Qassändra

Are you kidding? Trump is so stratospherically unpopular and Cruz is so stratospherically and partisanly right wing that your average voter isn't going to go 'oh, I don't really trust her that much, guess I'll go with the mentalist'.

Yeah, that isn't how delegate counts work.

I still stand by the idea that there's little stock in talking about Bernie's match-ups when nobody's talking about his tax plans. Hillary's not going to attack him on that because it would make it near impossible for Bernie fans to unite behind her if she's gone full Republican scare ad on him, but there's no way in hell he'd still be as popular if everyone knew he had a 10% tax increase for all but the least well-off. People will agree that the economy is stacked against them and that Wall Street bankers are evil. Not all of them are going to be as enthusiastic about paying the difference.

Sure, but it's probably less fun an 'EVIL BLOODSUCKING CAPITALISTS SUPPORTING HILLARY!!' line if we're talking receptionists and admin moms voting Hillary.

Again though - why would they switch? Hillary has a vote lead of 2.5 million which isn't going to disappear any time soon, unless Bernie wins by the kinds of margins that would settle it without superdelegates anyway. Superdelegates are not made up of the kinds of people disposed to vote for Bernie if they have a solid delegate or votes-based argument for not doing so. They're not even especially disposed to voting for him if they don't have those arguments.

Well, it's not as if there are enough of those to make a difference in a state of 20 million people either way.

But MOMENTUM John, MOMENTUM!!!

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).

Stealing this.

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.

The Pirate Party (!!!!!) has been leading the polls there by miles for the last year and could end up getting a straight majority. Scenes!

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.

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!

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?

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.

One considerably moreso than the other.

OGAE Slovenia 12 points go to… Russia 10 points go to… France 8 points go to… Ireland 7 points go to… Austria 6 points go to… Australia 5 points go to… Italy 4 points go to… Latvia 3 points go to… Serbia 2 points go to… Macedonia 1 point goes to… Azerbaijan

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.

I think it's probably reaching a bit to suggest Corbyn was elected because the Lib Dems fell apart.

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.

Ohohoho, you have no idea the things I've seen.

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.

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.

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.

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.