories to clobber welfare claimants - if they had taken a stronger stance like Corbyn has and got out everyday making the arguments about how bad it was, people probably wouldn't've have suffered so much. And I personally don't want to risk going back to those dark days until the supposed "moderates" have done MUCH more to show they've learnt their lesson.
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 5 2016, 03:09 PM
I agree with Danny that Labour attacked 'scroungers' in the last parliament in search of right wing working class potential UKIP voters but what good did that do them when UKIP came second in many northern working class seats. I also agree that its right to attack this reduction of the welfare state because once you start changing the boundaries the Tories will want more so JC is right to oppose these changes.
Todays news about the tax havens just highlights the unfairness of the current globalised neo-liberal hegemony!
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 5 2016, 03:51 PM
Todays news about the tax havens just highlights the unfairness of the current globalised neo-liberal hegemony!
Absolutely!
The WHOLE syste of unfettered capitalism is groasly unfair and we need a leader, JC, to highlight this!!
Posted by: Danny Apr 5 2016, 03:53 PM
Meanwhile, the so-called "moderates" continue to show how disinterested they are in actually helping the country: instead of focussing on policy, they're constantly squawking about how bad the local elections will be in order to position themselves for a leadership contest (the fact that many of the people commenting on this have leadership ambitions of their own is I'm sure a total coincidence):
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/73483/jon-trickett-sparks-row-after-suggesting-local
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 5 2016, 03:56 PM
The grassroots movement just won't allow that. The 'modertaes' can go stand for the Tories next time if they're not hur for theNew Left.
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 5 2016, 06:11 PM
I support helping the needy, but afraid they did overspend. The books still aren't balanced and we still as a nation pay loads of interest to borrow more money to pay the bills that we can't afford.
It's all a matter of priority and choosing what to spend cash on. We don't, for example, need to spend hundreds of thousands in each council on media plebs counting the number of times the council gets mentioned in the local press, or using mediaspeak translation devices to try and hide the truth from the public. On the other hand plenty of jobs we do need have staff who are really struggling to cope now. Don't need consultants. Do need nurses. Don't need quite so many councillors in some councils. Do need social workers and teachers. etc etc
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 5 2016, 06:17 PM
It's a Tory myth.
They SMASHED the deficit left by the Tories and the when they made a surplus they started investing it. Unfortunately this lccjrred at the same time as yhe unfettered capitalist 2008 crash. Tories woulda done the same, not that they would have ever had a surplus. The deficit is increasing yearly under Osborne lol.
Posted by: f1mad Apr 5 2016, 07:25 PM
I think you'll find we do need consultants. We can't run a world class healthcare system without them.
Posted by: Brett-Butler Apr 5 2016, 07:32 PM
Which gives me an excuse to post this clip from Yes Minister (a different clip) -
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 5 2016, 07:42 PM
Nah it was higher under Labour than previous Tory. As Labour were pursuing unfettered banking capitalist wet dreams while they were in power, they allowed the capitalist catastrophe to occur along with most other western governments, who were all dazzled in the headlights of corruption taxes coming in to the national coffers. Tax from the banks profits made the deficit look a lot better than it actually was (circa 38%), but it was all just an illusion that melted away once it became obvious how much in debt the banks were. The banks and the rich got away Scot free and the poor paid the price. To pretend this is a Tory only cause (they changed the rules on investment banking and Labour jumped in headfirst cheered on by the Tories) is a bit of a one-sided viewpoint. Ask Corbyn, he voted against his own party most of the time during that period....
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 5 2016, 07:43 PM
well I certainly back those ones
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 5 2016, 07:46 PM
I really should re-watch Yes Minister, timeless
Posted by: Brett-Butler Apr 5 2016, 08:27 PM
That's what I love about Yes Minister. Even though some of the references might be a little bit out of date (mainly the references to the Soviet Union), a lot of the stories and situations are incredibly relevant. I almost posted this other clip a while back when discussing Trident -
Posted by: Suedehead2 Apr 5 2016, 08:56 PM
Consultants are sometimes necessary, but you have to bear in mind that their aim is to remain in business. This means that they have to obey certain rules.
First, there is "the rule of the bleeding' obvious". This is the easy bit. They look at what is going on and notice some obvious problems. These problems are so obvious that staff have been telling their bosses about them for years. However, those members of staff are paid less than their superiors and they don't have the word "consultant" in their job title. Therefore, their suggestions are ignored. When the same suggestions are made by men (they are still mostly men) in expensive suits and charging £1,000+ per day, those same bosses describe the suggestions as the work of a genius.
That is the simple bit then. They go on to make other recommendations. Some of these will be sensible, others seemingly less so. The golden rule they have to remember is that at least one of those recommendations has to be a bad one. The trick is then to ensure that the bad recommendation is adopted.
Why? That's easy. It means that the company will need to employ another lot of consultants to make another set of recommendations. They too will make sure that at least one bad recommendation is adopted.
This will go on until the original firm of consultants is employed again as all the others have had their turn. Thus, it is a never-ending cycle keeping the large consultancy firms in work.
Not that I'm at all cynical, of course.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 5 2016, 09:47 PM
OMG Corbyn just DEMANDED Cameron reveal his tax return - he's gonna DRAG him over the COALS for this!! 
Andd when Cameron is hosting a tax avoidance summit next month!
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 5 2016, 11:07 PM
Don't be silly that'll be the Tory back benchers causing this!
Posted by: Suedehead2 Apr 6 2016, 08:15 AM
Andd when Cameron is hosting a tax avoidance summit next month! Cameron once promised to publish his tax returns. Like so many of his other promises, it has proved worthless.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 6 2016, 08:31 AM
Yes, and you will notice that Cameron won't reveal his tax return until any do (unless it's spotless in which case he'd be stupid not to).
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 6 2016, 10:09 AM
First, there is "the rule of the bleeding' obvious". This is the easy bit. They look at what is going on and notice some obvious problems. These problems are so obvious that staff have been telling their bosses about them for years. However, those members of staff are paid less than their superiors and they don't have the word "consultant" in their job title. Therefore, their suggestions are ignored. When the same suggestions are made by men (they are still mostly men) in expensive suits and charging £1,000+ per day, those same bosses describe the suggestions as the work of a genius.
That is the simple bit then. They go on to make other recommendations. Some of these will be sensible, others seemingly less so. The golden rule they have to remember is that at least one of those recommendations has to be a bad one. The trick is then to ensure that the bad recommendation is adopted.
Why? That's easy. It means that the company will need to employ another lot of consultants to make another set of recommendations. They too will make sure that at least one bad recommendation is adopted.
This will go on until the original firm of consultants is employed again as all the others have had their turn. Thus, it is a never-ending cycle keeping the large consultancy firms in work.
Not that I'm at all cynical, of course.
All very logical
I'm afraid my recent experience of consultants goes:
1) Councillors come up with a money-saving efficiency-guaranteed plan (that staff who have been around long-enough have seen fail before, the politicians are all new and have no experience of it). Staff who point out the bleeding obvious are seen as negative trouble-makers, even though it's their job to point out glaring errors and dangers, and get sacked/removed/retired/silenced with pay-offs.
2) Expensive consultants are hired to make the case for the politicians. This gives them someone to blame when it all goes wrong. None of the problems staff have pointed out are even mentioned.
3) Full steam ahead on the changes. Hire more consultants to oversee the process and write the contract. These people have no practical experience, in-depth knowledge, and never admit it's a botch-rush job. Staff who have this knowledge and experience are kept far, far away so it can be done quickly before anyone can halt the process.
4) Contract implemented, firm goes bankrupt within 6 months as warned by ex-staff, and contract has black-holes in it that suck in cash. Finances are not made public as this is confidential information. Voters, obviously, should have no idea what they are paying for
Remaining staff end up doing 2 jobs for the price of one as the staff may have been transferred to the private sector but the roles haven't. oops!5) PR consultants show how successful the whole process has been shortly before it's bought back in-house comfortably within the time-table cynical me had predicted. More consultants are hired to oversee the smooth transition back. This involves no desk moving, no job moving, just changing wage slip issuing for staff returning to the Council, and the clearing-off of non-Council staff who have free office accommodation.
I could also go on about idiot politicians, idiot private companies and idiot staff who believe what idiot salespeople tell them about new IT systems they are being sold. My council has one expert on data transfer for a bespoke system that only one person in the whole world knows how to use (me) and a knack for spotting bullshit. I warned the promised 6 month completed implementation of a new system would take minimum 2 years because the people involved didn't understand the issues. I was ignored, and it's now 5 years later. I'm still using the bespoke system and we are going (probably) at long last for the system that all councils use for property management.
The myth that the private sector is more efficient than the public is complete bollocks. It CAN be, when run properly, but they are only as good as the folk in control, just like Councils.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Apr 6 2016, 10:40 AM
I'd better not mention the word Mouchel
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 6 2016, 03:37 PM
I work for a fictional council, I couldn't possibly confirm or deny specific names - well not until I'm ready to retire at any rate. Sadly, I don't think my silence would be worth paying up for
Posted by: Ryan. Apr 6 2016, 03:41 PM
Just saw this on my Facebook feed and they've got some of those characters absolutely spot on!
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 6 2016, 08:26 PM
one of the most effective PPB I've seen! Funny too...
Posted by: Suedehead2 Apr 6 2016, 09:40 PM
What a great PPB
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 17 2016, 06:07 PM
A NEW POLL HAS CORBYN 6 POINTS AHEAD OF THE GERYMANDERING TORIES!!
Noooow can we change the title please?
Posted by: Harve Apr 17 2016, 06:44 PM
"A quick update on polls in the weekend papers. The Independent on Sunday is no more, but the Sunday edition of the Indy’s website seems to be continuing with their monthly ComRes online poll (shared with the Sunday Mirror). Topline voting intention figures are CON 35%(-3), LAB 30%(+1), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 16%(nc), GRN 4%(nc)."
I mean it's going in the right direction but...
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 17 2016, 06:45 PM
The one I saw has Labour up SIX POINTS over the Tories!!
Posted by: Silas Apr 17 2016, 06:48 PM
The fictional one you made up to give you an excuse to screech momentum somewhere else?
Posted by: Iz~ Apr 17 2016, 06:52 PM
The YouGov one has had Labour leading but that's only by three points. And it's the only one that has them ahead, at least of the main lot.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 17 2016, 06:53 PM
Check Sam Coate's The Times opinion polls.
Sorry I read it wrong, three above the Tories but still!!!
Posted by: Harve Apr 17 2016, 11:49 PM
If at this point it's going better than the Corbyn doubters had been expecting last year (not that their doubts aren't reasonable), then that's already swell with me.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 19 2016, 12:21 PM
Also worth adding that the main beneficiary of the fall in the Conservative vote has been...UKIP. Oh.
Posted by: Silas Apr 19 2016, 12:37 PM
That's a horrifying thought.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 19 2016, 12:43 PM
Well thanks yo First Past the Post we only need Labour to be the biggest party tbh.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 26 2016, 02:41 PM
Yes, but on the changed constituency boundaries and minus Scotland, Labour wouldn't be the biggest party unless they had a solid lead on the Conservatives.
Posted by: Silas Apr 26 2016, 06:03 PM
But Scotland will support a labour leader in becoming prime minister to avoid 5 more years of the Tory c**ts so it's not all doom and gloom there
Posted by: Virginia's Walls Apr 26 2016, 07:36 PM
SNP would easily join with Labour.
Posted by: Silas Apr 26 2016, 10:59 PM
Not join. That would undo their election strategy and give ScotLab a tiny air hole in their coffin.
Confidence and Supply is the way it would go down and the SNP were very clear about that at the last election.
Posted by: Qassändra Apr 27 2016, 12:42 AM
You all remember what happened at last year's election with the whole prospect of Labour relying on the SNP, right?
God I'm so depressed.
Posted by: Steve201 May 29 2016, 12:34 AM
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/labours-new-militant-tendency.html
Posted by: Steve201 May 29 2016, 12:34 AM
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/danny-dorling-why-corbyns-moral-clarity-could-propel-him-to-number-10/
Posted by: Qassändra May 29 2016, 05:56 AM
The 'you can ignore Tories and just win on non-voters!' proposal has been critiqued to death SO MANY TIMES that it's infuriating someone thinks they can just sashay in and restate it without saying a thing about all the very, very pressing points against it (i.e. why do you think non-voters skew Labour rather than, say, UKIP? how do you focus your resources on the 'right' non-voters in that case? why do you think a man with communication nous so bad that the majority of the country doesn't know what he stands for (!) can win over people who don't pay attention to politics en masse? given the seats with the most non-voters tend to be Labour safe seats, what does that suggest about targeting non-voters as a practical winning strategy for actually winning seats?)
But no, god forbid we dirty ourselves by trying to persuade people who happened to think the Conservatives were the answer at the last election.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 29 2016, 07:43 AM
hmmm, well, that article is certainly one way of looking at it. A bit like the strategy of attacking Libdems when the party in opposition was the Tories. That worked beautifully. Targeting even smaller parties fulfills the law of diminishing returns. If you can't convince people who aren't registered as voters to register with your own policies you are doomed.
Lovely to see the Labour Party consider PR, given they wholeheartedly did a complete spiteful two-faced about-turn on it when given the opportunity in a REFERENDUM. Smacks more of realisation that we are condemned as a nation to Toryism offering up the vague hope that the current gov might implode before 2020 as some sort of left-wing hope of salvation. I hardly think a party campaigning that it thinks hung parliaments are the only way it can get in government is going to convince voters.
