# Can Corbyn actually win this thing?



## LiamO (May 27, 2017)

Notwithstanding the fact that Jeremy Corbyn himself is only standing in one constituency and that it is the Labour Party that is up for election, rather than one person. But the whole tory strategy seems to be about demonising Corbyn... and appears to be backfiring badly.

Three weeks ago he was apparently unelectable, with so many of his own Party's MPs more than ready to stick the boot in.

The 'IRA supporter' schtick seems to have backfired - badly.
All the nasty, personal stuff seems to be backfiring - badly.
Tories keep getting caught out villifying Corbyn - for saying excactly what they themselves have said previously and often. It all seems to be going tits up for them.

There _appears_ to be a sea-change occurring. Neo-liberalism seems to be finally sticking in the craw of so many ordinary, decent British people. Is it actually possible that Corbyn might win based on being 'a decent skin'? On being 'not as big a cunt as the tories'?

I don't live in Britain, so my observations are based on what I can see in the media and on social media, but I have actually lost count of the number of times I have seen people's fb posts recently said to myself "I never thought I would see him/her saying/liking/sharing THAT". I've actually taken to looking at profiles I 'stay friends but stop seeing X's posts' over the years cos of tory/ri]ght wing shite they seemed to post without much thought.

I know that, if elected, Corbyn's government would be sabotaged and pilloried  from within as well as without, by big business, by the media, by a cunt's coalition. I know that what he and his will be allowed to implement may be very far from what they would like to do.

So I'm not really interested in another tedious 'Labour is tory-lite' debate.

I just want to ask posters *Do you personally believe it is now actually possible for Labour and Corbyn to beat the tories in this election*?

_* (Obviously Labour will still get battered in Scotland - so they will have to cosy up to the SNP. All good here as AFAICS)

*I made a bollocks of the poll so it is not public. Please state how you voted - just for the record.*_


----------



## LiamO (May 27, 2017)

How do you edit a title?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

LiamO said:


> How do you edit a title?


Thread tools.


----------



## LiamO (May 27, 2017)

Done.

Your vote?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

LiamO said:


> Done.
> 
> Your vote?


Why isn't it publick?


----------



## LiamO (May 27, 2017)

is it publick now?

How do you make it so who voted what is visible - or have I already done that?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

LiamO said:


> is it publick now?
> 
> How do you make so who voted what is visible - or have I already done that?


It's not publick for me


----------



## bi0boy (May 27, 2017)

If Cameron was close to achieving a hung parliament vs Milliband I'm pretty sure May is capable of losing to Corbyn.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2017)

I doubt they can win outright, but I can see a whole range of hung parliament options which didn't seem possible a couple of weeks ago...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 27, 2017)

The tories are still going to walk it.


----------



## LiamO (May 27, 2017)

Is it possible for a passing mod to make this poll public? editor Crispy


----------



## LiamO (May 27, 2017)

James O'Brien's take on the Corbyn Momentum...


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The tories are still going to walk it.


Like nuttall in stoke and le pen in France like you were saying the other month? 

Fwiw i think you could  be right. But if there's one thing the last couple of years should have taught us, it's that we're all pretty shit at predicting election results.


----------



## bi0boy (May 27, 2017)

LiamO said:


> Is it possible for a passing mod to make this poll public? editor Crispy



It can't be made public once some people have voted under the assurance that it is private.


----------



## Voley (May 27, 2017)

Heart says yes, head says no. 

I'm hopeful that it won't quite be the landslide that seemed a cert a couple of weeks back. I'd like to know how the push to get young people to register went. That could make a difference. Also been hearing a fair few people who weren't going to vote switch to Labour recently, too.


----------



## LiamO (May 27, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> It can't be made public once some people have voted under the assurance that it is private.



Ah well. I voted 'Heart says yes, head says no'. I owuld be delighted to be wrong.

I thought this (esp from 3.00 on) is on the money. If Corbyn wins , I think it's fair to say that this would be the biggest electoral shock since 1945.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2017)

LiamO said:


> Is it possible for a passing mod to make this poll public? editor Crispy


No. You can't change that option on polls. It's to prevent people posting private polls like "who has enjoyed playing with a dogs genitalia?", then making the results publick.


----------



## LiamO (May 27, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's to prevent people posting private polls like "who has enjoyed playing with a dogs genitalia?", then making the results publick.



I fully understand why you lobbied for this option 

What about all your posh mates, Spymaster ? Any of them warming to 'The Jeremy' of late?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (May 27, 2017)

Heart says yes. Head says hung parliament is possible. As a consolation it would be good to see the smug grins wiped off the Tory mugs if things end up pretty much as they are now without the huge majority predicted.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2017)

LiamO said:


> I fully understand why you lobbied for this option
> 
> What about all your posh mates, Spymaster ? Any of them warming to 'The Jeremy' of late?


I'm a ranting leftie as far as they're concerned, so what do you reckon???


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 27, 2017)

My facebook feed (for my band, so I have a rather significant amount of 'friends' I don't know) is full on left wing bubble. . . . apart from a few people. These ones are full on mental or just raving, and will not accept any facts whatsoever. Through these people I can see links to their friends, and their anti-labour views are really irrational. One 61 year old lady (not well off at all) said she needed strong leadership which was needed for her children and her grandchildren. She was afraid of losing the NHS, vital services, and education for her grandchildren. Cuts the tories actually have in their manifesto, and cuts labour say they will reverse. In her case, the word 'strong' repeated over and over actually seemed to be enough.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 27, 2017)

I voted Tories to squeak. By which I mean the Tory majority will be diminished as will May's reputation. 

It'd be nice if Labour won and reversed even some of the privatisations. But I don't think that's likely. I think Corbyn will remain in place with an enhanced standing. 

However, I completely failed to call Trump, Brexit, and Bake Off going to Channel 4, so who knows? (I thought Trump and Leave would do well but not win, and I didn't see the Bake Off exit coming at all).


----------



## LiamO (May 27, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I'm a ranting leftie as far as they're concerned, so what do you reckon???



It's a serie-arse question. 

I'm seeing it a lot from people who would have had Corbyn pegged as a dangerous, lefty hippy.


----------



## Voley (May 27, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I voted Torie


Quoted for posterity with bad spelling included.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2017)

LiamO said:


> It's a serie-arse question.
> 
> I'm seeing it a lot from people who would have had Corbyn pegged as a dangerous, lefty hippy.


The folk I know who had Jezzer pegged as a dangerous hippy lefty, still have him pegged as a dangerous hippy lefty, afaik. This is going to be a disaster for the Labour party.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

Voley said:


> Quoted for posterity with bad spelling included.





Pickman's model said:


> All quoting is by definition selective


----------



## danny la rouge (May 27, 2017)

Voley said:


> Quoted for posterity with bad spelling included.


_I did say that, but it was taken out of context._


----------



## J Ed (May 27, 2017)

I do not think so, not at all... but I hope that I am wrong. I have been wrong about a lot in politics. I have spoken to a few recent converts to Corbyn in the past week, and I still can't see it. I can't see a hung parliament situation either.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 27, 2017)

hung parliament is now within the bounds of reasonable possibility - which is certainly was not a few weeks ago.
Im still expecting a tory overall majority - but it is not going to be the landslide that was being widely predicted. Corbyn has enthused large sections of the electorate who have previously been completely disengaged from politics - especaily amongst the young.
However - socially disengaged/isolated, sub-urban "c1s and c2s" apparently still lean tory as do the large phalanx of older, brextiy, pensioners.
The collapse of the ukip vote has pushed the tory vote share well north of 40% - and polling still has the tory vote as pretty stable - labour has caught up, but for them to  win those voters need to start deserting the tories for labour or UKIP.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 27, 2017)

If it's a hung parliament could the libdems form a coalition with the Tories again, or are they in a too weak position to do so?


----------



## J Ed (May 27, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> If it's a hung parliament could the libdems form a coalition with the Tories again, or are they in a too weak position to do so?



Depends on how well they do and how well everyone else does, doesn't it?


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

I think the Tories will piss it, as in 50+ majority. Usual caveats - volatile polls and some minor shifts in the libdem vote will affect things in individual constituencies etc.  Having said all that I haven't got a fucking clue as to what's going on in politics at the moment.  About a  year before the 2015 poll I had a hunch that Labour's apparent lead was soft and posted on here that I couldn't quite see what Miliband's pitch to the voters/narrative was going to be.  By the time of the election itself I'd been persuaded by the polls that Labour were going to either squeak it or get to a hung parliament. When the Tories actually won, it was a surprise, but you could at least understand it.  Ditto Brexit, like most other people I was surprised by the result, but it was very easy to see _why_ it happened (Trump also).

But the Corbyn thing has been difficult to get a grasp of in many ways. I was surprised by all the people turning up to his leadership rallies - and then by all the people who voted for him and joined the party (as in where were all these people before? Why did they decided to get involved now?).  After that it all turned to shit, the right of the party tried to kill it, he had no impact > up to 20 points behind in the polls - back to something understandable.

Now we've got the Corbyn surge. Even if he doesn't win, massive shifts in the opinion polls, gaining about 15 points in the Con v Lab national battle.  Was that simply about May looking shifty and Labour coming out with nationalisation plans?  In some ways those are understandable reasons for the _beginning_ of a turnaround, but not the massive shifts we've seen in about 10 days.  Corbyn remains as far behind as ever as a potential PM, but his party has gained more (polling) ground than at any time I can remember.  Long post - short version: I'm clueless.


----------



## JimW (May 27, 2017)

Setting our sights too low here, I think a coalition of unions and local soviets will surprise us all by conquering state power overnight on June 8th.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2017)

I also found out recently that Corbyn is an Arsenal supporter so he can fuck right off.


----------



## The39thStep (May 27, 2017)

Too little too late and a doubt if Labour have enough troops on the ground


----------



## not a trot (May 27, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I also found out recently that Corbyn is an Arsenal supporter so he can fuck right off.



There's a strong rumour he could be playing this afternoon, but not in defence.


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Too little too late and a doubt if Labour have enough troops on the ground


Yep. I'm a broken record on this, but those troops should have been on the ground when they were enthused and positive at the time of his first leadership victory.  The polls show that some sort of social democratic package might have run the Tories close, had it been delivered by a united party from day 1. Of course Corbyn can't be blamed for it not being united and the old guard who ran the constituencies were never going to deliver the sort of open campaigning and organising that threatened their own power.


----------



## The39thStep (May 27, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yep. I'm a broken record on this, but those troops should have been on the ground when they were enthused and positive at the time of his first leadership victory.  The polls show that some sort of social democratic package might have run the Tories close, had it been delivered by a united party from day 1. Of course Corbyn can't be blamed for it not being united and the old guard who ran the constituencies were never going to deliver the sort of open campaigning and organising that threatened their own power.



Momentum turned out to lack exactly that


----------



## emanymton (May 27, 2017)

Tories still to increase their majority, but not by as much as I though a few weeks ago.

To pluck a figure out of my arse, I predict a majority of 20.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I also found out recently that Corbyn is an Arsenal supporter so he can fuck right off.


There you go again pa. I know this goes back to your losing bet on final game in 1989. Get over it!


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

No, the Tories will win.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> No, the Tories will win.


I'm not so sure. I think may has really made a load of rods for own back. She called this election at least ostensibly to strengthen her position in the brexit negotiations. So any reduction in her majority - and any reduction in the tory vote - will weaken her, both domestically and in the negotiations. The increasingly shrill attacks on corbyn smack not of strength or stability but weakness. If he's so crap, after near two years of utter vilification it should not need repetition. I think any private tory polls show an increasingly mobilised labour vote, hence May's monomania. The tory party may win the election. But even if they do, I think it's curtains for may within 18 months, unless they win with a substantially increased majority. If corbyn reduces the tory majority by more than 6 seats it's ta-ra theresa before the end of the year, while jc will be there for the foreseeable.


----------



## newbie (May 27, 2017)

false dawn, there's a lot gloom to come whoever wins but proper darkness is most likely.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 27, 2017)

labour will not win but that is not a bad thing maybe- the next few years will be economic carnage- best that the tory filth are irradiated during this process and become as toxic as the libdem weasels were a couple of years ago. ith massses will take the brunt of the pain sadly


----------



## newbie (May 27, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> labour will not win but that is not a bad thing maybe- the next few years will be economic carnage- best that the tory filth are irradiated during this process and become as toxic as the libdem weasels were a couple of years ago. ith massses will take the brunt of the pain sadly


the post-ref vote might turn out like the post-war one: a walkover that gives the winners the opportunity to create a whole new landscape, leading to rejection and a decade or so of the other lot. 