Also, just to observe there hasn't been a left-wing government of significance since the middle of the 20th century, when the poor were really poor and felt a community spirit to support the party that catered for their interests. Labour in those days was NOT viewed as a party for the well-off. The proportion of poverty-stricken people in the country has dropped significantly since those days, not least thanks to the Labour Party itself, so that basic strategy is self-fulfillingly short-term: any government set about removing poverty will in the end have to adapt to appealing to the now-better-off who are no longer living in houses with no heating, outside toilets, no car, no mod-cons, coal fires, no hot water bath facilities, decent food and clothing.
You have to appeal to those who ARE better off but still willing to accept legislation to drag those in need up a bit in the pecking order. Any other way of doing it is not going to work.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 29 2016, 08:19 AM
The Lib Dems have tried the strategy of appealing to non-voters. It was a waste of time. Many of those voters fall into the "You're all the same" category. If you do enough to demonstrate that you are not the same as the rest (and you need to do a lot as these are typically people who have little to no interest in politics) then you risk alienating your existing support.
Posted by: Doctor Blind May 29 2016, 10:27 AM
Exactly, in order to win another election Labour need to appeal to voters in the deep south who are voting conservative (and not just London - where they have traditionally always done well) as well as those in the north who voted UKIP last time, and stop talking to themselves, and by actually engaging these people without insulting them (i.e. these people are bigots). Without doing this then Jess Phillips is correct: there is absolutely no hope of winning the 2020 election.
Thinking otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring all of the GLARING evidence.
Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 26 2016, 12:56 PM
Survation for Mail on Sunday:
CON 32% LAB 32% UKIP 16% LD 9% AP 11%
Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 27 2016, 06:53 PM
http://linkis.com/independent.co.uk/EbSPT
LAB 34%
CON 33%
UKIP 16%
LIB 6%
Posted by: Doctor Blind Jul 11 2016, 01:22 PM
Jeremy Corbyn has just called for a snap general election - as have Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas (defacto leader of the Greens).
Posted by: Silas Jul 11 2016, 01:33 PM
This country is a right state.
Posted by: Doctor Blind Jul 11 2016, 01:42 PM
I've been at a wedding in a Devon country manor with NO phone signal or wifi and I was half expecting Nicola to have taken over as PM and annexed Cornwall when I got back home. Good to see Drake is still #1.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jul 11 2016, 03:42 PM
While hoping that May does no such thing!
Posted by: burbe Jul 11 2016, 08:39 PM
Labour would be obliterated in a election this year under Corbyn. And we have the scary prospect of UKIP potentially gaining seats in the North :/ Let's not have an election. Thanks.
Posted by: Silas Jul 11 2016, 08:57 PM
Hahahaha
As long as Greater Manchester is on her list of places to save from UKIP and the Tories too!
She is still slaying though. In her constituency, all EU residents have been receiving a letter from her and the MP for the same seat reaffirming what she's being saying since the 24th, that they are welcome and valued and that the government really wants them and loves them and etc etc.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Jul 11 2016, 09:16 PM
As long as Greater Manchester is on her list of places to save from UKIP and the Tories too!
She is still slaying though. In her constituency, all EU residents have been receiving a letter from her and the MP for the same seat reaffirming what she's being saying since the 24th, that they are welcome and valued and that the government really wants them and loves them and etc etc.
Manchester, Trafford and Stockport will be game. Annex Salford Quays and we're all set.
Posted by: Silas Jul 11 2016, 09:21 PM
Well it's basically Trafford anyway and it even has it's own postcode in M50! I'm well game for switching from Salford to Trafford, even if it's Tory.
Posted by: burbe Jul 11 2016, 09:46 PM
I was just thinking, it's surely unprecedented the political mess that's going on atm? It looks like Theresa winning has now just about saved the Tories from a split, but Labour is in complete disarray and god knows what will happen there, the Lib Dems have been wiped out, UKIP are surging in support (sadly), Scotland is becoming more and more separate from the rest of the UK and looks pretty much set for independence in the next few years.
On top of all this, people are actually WANTING a general election? As if we need any more uncertainty and instability at this time.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jul 11 2016, 10:04 PM
On top of all this, people are actually WANTING a general election? As if we need any more uncertainty and instability at this time.
I can't help feeling that at least some of this turmoil would have been avoided if the Lib Dems had won around 20 or so seats at the last election instead of eight. If they had appeared more viable than they do at the moment, Labour and the Tories might have been less likely to behave as if they only needed to worry about one opponent. We might even have seen more of Tim Farron making a positive case for EU membership in the coverage of the referendum campaign.
Posted by: Silas Jul 11 2016, 10:23 PM
It's also very ironic that since Brexit the two parties who are showing the most leadership, looking most capable, acting as a force of good for their country, not dissolving into squabbles and infighting and wars of words et al are the two parties who actively don't want to be within 300 miles of Westminster - the SNP and Sinn Féin. Granted the former more so than the latter.
Posted by: Qassändra Jul 11 2016, 11:29 PM
The clown car that's the Tory Leave squad have shown themselves up since the result, but I honestly don't think there's a word that can be said against Theresa May on leadership and capability the last two weeks, aside from the immorality of the EU citizen bargaining chip move (and even then, that's basically her down to a T).
Posted by: Silas Jul 12 2016, 12:28 AM
Aside from the fact that it's taken over two weeks for the Government to stabilise and for someone in the party to start leading? She was quieter than a church mouse until she started to campaign for the PM job.
Posted by: Qassändra Jul 12 2016, 01:59 PM
'She hadn't won the leadership election yet' is a point you're holding against her?
Posted by: Brett-Butler Oct 10 2016, 09:03 PM
Haven't updated this in 3 months, but now that Theresa May's honeymoon period as Tory leader is coming to a close, Jeremy Corbyn has consolidated his position as Archduke of the Labour Party, and the main parties' conferences have concluded, let's take a look at the most recent Opinion Poll, carried out by ICM for https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016_oct1_guardian_poll.pdf -
Conservative 43%
Labour 26%
Liberal Democrat 8%
SNP 4%
Plaid Cymru 1%
Green 6%
UKIP 11%
Other 1%
That gives the Conservatives a 17 point lead over Labour, with all other opinion polls from the last 2 months also giving them a sizable lead.
Posted by: Silas Oct 10 2016, 09:08 PM
The SNP's 4% will still translate to 50+ seats and this poll has UKIP down as being dethroned *.*
PC look to pick up a seat and the LibDems actually lose even more seats.
Posted by: skankhunt42 Oct 10 2016, 11:47 PM
Jeesus qhy are the Labour polls so low!!!!
Posted by: Common Sense Oct 11 2016, 07:06 AM
Clue. Initials: JC. Also all the in-fighting. Voters do not like a divided party.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Oct 11 2016, 11:02 AM
Perhaps, then, people need to be reminded about what Tory MPs and ministers were saying about each other just a few month ago in the referendum campaign. Or maybe they need to read stories like this...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/10/tory-mps-clamour-for-more-say-as-davis-rules-out-vote-on-brexit-terms
The Tories are at least as divided as Labour, probably more so. It's just that their friends in the press don't bother to report it.
Posted by: Qassändra Oct 11 2016, 11:26 AM
Oh for crying out loud, let's not pretend that when it comes down to it DIVISION is the issue people are going to have with a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party.
Posted by: skankhunt42 Oct 11 2016, 01:05 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/10/tory-mps-clamour-for-more-say-as-davis-rules-out-vote-on-brexit-terms
The Tories are at least as divided as Labour, probably more so. It's just that their friends in the press don't bother to report it.
Absolutely!! Bbc tory puppets etc hate Labour.
Posted by: Brett-Butler Oct 11 2016, 04:34 PM
I very much doubt the BBC "hate" Labour.
Posted by: Doctor Blind Oct 11 2016, 06:00 PM
I wouldn't say the honeymoon period is over for May yet?
Posted by: Qassändra Oct 11 2016, 06:26 PM
It depends what you define as a honeymoon period. I think she's moving past the point where people are giving her the benefit of the doubt for being new to a point where she's legitimately popular for the things she's saying and proposing.
Posted by: Doctor Blind Oct 11 2016, 06:45 PM
That's true, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens to the figures when petrol goes up 20p and inflation is back running at 5% as the pound capitulates.
Posted by: popchartfreak Oct 11 2016, 06:50 PM
too true. Soon as everyone's wallet starts getting hammered there will suddenly be a lot of folk who will deny ever having voted Brexit, or try to blame the EU, or foreigners, or doom-merchant Remoaners, as opposed to them being responsible for their own (and our) misery.
Posted by: Qassändra Oct 11 2016, 07:14 PM
I wonder if she'll be the one who gets the blame for that though. I actually do think it's going to be fascinating seeing the various stages of acceptance and who gets the blame when the various consequences of the leave vote start to bleed through.
My current money is on a mix of "this was always going to happen, so we may as well weather it out", blaming the international community for trying to bully us out of Brexit, some variation on the utterly bizarre "this economic crash is Remain's fault for talking down Britain", and assorted bitching about things like fuel duty (which no doubt Mother Theresa will chop substantially).
Posted by: Suedehead2 Oct 11 2016, 07:41 PM
I'm sure they'll try and blame it on the EU. They've already started with Davis trying to complain that the EU are somehow "punishing" us. Of course, all they are doing is suggesting that we will be treated like any other non-member state. If Davis wanted the UK to be treated like a member state, he shouldn't have campaigned for us to leave. Unfortunately, the anti-EU press have been supporting the Davis line and will probably convince a lot of their readers that we are being punished. I look forward to those readers trying to cancel their gym membership while insisting that they should still be able to use the facilities there.
Posted by: Silas Oct 11 2016, 08:14 PM
Davis is an utter abomination and a complete waste of f***ing oxygen.
The SNP are presiding over the ONLY part of the UK not to see Hate Crime soar after the referendum and are the only government actively reaching out to EU citizens.
Posted by: Harve Oct 11 2016, 09:28 PM
Lmao I can count 5 reasons for which that reaction is insane.
Posted by: popchartfreak Oct 12 2016, 05:43 PM
well we now have the government people have voted for. let's see how well they all do out of it in 5 to 10 years and look for an even-more right-wing government to help them. That always works out well, just as nationalistic chest-beating always means poor people benefit and the country in question is viewed as fair, tolerant and successful in it's dealings with others.
I must say, when I commented on here that the Tories would show their true colours now they had effectively demolished the Libdems who had been holding them back, that we had seen nothing yet, I had no idea just how right I would be proved so quickly. Record-time! Silver Linings, I can at least say I Told You So to nobody that cares as we all go down the toilet together and the rich get even more filthy rich at our expense as they flush.
Posted by: Qassändra Oct 12 2016, 05:54 PM
This isn't the Tories showing their "true colours" at all, this is something we haven't seen in generations. At least, presuming you take the view that the Tories "true colours" involve putting business first and to hell with the rest.
Posted by: popchartfreak Oct 12 2016, 08:14 PM
Sorry i lived through thatcher. She sowed the seeds that gave birth to the current economic disaster and right wing acolytes. I take your point though that this lot arent just selfish rich gits they are actual lunatics intent on writing the uk in their own image based on one close referendum.
All the stupid people thinking things coulfnt get any worse will see soon enough. Tragically.
Posted by: popchartfreak Oct 13 2016, 08:48 PM
This is a fab summary of uk politics today...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/08/observer-editorial-theresa-may-britain-post-brexit?CMP=share_btn_link
Posted by: popchartfreak Jan 1 2017, 08:14 PM
time to resurrect this, now that May is in full PR propaganda mode:
In her new year message, Mrs May said: "I know that the referendum last June was divisive at times.
"I know, of course, that not everyone shared the same point of view, or voted in the same way.
"But I know too that, as we face the opportunities ahead of us, our shared interests and ambitions can bring us together...
"So when I sit around the negotiating table in Europe this year, it will be with that in mind - the knowledge that I am there to get the right deal - not just for those who voted to leave - but for every single person in this country.
"Of course, the referendum laid bare some further divisions in our country...
"This is the year we need to pull down these barriers that hold people back, securing a better deal at home for ordinary, working people."
Mrs May said the divisions revealed by the Brexit campaign needed to be addressed in 2017.
"As the fantastic MP Jo Cox, who was so tragically taken from us last year, put it: 'We are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us'," she said.
1. By the time Brexit comes into effect, the British population will have changed, 3 new years of voters and 3 years of old people dying. The outcome would be very different and there is a case for another referendum to accept the terms agreed.
2. What barriers, exactly, are holding people back? Be specific, because otherwise it's just bullshit PR. How exactly are these mysterious barriers being pulled down going to help poorer, working-class people? I can think of half a dozen ways of helping them off the top of my head that the British Government could do right now, no need to wait 3 years for Brexit for these lovely magical, fantasy benefits to pop up out of thin air.
3. Jo Cox was referring to all people OF THE WORLD being united and working together, INCLUDING THE EU, so highjacking her words for your own nasty little PR pisstake is repulsive and inexcusable. She was murdered by someone who was prepared to kill to silence her words of hope and love for ALL. Using her as a way of saying those who don't support Brexit (the majority of the country) should all work together to help you get whatever (unspecified) Brexit Means Brexit is not how it works. We, the people, are entitled to express our opinion on what mistakes you, as unelected leader of a split party, are diving headfirst into, because it's us, as citizens, who will pay the price for any failures, not rich people like you.
You have no scruples, clearly.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jan 15 2017, 02:59 PM
A poll in today's Observer shows just how bad things have got for Labour. It shows that the Tories have a clear lead over Labour as the best party to handle the NHS. This is despite the fact that satisfaction with the NHS was at record levels after 13 years of Labour government whereas, after nearly seven years of Tory-led government, stories about NHS crises are regularly in the news once again.
Posted by: popchartfreak Jan 15 2017, 07:46 PM
Labour are finished, tragically. Until Corbyn tumbleweeds off into the wilderness and they get a credible leader with wide-ranging appeal and personal dynamism (and decent non-Tory policies) the Tory party will be free to mess up the country as much as they want to and undo all the good that has been done over 75 years.
Posted by: Silas Jan 15 2017, 07:49 PM
The only sliver lining to this debacle is that the longer it goes on the higher the likelihood of independence for Scotland.
Posted by: popchartfreak Jan 21 2017, 10:21 AM
Filibustering in progress from Philip Davies, a man who talks to kill bills that he personally doesn't like but which would otherwise pass.
Democracy in action from Tories..
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/822444158715564037
Posted by: Silas Jan 21 2017, 07:01 PM
He's a repugnant vile rancid evil c**t.
Posted by: Qween Jan 21 2017, 07:25 PM
The state of British politics is almost as depressing as the US right now. I had high hopes for Theresa but over the last few months it's become QUITE CLEAR she's basically Trump in a wig. Except we will have her/her party for longer than he will be around. YAY.
Posted by: burbe Jan 31 2017, 02:49 PM
I think a 2017 General Election is looking increasingly likely as time passes. Politics is such a state right now. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see one in May with the local elections. I just hope the Tories wouldn't make too many gains (although it's very likely) and hopefully Lib Dems will gain a strong foothold in remain areas.
It will be tragic if Labour still can't make any gains on the Tories in the next opinion polls given all that's happened in the past week. It shows how bad a state the Labour Party is in right now.
Posted by: Rooney Feb 9 2017, 10:22 PM
It will be tragic if Labour still can't make any gains on the Tories in the next opinion polls given all that's happened in the past week. It shows how bad a state the Labour Party is in right now.
The longer term issue is people are just going to be disillusioned with politics in general. The Tories are there for the taking, but there is no opposition. I don't see how we can encourage people to vote when there is nothing good to vote for. I mean, maybe the polls disagree with me, but 10-20 years time, from the Millennials and future generations, I don't think we will see 'traditional Tory/Labour' voters the way we do today. It will literally be, who is offering the best deal on the table!
Posted by: Harve Feb 17 2017, 01:25 AM
The Green party took a council seat off UKIP tonight LOL
Posted by: Doctor Blind Mar 22 2017, 11:16 PM
I see the latest ICM has an EIGHTEEN point lead for Saint Theresa.
Wake me up when the 2020s end.
Posted by: Brett-Ocat Apr 15 2017, 09:56 PM
Headline figures for the most recent opinion poll, carried out by Opininum on behalf of The Observer -
CON 38 (-3)
LAB 29 (+1)
LD 7 (-1)
UKIP 14 (+1)
GRN 5 (+2)
SNP 5 (-1)
If you drill down to just voters in Scotland, it makes for interesting reading -
Scotland subsample (usual caveats)
SNP 48%
CON 30%
LAB 10%
GRN 6%
LD 4%
Labour in 3rd, barely scraping double figures, whilst nearly 1 in 3 people in Scotland support the Tories? (Disclaimer - the sample of Scottish that make up the poll is 124, so might not be entirely representative).
Posted by: Emperor Silas Apr 15 2017, 10:07 PM
It's more that people are migrating to Ruth because she's the 'only one who stands up to the SNP' or some yoon bullshit like that. That and barely anybody believes that SLab are even capable of boiling a kettle, they're just a shambles. It's insane to think that 3 years ago they were the dominant party in Scottish politics.
Scotland is on the road to being a 2-Party state between the SNP and the unionist shades of Tory.
Hoping to see a bit of a fall for Ruth soon though with her backing the Rape Clause (but only via spokesperson coz she's too chickenshit to actually face the public) and now 7 of her candidates been suspended for outright racism.
Posted by: Andrew♀ Apr 15 2017, 10:35 PM
I think that despite Kezia's conversion into die hard unionist, unionists still see the Tories as the stronger party to stand up for the UK (there's not exactly much competition 
) and that's why they're doing so well. Still shocking though when you think back to before 2011
Posted by: Suedehead2 Apr 15 2017, 10:37 PM
There are two ways of interpreting Davidson's defence of the rape clause...
1) The maak has slipped and she is now showing herself in her true Tory colours
2) She has abandoned her claims that she is not interested in a Westminster career and is attempting to appeal to English Tories who might select her for a safe seat.
Posted by: Brett-Ocat Apr 15 2017, 11:01 PM
As deplorable as I find the "rape clause" to be, what needs to happen is not the revoking of said clause, but a reversal of the policy that lead to it being introduced in the first place, namely the withholding of tax credits to parents who have more than two children.
Given that this "Catholic Tax" (a name I give it based on the group of people this policy is most likely to affect, although someone should A/B test it alongside "Muslim Tax" to see which one evokes more outrage with the public, presumably the latter) was introduced by Gideon & Cameron, I really hope that it is one that Theresa May, if she has a scintilla of humanity, and any understanding of her more socially conservative base, will scrap at the next possibly opportunity.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Apr 15 2017, 11:11 PM
Given that this "Catholic Tax" (a name I give it based on the group of people this policy is most likely to affect, although someone should A/B test it alongside "Muslim Tax" to see which one evokes more outrage with the public, presumably the latter) was introduced by Gideon & Cameron, I really hope that it is one that Theresa May, if she has a scintilla of humanity, and any understanding of her more socially conservative base, will scrap at the next possibly opportunity.
The whole policy is addressing a problem that doesn't exist outside the tabloid press. There is no evidence whatsoever that there are lots of women trying to get pregnant so that they can claim benefits.
Posted by: Brett-Ocat Apr 15 2017, 11:16 PM
Precisely. I can't imagine anyone getting pregnant for the sake of £54 a week.
Posted by: Emperor Silas Apr 17 2017, 12:51 AM
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15226947.___She___s_an_evil_wee_s____bag_____West_Enders_are_NOT_happy_with_Ruth
_Davidson/?ref=mrb&lp=9
Don't think Glasgow is going to be backing Ruth anytime soon. How much damage is inflicted depends on how much coverage the Unionist print and TV media gives it. BBC have been rather quiet and the tory leaning papers have been parroting the Davidson line that it's all the SNPs fault.
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 17 2017, 09:06 AM
Not really surprising that Scotland is so polarised it's a bit like NI since the referendum divided constitutionally between unionism and nationalism and who's gonna support labour to defend that unionism when you have true blue conservatives doing it. Doubt Davidson will move south when she's the most effective defender of the union in the north!
Also good to see labour fighting back in the U.K. as a whole!
Posted by: Soy Adrián Apr 17 2017, 09:50 PM
Where?!
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 17 2017, 09:54 PM
One poll lol. They gained 4 points!!
Posted by: Doctor Blind Apr 17 2017, 10:33 PM
Given that this "Catholic Tax" (a name I give it based on the group of people this policy is most likely to affect, although someone should A/B test it alongside "Muslim Tax" to see which one evokes more outrage with the public, presumably the latter) was introduced by Gideon & Cameron, I really hope that it is one that Theresa May, if she has a scintilla of humanity, and any understanding of her more socially conservative base, will scrap at the next possibly opportunity.
Well, quite. With birth rates at 1.9 (up very slightly since the start of the century, yet still below the replacement threshold of 2.1) you'd have to wonder what the point of this policy was beyond preventing the poor from having more children. The consequences of an ageing population are not going to be pretty!
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 26 2017, 11:04 PM
Today's polls 26/4/17
Conservative 45% (-3)
Labour 29% (+4)
Liberal Democrats 10% (-2)
UKIP 7% (+2)
Other 9% (+1)
Posted by: Harve Apr 27 2017, 02:30 PM
Given that this "Catholic Tax" (a name I give it based on the group of people this policy is most likely to affect, although someone should A/B test it alongside "Muslim Tax" to see which one evokes more outrage with the public, presumably the latter) was introduced by Gideon & Cameron, I really hope that it is one that Theresa May, if she has a scintilla of humanity, and any understanding of her more socially conservative base, will scrap at the next possibly opportunity.
You really think anti-Catholicism is an element here or are you just being contrarian?
I find it a little difficult to get angry at the rape clause itself, which is still causing a shitstorm in Scottish politics. The principle is horrible, but I feel like we're widely missing the bigger picture - are there really many women, who already have two children and then go on to give birth to a third through rape? I don't think I want an answer to that question, but I'd like to think that the it's more of a philosophical rather than a pragmatic debate. It has indeed raised many wider questions about the purpose of the Scottish parliament and what it means for the Scottish Conservatives to be in opposition.
Posted by: Brett-Butler Apr 27 2017, 06:41 PM
That's a bit of a false dichotomy you're creating there, so I'll try to answer around it.
I have no idea if all those who voted in favour of the restriction of child tax credits did so because of a hatred of Catholics. Having said that, they surely must have realised that Catholics tend to have bigger families than normal people, and are therefore likely to be greater hit by the change than the average family, so it wouldn't surprise me if many MPs did have that in the back of their minds as they voted in favour of it.
One also suspects that the SNP's strong opposition to the child benefit restriction might be because of the strong support the party has among Catholics within Scotland. http://www.thenational.scot/politics/14886604.Poll_shows_huge_swing_to_SNP_among_Catholics/ in 2015, so keeping them on side will be important for the party going forward.
Posted by: popchartfreak Apr 27 2017, 07:18 PM
Much as I loathe Tories in power, I think the main reason for tax credits is to hit the poor who habitually have loads of kids and avoid work, and the rest is just fall-out from that. It is a fact that people who don't work, but have kids, will be getting more cash to spend/in hand than large numbers of people who do work. We can argue about the numbers involved (and I'm not pointing the finger or judging, as members of my own family fall into both those categories) but I imagine the woolly thinking is it will force people to go to work rather than have kids (which it won't) but will have negative consequences for children in poor families (which the Tories love doing, having that underclass of poorly educated workers to exploit and manipulate and then brainwash with propaganda to give them even more power to screw them up).
Now, THAT they are definitely guilty of....
Posted by: Harve Apr 29 2017, 03:33 PM
I have no idea if all those who voted in favour of the restriction of child tax credits did so because of a hatred of Catholics. Having said that, they surely must have realised that Catholics tend to have bigger families than normal people, and are therefore likely to be greater hit by the change than the average family, so it wouldn't surprise me if many MPs did have that in the back of their minds as they voted in favour of it.
One also suspects that the SNP's strong opposition to the child benefit restriction might be because of the strong support the party has among Catholics within Scotland. http://www.thenational.scot/politics/14886604.Poll_shows_huge_swing_to_SNP_among_Catholics/ in 2015, so keeping them on side will be important for the party going forward.
I've only just seen this. It's difficult to prove or disprove what you're saying because, as far as I can tell, there's been no mention of Catholics in the child tax credits debate outwith this thread.
The SNP don't have strong support amongst Catholics. They got 50% of the vote across the entire Scottish population in that election so if anything, Catholic support is a little below average. I think it's a little unfair to suggest that the SNP are only opposing this to appease a certain minority, whether or not that minority like the SNP. It's not that Catholics are irrelevant by virtue of them being a minority, but anti-natal/pro-natal policies and welfare more generally have a lot greater scope than religion, especially in a country where only a tiny minority of the population of childbearing age are practising Catholics.
Posted by: Steve201 Apr 30 2017, 01:01 AM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 44% (-1)
LAB: 31% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
UKIP: 6% (-1)
GRN: 2% (-1)
(via YouGov / 27 - 28 Apr)
Posted by: Tippin Virginia Apr 30 2017, 01:04 AM
Oh. My. God.
The grassroots campaign is working!!
Posted by: Silas Apr 30 2017, 05:20 PM
Get f***ed with this grassroots shite.
It's still within the margin of error.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Apr 30 2017, 07:23 PM
We do seem to be trending towards the high rather than the mid 20s, which may be the difference between a thrashing and a complete wipe out.
Posted by: Steve201 May 7 2017, 11:23 PM
It'll be something like 170/180 seats I would say and taking away Scotland's 40 seats no worse than Foot/Kinnock 87 did as the right reunite and ukip fade!
Posted by: Steve201 May 7 2017, 11:29 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 10% (+2)
UKIP: 8% (-)
(via @ICMResearch)
Posted by: Qassändra May 8 2017, 05:46 PM
Saying 'no worse than Foot' isn't a particularly great metric considering it was our worst election defeat since 1935 - and just slipping us out of the fact we don't have Scotland anymore is a fairly big caveat.
Posted by: Steve201 May 11 2017, 10:52 PM
It is but considering the task it wouldn't be totally disasterous in the way the media are talking - Foots 206 seats included 40-50 Scottish seats. Think they will do better than that anyway - vote seems to be closing in on 30% less than 2% off 2015 - but the question is where is the vote spread?