> The *1951 United Kingdom general election* was held twenty months after the 1950 general election, which the Labour Party had won with a slim majority of just five seats. The Labour government called the general election for Thursday 25 October 1951 hoping to increase their parliamentary majority. However, despite winning the popular vote and receiving the largest percentage of the vote, the Labour Party was defeated by the Conservative Party who had won the most seats. This election marked the beginning of the Labour Party's thirteen-year spell in opposition, and the return of Winston Churchill as Prime Minister.



wiki


----------



## mwgdrwg (May 27, 2017)

Labour will be utterly destroyed. If you think otherwise, you're in dreamland.


----------



## free spirit (May 27, 2017)

I think forcing the tories into a minority government, or even possibly a minority Labour government with confidence and supply arrangements with the SNP and others are looking to be possible scenarios.

I don't think an outright Labour majority government is on the cards though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The folk I know who had Jezzer pegged as a dangerous hippy lefty, still have him pegged as a dangerous hippy lefty, afaik. This is going to be a disaster for the Labour party.



TBF, if you know people who have Corbyn pegged as a "dangerous hippy lefty", you know some right ignorant fucks, mate!


----------



## maomao (May 27, 2017)

I had a loud anti Theresa May rant at Asda checkout in full view of people who looked like stereotypical local Tory voters and got nods rather than disapproving looks and tuts so maybe things are swinging a little.

I also think a bit of voter fatigue may eat away at their 'strong and stable' loving guaranteed vote whereas the Corbynistas will be more motivated.

Which adds up to maybe not quite as bad a drubbing as I assumed would happen when May announced it.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 27, 2017)

A relatively low turnout is expected in the election, despite all the pleas for young people to register. I don't know whether that is good for Labour or not, but I would be astonished if they got a majority. I hope they win where I live, but I fully expect Theresa May to be Prime Minister on 9 June 

Hopefully not with a landslide majority though. That's the best we can hope for. 

Then, perhaps, the Labour Party can be reinvigorated a bit, set asides its differences, and work together to be an effective Opposition and to challenge the Bastard Tories during the Brexit negotiations, as well as the ongoing destruction of the NHS.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Labour will be utterly destroyed. If you think otherwise, you're in dreamland.


Quoted for 9/7/17


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Quoted for 9/7/17


Or 9/6/17?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> A relatively low turnout is expected in the election, despite all the pleas for young people to register. I don't know whether that is good for Labour or not, but I would be astonished if they got a majority. I hope they win where I live, but I fully expect Theresa May to be Prime Minister on 9 June
> 
> Hopefully not with a landslide majority though. That's the best we can hope for.
> 
> Then, perhaps, the Labour Party can be reinvigorated a bit, set asides its differences, and work together to be an effective Opposition and to challenge the Bastard Tories during the Brexit negotiations, as well as the ongoing destruction of the NHS.


If the tories win I wonder who'll be pm on 9/6/18


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> Or 9/6/17?


Yeh, my bad


----------



## Thora (May 27, 2017)

I was going to vote Labour until I noticed I have a local candidate who wants devolution.  For Wessex.  So I might vote for him instead.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 27, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Labour will be utterly destroyed. If you think otherwise, you're in dreamland.


Care to put any parameters on "utterly destroyed"?


----------



## mikey mikey (May 27, 2017)

c.f. GE 2015 Scotland


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Care to put any parameters on "utterly destroyed"?


0 MPs. Anything else is not utter destruction.


----------



## chilango (May 27, 2017)

Thora said:


> I was going to vote Labour until I noticed I have a local candidate who wants devolution.  For Wessex.  So I might vote for him instead.



This guy? Colin Bex?







I like the WessexRegionalists


----------



## JimW (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> This guy? Colin Bex?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tributaries of Mercia with ideas above their station.


----------



## tim (May 27, 2017)

Pigs may fly, but Corbyn won't win.


----------



## Thora (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> This guy? Colin Bex?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He looks a lot like that bloke but I think his name is Jim


----------



## Wilf (May 27, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Labour will be utterly destroyed. If you think otherwise, you're in dreamland.


Not quite utterly destroyed, but I foresee a lot of ex-Labour MPs sat around the Westminster area with signs saying 'Will Represent for Food'.


----------



## gosub (May 27, 2017)

I think the tories would be in a lot worse position if the polls had static with them still with a 20 point lead.  Very few minds are actually changed/made up during election time, but a notion of 'its close' discourages voter apathy


----------



## ffsear (May 27, 2017)

I'm one of the few tory voters on this site ( well who admits it anyway).. But i think labour have got a serious chance of winning. I've even got money on it (every cloud!)  I think the tory campaigning has been piss poor so far. Corbyan is talking a lot of sense,  and i don't think the ukip tory swing is going to play out quite like people think.  I also expect there is going to be a high turnout and perhaps a lot of first time votes (young and old) could make the difference.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 27, 2017)

I voted heart/head.

Reports from Labour doorstep sessions are all really positive; uncertainties in polling models suggest the new young voters aren't being properly accounted for in weighting and these new people registering are doing so at a time where the young are getting more enthused by a different type of politics so we can't blithely assume they won't turn out on the day; May's dropped a bollock and anecdotally some Tory voters are pissed off; etc. All these, plus more, and the closing poll margins, give my heart the slightest of hopes.

But my head and my gut say the Tories will still win and probably with an increased margin, although I'm not sure it will be quite as huge as Ashcroft and others are saying. At least I hope not.


----------



## J Ed (May 27, 2017)

ffsear said:


> I'm one of the few tory voters on this site ( well who admits it anyway).. But i think labour have got a serious chance of winning. I've even got money on it (every cloud!)  I think the tory campaigning has been piss poor so far. Corbyan is talking a lot of sense,  and i don't think the ukip tory swing is going to play out quite like people think.  I also expect there is going to be a high turnout and perhaps a lot of first time votes (young and old) could make the difference.



What is your reason for voting Tory?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2017)

i recon labour are donald ducked and some people are talking themselves into a false hope


----------



## Raheem (May 27, 2017)

Objectively, of course Labour can win. They've been rising in the polls, and that will probably continue for at least a little while. Even if it slows a little, it would still be realistic that the red and blue lines will cross before election day. Whether that will actually happen or not is pretty much pure guesswork either way.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh, my bad



Loser.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2017)

As posted in the polling thread:-

From Tom Crewe's LRB piece _"What will be left?"..._not actual polling, but some useful context for those interested in the psephology...

_Polls can be wrong, but they’ve never been this wrong (and when they have been wrong before, it has always been in overestimating the Labour vote). The national polls in any case obscure a more fundamental problem: Labour’s terminal collapse in Scotland, combined with the distortions of the first-past-the-post system, have created structural conditions that make it impossible for Labour to win a majority without a swing of dramatic proportions. *In 2015 it needed a swing of 4.6 per cent to win a majority of one; now, in order to achieve the same feat, it needs a swing of 8.7 per cent, equivalent to a national poll lead of 11 per cent or three million votes.* Having lost so much ground in 2015, it has many more seats to win, but is competitive in fewer of them, because the Tories entrenched themselves in English and Welsh marginals while the SNP piled up unassailable majorities in much of Scotland. *According to the Fabian Society, what’s required is something like the vote share Labour achieved in 2001, when, starting from a much stronger position, it won 413 seats to the Conservatives’ 166. And all this, remember, to win a majority of one.* If Labour loses badly in June, it will be even harder next time._​
So, from 15 to 20% (lately more like 10%) behind to 11% ahead; that is Corbyn's "mountain".
Sorry to burst any bubbles of optimism.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Loser.


Your new tagline


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 27, 2017)

ffsear said:


> I'm one of the few tory voters on this site ( well who admits it anyway).. But i think labour have got a serious chance of winning. I've even got money on it (every cloud!)  I think the tory campaigning has been piss poor so far. Corbyan is talking a lot of sense,  and i don't think the ukip tory swing is going to play out quite like people think.  I also expect there is going to be a high turnout and perhaps a lot of first time votes (young and old) could make the difference.



Yeah yeah, but what if Corbz was on a plane on a conveyer belt and...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 27, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Yeah yeah, but what if Corbz was on a plane on a conveyer belt and...


Corbyn takes off.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2017)

brogdale said:


> As posted in the polling thread:-
> 
> From Tom Crewe's LRB piece _"What will be left?"..._not actual polling, but some useful context for those interested in the psephology...
> 
> ...


I'd argue that the mountain is a little lower than that. Simply being the biggest party would effectively be a win. They could even win in a hung parliament as the second-biggest party in coalition with the likes of the SNP, the Green, Plaid, SDLP, and even the libdems.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd argue that the mountain is a little lower than that. Simply being the biggest party would effectively be a win. They could even win in a hung parliament as the second-biggest party in coalition with the likes of the SNP, the Green, Plaid, SDLP, and even the libdems.


You raise a good point regarding what constitutes actually "winning this thing". I appreciate that achieving a majority government, albeit of just 1 seat, is only one interpretation of the words.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2017)

brogdale said:


> You raise a good point regarding what constitutes actually "winning this thing". I appreciate that achieving a majority government, albeit of just 1 seat, is only one interpretation of the words.


Hard to argue that Cameron and the tories didn't win in 2010.

I'd love to think that the Tories perhaps won't win. I'm trying to think that, but I look at the polls and I find it hard to think it. That said, I would say that anything short of an absolute majority will make it very hard if not impossible for the tories to form the next govt. I don't think the same is true for Labour.


----------



## Raheem (May 27, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hard to argue that Cameron and the tories didn't win in 2010.
> 
> I'd love to think that the Tories perhaps won't win. I'm trying to think that, but I look at the polls and I find it hard to think it. That said, I would say that anything short of an absolute majority will make it very hard if not impossible for the tories to form the next govt. I don't think the same is true for Labour.



The Tories would need to be short by enough so that they couldn't just rely on the Unionists to prop them up, but that might be possible with Labour only having a 1-2% lead in the popular vote.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2017)

Raheem said:


> The Tories would need to be short by enough so that they couldn't just rely on the Unionists to prop them up, but that might be possible with Labour only having a 1-2% lead in the popular vote.


Yes, I was going to add that about the unionists. A minority tory govt reliant on the unionists would be a very unstable beast, though, particularly as that would represent something of a humiliation for May. I suspect May will be personally in trouble if the tories don't win a majority. The knives would be out.

Plus, of course, NI is the part of the UK with the most at stake over brexit in many ways. It might not be so straightforward for the unionists to support the tories as it would have been in the past.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 27, 2017)

Even if she wins, after this shambles, I imagine Boris et al will be fancying their chances ....


----------



## squirrelp (May 27, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hard to argue that Cameron and the tories didn't win in 2010.
> 
> I'd love to think that the Tories perhaps won't win. I'm trying to think that, but I look at the polls and I find it hard to think it.


The polls show the conservative vote in free fall


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> The polls show the conservative vote in free fall


They don't. They show the tories remaining stubbornly over 40 per cent right through. Labour has climbed hugely from a very low base, halving the lead, but the tories remain over 40 per cent and have 40 per cent + in every single poll since the announcement of the election. 

List of polls here. The latest upturn for Labour indicates that they may not be trounced, but nothing more than that as yet. They may be wrong, but I doubt they will be that wrong. UKIP have collapsed and the tories have benefited from that - they're still polling much more strongly than they were back in Jan/Feb this year. Still time left, of course, but a huge amount more needs to happen even for there to be a chance of a hung parliament.


----------



## Raheem (May 27, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They don't. They show the tories remaining stubbornly over 40 per cent right through. Labour has climbed hugely from a very low base, halving the lead, but the tories remain over 40 per cent and have 40 per cent + in every single poll since the announcement of the election.
> 
> List of polls here. The latest upturn for Labour indicates that they may not be trounced, but nothing more than that as yet. They may be wrong, but I doubt they will be that wrong. UKIP have collapsed and the tories have benefited from that - they're still polling much more strongly than they were back in Jan/Feb this year. Still time left, of course, but a huge amount more needs to happen even for there to be a chance of a hung parliament.