Posted by: Steve201 May 11 2017, 10:53 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 30% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-1)
(via @YouGov / 09 - 10 May)
Chgs. w/ 05 May
Posted by: Steve201 May 15 2017, 09:36 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 48% (+1)
LAB: 30% (-)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-)
(via @Survation / 12 - 13 May)
Posted by: Silas May 15 2017, 10:56 PM
CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 30% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-1)
(via @YouGov / 09 - 10 May)
Chgs. w/ 05 May
This poll had SNP up 5% to 46%, Labour down 5% to 14% and the Tories down 2%
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 16 2017, 07:37 AM
If it's a normal poll size (around 1,000 nationwide) the margin of error for Scotland, where the sample size will be under 100, will be huge.
Posted by: Steve201 May 16 2017, 11:39 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 47% (-1)
LAB: 33% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 3% (+1)
(via @PanelbaseMD / 12 - 15 May)
Posted by: Silas May 16 2017, 11:45 PM
Talking of massive margins of error. The Scottish subsample for that poll above has SNP on 56% and Tory on 20%
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 16 2017, 11:52 PM
What would a 47%, 33% split look like in Parliament?
Corbyn is doing better than Milliband! The Tories just seem to have a unified right, that's all :/
Posted by: Steve201 May 17 2017, 11:21 PM
He's adding a lot of traditional labour votes back but unfort won't get the spread of the vote to help him gain seats especially in the south east!
Posted by: vidcapper May 18 2017, 09:58 AM
Good point about Labour in Scotland.
Posted by: Steve201 May 18 2017, 09:12 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 49% (-)
LAB: 34% (+8)
LDEM: 7% (-6)
GRN: 3% (+2)
UKIP: 2% (-2)
(via @IpsosMORI)
This must be the highest % the two main parties have had since either 1987 or 1992!?
Posted by: Klaus May 18 2017, 09:17 PM
We really have gone from what was looking to be a multi-party country right back down to a two-party country (plus SNP) in just two years! I think I did see that it was the highest for the Top 2 since the 1980s. The figure for the Tories is ridiculously impressive and its easy to disregard Labour's percentage because of that, when it is very high too.
Its all just very embarrassing for the Lib Dems who really should have improved quite a lot from the last election but, to me, their policies are just a desperate grasp at votes.
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 18 2017, 09:18 PM
Told you Corbyn was popular!! His rallies and social media grassroots show it.
No wonder the elite were ao scared of him and started this undemocratic and historic media campaign against him from day 1.
Posted by: burbe May 18 2017, 09:28 PM
I don't think Corbyn is popular at all, he's just now picking up the realistic option as anti-Tory vote.
Also I'm so content looking at that and seeing UKIP down to 2% *.*
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 18 2017, 09:46 PM
Imagine if the media barons hadn't attacked him like that and if we had an independent media not controlled by vested interests. He'd be polling up there with Mad May.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 18 2017, 11:13 PM
Its all just very embarrassing for the Lib Dems who really should have improved quite a lot from the last election but, to me, their policies are just a desperate grasp at votes.
The biggest problem for the Lib Dems is getting noticed. The BBC have ignored them a lot of the time and I suspect most of the press has been even worse. It doesn't really matter what their policies are if most people don't know about them.
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 18 2017, 11:26 PM
It would take PR or a true democratic system to have a party plurality again.
FPTP lends itself to undemocratic two party/ one party systems.
Posted by: Steve201 May 19 2017, 12:06 AM
They have given them a lot of airtime imo for a party with only 7/8 seats!
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 19 2017, 07:58 AM
I must have missed it. Their coverage on the Today programme, for example, has not been enough to be called minimal. This morning, yet again, the party wasn't mentioned at all in the hour that I listened to.
Posted by: Soy Adrián May 19 2017, 08:05 AM
If current polling bears out, the Lib Dems could even lose seats from 2015. Farron's position would surely be untenable, but who replaced him would obviously depend on which MPs they retained. Greg Mulholland seems more likely than most to keep his seat in Leeds but I don't know a lot about him.
Posted by: common sense May 19 2017, 08:42 AM
Farron should shut up about Brexit and a second referendum. As Nuttall told him last night, the people voted to leave and it's happening and there isn't going to be a second referendum. Talk about flogging a deadhorse.
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 19 2017, 08:58 AM
The people also voted to stay, or is 48% not included in our definition of 'the people' now? And what about the young people who couldn't vote, who tip 80-20 remain?
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 19 2017, 09:02 AM
Nutjob has his own idea of exactly what the 52% voted for. Mayhem, in her desperation to rebrand the Tories as UKIP Mark II, now agrees with him although she said the exact opposite a year ago. There is no clear evidence of what sort of deal the 52% expected. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to say that there should be a second referendum once the terms are known. Not so long ago, Boris Johnson was saying exactly the same thing.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 19 2017, 11:40 AM
Not nearly as much as UKIP get coverage who are now officially dead forever. Most people have no idea who Tim Farron is because they have been utterly ignored for 2 years. That's deliberate - look at today's fawning lying front pages for the Tories. They only give Labour coverage when they are demonising Corbyn. With the Libdems they dont get mentioned, ever, and dont get the "go-to" quotes like UKIP nutters by journalists looking for a headline.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 19 2017, 11:43 AM
It's called democracy - once we see what rubbish deal we have been given (bear in mind May is lying through her teeth) it makes total sense for the population to have the final say over whether they want it or not. What was promised in the referendum is NOT what is being delivered. the polls suggest there would stil be overwhelming support for leaving, so why is the Leave side so frightened of the population being asked again? bear in mind that is EXACTLY what Farage wanted - when he thought he'd lost the vote he was already demanding another vote.
Hypocrite that he is.
Posted by: Steve201 May 19 2017, 06:49 PM
We must watch/listen to different shows they generally get coverage on BBC and channel4!
Posted by: Steve201 May 19 2017, 06:52 PM
If Farron is re-elected he should stay on. This is clearly a difficult rebuilding job which won't be fixed for 20 years not 2 years. A bit like Jo Grimonds leadership in the 50s!
Posted by: Danny May 19 2017, 07:25 PM
The LibDems in this election decided on a daft strategy, and made it worse by picking a frontman totally unsuited to the strategy. All the talk of "the 48%" ever since the referendum completely overlooked that, for a substantial chunk of that 48%, it was only a borderline "head over heart" decision - and that, even for the chunk who really did feel passionate about it, it was going to be overruled by other issues once an actual General Election came into view.
I would guess an "Ultra-Remain" election strategy would've had a ceiling of about 15% if they'd picked an appropriate frontman like Clegg, but they're going to fall short even of that, since a lot of that 15% probably didn't think much of Tim's musings about the sinfulness or otherwise of gay sex.
Posted by: common sense May 20 2017, 07:49 AM
Hypocrite that he is.
Elections and referendums cost millions that can be used much better. Whatever Brexit we get the majority voted to leave and am sure will be happy once we're out. I trust May and Davis to negotiate the best deal possible but we may have to compromise and can't expect the EU to just roll over and give us exactly what we want. I don't really care what sort of Brexit we get so long as we're out in two years and everyone I speak to who voted out feels the same.
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 20 2017, 08:41 AM
52% is not the be and end all. It is the tiniest of majorities, not enough to force constitutional change, and we should have more say. This time, drop the stupid campaigns and let people make their own minds up without the press shoving its oars in or Nazo Farage using Nazi propaganda and pretending he is not the elite.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 20 2017, 10:48 AM
as I said, frightened of democracy. There is no need for this expensive new parliament. They were elected on a 5-year-programme. Idiocy to say "f*** the future of the country, whatever it takes" - fine if it's just YOU who suffers as a consequence (and everyone who voted Leave who will have no ability to ever moan about the state of the UK afterwards) - but NOT fine for everyone who didn't agree to go along with it. May and Davis disagree on Brexit. They have no choice but to agree with what the EU wants - why else do you think this pointless election is taking place BEFORE a single thing has been discussed? To give them an extra 2 years to try and make it look less bad that's why....
Happy to predict right now:
Immigration will not reduce significantly (other than from natural wastage ie people not wanting to move here because the Uk economy has tanked).
Cost of Living will rise 20% on pre-Referendum.
Banking will split between London and the EU, and UK regulations will go risky all over again allowing debt-ridden risk-mongers to take us all down again. The rich will be secure in British Virgin islands, Jersey etc.
We will become puppets of Right-wing rich foreign media, even more than we already are.
Poor people will be viewed as a cheap labour pool to keep in low-paid jobs.
Always happy for anyone to re-read any of my past comments/predictions and compare for a laugh.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 20 2017, 10:58 AM
as was beautifully explained on The Last Leg last night, the main problem with the UK media is not the TV media. TV media have to remain unbiased during elections/referendum and bite their lip every time a politician lies. The opposition have the job of explaining the facts, which allows yet another lying comeback. That's how Leave won.
The other main problem is the print media, owned largely by foreign or tax-exile billionaires and millionaires who do not live in the UK and have political manipulation as a reality (May has just had dinner with Murdoch & The Mail owner) and they can print any lies they like, any bias they like, freely. The "Elite" are totally all in it together, and they have propaganda machines that the more left/liberal in society don't have to anywhere near the same degree.
Farage & Mr May are both from the banking sector, Mrs May has investments in Offshore schemes, Farage rakes in hundreds of thousands for doing nothing, and none of them will do a thing to do anything that puts their own interests at risk. Quite the reverse. Rich look after the rich. Only mugs fall for the BS.
Posted by: Steve201 May 20 2017, 10:21 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 44% (-1)
LAB: 35% (+3)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 3% (-3)
(via @YouGov / 18 - 19 May)
Chgs. w/ 17 May)
Posted by: Steve201 May 20 2017, 10:34 PM
Lab vote shares today:
Opinium - 33%
ORB - 34%
YouGov - 35%
Survation - 34%
Pollsters better hope they've fixed their methodologies...
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 20 2017, 11:33 PM
CON: 44% (-1)
LAB: 35% (+3)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 3% (-3)
(via @YouGov / 18 - 19 May)
Chgs. w/ 17 May)
That would give a Tory majority of around 40. If pro-EU Tories showed some backbone, things could be very interesting.
Posted by: Steve201 May 21 2017, 12:23 AM
It has to be said Corbyns campaign is going well!
Posted by: Harve May 21 2017, 12:52 AM
Fat chance. They haven't exactly showed a backbone when they've had a much smaller majority, and they've seen what happens to openly divided parties with Labour recently and their own party in the 90's.
I'm actually a little annoyed that the Tories are losing ground just when I don't hate them as much as I could. Like, I'm happy that they're reducing the triple lock on pensions to a double lock, and I really hope that isn't costing them too many votes. That's far from the first time that I've been in favour of a Tory policy, but I think it's the first where I actually prefer their policy over Labour's.
Labour getting a decent number of votes compared to 2010 and 2015 while still resoundingly losing the election would also be horrendous because a nuanced outcome would never allow divisions within the party to be healed as each faction would use this mixed result to mean what they want it to. I wish there was a parallel universe where Labour didn't go full Seppuku during 2016. It would certainly be interesting to see what would happen to the party now.
edit: actually can we just cancel 2016 altogether.
Posted by: common sense May 21 2017, 09:03 AM
Yes and May's is going badly. A lot against this social care reform where they sell your house after you've died. Lots of older Tory voters are very angry.
Posted by: vidcapper May 21 2017, 09:17 AM
Well, it's clear from the polls that that 48% are definitely not flooding to the very-pro-EU LibDem's...
They will come back from the 'dead' if there's any attempt to backslide from Brexit, though.
That's quite a bee you have in your bonnet.
Immigration will not reduce significantly (other than from natural wastage ie people not wanting to move here because the Uk economy has tanked).
Cost of Living will rise 20% on pre-Referendum.
Banking will split between London and the EU, and UK regulations will go risky all over again allowing debt-ridden risk-mongers to take us all down again. The rich will be secure in British Virgin islands, Jersey etc.
We will become puppets of Right-wing rich foreign media, even more than we already are.
Poor people will be viewed as a cheap labour pool to keep in low-paid jobs.
Always happy for anyone to re-read any of my past comments/predictions and compare for a laugh.
Agree with point 1
Why would cost of living rise by that much?
No idea on 3
Disagree with 4
No change there re #5.
Even pro-EU Tories won't do anything to help commie Corbyn!
Posted by: vidcapper May 21 2017, 09:21 AM
CON: 44% (-1)
LAB: 35% (+3)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 3% (-3)
(via @YouGov / 18 - 19 May)
Chgs. w/ 17 May)
It is a surprisingly two-party race.
The LD's are bit stuck though, after all, unlike the Tories and to a lesser extent Labour, they could hardly expect to gain the votes of former UKIPers.
Posted by: Soy Adrián May 21 2017, 10:15 AM
I would guess an "Ultra-Remain" election strategy would've had a ceiling of about 15% if they'd picked an appropriate frontman like Clegg, but they're going to fall short even of that, since a lot of that 15% probably didn't think much of Tim's musings about the sinfulness or otherwise of gay sex.
I think this is by and large true - they really jumped at what they saw as an opportunity for relevance again but it's looking more misjudged by the day.
Posted by: Klaus May 21 2017, 10:21 AM
Whilst I am happy that the Tory lead has decreased, I find it annoying that it has come because of pensioners being hit. I don't agree with all the policies about pensioners but I do agree with some of them and it is fair for them to take their fair share of the hit. At the end of the day, people living longer is an incredible strain on or society and I can guarantee I won't get half the benefits that pensioners get now when I eventually retire at the age of 85.
Posted by: Steve201 May 21 2017, 10:56 AM
Are we sure all these angry pensioners will still vote labour because of this though!?
Posted by: Steve201 May 21 2017, 10:59 AM
It took them 25 years to get to 2016 though and won't be so easy to regain that lost ground so a Tory majority could actually lead to May having the ground to have the brexit she wants and avoid a right wing ukip brexit so you might not get what you want with a strong Tory lead.
Posted by: common sense May 21 2017, 03:22 PM
No, some will just not bother to vote.
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 21 2017, 04:31 PM
Well, well, well, I was right again!!
Labour won't win but 34-5% is an absolute RESULT and shows how popular Corbyn's ideas are even aftwr the undemocratic brainwashing SAVAGE attacks of our non-independent disgusting press.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 21 2017, 06:22 PM
..or alternatively it's a policy because it's the sensible thing to do! To avoid leaving with a useless deal which will harm the UK. Don't see Labour agreeing to anything other than "we'd quite like to stay in the single market but if the Tories make a Hard Brexit out of it than we'll go along with it anyway because the people know what's best for themselves." Presumably be happy if they lose the popular vote to go along with every single Tory policy voted for on the same grounds - unless they suddenly work out how to be an effective opposition.
The Tories have brought in a Dementia Tax - that's what it is. You get to keep up to 100k to pass on to your family, the rest goes to the State. it's almost as if they are encouraging those with early-onset to, y'know, commit suicide to avoid becoming a burden if they want to pass on their life-savings. Any other fatal disease gets NHS cover.
f***ing c**ts. I'm sorry for the language but that's the only word for such a heartless policy (which is pretty much how it's been for years anyway). Have I expressed how much I loathe Tories? Thought so...
Labour meanwhile having costed up a decent set of policies (as the Tories have costed up f*** all) then have as usual Jeremy putting his foot in his mouth again in his usual areas of weakness.
It's almost as if no-one wants to win the election....
Posted by: popchartfreak May 21 2017, 06:26 PM
Err because the pound has fallen that much and it will eventually filter through anyway. There is the added risk that it may fall further if we get a rubbish deal with no-one to buy our goods (there's an instant 10% extra cost, plus an extra 10% for all goods from the Eu imported). So, 20% is a fairly reasonable estimate. It could be as low as 10% if we get a good deal and the pound recovers, or as bad as runaway inflation if we get totally f***ed by it. Im guessing somewhere in between.
Posted by: Silas May 21 2017, 06:28 PM
Which is effectively the same thing as they swing viciously pro-Tory
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 21 2017, 06:40 PM
With Labour's poll numbers, if SNP hadn't risen a few years ago and Labour still polled its usual in Scotland, it would be neck and neck with the Tories, or, as Unionists wouldn't have rallied round the Tories, maybe even ahead.
Posted by: Rooney May 21 2017, 06:44 PM
In 2015 I'm fairly sure Ed Milliband was tracking the Conservatives, I think a lot of people thought Labour might actually run with a minority government.
This is a great read: http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/05/20/new-poll-analysis-watson-skinner-and-flint-facing-defeat-cooper-miliband-reeves-and-rayner-on-the-edge/#more-21610
Kinda sad in a way, but Labour are lose a lot of traditionally safe Labour seats which is just awful. The manifesto has some great ideas but the practicalities are from cuckoo land.
Posted by: Qassändra May 21 2017, 06:48 PM
Labour won't win but 34-5% is an absolute RESULT and shows how popular Corbyn's ideas are even aftwr the undemocratic brainwashing SAVAGE attacks of our non-independent disgusting press.
35% in one poll is not 35%. We're going to be lucky to get over 27% after the next two weeks.
Posted by: Danny May 21 2017, 10:35 PM
LOL, Labour Uncut has been predicting a Labour apocalypse everyday for years. I know for a fact that those supposed "canvass returns" in that article are bollocks because the feeling here is that Chester is a much more likely Labour hold than some of the traditionally "safer" seats round here.
Interestingly, fox-hunting really seems to be doing a lot of damage to the Tories round here; I get the sense it's sort of punctured the image of Theresa May being more of a down-to-earth woman of the people rather than a "typical posh Tory". Plus the Labour manifesto has excited some people in a good way, including some Brexit voters. That said, I would guess the lead would widen again if the Tories shift the focus back onto Brexit, because there really is an underlying sense that the country would be better in negotiations with a Prime Minister who has a "strong hand" with a big majority, and no doubt Blair and Mandelson won't be able to resist sticking their oars in again with more nonsense that reverses the tentative LabourLeave gains that have been made in recent weeks.
Posted by: Steve201 May 21 2017, 11:57 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 43% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+4)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)
(via @Survation / 19 - 20 May)
Phone method.
Posted by: vidcapper May 22 2017, 05:53 AM
Don't forget that the EU imports more from us than we do from them, so they would be hurting themselves more than us if there was a tariff 'war'.
Actually it would make little difference - as long as the Tories win more than 326 seats, it makes little difference how the remaining ones are distributed between various opposition parties.
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 22 2017, 06:11 AM
If Labour repeats this result in another week, then it will be neck and neck!!
Great result.
Posted by: Silas May 22 2017, 08:20 AM
No they wouldn't. This is where relative sizes matter. The EU single market is the largest economy in the world. Leaving it has a larger impact on the UK because as a percentage of the overall market size or trade with the EU is much much much larger than their trade with us.
I know on raw number of euros they do export more to us (about 15bn I think) but the remaining stump of the EU when taken collectively is still about 5 times bigger than we are
Posted by: vidcapper May 22 2017, 08:58 AM
Great result.
That's a very big 'if' - ISTM the Tories have made sure to get their most contentious policy out early -
I suspect that there will be several faux pas by Labour to come in the next couple of weeks, that'll will at least negate the 'Dementia Tax' issue.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 22 2017, 09:45 AM
I suspect that there will be several faux pas by Labour to come in the next couple of weeks, that'll will at least negate the 'Dementia Tax' issue.
Rather than the string of Tory cock-ups that have been swept under the carpet.
Posted by: Qassändra May 22 2017, 11:16 AM
Currency rates aren't a tariff war.
Posted by: popchartfreak May 22 2017, 11:47 AM
I suspect that there will be several faux pas by Labour to come in the next couple of weeks, that'll will at least negate the 'Dementia Tax' issue.
it doesn;t only harm those suffering from dementia - an awful tragedy and source of huge misery and grief and loss to those who have to come to terms with the fact that are going to slowly die with no dignity over a prolonged period, and their family who have to watch them slowly die and disappear day by day while trying to support them, the people they most want to leave something to (about the same as an MP's annual income is now the limit) - but it will also hit the next generations who quite obviously need a helping hand to get a mortgage or remove debt. Except the rich ones who don't use the NHS.
Still, if anyone thinks that is all fine and dandy, I expect there is no point discussing the issue as they will vote Tory even if they brought in compulsory euthanasia at 60. Followed by a completely privatised NHS where everyone is forced to pay for their own care, cancer, heart attack, broekn bones whatever. It's just the next step in that long-term aim.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 22 2017, 03:38 PM
The Tory campaign has plunged into chaos after May was forced into a humiliating u-turn over their social care policy and lied about it at a press conference. That is the way the story will definitely not be reported in most of the press tomorrow. OTOH, if another party adjusted a policy even slightly, that's exactly how it would be reported.
Posted by: vidcapper May 22 2017, 04:05 PM
If they've been swept under the carpet, how do you know about them?
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 22 2017, 04:21 PM
They had to be visible briefly before they were swept under the carpet. You know as well as I do that Boris Johnson's lies, Philip Hammond's floundering etc. have barely been mentioned when compared with Dianne Abbott's hapless performance. It's a pretty safe bet that Theresa May's lies and massive u-turn will also be reported rather differently in the Tory press.
Posted by: Steve201 May 22 2017, 06:58 PM
I agree Suedhead but I don't think this one will be swept under the carpet - she's the first party leader to go against her manifesto promise before being in government lol!
Not that it'll change the election result, the turkeys will still vote for xmas!
Posted by: Steve201 May 22 2017, 07:19 PM
WELSH Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 44% (+9)
CON: 34% (-7)
PC: 9% (-2)
LDEM: 6% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (+1)
(via @YouGov / 18 - 21 May)
Posted by: Harve May 25 2017, 09:46 PM
Some interesting polls tonight, but I'm not entirely confident in them translating into results come 8th June and I think Manchester has reset the election anyway.
Posted by: Brett-Butler May 25 2017, 10:01 PM
Some of the most recent polls this evening have seen the Conservatives' lead over Labour cut to 5%, which is the closest it has been since around June last year.
Ironically, this could end up backfiring on Labour. Since the election was called, it has been somewhat taken as a given that the Tories would win with a sizable majority, therefore attacks on Labour around the argument of "can you imagine Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister" were unbelievable, given that there was seemingly no way of that ever happen. However, the closer the polls get, the idea of Corbyn as Prime Minister becomes a more likely prospect. It is still an incredibly unlikely, but there's the added perception that it COULD happen, even though it won't. Therefore, it could have the effect of galvanizing the Conservative base, and could reel in people who dislike Corbyn, but didn't feel the need to vote Conservative before due to the chances of him getting in being previously slim, but then decide to do so as the prospect of it happening appears greater, whilst still unlikely.
Posted by: Danny May 25 2017, 10:31 PM
Have to say I don't really understand the idea that Manchester favours Theresa May. Let's face it, for a person who's whole shtick is competence and an ability to keep the country safe and shielded from danger, it's not a great look to have two major terrorist attacks happen on her watch within a few months. Whilst I don't think people will be uncharitable enough to actually blame her for it, it does rather drive home the reality that she (or, realistically, any leader) is not capable of keeping everyone safe at all times with the world as it is, thus undermining one of the main arguments for voting for her.
Also worth saying that Corbyn and May are now pretty close to each other in personal favourability ratings (though May still has a lead on the "best PM" question of around the size that Cameron had over Miliband).
Posted by: Steve201 May 25 2017, 11:28 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 43% (-1)
LAB: 38% (+3)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (+1)
(via @YouGov / 24 - 25 May)
Posted by: vidcapper May 26 2017, 05:48 AM
But in which direction?
It seems likely that parties who are relatively relaxed on immigration will be affected, but otherwise I see no obvious reason why any party would gain or lose dramatically.
CON: 43% (-1)
LAB: 38% (+3)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (+1)
(via @YouGov / 24 - 25 May)
So who suffered the minus 4 that the above changes net to?
Posted by: Soy Adrián May 26 2017, 07:57 AM
Others, presumably.
Posted by: vidcapper May 26 2017, 01:46 PM
So they are down to 5% then - that's not much for the Greens & nationalists + the rest...
Posted by: Soy Adrián May 26 2017, 02:53 PM
You'd expect the SNP to be on about 3-4% given Scotland has 9% of the seats, so yes that does seem rather low. I don't think either main party thinks the gap is actually 5%.
Posted by: Harve May 26 2017, 03:24 PM
It seems likely that parties who are relatively relaxed on immigration will be affected, but otherwise I see no obvious reason why any party would gain or lose dramatically.
It's not the attack itself, it's rather that momentum was very much against the Tories before the attack, and a huge event takes the heat off them. Having said that, it also gets more people watching the news. They will be banking on a low turnout to get a landslide, and I think that low turnout will materialise.
Posted by: Steve201 May 26 2017, 07:49 PM
2 million registered to vote before the deadline last weekend. That's also 2 polls in a row showing labour in the mid 30s!
Posted by: vidcapper May 27 2017, 05:50 AM
That matches the era their manifesto is from, then.
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 27 2017, 06:22 AM
Your desperation is delicious!
Actually, our manifesto is modern, popular and deals with REAL ISSUES, like uni fees and expensive trains and utilities. It is about investing for the future, not cutting back for um no reason and no gain.
Your low intelligence level brought us Brexit and May Bot, so I love seeing you bleat now that the Labour message is FINALLY getting through the media brainwashing.
Posted by: vidcapper May 27 2017, 08:39 AM
Actually, our manifesto is modern, popular and deals with REAL ISSUES, like uni fees and expensive trains and utilities. It is about investing for the future, not cutting back for um no reason and no gain.
Your low intellgence level brought us Brexit and May Bot, so ai love seeing you bleat now that the Labour message is FINALLY getting through the media brainwashing.
What you are not aware of is that I *was* a Labour party member in the mid-90's, when Labour was a moderate centre-left party. Unfortunately the party has forgotten that it was that centrist position that won them a landslide victory in 1997, and now they have reverted to the hard-left one that cost them 18 years in exile from 1979.
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 27 2017, 08:47 AM
If our media was not so rabidly right wing, the prospect of a left wing government would not be so alien to this country!! Also, it is PRECISELY the left wing of the manifesto that has captured people's attention and made people ignore the negative ranblings of the desperate presses.
Posted by: vidcapper May 27 2017, 08:58 AM
I can sum up the dangers in one word 'Venezuela'
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 27 2017, 09:09 AM
I can counter with more RELEVANT example: Scandinavia.