It might be more accurate to say that, in combination with the fact we know they have very suddenly and totally lost their poise, the very recent polls possibly suggest the start of a downward slide. It's a bit speculative, but not entirely imaginary.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It might be more accurate to say that, in combination with the fact we know they have very suddenly and totally lost their poise, the very recent polls possibly suggest the start of a downward slide. It's a bit speculative, but not entirely imaginary.


Their lead has been narrowed and they are running an entirely hapless campaign. They are doing their best to chuck this election, and I do agree that there is time left for things to change more, but they do need to change quite a bit more still.

May reminds me in a lot of ways of the last unelected tory PM, Major. Seems to me to come from a similar socially conservative, not particularly ideological, paternalistic tradition of the tory party. She may go a similar way to Major, winning her first election narrowly and seeing that lead to a fraught term followed by catastrophic defeat. That doesn't exactly fill me with joy, though. Major managed a fair bit of damage in his fraught 92-97 govt.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 27, 2017)

Tories back in with an increased majority but to nothing like the extend they thought/hoped, Labour to take a higher share of the vote then 2010 and 2015, not sure if they'll do better 2005, I think will be close.



Spymaster said:


> I also found out recently that Corbyn is an Arsenal supporter so he can fuck right off.


You going to vote LD again then?



mwgdrwg said:


> Labour will be utterly destroyed. If you think otherwise, you're in dreamland.


What does that mean? A share of the vote below 30%? A tory majority > 200 seats? What's your measure of 'destruction'?


----------



## D'wards (May 27, 2017)

What % can you add on for the Shy Tory effect? 3%?


----------



## Cid (May 27, 2017)

D'wards said:


> What % can you add on for the Shy Tory effect? 3%?



Impossible to say, they'll have been adjusting for it after 2015.

e2a

Although wiki says: The British Polling Council subsequently launched an independent enquiry into how polls were so wrong amid widespread criticism that polls are no longer a trustworthy avenue of measuring voting intentions.[6][7] This enquiry found that, contrary to the popular reporting, there was no Shy Tory Factor in the election, and the polling had been incorrect for other reasons, most importantly unrepresentative samples.

Which is kind of fascinating, but too much of a potential rabbit warren for tonight.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2017)

D'wards said:


> What % can you add on for the Shy Tory effect? 3%?


I wonder whether there might be a reverse effect this time around as well. In the face of the dementia tax and other commitments that bite directly and severely at their self-interest, former tories might be voting elsewhere on the sly this time around.


----------



## Dom Traynor (May 27, 2017)

Only a fool makes certain predictions based on polling or anecdotes at the moment. 

My instinct says smaller Tory majority than currently predicted, but still slightly larger than last time. 

As others have said Labour should have been out talking to voters since Corbyn first got in if they wanted to get people back into the fold they haven't done that, Momentum in particular has totally failed to deliver on its promises, because of a lack of understanding how politics works which is common on the left. 

If the Tories do worse than expected it will be all down to their mistakes and none of it will be down to Corbyn and co as most people still seem to think they're idiots as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wonder whether there might be a reverse effect this time around as well. In the face of the dementia tax and other commitments that bite directly and severely at their self-interest, former tories might be voting elsewhere on the sly this time around.


Former tories always do


----------



## squirrelp (May 27, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They don't. They show the tories remaining stubbornly over 40 per cent right through. Labour has climbed hugely from a very low base, halving the lead, but the tories remain over 40 per cent and have 40 per cent + in every single poll since the announcement of the election.
> 
> List of polls here. The latest upturn for Labour indicates that they may not be trounced, but nothing more than that as yet. They may be wrong, but I doubt they will be that wrong. UKIP have collapsed and the tories have benefited from that - they're still polling much more strongly than they were back in Jan/Feb this year. Still time left, of course, but a huge amount more needs to happen even for there to be a chance of a hung parliament.


Fair point. I should have said, the Conservative lead in free fall.

I think it will continue to slide and Corbyn's support will be energised as it does so, hopefully accelerating the descent. As you say though, there is a fair way to go.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Only a fool makes certain predictions based on polling or anecdotes at the moment.
> 
> My instinct says smaller Tory majority than currently predicted, but still slightly larger than last time.
> 
> ...


Generally speaking, incumbent govts lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, so if the tories lose through their mistakes, that will fit that general pattern. Given how wages are being squashed and services squeezed, with more of the same in the pipeline, really the amazing thing is how well they're doing, even before considering the ongoing mess they are making of brexit. But you could say similar in 92 when Major won.


----------



## mwgdrwg (May 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Quoted for 9/7/17



I really hope I'm wrong and that you are all right!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> I really hope I'm wrong and that you are all right!


I'm alright jack


----------



## Raheem (May 27, 2017)

chilango said:


> This guy? Colin Bex?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's Corbyn and Farage put through a blender. But the blender is metaphorical, so don't vote for him on that basis.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 27, 2017)

I cling a tiny bit to the past track records of unelected PMs. They don't have a good record of winning elections. Taking the whole post-war period, Eden won an election, but he called it the moment he took over from Churchill, so that is a rather different case. Macmillan was 1-0, the only unelected PM to achieve a decisive victory. Douglas-Home 0-1. Callaghan 0-1, Major 1-1, Brown 0-1. The incumbent's inbuilt advantage is taken away from an unelected PM.


----------



## Humberto (May 27, 2017)

A vote that is incredibly short sighted, or one that provides? A reckless vote that is against you and your families interests, or the alternative?

The Tories, lets be honest are nobodies friend. The option they PRESENT is grim and the reality is still grimmer. They DON'T care surprising as it seems to practically noone.


----------



## D'wards (May 28, 2017)

There's a couple of tv debates with Corbyn and May coming up. I once thought it was his chance to really shine, but now I think he'll probably fuck it up somehow.
The man seems to lack the instinct of getting voters onside - something dear Tone had in bucketloads.
I remember seeing Blair on telly in the 97 campaign trail, skillfully heading a football back and forth with someone - something you see the professionals do - I knew then he had it in the bag.
I can understand how Corbyn wants to reject everything about Blair - unfortunately this seems to include charming the electorate too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2017)

D'wards said:


> I remember seeing Blair on telly in the 97 campaign trail, skillfully heading a football back and forth with someone - something you see the professionals do - I knew then he had it in the bag.


It was Kevin Keegan. My memory of that is of Blair looking desperate to keep the ball up. It made him look ridiculous.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 28, 2017)

I dunno, maybe people vote for reasons other than being able to do a decent header exchange.


----------



## D'wards (May 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was Kevin Keegan. My memory of that is of Blair looking desperate to keep the ball up. It made him look ridiculous.


A curly perm gives an erratic bounce


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I dunno, maybe people vote for reasons other than being able to do a decent header exchange.


I think something of a myth has built up around Blair after 97, but the truth is more that the tories were shot and deeply unpopular and any labour leader would have won. 

Thatcher didn't engage in that kind of thing, famously lacked any kind of sense of humour, but won three elections. This stuff's overrated.


----------



## Yossarian (May 28, 2017)

I think it's possible for Corbyn to win - the Tories are evil mad cunts and British voters, for the most part, aren't, so I think there's certainly a possibility that disconnect might resolve itself before the election. Not going to put money on it though.


----------



## D'wards (May 28, 2017)




----------



## D'wards (May 28, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I dunno, maybe people vote for reasons other than being able to do a decent header exchange.


Don't be too sure...


----------



## Raheem (May 28, 2017)

D'wards said:


> A curly perm gives an erratic bounce



This is no time to be doing the crossword.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> i recon labour are donald ducked and some people are talking themselves into a false hope


They're masterbaiting to the echo of their own death.


----------



## D'wards (May 28, 2017)

If David had beat Ed in the leadership election things would be very different now.
You need this charming man to win an election, not a jumped up pantry boy etc


----------



## hot air baboon (May 28, 2017)

..._*where*_ are they going to win it ..that's 2015 with a tory 37% vote share ( Lab 30% )


----------



## Raheem (May 28, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> ..._*where*_ are they going to win it ..that's 2015 with a tory 37% vote share ( Lab 30% )



It's got to be that place in the image you posted.


----------



## Whagwan (May 28, 2017)

I made £140 on a tenner bet for JC to win the first leadership election.  Just checked Ladbrokes and Labour are on 7/2 so not really worth putting a money on.

That happened that time so I'm allowing myself some dream time if it could this time.. But like fantasizing about lottery winnings it's just s little reverie before real life kicks in.

It would be so good though if May manages to beat Davey C's 'destroying yourself through your own hubris record. ' 
Out in one year due to totally self inflicted decisions.



Dare to dream?


----------



## Rimbaud (May 28, 2017)

I think Corbyn will win - for the very superficial reason that the narrative of him winning despite everything is so compelling, and I think if it looks like the Tories, once so complacent and cocksure, are in a panic while Corbyn is having a miraculous Hollywood-esque turnaround in the polls by sticking true to himself despite all adversity, the temptation to stick the boot in to the Tories and give the underdog his victory will prove too strong for the electorate to resist.


----------



## N_igma (May 28, 2017)

If Labour are going to win they'll need to form a coalition with the SNP and other minor parties. Like it or not there are vast vast swathes of blue all across England they can't do it alone.


----------



## J Ed (May 28, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> They're masterbaiting to the echo of their own death.



Too much Canary.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Yeah. Better get back to _The Staggers.







_


----------



## J Ed (May 28, 2017)

If there is anything that is made clear by my posting history on this forum it's my love of the New Statesman.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

It's a funny old world. Although I have criticisms of Corbyn from a perspective that is to his left, I often find myself at parties and social occasions defending him. Odd position to find myself in, but when the criticism comes from further right than him, I find I have to. Therefore several people I know are under the impression that I'm a big fan.

I was out last night, and ended up at friends' house having a few post event drams. They're liberals (self described) who used to be very anti Corbyn. They'd say all sorts of things about him that came straight out of newspapers. These are people who'd voted Labour in the part but were saying they couldn't do so with Corbyn in charge. He was a dinosaur who wanted to take us back to the 70s. All this stuff. 

Last night they invited me and mrs LR back with the opener "can we talk about Corbyn? We need to talk about Corbyn".

Now they're fallen under his spell.  They like him. They see where he's coming from. They "finally get it". They say that the campaign against him "got too transparent" and "just looks desperate".

No idea how that happened. But I thought you'd enjoy hearing about it.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

LiamO said:


> James O'Brien's take on the Corbyn Momentum...



O'Brien isfucking awful


----------



## newbie (May 28, 2017)

D'wards said:


> There's a couple of tv debates with Corbyn and May coming up. I once thought it was his chance to really shine, but now I think he'll probably fuck it up somehow.


she's frit, wheeling out Rudd in her place


----------



## J Ed (May 28, 2017)

newbie said:


> she's frit, wheeling out Rudd in her place



Now _that_ is weird.


----------



## bi0boy (May 28, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Now _that_ is weird.



It keeps Corbyn off the TV which is good for the Tories, perhaps they're hoping Labour will put Abbott on.


----------



## J Ed (May 28, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> It keeps Corbyn off the TV which is good for the Tories, perhaps they're hoping Labour will put Abbott on.



Corbyn should go IMO, he'd rip Rudd to shreds, and her going on as May's surrogate is sufficient justification for him to go on.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 28, 2017)

> The Observer has obtained a series of Conservative party attack ads sent to voters last week in the key marginal constituency of Delyn, north Wales. Activists captured the ads using dummy Facebook accounts after finding that their own ad – encouraging young people to register to vote – were being “drowned out” by the Tory ads.
> 
> The Conservatives have refused to supply examples of adverts the party is sending to individual voters on Facebook, despite growing concern over unregulated online election activity.



Revealed: Tory ‘dark’ ads targeted voters’ Facebook feeds in Welsh marginal seat

I got hit by one of those targetted Tory attack ads (youtube rather than facebook) the other day. A really in-your face 'Corbyn is a terrorist' sort of thing, without any gentle 'here comes an ad now' expectation setting. More like a horror movie jump scare

My first impression was 'What the fuck? I didn't tell my computer to show me that filth!' and a strong impulse to check my various security controls.

I can see a lot of people responding badly to such an intrusive approach, although obviously, it's going to work well enough on some.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

J Ed said:


> If there is anything that is made clear by my posting history on this forum it's my love of the New Statesman.