Posted by: vidcapper May 27 2017, 09:44 AM
To be pedantic, Scandinavia is a region, not a country - and curiously, a large part of it was sensible enough not to join the EU...
Posted by: Danny May 27 2017, 11:09 AM
Posted without comment
Mike Smithson
@MSmithsonPB
TMay's YouGov 17% "best PM" lead over Corbyn is smaller than the 21% Jim Callaghan had over Maggie Thatcher before her GE1979 triumph
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 27 2017, 12:08 PM
I never said anything about a country ...
Also, Norway said the UK was in a dream world to think it was better off outside the EU without control.
Posted by: Steve201 May 27 2017, 12:28 PM
Actually, our manifesto is modern, popular and deals with REAL ISSUES, like uni fees and expensive trains and utilities. It is about investing for the future, not cutting back for um no reason and no gain.
Your low intellgence level brought us Brexit and May Bot, so ai love seeing you bleat now that the Labour message is FINALLY getting through the media brainwashing.
Agreed and the majority of his apponents in the PLP are still living in 1994!
Posted by: Steve201 May 27 2017, 12:36 PM
But 1968-82 period was the changing of the doctrines and it just took labour a long time to learn to win from the centre but we are now in 2017 9 years after an era defining recession which means things have changed as Ed Milliband showed a triangulation policy only gets you 30% of the vote without a charismatic leader!
Posted by: popchartfreak May 27 2017, 03:47 PM
to all intents and purposes the whole of Scandinavia is in the EU, one way or another. Just like we were promised by the Brexiters that we would still be part of it, one way or another, to avoid losing our EU customers.
Short memories, Brexiters...
Posted by: Steve201 May 27 2017, 06:00 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 45% (-1)
LAB: 35% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (-)
(via @OpiniumResearch / 23 - 25 May)
Posted by: Steve201 May 28 2017, 12:20 AM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 43% (-)
LAB: 36% (-2)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-)
(via @YouGov / 25 - 26 May)
Posted by: vidcapper May 28 2017, 05:51 AM
ISTM that the minor party vote has now been squeezed about as much as it can be, so any further shift that might affect the overall result will have to be between the big two.
Con/Lab seem to have about 80% between them, LD's 7-9%, UKIP 4-5%, SNP/PC 5%, Others 2-3%
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 28 2017, 06:12 AM
As much as I love Corbyn, we need a better democracy than a two party system with rule by mob FPTP.
Posted by: vidcapper May 28 2017, 08:50 AM
Wow - we actually agree on something!
Here's something I posted elsewhere on a separate, but related issue - that of constituency boundary changes, and how demographic shifts tend to favour Labour.
************************
ISTM if we had PR then the whole issue of demographic shift would be irrelevant.
Divide the country up into 100 or so county-sized blocks, each electing 5-6 MP's under STV, and it would resolve most of the issues caused by population movement, as well as allowing far fewer 'wasted' votes.
Also, since there would be no 'safe' seats, politicians would not be able to ignore parts of the electorate traditionally hostile to their party, as they'd have to fight for every vote.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 28 2017, 09:17 AM
Here's something I posted elsewhere on a separate, but related issue - that of constituency boundary changes, and how demographic shifts tend to favour Labour.
************************
ISTM if we had PR then the whole issue of demographic shift would be irrelevant.
Divide the country up into 100 or so county-sized blocks, each electing 5-6 MP's under STV, and it would resolve most of the issues caused by population movement, as well as allowing far fewer 'wasted' votes.
Also, since there would be no 'safe' seats, politicians would not be able to ignore parts of the electorate traditionally hostile to their party, as they'd have to fight for every vote.
That's been part of my argument for STV for many years. Actual boundary changes would be extremely rare or non-existent as the same objective could be achieved by adjusting the number of members in some of the multi-member constituencies. For a clear illustration of how a two-party system can be a very bad idea, you just need to look across the Atlantic.
The extent to which boundary changes favour any one party is something I would dispute. Many of the figures Tories love to quote don't take account of the fact that the turnout in sale Labour seats is generally significantly lower than in safe Tory seats. It is also not yet clear what effect (if any) individual registration will have in the long term.
Posted by: vidcapper May 28 2017, 09:33 AM
Checking the 2015 figures, the average number of votes to win a Tory seat was 25.3k (Av.electorate in those seats 73.5k). For Labour, the comparative figures : 21.6k & 69.7k.
AIUI, with equal electorate sizes, the Tories would have won around 12 more MP's in 2015.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 28 2017, 10:24 AM
AIUI, with equal electorate sizes, the Tories would have won around 12 more MP's in 2015.
But you're only measuring one thing there. Tories in safe Labour seats tend to be more likely to vote than Labour supporters in asfe Tory seats. Therefore, the Tories end up with more votes in seats they have no chance of winning. You could find even more distorted figures in previous elections caused by Labour supporters in Tory leaning seats being more prepared to vote tactically than Tory supporters in Labour-leaning seats.
The fact is, as you will no doubt agree, the biggest distorting factor - by far - is First Past The Post.
Posted by: vidcapper May 28 2017, 02:38 PM
The fact is, as you will no doubt agree, the biggest distorting factor - by far - is First Past The Post.
Yes, there are many interconnected factors, but the big unknown is how much each contributes.
As you say, FPTP is the real problem.
Posted by: Yeasty Clutch May 28 2017, 02:49 PM
Besides, isn't it the devious Tories who are always tryna gerrymander constituencies?
Posted by: vidcapper May 28 2017, 03:44 PM
Much as I hate the Tories, this is not something they are responsible for.
The Boundaries Commission is an independent non-partisan body...
http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 28 2017, 04:37 PM
The Boundaries Commission is an independent non-partisan body...
http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/
I was going to say the same thing. Giving politicians responsibility for redrawing boundaries is something else we should never copy from the Americans (the people whose practices gave us the word gerrymander).
There are two main problems with the Tory plan to reduce the number of constituencies and have boundary reviews every five years. Reducing the number of MPs will save almost no money at all. Cameron claimed that the idea was "to reduce the cost of politics" but never put a figure on this reduced cost. Neither has anyone else, probably because they don't want to admit how low the figure is. We have roughly the same number of MPs now as we had in 1945 but the population has increased massively since then.
The other problem is the advantage given to the incumbent in a constituency. At the moment, after an election a party that has narrowly lost in a particular constituency can normally go ahead and select a candidate for the next election safe in the knowledge that the boundaries will be the same. That applies after approximately two out of three elections. Under the Tories' proposals, the boundaries would be revised after every election. Under the current timetable, that means that boundaries are only fixed about 18 months before an election. Of course, that timetable may change following this unnecessary election.
Posted by: vidcapper May 29 2017, 09:03 AM
I wonder how accurate the polls will turn out to be this time?
Last time they suggested a hung parliament, yet the Tories won (just)...
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 29 2017, 11:24 AM
The trouble with the polls now is that all polling companies make a lot of adjustments to their raw figures. They used to ensure their sample was a reasonably accurate reflection of the overall population. Now, in order to reduce costs, they question a more random sample and then adjust the figures in an attempt to make it a more accurate reflection. The problem is that some or all of those adjustments may be wrong, perhaps very wrong.
Posted by: Soy Adrián May 29 2017, 11:26 AM
I'd support STV as well - it's pretty much the only system that can deliver more proportionality without having a 'party list' element, which for me is even more anti-democratic than non-proportional systems like FPTP. I'd take AV over FPTP every day of the week as well.
While the Electoral Commission is independent and draws the boundaries for new constituencies, from memory the government of the day is able to define some of the rules by which they do so. One which the Tories will always maintain is that constituencies are currently drawn by the number of voters, rather than the number of people. This doesn't really make a great deal of sense given an MP is supposed to represent constituents whether they're eligible to vote or not. Labour seats tend to have more under 18's in them though, meaning that redrawing the boundaries based on population would end up creating more Labour seats. Funny that.
Posted by: Suedehead2 May 29 2017, 11:35 AM
Similarly, constituencies with a large number of voters aged 65+, generally Tory-leaning, have a higher proportion of the population of voting age.
At the moment, the size of the electorate is also distorted by the introduction of individual registration. A disproportionate number of the missing voters are in the 18-25 age group, Of course, in time that may change. Labour have spent quite a lot of money advertising on social media and encouraging people to register. The Tories have spent none of their advertising budget on encouraging people to register. Funny that.
Posted by: Steve201 May 30 2017, 07:07 AM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 43% (-)
LAB: 37% (+3)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)
(via @Survation / 26 - 27 May)
Posted by: vidcapper May 30 2017, 08:25 AM
CON: 43% (-)
LAB: 37% (+3)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)
(via @Survation / 26 - 27 May)
Where did that +3 come from?
Same pattern though - Tory vote steady at low to mid 40's, and without eating into that, Labour aren't going to be able to win.
Posted by: Envoirment May 30 2017, 04:44 PM
Latest ICM/Guardian poll, covering 26th-29th May:
Con: 45 (-2)
Lab: 33 (No Change)
Lib Dems: 8 (-1)
UKIP: 5 (+1)
SNP: 4 (No Change)
Greens: 3 (+1)
Plaid Cymru: 1 (+1)
Others: 1 (no Change)
https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/
Conservatives have remained very steady around the mid 40s over the last few weeks. In order for Labour to win, they'll need to start swinging conservative voters to vote for them. Labour's upswing has been mainly at the expensive of Lib Dems/SNP/UKIP/Greens/Others.
Posted by: vidcapper May 31 2017, 11:28 AM
Con: 45 (-2)
Lab: 33 (No Change)
Lib Dems: 8 (-1)
UKIP: 5 (+1)
SNP: 4 (No Change)
Greens: 3 (+1)
Plaid Cymru: 1 (+1)
Others: 1 (no Change)
https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/
Conservatives have remained very steady around the mid 40s over the last few weeks. In order for Labour to win, they'll need to start swinging conservative voters to vote for them. Labour's upswing has been mainly at the expensive of Lib Dems/SNP/UKIP/Greens/Others.
That's what I've been saying throughout the campaign.
ISTM the other parties vote shares have pretty much been pared down to their core support. Perhaps the only one who might slip a little further is UKIP, and any further votes they lose are unlikely to benefit Labour!
Posted by: Steve201 May 31 2017, 10:28 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-1)
LAB: 39% (+3)
LDEM: 7% (-2)
UKIP: 4% (-)
(via @YouGov / 30 - 31 May)
Don't blame me blame Peter Keller lol!
Survation has a 12% Tory lead & ICM 6% lead!
Posted by: Brer May 31 2017, 11:32 PM
I want to believe.
(this false hope is just going to make the inevitable repeat Tory majority that little bit more disappointing though)
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 1 2017, 06:27 AM
There's such a wide variation in the polls that it's getting farcical now.
At least the apparent and unexpected closeness of the context should boost turnout.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 1 2017, 07:30 AM
Another point occurs - were the polls that showed huge Tory leads before the GE was announced wildly wrong, or did the reality of the forthcoming GE simply focus minds?
At the end of the day, the safest prediction is surely that the polls will end up having got the margin, or even the overall result, completely wrong.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 3 2017, 09:45 AM
(this false hope is just going to make the inevitable repeat Tory majority that little bit more disappointing though)
All the polls seem to show that the Tory support is pretty steady in the low to mid-40's, whereas Labour is having to rely on people who have already changed their minds once during the campaign...
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 3 2017, 11:27 AM
Ipsos has Labour breaking 40% and ahead in unasjusted polling 
Tores are only high thanks to brainwashing but some are seeing sense.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 3 2017, 04:15 PM
The weather can be a factor that affects turnout, and there are suggestions in the long range forecast that it could be quite wet on Thursday.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 3 2017, 05:26 PM
I'm not convinced that weather is as big a factor as it used to be.
Posted by: Brett-Butler Jun 3 2017, 05:37 PM
Indeed, an http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/does-weather-affect-voter-turnout-polling-day in the New Statesman seemed to suggest that it is the case.
Although one hypothesizes that talking about the "weather factor" can be an effective way of doing the opposite - getting people who otherwise wouldn't turn out for a particular party to turn out.
If, to take a hypothetical example, you were a Conservative minded individual, but didn't feel the need to vote because you feel that the race in your constituency is already won for the Tories, then the weather takes a turn for the worst, you may be encouraged to go out and use your vote, because you fear that the people who aren't going to vote because of the weather are those who are more likely to vote for your side, ie Conservatives, therefore encouraging you to get out & vote.
I'm not sure if there's been any studies carried out to see if that is the case, but it would be interesting to see what encourages the previously apathetic registered voters to change their mind on polling day.
Posted by: LexC♀ Jun 3 2017, 09:11 PM
So the latest batch of polls today range from a hung parliament to a Tory majority of about 100 (which is probably the bare minimum that would qualify for a "landslide" victory). In short, a red hot mess.
Posted by: Envoirment Jun 3 2017, 10:14 PM
Just saw them - certainly a wide range of results. When you take into account error margins then it's an even bigger mess likely.
With what seems to be another terrosist attack (hopefully it isn't) at London Bridge, that could throw a spanner in the GE. Not sure whether it'd make much difference to the polls.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 4 2017, 06:13 AM
Because people mind getting soaked less than they used to?
I carefully avoided suggesting that one party or another would be adversely affected by a wet polling day, as I saw that New Statesman article.
The one thing that only the *actual* election result can tell us, is which polling company, if any, used the right adjustment factors on the raw data, or indeed if people were being honest to interviewers.
What's the betting though, if there is a narrow win for the Tories, that the losing side will demand a re-run, just as they did with Brexit...
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 4 2017, 08:44 AM
I carefully avoided suggesting that one party or another would be adversely affected by a wet polling day, as I saw that New Statesman article.
The one thing that only the *actual* election result can tell us, is which polling company, if any, used the right adjustment factors on the raw data, or indeed if people were being honest to interviewers.
What's the betting though, if there is a narrow win for the Tories, that the losing side will demand a re-run, just as they did with Brexit...
There are more car owners now so more people have a way of avoiding getting wet.
Your final question is, of course, ridiculous. We know there will be a re-run within five years (unless you are really paranoid about May's authoritarian instincts).
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 4 2017, 08:50 AM
Umbrella owners too.
Come on, you should recognise my sardonic sense of humour by now.
Posted by: Klaus Jun 4 2017, 01:13 PM
~not trying to distract from the topic and dredge up issues but need to say this one more time~
Whether remain or leave won, there would be the same number of calls for another referendum from the losing side. Do not ever tell me that UKIP wouldn't be proposing a second referendum in their manifesto had remain won.
That's not to say I'm in favour of a second referendum btw even though I completely understand the issues.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 4 2017, 01:17 PM
1% in some polls today
Unadjusted polling puts Labour ahead.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 4 2017, 01:39 PM
Unadjusted polling puts Labour ahead.
'Some' implies more than one, which I do not believe is the case.
Posted by: popchartfreak Jun 4 2017, 08:09 PM
Whether remain or leave won, there would be the same number of calls for another referendum from the losing side. Do not ever tell me that UKIP wouldn't be proposing a second referendum in their manifesto had remain won.
That's not to say I'm in favour of a second referendum btw even though I completely understand the issues.
Farage was literally demanding another referendum as the results came in and he thought he had lost. "This is not the end of it, when it's this close there should be another one until there's a majority view" (I paraphrase).
I completely agree with him, but he changed his mind soon as he realised he won - the online petition was started by UKIP, NOT remoaners. They just took over it.
Posted by: Silas Jun 5 2017, 01:19 PM
Yougov today has Tories 21 short of majority.
Polls are all over the shop right now.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 5 2017, 02:09 PM
Polls are all over the shop right now.
AIUI, the YouGov polls are based on a group of people who've signed up with them, i.e. a self-selecting panel?
If that's true, then they would be representative of people with a greater than average interest in politics, as as such, might not be representative of voters as a whole?
Posted by: Brett-Butler Jun 5 2017, 02:15 PM
Which Opinion poll was the most accurate at 2015's General Election? Looking at the company responsible for that one's polls for 2017 would probably be the one to put the most trust in.
Posted by: burbe Jun 5 2017, 02:18 PM
IIRC the polls had only a 1% difference right up until election day, so none of them!
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 5 2017, 02:41 PM
That wouldn't work, since AIUI they've all changed their methodology since 2015.
Posted by: Silas Jun 5 2017, 03:35 PM
If that's true, then they would be representative of people with a greater than average interest in politics, as as such, might not be representative of voters as a whole?
It depends on the source of the survey. If it's an internet one then aye. But I've been phone polled in the past by them
Posted by: Qassändra Jun 5 2017, 03:46 PM
Unadjusted polling puts Labour ahead.
There's a reason polling is adjusted. Talking about unadjusted polling is like eating flour and insisting it's cake.
Posted by: Qassändra Jun 5 2017, 03:49 PM
If that's true, then they would be representative of people with a greater than average interest in politics, as as such, might not be representative of voters as a whole?
The YouGov projection thing is based on a new technique they're using which is based on a lot of demographic analytics work and is different to the standard internet polls they do (which as it goes aren't self-selecting panels but *do* run the risk of having more politically interested people than normal - that was one of the biggest issues in 2015, and this projection technique is one way they're trying to get around it).
The polling industry as a whole thinks what YouGov is doing is really interesting but it's the first time something of this kind has been attempted, so it's subject to potentially huge error. Once refined, it's likely to be the future of polling.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 5 2017, 04:24 PM
But they usually end up eating crow!
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 5 2017, 05:02 PM
Yah but it shows Labour is more popular eith the public no matter what happens with the electorate.
Posted by: Brer Jun 5 2017, 06:09 PM
From what I've read the YouGov polling is assuming a higher level of youth turnout than other polls. Never a safe bet to rely on youth turnout though...
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 5 2017, 06:54 PM
One suspicion at the last election was that the polling companies were adjusting their results to fit in more with the other polls. None of them wanted to publish a poll that appeared to be well out of line with all the others. This time they don't seem to be doing that with the result that they appear to be all over the place.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 5 2017, 06:57 PM
The youth vote in the referendum was a lot closer to the overall average than in the last few elections (despite what was reported at the time). YouGov are presumably guessing that the same will be true on Thursday. The fact that the polls are a lot closer than they were at the start of the campaign could help to overcome a sense of apathy among younger voters, so maybe YouGov's assumption will be proved right.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 5 2017, 07:04 PM
That happened with Hillary and Trump. A couple got 'outliers' showing Trump winning and so hid then away in drawers or adjusted them to hell and back.
Posted by: Liаm Jun 5 2017, 07:12 PM
I feel like there is less apathy among young people this time but that's probably just me being blinded by following the "right" people on Twitter and the fact all my friends are old enough to vote and more educated this time. I'm hoping youth turnout can be closer to the national average as it feels like we can finally make a real change against the Tories, there's a lot on Facebook etc. circulating about that so hopefully people see and turn out, but I'm not believing the poll predicting a hung parliament at all because it's idealistic at best to assume that the youth turnout will be at the rate they make it.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 5 2017, 07:16 PM
I think it will be higher, just like the youth vote turned out for Obama and Bernie and the Scottish vote. They WILL turn out when inspired and not jaded by the same old corrupt Elite.
Posted by: Brett-Butler Jun 5 2017, 07:34 PM
Part of me imagines that the "youth vote" are so uninformed about how the electoral system works that those who have been encouraged to vote by a certain charismatic leader will go to the voting centre, get incredibly confused as to why Jeremy Corbyn isn't on their ballot paper, then either not cast a vote, or out of embarrassment just give their vote to the first name on the paper.
(I'm only half joking).
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 5 2017, 07:35 PM
That would never happen - the party name is branded alll the time with 'we will we will we will' basically all anyone says
Posted by: LexC♀ Jun 5 2017, 07:43 PM
Even if young people turn out in big numbers though, the places where they're enough of the population to swing the vote are generally places that Labour has already anyway (inner London, major cities, University Towns ect) and will be outnumbered, even at a high turnout, by the over 50s who'll break heavily for the Tories so other than, say, Brighton and Croydon, I don't think that'll benefit Labour in terms of seats as much as getting even bigger majorities in seats they already have.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Jun 5 2017, 07:55 PM
How did you work that one out?
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 5 2017, 08:00 PM
Yougov made their analysis on a seat by seat basis.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 5 2017, 08:10 PM
(I'm only half joking).
Not to mention the fact that they will find more than two names on the ballot paper. Minds will be blown.
Posted by: Steve201 Jun 5 2017, 10:58 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 41% (-2)
LAB: 40% (+3)
(via @Survation / 02 - 03 Jun)
Chgs. w/ 27 May.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 6 2017, 05:50 AM
There's only one poll that'll prove that, one way or the other.
Plus, Tory inclined voters may well turn out in higher numbers than normal too, to try & ensure Labour doesn't win...
Posted by: Steve201 Jun 6 2017, 11:33 PM
Plus according to You Gov in marginal seats there are still more older voters even if all the younger voters did vote!
Posted by: Steve201 Jun 6 2017, 11:33 PM
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 43% (-)
LAB: 36% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (+2)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 2%(-)
(via @OpiniumResearch / 04 - 06 Jun)
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 6 2017, 11:36 PM
CON: 41% (-2)
LAB: 40% (+3)
(via @Survation / 02 - 03 Jun)
Chgs. w/ 27 May.
The MOMENTUM!!!!!
And I mean that unadjusted votng shows they are more popular. That is how the election would infold if everyone voted. The Labour Party is thereforw more popular than the Land Baron Party.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 7 2017, 05:49 AM
And I mean that unadjusted votng shows they are more popular. That is how the election would infold if everyone voted. The Labour Party is thereforw more popular than the Land Baron Party.
But unadjusted figures were what caused the opinion polls for the 1992 election to be so dramatically wrong. They were predicting a lead for Labour, whereas the Tories ended with a 7% lead. It's now known as the 'shy Tory' effect.
Posted by: Brer Jun 7 2017, 11:37 PM
The final YouGov poll has just come out and after some last second methodology changes it's giving the Tories a 7 point lead. I'm a bit relieved to be honest. I've kind of known that the YouGov prediction was gonna be way out, it was giving me too much hope.
Posted by: Liаm Jun 7 2017, 11:42 PM
Yeah I'd rather the polls were this way, if they all showed it nearly neck and neck I'd be so caught up in it and run away with the idea
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 7 2017, 11:46 PM
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/election-polls-labour-conservative-winner
This poll puts LABOUR ahead by 4 points for the first time
Posted by: Iz~ Jun 7 2017, 11:55 PM
Speak for yourselves, this is starting the crippling depression just a bit earlier.
Posted by: Brer Jun 8 2017, 12:14 AM
Should have started the second the election was called!
Posted by: Liаm Jun 8 2017, 12:43 AM
Well, that too to be honest
Posted by: Steve201 Jun 8 2017, 02:47 AM
Tonight's polls. Take your pick...
ICM 12 CON lead
ComRes 10
Panelbase 8
Opinium 7
YouGov 7
TMS 5
Kantar 5
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 8 2017, 06:20 AM
ICM 12 CON lead
ComRes 10
Panelbase 8
Opinium 7
YouGov 7
TMS 5
Kantar 5
Averaging a 7-8% Tory lead then.
Given that it seems almost universally acknowledged that Labour have had a far better campaign than the Tories, what does it say that even despite that, the Tories appear to still have a significant lead.
Posted by: common sense Jun 8 2017, 06:33 AM
Given that it seems almost universally acknowledged that Labour have had a far better campaign than the Tories, what does it say that even despite that, the Tories appear to still have a significant lead.
Tells me that with a different, younger, more dynamic leader and better front bench, Labour could have won this election. All Corbyn's fault.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 8 2017, 06:57 AM
I doubt Labour could have won with *this* manifesto, no matter who their leader was.
Posted by: common sense Jun 8 2017, 07:28 AM
It's a good manifesto in my opinion. Scrapping student fees, more police, free Wi-Fi on all trains for every passenger etc etc and all costed and viable.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 8 2017, 07:35 AM
No. If the Tories had a lead of around 7-8% in April we wouldn't be having this election in the first place.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 8 2017, 08:00 AM
But it's like maxing out your credit card - lots of goodies now, lots of pain later.
Besides, as I've said many times, even if it was accurately costed down to the last penny, the necessary tax rises would still be unacceptable to more people than would gain from them - why do you think Labour have trailed in the polls throughout the campaign...
Posted by: Silas Jun 8 2017, 08:17 AM
That the right wing gutter press have again managed to convince enough gullible f***wits to vote in the way that benefits their wealthy owners and their editors ideologies rather than what is in the best interests of their readers.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 8 2017, 09:34 AM
But it's not a one way process - each paper has its own political stance, and if you don't like one, you're free to switch to another. Its like political Darwinism, over time papers & readers adapt to each other in a form of symbiosis.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 8 2017, 09:39 AM
1.) Labour manifesto is fully costed.
2.) Worldwide, economiata have said Labour will help economy more
3.) Under Tories UK is worst performing modern economy oops
4.) No. WRONG. The masses are led by the paper propaganda and the papers always, ALWAYS defend the interests of their bosses, not the people. Ir is a vile perversion of democracy and you know it
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 8 2017, 10:01 AM
What nonsense. Let's say you are in the Sun / Mirror demographic. Where do you go if you want a neutral paper?
Alternatively, what if you are in the Mail / Express demographic and want a left-leaning paper? There isn't one.
Besides, it's not just a question of readers. The front pages are shown on various programmes in the morning and the previous evening. That means the broadcasters are showing a preponderance of Tory propaganda every day. Similarly, in the 1970s people either had their paper delivered or bought it from a newsagents. Supermarkets etc. didn't sell them. Therefore, relatively few people saw all the front pages. Don't forget there was no breakfast television then and no news channels. Now a lot more people will see the front pages every day. Therefore, that Tory propaganda is getting a wider circulation even at a time when newspaper sales are in decline.
NOTE: I use the word "newspaper" in its loosest sense.
Posted by: burbe Jun 8 2017, 10:02 AM
Some of the newspapers campaign against Corbyn is quite frankly disgusting. It's madness that newspapers aren't regulated with election content to the extent of broadcasters when they (arguably) have more influence. It's just a shame the sheeple can't see through it.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 8 2017, 10:20 AM
We need press regulation.
I think in times of elections they should be governed by the same impartiality laws as the radio.
Utterly vile to have them run amuck with their Media Baron views in a supposed democracy.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 8 2017, 10:48 AM
I think in times of elections they should be governed by the same impartiality laws as the radio.
Utterly vile to have them run amuck with their Media Baron views in a supposed democracy.