I tend not to take _The Canary_ seriously either, but it seems that some folks are engaging in a form of ad hominem fallacy in which one does not need to be quoting the Canary in order to be channeling it. _EvolvePolitics _is fairly partisan too, but when a member of this forum linked to a story on it, the validity of the content was not even up for discussion: It was "just another Canary site". Moroever, a lot of stories that a based on fact are somehow declared spurious because they are linked via third parties like Mike Sivier, Craig Murray or Wings Over Scotland, _whether or not the content is factual and reported elsewhere._

Somewhere between _The Canary _and the _Staggers/Labour Uncut/Left Foot Forward _I imagine is the sweet spot that is neither anti-Corbyn nor INVALID SOURCE. Maybe you know where that is.
_
_BTW I've been reading your post history and really like a lot of your posts.


----------



## bi0boy (May 28, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Corbyn should go IMO, he'd rip Rudd to shreds, and her going on as May's surrogate is sufficient justification for him to go on.



Ripping Rudd to shreds isn't going to help much, most people probably don't even know who she is, so it would be risky for little gain.


----------



## chilango (May 28, 2017)

The fact that this is even a thread is astounding considering where we were a few weeks back....


----------



## newbie (May 28, 2017)

freshly annointed leader, July 2016


now


am I imagining that she looks worn out and/or ill?


----------



## J Ed (May 28, 2017)

chilango said:


> The fact that this is even a thread is astounding considering where we were a few weeks back....



I think it's probably astounding anyway, from the way that some Corbyn supporters are talking you would think that Corbyn was 30% ahead in the polls. Labour would kill to be running the apparently disastrous, wobbly campaign that the Tories are.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hard to argue that Cameron and the tories didn't win in 2010.



Thereby could hang a whole thread, if not book.
I suppose it would be right to say that Cameron eventually won power, but it could easily be argued that the fact that he singularly failed to secure a majority for his party ultimately weakened his own authority within the party to the extent that he had to concede the in/out referendum to the swivel-eyed.
The rest,as they say.....


----------



## Yossarian (May 28, 2017)

newbie said:


> freshly annointed leader, July 2016
> View attachment 107854
> 
> now
> ...



Looks about the same in both to me. 

Jeremy Corbyn also looks like he could probably use a week's holiday in the Caribbean and a blood transfusion, though he does look less likely to need to drink it straight from the source.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

newbie said:


> freshly annointed leader, July 2016
> View attachment 107854
> 
> now
> ...


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

Corbyn's refusal to take part without May is a dreadful mistake.


----------



## gosub (May 28, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Revealed: Tory ‘dark’ ads targeted voters’ Facebook feeds in Welsh marginal seat
> 
> I got hit by one of those targetted Tory attack ads (youtube rather than facebook) the other day. A really in-your face 'Corbyn is a terrorist' sort of thing, without any gentle 'here comes an ad now' expectation setting. More like a horror movie jump scare
> 
> ...


F.B. Purity - Clean Up + Customize Facebook


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Corbyn's refusal to take part without May is a dreadful mistake.


I don't see how.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't see how.


Because it makes him look weak. This is an obvious opportunity to score against a weak leader. We all know she's not participating because she's utterly incoherent and dreadful at speaking. No one will think him honourable for this


----------



## newbie (May 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't see how.


nor me unless Diane does it instead


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Because it makes him look weak. This is an obvious opportunity to score against a weak leader. We all know she's not participating because she's utterly incoherent and dreadful at speaking. No one will think him honourable for this


It doesn't make him look weak. I think you're placing too much store in these debates. Nobody thinks they're important. 

Look at who will be debating: a bunch of people who won't be prime minister. Does Corbyn want to be one of them?


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> It doesn't make him look weak. I think you're placing too much store in these debates. Nobody thinks they're important.
> 
> Look at who will be debating: a bunch of people who won't be prime minister. Does Corbyn want to be one of them?


Some do, you can't say nobody does otherwise no one would bother with them at all. Clearly some people think they are important even if you or I don't pay attention to them. But that's not even the point, what matters is perception. That's what will win the election: how Corbyn or May will be seen. That's why the Tories constantly call him a terrorist: the most toxic label they can get away with, and there are more than a few that believe it. Or at least are given enough pause to doubt that a vote for him is the best option. Even if he seems like a nice bloke (which is how the Tories will respond in their inevitably oh-so-magnanimous victory speech).


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Some do, you can't say nobody does otherwise no one would bother with them at all.


Well, people watch them. Actually a lot of people in current affairs terms. That's why the TV companies have them. But watching is not the same as thinking they're important.

I understand Corbyn's strategy. He wants to be seen as one of the possible prime ministers. Not as one of the leaders of a minor party.


----------



## Who PhD (May 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, people watch them. Actually a lot of people in current affairs terms. That's why the TV companies have them. But watching is not the same as thinking they're important.
> 
> I understand Corbyn's strategy. He wants to be seen as one of the possible prime ministers. Not as one of the leaders of a minor party.


Sure, but that doesn't make it the wrong strategy.

I think you're missing the point: it isn't whether people think they are important, it's that people get a chance to see past the veil created by the Tory led media. By refusing to appear he is not opening himself to scrutiny as well, again perception.


----------



## newbie (May 28, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, people watch them. Actually a lot of people in current affairs terms. That's why the TV companies have them. But watching is not the same as thinking they're important.
> 
> I understand Corbyn's strategy. He wants to be seen as one of the possible prime ministers. Not as one of the leaders of a minor party.


I agree with Nick


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I also found out recently that Corbyn is an Arsenal supporter so he can fuck right off.


How're you today pa?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 28, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Sure, but that doesn't make it the wrong strategy.
> 
> I think you're missing the point: it isn't whether people think they are important, it's that people get a chance to see past the veil created by the Tory led media. By refusing to appear he is not opening himself to scrutiny as well, again perception.


Given that most people won't watch but will see the media verdict the next day, I'm not sure that holds up very well. They'll only see the debate through the same veil anyway.

Anyway, I don't think Corbyn is the story here. I think the story is how May called an election she didn't need to then proceeded to annihilate the lead she had. She'll still win, but I'll bet the 1922 committee are dusting off their short lists right now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Thereby could hang a whole thread, if not book.
> I suppose it would be right to say that Cameron eventually won power, but it could easily be argued that the fact that he singularly failed to secure a majority for his party ultimately weakened his own authority within the party to the extent that he had to concede the in/out referendum to the swivel-eyed.
> The rest,as they say.....


I'd say more of less the opposite of this. The fact he failed to secure a majority in 2010 and was forced to form a coalition with the libdems is precisely what gave that term its full five years, with Cameron and Osborne able to ruthlessly follow their agenda, brooking virtually no opposition. The libdems were neutralised as an opposition by throwing them worthless bones - not a single significant govt department under their control, Clegg fobbed off with the purely symbolic position of deputy pm, and forced to defend the full-scale austerity. Frothing swivel-eyes were also neutralised by the coalition, allowing them to do the socially liberal things like gay marriage that Cameron was not averse to doing anyway, and keeping the Europe question at bay during that parliament.

The 2015 election, with its narrow victory to the tories, was a bad result for Cameron. Think I said so on here at the time - another coalition with the lds, if they could have swung it, if the ld vote hadn't collapsed, would have been far better for him, would have left him stronger.

Similar could potentially be true for Corbyn if by some miracle he were to be in a position to swing a majority with the help of, let us say, the SDLP, the SNP, Plaid and the Green. SDLP would be no problem anyway, but the Scottish and Welsh nationalists have consistently set themselves up as a 'progressive' alternative to Tory English rule. They could play a similar enabling role to the libdems in 2010, neutralising opposition to Labour and also quietening down dissent towards Corbyn from within the Labour ranks.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd say more of less the opposite of this. The fact he failed to secure a majority in 2010 and was forced to form a coalition with the libdems is precisely what gave that term its full five years, with Cameron and Osborne able to ruthlessly follow their agenda, brooking virtually no opposition. The libdems were neutralised as an opposition by throwing them worthless bones - not a single significant govt department under their control, Clegg fobbed off with the purely symbolic position of deputy pm, and forced to defend the full-scale austerity. Frothing swivel-eyes were also neutralised by the coalition, allowing them to do the socially liberal things like gay marriage that Cameron was not averse to doing anyway, and keeping the Europe question at bay during that parliament.
> 
> The 2015 election, with its narrow victory to the tories, was a bad result for Cameron. Think I said so on here at the time - another coalition with the lds, if they could have swung it, if the ld vote hadn't collapsed, would have been far better for him, would have left him stronger.
> 
> Similar could potentially be true for Corbyn if by some miracle he were to be in a position to swing a majority with the help of, let us say, the SDLP, the SNP, Plaid and the Green. SDLP would be no problem anyway, but the Scottish and Welsh nationalists have consistently set themselves up as a 'progressive' alternative to Tory English rule. They could play a similar enabling role to the libdems in 2010, neutralising opposition to Labour and also quietening down dissent towards Corbyn from within the Labour ranks.


No, I don't think the right ever forgave him for going 'Blair' and then not winning. From then on he was fair game and only ever bought their cooperation with the promise of the ref.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2017)

brogdale said:


> No, I don't think the right ever forgave him for going 'Blair' and then not winning. From then on he was fair game and only ever bought their cooperation with the promise of the ref.


Alternative histories are always difficult, but let us say Cameron had won a wafer-thin majority in 2010, of one or two seats, how would that parliament have gone for him, given the existence of significant opposition towards him on his back benches, and given also that it would have left the libdems to continue pretending that they opposed university fees, etc?


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Alternative histories are always difficult, but let us say Cameron had won a wafer-thin majority in 2010, of one or two seats, how would that parliament have gone for him, given the existence of significant opposition towards him on his back benches, and given also that it would have left the libdems to continue pretending that they opposed university fees, etc?


Well, we could explore hypotheticals...but let's just (re)focus on what prompted this line of discussion; the notion of what constitutes "winning" an election. Obviously it's a perception, and only one of many possibilities, but sticking with the (traditional?) interpretation in our Parliamentary system of one party securing a majority...the electoral 'mountain' still ahead for Corbyn's LP is Himalayan, if not Everest itself.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Well, we could explore hypotheticals...but let's just (re)focus on what prompted this line of discussion; the notion of what constitutes "winning" an election. Obviously it's a perception, and only one of many possibilities, but sticking with the (traditional?) interpretation in our Parliamentary system of one party securing a majority...the electoral 'mountain' still ahead for Corbyn's LP is Himalayan, if not Everest itself.


But that's my whole point really. That 'traditional' view is, imo, wrong, and the tory 'coalition' of 2010 to 2015 is the evidence I put to support that opinion.

This time around, a Labour majority is effectively impossible due to the SNP. But that doesn't make a Labour govt impossible, and a viable, stable one at that, albeit one that would have to chuck the SNP some bones.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that's my whole point really. That 'traditional' view is, imo, wrong, and the tory 'coalition' of 2010 to 2015 is the evidence I put to support that opinion.


You have a point, but Crewe's LRB analysis specifically relates to the 'trad' notion and, if nothing else, represents a useful benchmark of reality for those believers getting a little carried away with in-campaign polling convergence.


----------



## MightyTibberton (May 28, 2017)

Pointless anecdotal evidence of one story of the day. 

My friend, a lifelong Labour voter who has told me for some time what a disaster JC is and that he won't vote for him and will return to the party when he's kicked out after the election, told me the other day that he will now be voting Labour. The main driver seems to be his foreign policy/defence stance (this fellow is ex forces himself).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2017)

Turning this around, let us say there is a hung parliament with the tories as the biggest single party, but the possibility of a coalition between Labour and the various nationalists being a majority. (That's the first scenario we hit in which another Tory govt is not inevitable - that is, imo, the mountain you should see as needing climbing.) How could the SNP refuse an approach from Labour? I don't see how they could.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

MightyTibberton said:


> Pointless anecdotal evidence of one story of the day.
> 
> My friend, a lifelong Labour voter who has told me for some time what a disaster JC is and that he won't vote for him and will return to the party when he's kicked out after the election, told me the other day that he will now be voting Labour. The main driver seems to be his foreign policy/defence stance (this fellow is ex forces himself).