Shouldn't impartiality rules apply in other areas too?
Captain Ska would have to put out of his song with Teresa May references swapped for Jeremy Corbyn...
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 8 2017, 11:12 AM
That is art, not mass media propaganda.
Posted by: Silas Jun 8 2017, 11:30 AM
You mean the song the BBC and radio in general refused to play in order to abide by impartiality laws that don't apply to newspapers?
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 8 2017, 11:33 AM
OK, fair enough then.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 8 2017, 11:37 AM
Then you have an unusual definition of art.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 8 2017, 06:47 PM
They didn't refuse to play it. They didn't play it because it would have been a breach of broadcasting regulations. To say they refused to play it is like saying I refused to steal my food when I last went shopping.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 8 2017, 07:27 PM
WRONG!
Ask Ofcom, chexm BBC regulations.
Playing a SONG in a chart, a reflection of public opinion and NOT a DJ choice, does not contravene ANYTHING in the BBC Charter or Ofcom.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 9 2017, 05:47 AM
Ask Ofcom, chexm BBC regulations.
Playing a SONG in a chart, a reflection of public opinion and NOT a DJ choice, does not contravene ANYTHING in the BBC Charter or Ofcom.
What about not playing 'Ding-Ding The Witch Is Dead' after Thatcher kicked the bucket...
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 9 2017, 05:49 AM
They said that was out of respect.
Posted by: Steve201 Jun 9 2017, 05:52 AM
Change the subtitle here please
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 9 2017, 05:53 AM
Like I have asked since Corbyn first became leader, change the othrr thread subtitle too!!
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 9 2017, 05:57 AM
About as respected as the bubonic plague.
Posted by: popchartfreak Jun 9 2017, 11:59 AM
I didn't stay up for the results, work today, but a few thoughts on the results:
- Opinion polls mean squat and only a fool will ever make electoral assumptions based on them again.
- Corbyn's rather effective campaign shows he can do one when he wants to. Happy to congratulate him on that (and for using policy and positivism as electoral weapons) - but that also shows up how much he intended to do the bare minimum he could get away with for Brexit. Never forgiven.
- May has been shown up to be anything BUT strong and stable, and just as opportunistic as Cameron was. Both of them got exactly what they desereved for putting party interests over national interests. may had a majority, knew Brexit was going to hit the economy hard and wanted an extra 2 years buffer so she could win the next one in 2022. Both her and David davies look like complete twats now. If the shoe fits....
- SNP losses: that's not going to do much to encourage the 2nd referendum, especially if we don't get a hard Brexit now. ironically those Tory gains have given Mrs Maybe the opportunity to cling onto power - which she has always wanted, according to her friends in Uni. I suggest a bucket of cold water from Nicola over May, and let's see if she starts melting...
- Libdems: about what I was hoping, Clegg going is not a shock, but plus side the voice of sanity and reason (along with caroline Lucas) is back, ol Vince Cable.
- UKIP: not much of a guard dog, as resigning Nuttal claims, so much as an annoying yappy little Terrier that won't pipe down even though it has delusions of being a Wolf....
- DUP: well, they hold the strings now, really. One word of warning. Remember what happened to the Libdems when they got involved in having to pass unpopular Tory policies?
- Brexit: what a mess. Best-case scenario, we get a soft Brexit which is the least-bad option for the majority of people, as this will remove the catastrophe of having no trade deals in 2019. Worst-case scenario, May somehow insists on a Hard Brexit (we know she cant resist a nice hard one), government delays and potential new elections delay the Brexit timetable to the point where it's invetitable we leave with nothing much sorted. Oh joy. Even 3 years to get over the Brexit mess won't be long enough for the electorate to hammer the Tories and give Methuselah power...
Fun days ahead!
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 9 2017, 01:02 PM
Wrong. Survationa and YouHov, the ones I was listening to, were prwtty spot on.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 9 2017, 01:57 PM
- Opinion polls mean squat and only a fool will ever make electoral assumptions based on them again.
- Corbyn's rather effective campaign shows he can do one when he wants to. Happy to congratulate him on that (and for using policy and positivism as electoral weapons) - but that also shows up how much he intended to do the bare minimum he could get away with for Brexit. Never forgiven.
What can also be read into the result is that Labour's policies were far more popular with younger voters, than with those who'd actually end up having to pay for them - can't imagine why...
Posted by: Silas Jun 9 2017, 02:07 PM
Oh get in the sea!
It was a fully costed manifesto
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 9 2017, 02:07 PM
Whatever.
We can say that about basically any age group.stop being salty. We have every right to vote and to vote for a fairer society that actually taxea the rich and businesses.
Posted by: Steve201 Jun 9 2017, 02:15 PM
Err well anyone over 18 pays taxes so everyone wills pay for them.
On Pops point about Corbyns view of brexit it prob actually helped labour win ALOT of seats throughout England last night.
On the DUP - I doubt any deal would have much of an effect on their NI position!
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 9 2017, 02:16 PM
It was a fully costed manifesto
I know how much a Rolls Royce would cost, but that doesn't mean I could afford one...
Posted by: Steve201 Jun 9 2017, 02:19 PM
That point means nothing?!? Some older voters cannot afford a rolls Royce either though.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 9 2017, 02:19 PM
It was a fully costed manifesto
Exactly.
As the Scottish would say, he needs ta gerrt to farrwk.
Posted by: Harlot Jun 9 2017, 02:21 PM
As with Northern Irish politics in general, they exist in a bit of a BUBBLE. They'll probably not really suffer because of this at all, people don't really vote DUP based on anything the DUP actually do, more just the fact they are the main Unionist option here. And those who are likely to be put off by this probably already know what a disgusting, bigoted stack of rancid corpses they all are anyway.
Posted by: Silas Jun 9 2017, 02:23 PM
And if we're going to take pot shots at an age group, the working age population pays for the pensions and health care of the old. You can cut this anyway you want.
We all pay in our fair share and we end up with a functioning and healthy set of public services that improve our economy and productivity. What about that do the Tories fear so much?
Posted by: Silas Jun 9 2017, 02:24 PM
As the Scottish would say, he needs ta gerrt to farrwk.
*Get tae f***
Posted by: Envoirment Jun 9 2017, 02:43 PM
Labour's costed manifesto is part of the reason they did so well. Sure, quite a bit of it may be wrong as pointed out by various agencies/companies. But the Tory manifesto gave hardly any substance to be scrutinised. If the Tory government came with at least a half costed manifesto, with reasonable figures on the winter pay threshold for pensioners and on their social care policies, they may have been able to hold on to a majority. Pretty sure the Tories lost some of the older vote because of that (my Grandad switched from UKIP to Labour as opposed to Conservative - he was a lifetime conservative voter before his UKIP vote).
Posted by: popchartfreak Jun 9 2017, 05:44 PM
LOL. Young people, the future and current tax payers for the rest of their lives, and you say they won't be paying for them. Tory voters: retired pensioners who pay for nothing much tax-wise. Oh you do live in a fantasy world sometimes...
Posted by: Steve201 Jun 9 2017, 05:50 PM
Exactly my thoughts - I can't see the uk media being anywhere near as harsh with their unsavoury links in comparison to Corbyns views on the Irish question!
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 11 2017, 09:17 AM
But don't forget that it is older voters (not just pensioners) whose taxes have been paying for NHS, education, etc for decades...
Posted by: Silas Jun 11 2017, 09:52 AM
Survation:
LAB: 45
CON: 39
LD: 7
UKIP: 3
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 11 2017, 09:52 AM
That's the way the deal works. As a very broad generalisation, you pay for it while you are in work and you use it in childhood and after you retire.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 11 2017, 02:38 PM
LAB: 45
CON: 39
LD: 7
UKIP: 3
Immediate post-election opinion polls are about the most pointless exercises imaginable.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 11 2017, 03:00 PM
Someone obviously disagrees or they wouldn't have paid for it
Obviously it is a pretty meaningless exercise even if there is another election within months but it does seem to illustrate just what a shambles May has created.
Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 11 2017, 03:01 PM
A bit like spending £130 million to hold a snap general election with the intention of strengthening your majority, and then losing the slim majority you had in the first place.
Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 15 2017, 06:58 PM
Theresa May's honeymoon period is well and truly over...
Posted by: Silas Jun 15 2017, 09:04 PM
That is some f***ing plummet in the space of 3 weeks.
Posted by: Harlot Jun 15 2017, 09:07 PM
Such strength, such stability
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 15 2017, 09:14 PM
So what % are Tories on now?
You see Qassandra, Adeian?? I TOLD you that the reason the media and the ELITE attacked Corbyn and belittled our momentum so much is because he is emminently electable.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Jun 15 2017, 09:22 PM
Christ, imagine how unbearable you'd have been if we'd actually won.
Then again I'd probably still be drunk a week later.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 15 2017, 09:24 PM
I told you so!!
They said the same about Thatcher.
They derided him and attacked him as they thought, "Hang on, if the public hear his ideas they might start to get ideas above their station. Shut him down...'
I was also right about social media campaigning winning it for us. I told you I was doing my part from my VEERY safe Labour seat where door knocking does nowt.
Posted by: Brett-Butler Jun 15 2017, 09:27 PM
Well, never thought I'd hear Jeremy Corbyn compared to Margaret Thatcher.
Posted by: Steve201 Jun 15 2017, 09:37 PM
Would love it to be this time last week!!
Posted by: Soy Adrián Jun 15 2017, 10:28 PM
They said the same about Thatcher.
They derided him and attacked him as they thought, "Hang on, if the public hear his ideas they might start to get ideas above their station. Shut him down...'
I was also right about social media campaigning winning it for us. I told you I was doing my part from my VEERY safe Labour seat where door knocking does nowt.
Unless you're running the Labour Party's Facebook account, then you would have done far more good spending less time on here and more time in your nearest marginal seat.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 15 2017, 10:35 PM
There SHOULD be no marginals, except Berwick but that is too far for me, though we did lose Middlesbrough South.
No, our social media campaign won it.
Posted by: Rooney Jun 15 2017, 11:31 PM
Opinion polls are an election are bloody useless. The media has a big effect, I certainly don't think the recent terror attacks or the London fire has done May any good.
Corbyn is a nice guy and it's clear he's grown in to the role as leader, especially since his rebellious party members seem to support him now (before inevitably making a leadership challenge themselves).
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 16 2017, 05:42 AM
Corbyn is a good salesman, but what he is selling is snake oil...
Posted by: Soy Adrián Jun 16 2017, 07:48 AM
No, our social media campaign won it.
What on earth are you talking about? No marginals?
I'd love to think you were making a case for PR, but I doubt it somehow.
Posted by: popchartfreak Jun 16 2017, 09:36 PM
Poor analogy. Tories sell snake oil cos it will kill you. The events of this week?
Now you could have said magic beans for Corbyn - I don't agree with it but it would at least make sense.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 17 2017, 06:25 AM
Terrible tragedy, but blaming individual politicians is absurd - the way the media portrays it, you'd think the PM had started the fire herself with a match & a can of petrol!
You're right, that is a better analogy, but Corbyn is still promising something he could not deliver - not without bankrupting the economy anyway.
Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 17 2017, 07:28 AM
You're right, that is a better analogy, but Corbyn is still promising something he could not deliver - not without bankrupting the economy anyway.
I'm intrigued to know what media you look at. The media here in the UK on planet Earth are blaming, variously, the EU, Kensington and Chelsea Council and a man who owned a faulty fridge.
Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 17 2017, 07:38 AM
The Conservatives sat doing nothing for FOUR YEARS after a report into the Lakanal House fire recommended that sprinklers should be retrofitted to 4,000 tower blocks across the United Kingdom.
Then of course there was http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/landlord-tory-mp-philip-davies-law-requiring-homes-be-fit-for-human-habitation-unnecessary-a6696931.html that Philip Davies (standard self protectionist Conservative landlord) talked out, aided by the morons who claim to be 'doing everything they can'.
Do a bit of research Vidcapper.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 17 2017, 08:57 AM
Anything that isn't behind a paywall.
Posted by: popchartfreak Jun 17 2017, 11:53 AM
You're right, that is a better analogy, but Corbyn is still promising something he could not deliver - not without bankrupting the economy anyway.
I never said May was responsible. I said Tories. If you truly believe political parties have zero effect on lives of people why are you even bothering to comment?
Posted by: Soy Adrián Jun 17 2017, 03:35 PM
So were the Tories. It was their immigration policy.
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 17 2017, 03:41 PM
I'd love to think you were making a case for PR, but I doubt it somehow.
North East is solid red, usually second only to Scotland in its hatred of that viiiile nasty party.
Posted by: vidcapper Jun 17 2017, 04:29 PM
In the forlorn hope of changing a few minds.
Surely first now, given the recent election results?
Posted by: Willy's Tears Jun 17 2017, 04:53 PM
That was a tactical voting blip and you know it.
Posted by: Soy Adrián Jun 17 2017, 05:43 PM
Not every constituency is though, is it? Darlington has a majority of 3,000 and was a big Tory target. Bishop Auckland has a majority of 502. That's not even counting all of those in Tees Valley.
The North East is also trending from Labour to the Tories (outside of Newcastle and Durham) moreso than the rest of the country. That's why everyone was rightly a bit concerned when the first two or three results announced last Thursday night up there showed swings which weren't at all consistent with the exit poll.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services