Anecdotal, but not pointless IMO; I think many of us on here genuinely enjoy the sharing of such snippits.
FWIW, my father (ex-forces/UKIP influenced) & couple of mates had picked up on the Corbyn 'terrorism' speech and seemed to be seeing it as tying into their regularly rehearsed complaint about why 'our boys' have to be sent to all these places to be brought home in body bags. It was an interpretation of the speech that I'd not really foreseen; if it was deliberate it seems inspired.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Turning this around, let us say there is a hung parliament with the tories as the biggest single party, but the possibility of a coalition between Labour and the various nationalists being a majority. (That's the first scenario we hit in which another Tory govt is not inevitable - that is, imo, the mountain you should see as needing climbing.) How could the SNP refuse an approach from Labour? I don't see how they could.


Don't see it.
If LP held all their seats and persuaded the nationalists, LDs & odds & sods (assuming they all retain the same number of seats) still only gets to 299 seats. That's given some pretty big assumptions, as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Don't see it.
> If LP held all their seats and persuaded the nationalists, LDs & odds & sods (assuming they all retain the same number of seats) still only gets to 299 seats. That's given some pretty big assumptions, as well.


I don't quite see it either, but that would be how Corbyn 'actually wins this thing'.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't quite see it either, but that would be how Corbyn 'actually wins this thing'.


Exactly; he won't.


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2017)

My guess is that the 5% gap was the nearest Labour will come. The result will be at least a 10% gap.  There was a bit of shape and direction to the campaign a week ago when it was all nationalisation and dementia tax, but that has gone now. In some kind of footballing analogy, it's all gone a bit scrappy - misplaced passes and the odd wild shot over the bar. Which suits the team who are 2-0 up.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Well if he doesn't, watch the moderates and the shy moderates come out of the wordwork chanting lowly "now is the time".


----------



## agricola (May 28, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Anecdotal, but not pointless IMO; I think many of us on here genuinely enjoy the sharing of such snippits.
> FWIW, my father (ex-forces/UKIP influenced) & couple of mates had picked up on the Corbyn 'terrorism' speech and seemed to be seeing it as tying into their regularly rehearsed complaint about why 'our boys' have to be sent to all these places to be brought home in body bags. It was an interpretation of the speech that I'd not really foreseen; if it was deliberate it seems inspired.



His best line in that speech played on that exact theme:



> I want to assure you that, under my leadership, you will only be deployed abroad when there is a clear need and only when there is a plan and you have the resources to do your job to secure an outcome that delivers lasting peace.



They really should be focusing on it.


----------



## agricola (May 28, 2017)

Wilf said:


> My guess is that the 5% gap was the nearest Labour will come. The result will be at least a 10% gap.  There was a bit of shape and direction to the campaign a week ago when it was all nationalisation and dementia tax, but that has gone now. In some kind of footballing analogy, it's all gone a bit scrappy - misplaced passes and the odd wild shot over the bar. Which suits the team who are 2-0 up.



Possibly, though of course there is still plenty of time for events to take place that further erode the Tory campaign strategy.


----------



## Arbeter Fraynd (May 28, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Ripping Rudd to shreds isn't going to help much, most people probably don't even know who she is, so it would be risky for little gain.



it might help those of us who have to live with her as our MP... although quite proud of the amount of anti-Rudd graffitti, stickers and flyposters all over Hastings


----------



## LiamO (May 28, 2017)

MightyTibberton said:


> Pointless anecdotal evidence of one story of the day.



I don't think that's 'pointless' at all. It seems to be that it's actually THE point!

As I said in the OP I don't live in Britain but I really wanted to see if my own personal/anecdotal experience was shared by other people. Something is definitely afoot. Just don't know how big it is yet.


----------



## Raheem (May 28, 2017)

Wilf said:


> My guess is that the 5% gap was the nearest Labour will come. The result will be at least a 10% gap.  There was a bit of shape and direction to the campaign a week ago when it was all nationalisation and dementia tax, but that has gone now. In some kind of footballing analogy, it's all gone a bit scrappy - misplaced passes and the odd wild shot over the bar. Which suits the team who are 2-0 up.



This would be my wild guess too, but only on the assumption that nothing worth talking about happens between now and election day. I don't think, though, that there's a basis for predicting that the second half is bound to be goalless.


----------



## Hollis (May 28, 2017)

The other thing when comparing to other elections, is this one is basically seeing a return to 2-party politics, Scotland excepted.  So percentage comparisons with previous elections are slightly flattering.

Blair won a majority in 2005 with about 35% of the vote - but then 22% went to the Lib Dems.  Looking back into pre-history Labour/Corbyn seem to be doing about as well as Sunny Jim in 1979.


----------



## Spymaster (May 28, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> You going to vote LD again then?


ABC

I believe you're overseas, but if you and I were in the same ward I'd come home to vote tactically just to cancel yours out. As it is, I'll be playing cricket on an island in the Adriatic on  Corbyn's melt-down day so I couldn't give a flying fuck. What I'm most looking forward to about June 8th is that all these Jezzer threads will become redundant and slip into oblivion. Then you won't have anything to post about.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 28, 2017)

If we're anecdotalising, I haven't seen much change in attitude to JC from anyone I know. The liberals who hated him before still don't like him but were probably always going to vote Labour anyway (or Lib Dem tactically).

What I have seen is a collapse of Tory support. Granted that most of the Tories I know were  never very enthusiastic about the modern party but post Brexit they were particularly disappointed (all the ones I know are Remainers) and now May's campaign is the shit icing on a shit cake. If she'd put out a credible and professional post-Brexit message and strategy I think they could maybe summon up some motivation, but that didn't happen.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> ABC



So Dan, Liz or Yvette? Please don't say Bomber. Cos he's a disgarce to his father's memory.

Not big Tom, I know you wouldn't want rocking Tommy. That would be just wrong.

Tell Mandy I said hi.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> ABC
> 
> I believe you're overseas, but if you and I were in the same ward I'd come home to vote tactically to cancel out yours. As it is, I'll be playing cricket on an island in the Adriatic on  Corbyn's melt-down day so I couldn't give a flying fuck. What I'm most looking forward to about June 8th is that these Jezzer threads will become redundant and slip into oblivion. Then you won't have anything to post about.


Quoted for your future embarrassment, pa


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 28, 2017)




----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> ABC
> 
> I believe you're overseas, but if you and I were in the same ward I'd come home to vote tactically to cancel out yours. As it is, I'll be playing cricket on an island in the Adriatic on  Corbyn's melt-down day so I couldn't give a flying fuck. What I'm most looking forward to about June 8th is that these Jezzer threads will become redundant and slip into oblivion. Then you won't have anything to post about.


I hear those Croatian strips can be a bit lively.


----------



## Spymaster (May 28, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I hear those Croatian strips can be a bit lively.


This one's in the middle of a winery, so I doubt _we_ will be.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> This one's in the middle of a winery, so I doubt we will be!


You quite sure you've not dreamt all of this?


----------



## Spymaster (May 28, 2017)

brogdale said:


> You quite sure you've not dreamt all of this?


It sounds like it, doesn't it? 

But no.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It sounds like it, doesn't it?
> 
> But no.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> ABC
> 
> I believe you're overseas, but if you and I were in the same ward I'd come home to vote tactically just to cancel yours out. As it is, I'll be playing cricket on an island in the Adriatic on  Corbyn's melt-down day so I couldn't give a flying fuck. What I'm most looking forward to about June 8th is that all these Jezzer threads will become redundant and slip into oblivion. Then you won't have anything to post about.


twat


----------



## Spymaster (May 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> twat


I wouldn't go that far. He's a scruffy fucker and his beard needs tidying up, but his heart seems to be in the right place.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I wouldn't go that far. He's a scruffy fucker and his beard needs tidying up, but his heart seems to be in the right place.


Serious q. What's not to like given the alternatives?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Serious q. What's not to like given the alternatives?



We want nuclear missiles and tax cuts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> We want nuclear missiles and tax cuts.


Succinctly put. That it, spymaster? I don't see what else it could be.


----------



## Raheem (May 29, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Succinctly put. That it, spymaster? I don't see what else it could be.



I can see why people might fear a sting in the tale with Corbyn. Halal jam on school menus, for example. I'm not aware that he's ruled it out. Sure, his supporters will point out that all jam is just automatically halal anyway. But surely that will only make it easier for him to get away with.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 29, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I can see why people might fear a sting in the tale with Corbyn. Halal jam on school menus, for example. I'm not aware that he's ruled it out. Sure, his supporters will point out that all jam is just automatically halal anyway. But surely that will only make it easier for him to get away with.


Another example of how Corbyn can blindside May by being bold. Call her out on Saudi Arabia. Openly denounce that tyrannical regime for what it is and commit to withdrawing UK military support. That's the way for Corbyn to go now. If he's going to go down, he should go down the right way, in a way that shows up May and her ilk for what they are.


----------



## squirrelp (May 29, 2017)

Theresa May Isn’t Strong, She’s Cowardly, Evasive And Weak – And I’m A Tory!


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Another example of how Corbyn can blindside May by being bold. Call her out on Saudi Arabia. Openly denounce that tyrannical regime for what it is and commit to withdrawing UK military support. That's the way for Corbyn to go now. If he's going to go down, he should go down the right way, in a way that shows up May and her ilk for what they are.



Yes, the foreign policy speech went down very well. Corbyn should push, in reference to the Manchester bombing, the British link to extremist governments like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also the role of the security services and Libyan exiles in the 2011 intervention in Libya. What is there to lose?


----------



## Supine (May 29, 2017)

There is a candidate in my constituency called Mr Fishfinger


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 29, 2017)

Supine said:


> There is a candidate in my constituency called Mr Fishfinger


fishfinger - any relation?


----------



## fishfinger (May 29, 2017)

farmerbarleymow said:


> fishfinger - any relation?


None whatsoever (I hope)


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 29, 2017)

fishfinger said:


> None whatsoever (I hope)


I always suspected the fishfinger clan had many tentacles.


----------



## newbie (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Yes, the foreign policy speech went down very well. Corbyn should push, in reference to the Manchester bombing, the British link to extremist governments like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also the role of the security services and Libyan exiles in the 2011 intervention in Libya. What is there to lose?



the election?  that line leads to economics, oil, strategic interests, spies and other stuff most of us can only read about but cannot personally experience.  Pages of abstract, inconclusive BTL thread.   I agree with @agricola that the key is bypassing all of that and highlighting what directly concerns many, many families in the country and touches an awful lot more.

_I would like to take a moment to speak to our soldiers on the streets of Britain. You are doing your duty as you have done so many times before.  I want to assure you that, under my leadership, you will only be deployed abroad when there is a clear need and only when there is a plan and you have the resources to do your job to secure an outcome that delivers lasting peace.
_
KISS


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2017)

The shame is that if he did get elected the reaction of the press would make their treatment of old one-eye in 2008-2010 look positively friendly and helpful.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

Strange things are happening in my world friends and family I thought would never vote for labour are now coming out in support for jezza , and these are people from greenest Tory surrey .

I does give me a glimmer of hope , people really hate TM and the dementia tax is a step too far.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Serious q. What's not to like given the alternatives?


Well that's another thread entirely which I may or may not care to get involved with if it were started. I'm only posting on this one because Redweasel quoted me back into it after a lighthearted comment, and given that my intent is to eventually bury him beneath an avalanche of invective my post was purposefully inflammatory. But there's a fair bit not to like or trust, including defence, low band corporation tax/prospective economic management, his Falklands views, Brexit ability, other stuff, and Arsenal.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> ABC
> 
> I believe you're overseas, but if you and I were in the same ward I'd come home to vote tactically just to cancel yours out. As it is, I'll be playing cricket on an island in the Adriatic on  Corbyn's melt-down day so I couldn't give a flying fuck. What I'm most looking forward to about June 8th is that all these Jezzer threads will become redundant and slip into oblivion. Then you won't have anything to post about.


Am I voting for Corbyn then? Maybe you should read some of the posts/threads in P&P.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Am I voting for Corbyn then? Maybe you should read some of the posts/threads in P&P.


I couldn't give a fuck who you are or aren't voting for, you snivelling turd.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I couldn't give a fuck who you are or aren't voting for, you snivelling turd.


Careful, pa, your blood pressure.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's another thread entirely which I may or may not care to get involved with if it were started. I'm only posting on this one because Redweasel quoted me back into it after a lighthearted comment, and given that my intent is to eventually bury him beneath an avalanche of invective, my post was purposefully inflammatory. But there's a fair bit not to like or trust, including defence, low band corporation tax/economic management, his Falklands views, Brexit ability, other stuff, and Arsenal.


Pa, perhaps you should declare your interest, that you have a poster of Theresa May in your den.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Pa, perhaps you should declare your interest, that you have a poster of Theresa May in your den.


That's Edwina Curry, son; and I've only had that up since your mum sold my porn stash for crack.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> That's E6c494dc1cdee69041bd96bd098de41cb.jpg that up since your mum sold my porn stash for crack.


No, pa, it's not ec. It is tm.

Not





But


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

Looking at the polls the Tory vote has been dented but it is still holding up in the unassailable mid 40's. For Labour to win the Tory vote needs to collapse to something under 40% (before we're even talking). The obvious UKIP and Lib Dem alternatives are failing completely to win over disaffected Tories (both are going backwards from a very poor position) and while Labour are polling reasonably well now they don't seem to be taking that many votes from the Tories.

The polling wild card is the question of whether Labour can get out the youth vote. My thinking is that the polling companies ICM and ComRes which have demographic turn out models (as opposed to asking voters how likely they are to vote) should show increasingly significantly lower polls for Labour than other companies if this were the case. There is some indication of this happening but not enough to make me think it is a game changer.

All in all it is unlikely that the polls are underestimating the Labour vote to any significant degree and may well be still overestimating the Labour vote. The Tory vote seems solid after it has been given one hell of test. Even with continued Tory fallout it would be amazing if the Tories got less than 40% of the vote in the election. Labour won't match that unless everything goes right. I'd put the odds of a Labour victory or a hung parliament at around 1 in 20.

However, if the roughly 45%-35% Tory-Labour polling of this week bear out then Corbyn will be in a good position to retain the leadership (IMO).


----------



## mikey mikey (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> However, if the roughly 45%-35% Tory-Labour polling of this week bear out then Corbyn will be in a good position to retain the leadership (IMO).



Miht explain why a high level Progress member has started the anti-Semite smear but this time with added "Jez lurves Terrorists"


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> Looking at the polls the Tory vote has been dented but it is still holding up in the unassailable mid 40's. For Labour to win the Tory vote needs to collapse to something under 40% (before we're even talking). The obvious UKIP and Lib Dem alternatives are failing completely to win over disaffected Tories (both are going backwards from a very poor position) and while Labour are polling reasonably well now they don't seem to be taking that many votes from the Tories.
> 
> The polling wild card is the question of whether Labour can get out the youth vote. My thinking is that the polling companies ICM and ComRes which have demographic turn out models (as opposed to asking voters how likely they are to vote) should show increasingly significantly lower polls for Labour than other companies if this were the case. There is some indication of this happening but not enough to make me think it is a game changer.
> 
> ...


I think some of that Tory vote is flaky. I think they'll get 38-39%


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Yes, the foreign policy speech went down very well. Corbyn should push, in reference to the Manchester bombing, the British link to extremist governments like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also the role of the security services and Libyan exiles in the 2011 intervention in Libya. What is there to lose?


... and it would be nice to hear a politician just telling it like it is, no calculation, no fucking about, just talking about what is shit in the world and getting to the real causes.


----------



## mikey mikey (May 29, 2017)




----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Yes, the foreign policy speech went down very well. Corbyn should push, in reference to the Manchester bombing, the British link to extremist governments like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also the role of the security services and Libyan exiles in the 2011 intervention in Libya. What is there to lose?


... and also, now is the perfect time  to make that point. Normally it would be a case of trying to insert that argument into a public debate hedged in by 'counter extremism', immigration and all that shite. Now is the moment when its all set, all in the public realm.  It's also, indirectly part of the story for diverting people away from the EDL - though that's not the work of one speech/any number of speeches.  It's not the people escaping Assad that are your enemy - it's the monsters in Saudi who launch this horror, it's the scum in Qatar who are happy to kill migrant workers. Don't fuck about, just say it.


----------



## squirrelp (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> Looking at the polls the Tory vote has been dented but it is still holding up in the unassailable mid 40's.


I'm not sure that the Tory vote is like some solid brick standing firm. I think it is more fluid.

The UKIP vote has collapsed, and the Labour vote has risen. Do you think that is a straight swap - or is it not likely the case that a good proportion of UKIP voters have switched to the Conservatives, balanced by a swing of Conservative voters to Labour?


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No, pa, it's not ec. It is tm.
> 
> Not
> 
> ...


Phwoar!


----------



## The Pale King (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Yes, the foreign policy speech went down very well. Corbyn should push, in reference to the Manchester bombing, the British link to extremist governments like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also the role of the security services and Libyan exiles in the 2011 intervention in Libya. What is there to lose?



Couldn't agree more with this. Attack where May believes herself to be strongest.


----------



## chilango (May 29, 2017)

No.

Get back to the dementia tax, railways, housing etc.

That's what'll swing it.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> I'm not sure that the Tory vote is like some solid brick standing firm. I think it is more fluid.
> 
> The UKIP vote has collapsed, and the Labour vote has risen. Do you think that is a straight swap - or is it not likely the case that a good proportion of UKIP voters have switched to the Conservatives, balanced by a swing of Conservative voters to Labour?


There's fluidity certainly and it's got more complicated with the rise of the snp*. But in a first past the post system any party getting into the 40s, with the second party anything more than a 3 or 4 points behind, gets a significant working majority.

* actually this election looks the closest to being a 2 party contest than we've had for a while, perhaps 1970.  Not quite at the 50s level of genuine 2 party politics - it's a '2 and a bit parties' model in England and also in Scotland (but with Labour being the 'bit' in Scotland).


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2017)

Wilf said:


> There's fluidity certainly and it's got more complicated with the rise of the snp*. But in a first past the post system any party getting into the 40s, with the second party anything more than a 3 or 4 points behind, gets a significant working majority.
> 
> * actually this election looks the closest to being a 2 party contest than we've had for a while, perhaps 1970.  Not quite at the 50s level of genuine 2 party politics - it's a '2 and a bit parties' model in England and also in Scotland (but with Labour being the 'bit' in Scotland).


Not to mention the six counties


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> I'm not sure that the Tory vote is like some solid brick standing firm. I think it is more fluid.
> 
> The UKIP vote has collapsed, and the Labour vote has risen. Do you think that is a straight swap - or is it not likely the case that a good proportion of UKIP voters have switched to the Conservatives, balanced by a swing of Conservative voters to Labour?



The UKIP vote  collapsed last year, any further losses last week are going to be small if only because they now have so little to lose. I'm not sure where the increased Labour vote is coming from, but if people are switching to the Tories  now after last week's debacle then there is not much that could possibly dissuade them in the election.

The Tories have been riding high ever since May's election as leader. I think this can only partly be explained by the collapse of the UKIP vote. I don't understand it, but it seems that the Tory vote is not going anywhere.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Not to mention the six counties



Although I'm sure someone will...


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

It maybe foolish to do this, but my best guess in terms of percentage of votes is this:
Con: 43%
Lab: 36%
LibDem: 8%
UKIP: 5%
Green: 1%
Turnout: 70%

No idea how that will translate into seats, maybe a Tory majority of 20-40 more than 2015 (with even a negligible swing to the Tories, that mid-40's percentage will likely be deadly). Both May and Corbyn will be left vulnerable but both likely to survive. I recon both of them will be fighting the next general election.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 29, 2017)

I believe the Tories' internal target is to take 80 seats. May is already vulnerable, lots of displeasure at how she's performed before and during the campaign. If they don't meet that target she'll be under quite a good deal more pressure from within.

The thing about the Tories is they're very good at keeping their fractures and arguments behind closed doors, unlike Labour. We don't see a fraction of what's going on behind the scenes.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2017)

chilango said:


> No.
> 
> Get back to the dementia tax, railways, housing etc.
> 
> That's what'll swing it.


Yes. It was a good speech, leave it at that; this isn't the moment for a foreign policy debate.


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> The thing about the Tories is they're very good at keeping their fractures and arguments behind closed doors, unlike Labour. We don't see a fraction of what's going on behind the scenes.



I guess you're too young to remember the 90's.  But point taken with respect to May. The problem the Tories have is if they are going to replace her, who are they going to replace her with? This is an astonishingly incompetent government, going beyond the astonishing incompetence of the PM.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 29, 2017)

As for Corbyn, there will be people who use any margin of loss as a reason to call for him to go. Even if Labour gained back a few seats, without a straight victory they will claim it proves his leadership is a shambles and his policies don't resonate with "hard-working voters." They'll ignore any of the stats that show an increase in the vote share over 2010 and 2015, and focus on the soundbite that a Labour opposition should be making far more gains than this against such a disastrous Tory government.

Without an outright Labour win, Corbyn will remain under constant pressure. Even with a Labour win he'll still be briefed against at every possible opportunity. They'd have to change their "you can't help people if you can't win" line, and be even more pro-active and slimy at creating division in the party and attribute it to Corbyn's inability to unite. 

Either way, there's nothing at all that could give Corbyn a calm ride from within his own party. The only question is which tactic they'll end up having to use, depending on the outcome of the vote.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> I guess you're too young to remember the 90's.  But point taken with respect to May. The problem the Tories have is if they are going to replace her, who are they going to replace her with? This is an astonishingly incompetent government, going beyond the astonishing incompetence of the PM.



I'm 39.

I'm talking about now. Now is all that matters.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> I guess you're too young to remember the 90's.  But point taken with respect to May. The problem the Tories have is if they are going to replace her, who are they going to replace her with? This is an astonishingly incompetent government, going beyond the astonishing incompetence of the PM.



Uh, isn't Boris in waiting as soon as this damaging Brexit nonsense has been dealt with?


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

Apart from the right wing hostility to Corbyn, he (or any other Labour leader) will have to contend with the fact that the Labour vote is vey volatile. They could very easily be polling in the mid 20's again in a couple of years. They've completely alienated their core vote. We are not seeing a revival of the class based certainties of the post-war years. In the biggest and most important sense of reviving Labour as the natural home of the working class (which also of course pitches for the middle class but from that working class basis) Corbyn has failed. Even if Corbyn pinches a general election victory, his leadership has failed.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2017)

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> Apart from the right wing hostility to Corbyn, he (or any other Labour leader) will have to contend with the fact that the Labour vote is vey volatile. They could very easily be polling in the mid 20's again in a couple of years. They've completely alienated their core vote. We are not seeing a revival of the class based certainties of the post-war years. In the biggest and most important sense of reviving Labour as the natural home of the working class (which also of course pitches for the middle class but from that working class basis) Corbyn has failed. Even if Corbyn pinches a general election victory, his leadership has failed.


Most trad working class Labour voters I know are saying they will vote Labour next week


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Uh, isn't Boris in waiting as soon as this damaging Brexit nonsense has been dealt with?



He is but if the Tories are winning over 40% of the vote, are they going to elect a leader who maybe very popular with some but whom a lot of people dislike or think is a buffoon. They're proving to be very risk adverse at present (even if they are doing it badly), I don't see them going for Boris just yet.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> Apart from the right wing hostility to Corbyn, he (or any other Labour leader) will have to contend with the fact that the Labour vote is vey volatile. They could very easily be polling in the mid 20's again in a couple of years. They've completely alienated their core vote. We are not seeing a revival of the class based certainties of the post-war years. In the biggest and most important sense of reviving Labour as the natural home of the working class (which also of course pitches for the middle class but from that working class basis) Corbyn has failed. Even if Corbyn pinches a general election victory, his leadership has failed.



That last bit is absurd.  If Corbyn did win this election, in these circumstances, it would be the greatest political achievement in this country in living memory.


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

JTG said:


> Most trad working class Labour voters I know are saying they will vote Labour next week



That's what you'd expect. But a few weeks ago Labour looked like they were going to lose Wales to the Tories. I'm sure you know that already. But it's still worth saying again. They were on course to lose Wales to the Tories.


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> That's what you'd expect. But a few weeks ago Labour looked like they were going to lose Wales to the Tories. I'm sure you know that already. But it's still worth saying again. They were on course to lose Wales to the Tories.


See what you're saying but you can't say they've alienated people when those people have now decided to vote for them.


----------



## bi0boy (May 29, 2017)

I thought a week was a long time in politics?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> He is but if the Tories are winning over 40% of the vote, are they going to elect a leader who maybe very popular with some but whom a lot of people dislike or think is a buffoon. They're proving to be very risk adverse at present (even if they are doing it badly), I don't see them going for Boris just yet.



Boris has the public on side. May doesn't. They're that strong they could risk it with her. I can only hope it's a major miscalculation, but that's unlikely, isn't it?
They're absolute shitcunts yet the most successful political party these shores have ever known. They know what they're doing.


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

All I'm saying is that the Labour vote is volatile, it's certainly up at the minute.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2017)

It's going to lose. 
I'm always wrong.
Please make me wrong again.


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Boris has the public on side. May doesn't. They're that strong they could risk it with her. I can only hope it's a major miscalculpation, but that's unlikely, isn't it?
> They're absolute shitcunts yet the most successful political party these shores have ever known. They know what they're doing.



Maybe you're right. I certainly know people who love Boris (and Farage and Trump). I'm just giving you my best guess. I think the outcome of the election would have to be worse for them than what I'm predicting before the Tories will ditch May and go for Boris.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Boris has the public on side. May doesn't. They're that strong they could risk it with her. I can only hope it's a major miscalculation, but that's unlikely, isn't it?
> They're absolute shitcunts yet the most successful political party these shores have ever known. They know what they're doing.



Electorally yes - but they have failed at almost everything, from their support of James II onwards.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It's going to lose.
> I'm always wrong.
> Please make me wrong again.


The trick would be to make you right.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> That last bit is absurd.  If Corbyn did win this election, in these circumstances, it would be the greatest political achievement in this country in living memory.



That would still not stop a big chunk of the PLP trying to dismiss it and saying he's a disaster.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Boris has the public on side. May doesn't. They're that strong they could risk it with her. I can only hope it's a major miscalculation, but that's unlikely, isn't it?
> They're absolute shitcunts yet the most successful political party these shores have ever known. They know what they're doing.


Boris has lost two jobs for lying

And they were journalist jobs too

So you can see how much he must have been lying to get the sack


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

Also don't underestimate May (I'm talking to people in general not anyone in particular, hell I'll talk to a brick wall if I have to). I think she's got a broad base of popular support. I haven't the foggiest notion of why this is, personally I think she's one of the most incompetent PM's this country has ever had. But any honest look at the polls tells you its there. Good, if someone flagging personal ratings, a big boost to the polls when she became leader and a honeymoon that's only just ending, and frankly I think she's been largely forgiven for her tremendous dementia tax wobble by the 45% (or so) who are going to be voting Tory. This is a bubble that's going to burst eventually, but probably not before the election.

To Labour and Corbyn's credit, I think they are winning back their support on their own terms not because of Tory calamities. Ironically if they were making gains off the back of Tory failure, then they might just win.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> That would still not stop a big chunk of the PLP trying to dismiss it and saying he's a disaster.



It will be like the Retreat from Moscow, except with winning and doing what they were elected to do in the first place.  Every few miles along the way you'll find a little clump of humanity, pleading to be put out of its misery and offering a fortune in looted furs and gold to whomever can get it a nice think-tank job.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 29, 2017)

I don't think it likely but if Corbyn and Labour were to win the election, it would be hilarious. I for one would be grinning all over my face and laughing out loud.


----------



## steeplejack (May 29, 2017)

Much as I'd love to believe in a Corbyn win against-all-the-odds I just can't see it.

Labour are likely to lose their last remaining seat in Scotland. They need to win big in the north and the midlands and staunch the bleed all over Wales (Tories threatening in places like Wrexham, Plaid in the Rhondda and Môn).

I said May was the Tories' Gordon Brown when she was annointed. She's spent a life hankering after power and now she has it, she has no idea what to do with it. Even a moderate centrist voter inclined to believe the blandishments of Tories will find her hardline UKIP-style policies loathsome (such people would tend to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt).

It's been heartening to see the Tories so savagely destroy their own advantage through hateful policies and incompetence. But any hopes of a Labour win still seem fanciful. It's an early rounds FA Cup tie at Stamford Bridge; Labour are Barnsley, and have been gifted a couple of comical own goals, but are still 4-2 down with fifteen minutes left to play.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 29, 2017)

Knotted said:


> Even if Corbyn pinches a general election victory, his leadership has failed.



This is ahistorical. 

The traditional Labour vote certainly is volatile. It's not solely down to any one thing, but rather movement in politics more broadly, myriad things. Nor has it only just happened - it's a continual process. Under the big banner of neoliberalism, Thatcher, Blair, globalisation, weakening of unions, atomisation of individuals, changes in industry... all the usual stuff. Quite how Corbyn was meant to change what all of that means for the traditional Labour voter (whatever one of those is anyway) I have no idea.


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> That last bit is absurd.  If Corbyn did win this election, in these circumstances, it would be the greatest political achievement in this country in living memory.



Well the way I look at it is that the Tory + UKIP vote is consistently around 50% (often considerably higher) in the polls. That's only possible with big in roads into the working class vote for parties of the right. (Remember the days when working class Tories were a minority?) This isn't Corbyn's fault, it's a situation that he's inherited, but its something he's done nothing about. It's something the Labour Party as a whole (left and right) have done nothing about (alright, every now and then some wonk will waffle about some sort of inconsequential "left patriotism" as the way forward). All they've got at the minute is a bash at mobilising the youth vote, which with a tremendous amount of luck might just work. But the medium term prospects for Labour are absolutely dire.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Fuck me watching old JC live on the Sky TV debate he is coming over as a man of the people and not at all swivel eyed. He might just squeak home - he is only 1% behind in the female vote and having just met up with the missus of an old mate who is normally Lib-Dem - she is smitten and so are most of her friends. May seems remote, rigid , uncaring and power hungry in comparison. I'm voting Jeremy now and with some passion having up till now not given a fuck.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2017)

steeplejack said:


> but are still 4-2 down with fifteen minutes left to play.


but if football comics teach us anything, this is where corbyn tries on his new boots and a rested skinner comes on to rally the team towards a last minute victory


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

Corbyn is doing very well during this Q&A thing, every question a very solid and confident answer.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is ahistorical.
> 
> The traditional Labour vote certainly is volatile. It's not solely down to any one thing, but rather movement in politics more broadly, myriad things. Nor has it only just happened - it's a continual process. Under the big banner of neoliberalism, Thatcher, Blair, globalisation, weakening of unions, atomisation of individuals, changes in industry... all the usual stuff. Quite how Corbyn was meant to change what all of that means for the traditional Labour voter (whatever one of those is anyway) I have no idea.



At times I just think his appeal is almost solely because all the people responsible for your big banner things hate him so viscerally.


----------



## steeplejack (May 29, 2017)

I said Barnsley, not Melchester Rovers....


----------



## steeplejack (May 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> but if football comics teach us anything, this is where corbyn tries on his new boots and a rested skinner comes on to rally the team towards a last minute victory



I said Barnsley, not Melchester Rovers....


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2017)

steeplejack said:


> I said Barnsley, not Melchester Rovers....


Thought you'd be a fan of fulchester utd


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Corbyn is doing very well during this Q&A thing, every question a very solid and confident answer.


any idea where I can watch online? my google skills are not working


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> any idea where I can watch online? my google skills are not working


On Now - All 4


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

I think Jezza done good with the public on sky news , tm will be interesting


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> any idea where I can watch online? my google skills are not working


Or you can listen on the dreaded LBC


----------



## The Pale King (May 29, 2017)

Corbin on fire - his address ti the small business owner was impressive.


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Corbyn is doing very well during this Q&A thing, every question a very solid and confident answer.


Yeah, aced it.


----------



## Knotted (May 29, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is ahistorical.
> 
> The traditional Labour vote certainly is volatile. It's not solely down to any one thing, but rather movement in politics more broadly, myriad things. Nor has it only just happened - it's a continual process. Under the big banner of neoliberalism, Thatcher, Blair, globalisation, weakening of unions, atomisation of individuals, changes in industry... all the usual stuff. Quite how Corbyn was meant to change what all of that means for the traditional Labour voter (whatever one of those is anyway) I have no idea.



Indeed this is a problem that the left have been facing for decades. The solution is to become the party that orients to the community and deals with problems as they arise and is willing to mobilise people without dogma and without corruption and without vested interests and without careerism. Industry may have changed but the people who do the work haven't gone away. The solution is to become the party that people turn to when they have problems. Focusing on parliamentary politics, talking to people only when you want their vote (if at all), neglecting constituents in safe seats is all part of the rot and this rot has not been reversed under Corbyn despite the opportunity afforded by the large intake of enthused new members. This is why I declare Corbyn a failure regardless of the election result.


----------



## The Pale King (May 29, 2017)

Awful questions though. Nuclear War ifs! Let's see what May gets.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Now with a bearish Paxman who is looking like a cunt...coming over all Zen like. Paxo must be worried about his tax bill...


----------



## eatmorecheese (May 29, 2017)

Paxman playing the grumpy public school housemaster dressing down a naive sixth-former


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

JC brilliant in the public Q&A. Paxman now being a wanker


----------



## gosub (May 29, 2017)

What just happened to Jeremy Corbyn would NEVER happen to Theresa May [VIDEO] | The Canary

NOPE.  You have to get up pretty early to have that little traffic round that bit of Glasgow 

Not a good look.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Faces in the crowd look like they are learning something new...off to the bookies tmrw for a flutter...


----------



## The Pale King (May 29, 2017)

Paxman a pantomime dame these days


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

He just shut paxman down , twice


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

I'm loving Jeremy - what a performer.


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Paxman is really shit. "Not all your beliefs are in the manifesto" for the umpteenth time now. So what? Is that all he has? Seems so!


----------



## oryx (May 29, 2017)

He's fucking pwning Paxman!


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Paxo looking like a man who knows he's lost the arguement - eyes bloodshot and red. A shadow of his former self.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

I think paxman doesn't want to be there


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 29, 2017)

"So you don't know?!"
"No, I'm not going to start making promises without knowing what's on the negotiating table and what the context of those negotiations is. That's the Tories' way of doing things"


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

Love jezza just not rising to it


----------



## oryx (May 29, 2017)

The question about getting rid of the monarchy not being in the Labour manifesto was frankly just sad.


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

I don't know whether it's because I'm so biased but Corbyn seems like he is really thwarting Paxman.


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Paxman doesn't understand a hypothetical question. His English teacher must be turning in his grave.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 29, 2017)

Here we go.. "your friends".


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

Fuck you paxman , owned again


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 29, 2017)

magneze said:


> Paxman doesn't understand a hypothetical question. His English teacher must be turning in his grave.


"Imagine if, sometime in the future... what? No! That's not hypothetical!"


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

oryx said:


> The question about getting rid of the monarchy not being in the Labour manifesto was frankly just sad.



or he knows what not to offer as hostages to fortune to get elected.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I don't know whether it's because I'm so biased but Corbyn seems like he is really thwarting Paxman.


I wonder that myself, but no... He is not being shouted down and doing it


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Well that went well I'd say.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Hopefully May fucks up comes all over swivel eyed and melts..


----------



## oryx (May 29, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> Here we go.. "your friends".


Me and OH rolling around laughing at Paxo's weak little objection: 'But they're your friends!'


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I don't know whether it's because I'm so biased but Corbyn seems like he is really thwarting Paxman.



Here's a Tory confirming what I was thinking


----------



## Wookey (May 29, 2017)

I think Jezza did brilliantly.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

May coming over like an autocue robot - tired  and fixed. 3 wives Jezza is obviously a charmer.


----------



## catinthehat (May 29, 2017)

Killer blow last word delivered gently: 'But you know that'.  Classic back of the net moment.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

Stumble stumble mayhem, oh yes and censor the Internet's


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

May can't answer the first question. Waffling.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Crowd faces looking a bit bored.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Here's a Tory confirming what I was thinking



Because of course it could only be media training. Some PR svengali.


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Because of course it could only be media training. Some PR svengali.



Yes, but reading between the lines what she is saying that Corbyn done good


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Old Tory looking 'chap' in a blazer mentioning Dementia Tax ....


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

So its your fault your living older eh ?


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Of course this will be like a Kinnock Sheffield moment when hope morphs into heady delusion..


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

May is doing OK too.


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Crap on first question but otherwise ok so far.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

magneze said:


> Crap on first question but otherwise ok so far.



This answer to the teacher asking about cuts is a return to the crapness of the first question.


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Heckling and laughter at her evasiveness.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

Her voice is trembling , strong and stable lol


----------



## oryx (May 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> This answer to the teacher asking about cuts is a return to the crapness of the first question.


...and consequent mild heckling


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Somebody ask her about fox hunting. Had a phlegmy nervous wobble in her throat just now. Hope Paxo shafts her.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2017)

So, will she get the 'why did you let Abedi go to Libya' q from paxo?


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

That schools answer, wow.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

The Tories will be complaining for ages about this, especially if Paxman starts acting like a human being again when he does his bit.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

An anti Tory audience of 'normal folk' it would seem - she may regret doing this in the end.


----------



## Hollis (May 29, 2017)

Format is crap really.  Politicians can just turn out their stock answers.  No real come-back or follow-up from the audience.


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2017)

Not surprising that she was refusing to do head to head


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

A very big gulp when the nurse replied she was a lying cunt.


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)




----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Shit question this nasty party one.


----------



## spitfire (May 29, 2017)

Uh oh. There's a glitch in the maytrix....


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

phillm said:


> A very big gulp when the nurse replied she was a lying cunt.


Good. How does she sleep at night?


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2017)

I've just seen she came up with this answer (not watching, is it just on sk?):


> _Q: Can you tell me why I have leaflets from Tories saying there would be £350m for the NHS if we voted to leave the EU. That is why I voted to leave?_
> 
> May says passionate arguments were made on both sides.


 Even at the usual level of politician speak/evasion it should be impossible for her to Johnson in her cabinet after that.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

I'd say it is 2-1 to Corbyn at half-time.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

magneze said:


> Good. How does she sleep at night?



On a comfortable bed, surrounded by Philips (at least if both the PM and the Chancellor are in their traditional homes).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 29, 2017)




----------



## Lord Camomile (May 29, 2017)

Paxman really struggles with the idea "you don't personally agree with this but as the leader of a party have to enact what the majority want, not just what you want". He seems to think leaders should act like dictators.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

She's surviving which is all she needs to do - the media will downplay Corbyn's moment of glory. She will win I fear in the end.


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2017)

I was wondering if I'd find paxo any less of a tedious hectoring twat when up against May, but it turns out he is just a tedious hectoring twat.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Mail as shit as ever but at least has her squirming. Otherwise lying, lying cunts.

_Earlier, Jeremy Corbyn was pummelled by voters over his support for the IRA during its reign of terror in the biggest TV election event so far.

The Labour leader was challenged on how he could be 'trusted' after having such close ties to Republican chiefs during the 1980s.

Mr Corbyn was visibly uncomfortable as he was called out as he tried to argue that he was 'contributing' to the Northern Ireland peace process.

He was also berated over his refusal to commit to the Trident nuclear deterrent, despite his party nominally being in favour of renewing it._

And in one particularly painful exchange with Jeremy Paxman on the Sky News and Channel 4 election special he was unable to say whether his shadow chancellor John McDonnell still supported disbanding MI5.  


Read more: May vows she WILL protect pensioners despite | Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

May vows she WILL protect pensioners despite | Daily Mail Online


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Mocking laughter again by the audience on social care.

Looks rattled imo.


----------



## free spirit (May 29, 2017)

'she's a blowhard who collapses at the first sign of trouble'

Paxman goes in for the kill.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

Fair play to paxman


----------



## oryx (May 29, 2017)

killer b said:


> I was wondering if I'd find paxo any less of a tedious hectoring twat when up against May, but it turns out he is just a tedious hectoring twat.


He's rubbish - just become a caricature of himself


----------



## Ax^ (May 29, 2017)

May is shite 

*shocker*


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

There is no way this audience is a third Tory, third Labour and a third "undecided".


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

She has evil eyes that would glint as she pushed the power drill into your eyeballs.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

phillm said:


> She has evil eyes that would glint as she pushed the power drill into your eyeballs.



That is an outrageous slur that has no place in politics.

She'd have someone do that on her behalf.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2017)

All I can say is jezza had no one laughing at him.....


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Has she actually articulated why to vote for the Tories at all?


----------



## Ax^ (May 29, 2017)

for the soundbite's


----------



## Ax^ (May 29, 2017)

so we can see why she did not want a direct debate


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

To all labour activists "go back to your constituencies and prepare for government".


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Lol, some dick tried to give her a standing ovation and quickly sat down.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

Ax^ said:


> so we can see why she did not want a direct debate



She would do far better at those than she has in this format (or the Neil interviews).


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Paxman.Retire.Now.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 29, 2017)

Oh please, no-one's been watching this on Sky News


----------



## Dogsauce (May 29, 2017)

Think paxo let her finish strongly, sounding 'tough' on Brexit, which is what they want to be the subject of the election. All that 'no deal' crap, will probably go down with the kippers she needs on side.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> Oh please, no-one's been watching this on Sky News



Exactly - Corbyn's strong showing will get buried in the onslaught of "Corbyn want's your house type messaging". Then it will be back to business as normal. Tis May's wobble moment but just that. She will win. The Cunt.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2017)

phillm said:


> Exactly - Corbyn's strong showing will get buried in the onslaught of "Corbyn want's your house type messaging". Then it will be back to business as normal. Tis May's wobble moment but just that. She will win. The Cunt.



Probably, though the Tory campaign is that absurd that they are actually promising to take people's houses in their manifesto.  She didn't deny it even when asked tonight.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2017)

phillm said:


> Exactly - Corbyn's strong showing will get buried in the onslaught of "Corbyn want's your house type messaging". Then it will be back to business as normal. Tis May's wobble moment but just that. She will win. The Cunt.


Short of her running out of the studio, throwing up or hurling a chair into the audience, that was always going to be the outcome. From my perspective this was about whether Labour can get back to it's mini-revival and not lose too badly.


----------



## Raheem (May 29, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Think paxo let her finish strongly, sounding 'tough' on Brexit, which is what they want to be the subject of the election. All that 'no deal' crap, will probably go down with the kippers she needs on side.



Nah. The technique of repeatedly asking her the same thing was a bit weak, but the kippers are (understandably) worried that she's full of bullshit. Repeatedly not offering the obvious clarification won't have helped dispel that.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> Probably, though the Tory campaign is that absurd that they are actually promising to take people's houses in their manifesto.  She didn't deny it even when asked tonight.


Labour should run an election broadcast with estate agents and social services coming round to value the houses of the over 60s.


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Nah. The technique of repeatedly asking her the same thing was a bit weak, but the kippers are (understandably) worried that she's full of bullshit. Repeatedly not offering the obvious clarification won't have helped dispel that.


And anyone who voted remain isn't going to be voting for her after that last answer imo.


----------



## phillm (May 29, 2017)

Could Hugh Hudson do a soft soap Corbyn the Movie now - your country needs you.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 29, 2017)

magneze said:


> And anyone who voted remain isn't going to be voting for her after that last answer imo.


Why? It's not like it wasn't clear what the Tory policy on Brexit is? 

Actually I'm not sure how effective this focus on Brexit by the Tories in the last week will be, I just don't see people making that the issue that decides their vote. If they were why aren't the LDs doing better?


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Why? It's not like it wasn't clear what the Tory policy on Brexit is?
> 
> Actually I'm not sure how effective this focus on Brexit by the Tories in the last week will be, I just don't see people making that the issue that decides their vote. If they were why aren't the LDs doing better?


Yeah, thinking about it it was already clear. It was all very entertaining but will it have changed anyone's vote? Few I'd guess.


----------



## bromley (May 29, 2017)

magneze said:


> Lol, some dick tried to give her a standing ovation and quickly sat down.


Glad it wasn't just me who saw him!


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 30, 2017)

In a surprising twist, Tony Blair's twitter (that of Tony Blair Office, at least) has been suspended.



Let this be foreshadowing.

(It is the official twitter account, despite the lack of blue tick. It's the account linked via his website.)

Edit: may have been closed down on purpose. Still. LET THIS BE FORESHADOWING. lol.


----------



## pesh (May 30, 2017)




----------



## Calamity1971 (May 30, 2017)

.


----------



## Calamity1971 (May 30, 2017)

.


----------



## Calamity1971 (May 30, 2017)

magneze said:


> Lol, some dick tried to give her a standing ovation and quickly sat down.





Calamity1971 said:


> Haha. That was an ' I'm Spartacus' moment but with everyone thinking, aye crack on ya twat


----------



## Calamity1971 (May 30, 2017)

Fucked that up!


----------



## chilango (May 30, 2017)

Someone (who should know better) was telling me yesterday that Corbyn was going to disband the army and leave NATO.


----------



## JimW (May 30, 2017)

chilango said:


> Someone (who should know better) was telling me yesterday that Corbyn was going to disband the army and leave NATO.


I heard he's going to disband NATO and leave the army [emoji35]


----------



## danny la rouge (May 30, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> In a surprising twist, Tony Blair's twitter (that of Tony Blair Office, at least) has been suspended.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First they came for Blair but I did nothing because I'd been praying for the day they came for Blair.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 30, 2017)

chilango said:


> Someone (who should know better) was telling me yesterday that Corbyn was going to disband the army and leave NATO.



Versions of that doing the rounds.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Versions of that doing the rounds.
> 
> 
> View attachment 107941


I'd better get voting for him then.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I'd better get voting for him then.


Intit. When the scares are better policies than the real policies.


----------



## bemused (May 30, 2017)

agricola said:


> Probably, though the Tory campaign is that absurd that they are actually promising to take people's houses in their manifesto.  She didn't deny it even when asked tonight.



Actually, this policy shows how vacuous the elections are. If you are put into a nursing home the government can already recoup any fees from the sale of your house, indeed they even add interest to it. It currently doesn't apply if you are provided care in your home. 

So this puts us in a position where both sides of the political debate agree that the former is okay but because of the media backlash, the latter isn't.

This is why I roll my eyes at the suggestion elections are about policies - they are a popularity contest about the leaders nothing more.


----------



## Fez909 (May 30, 2017)

phillm said:


> A very big gulp when the nurse replied she was a lying cunt.


That was really noticeable last night whenever she got in trouble. I hadn't cottoned on before, but that's clearly her 'tell'.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 30, 2017)




----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Versions of that doing the rounds.
> 
> 
> View attachment 107941


The Zinoviev twitter.


----------



## phillm (May 30, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The Zinoviev twitter.



The Protocols of the Elders of Corbyn.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 30, 2017)

Y' know this will all end in tears ....


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 30, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Y' know this will all end in tears ....



It always does, no matter the outcome.


----------



## agricola (May 30, 2017)

phillm said:


> The Protocols of the Elders of Corbyn.



the Shitler Diaries


----------



## phillm (May 30, 2017)

Fuck me he's pissed away last night's good innings. Worse than Abbott.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Y' know this will all end in tears ....


That's my line


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

Corbyn done good on the one show


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

phillm said:


> Fuck me he's pissed away last night's good innings. Worse than Abbott.




no one listens to radio 4 woman's hour that is going to be persuaded by this who doesn't already despise Corbyn


----------



## phillm (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> no one listens to radio 4 woman's hour that is going to be persuaded by this who doesn't already despise Corbyn



He's got some stamina.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> no one listens to radio 4 woman's hour that is going to be persuaded by this who doesn't already despise Corbyn


Helpfully the BBC are putting this highly significant story absolutely everywhere just for those people who might have missed it.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Helpfully the BBC are putting this highly significant story absolutely everywhere just for those people who might have missed it.



Fucking Murdoch's Sky News is more impartial than the den of vipers we call the BBC.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Fucking Murdoch's Sky News is more impartial than the den of vipers we call the BBC.


I took a day off today and actually caught the tail end of the interview on Women's Hour, when they were saying they had to stop there to go on to the serial. Thank heavens the important events that I missed were then on every news bulletin after that, with a special segment on World At One. They did have someone from Labour saying "this is ridiculous, the figure is in the manifesto and the tories never have costings for anything anywhere but you never pull them up on it" but mysteriously that seems not to have got a lot of emphasis.


----------



## gosub (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> no one listens to radio 4 woman's hour that is going to be persuaded by this who doesn't already despise Corbyn



the fuck up I can understand and forgive, the attacks on the woman conducting the interview as a Zionist, not so much.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> the fuck up I can understand and forgive, the attacks on the woman conducting the interview as a Zionist, not so much.



What attacks are those then?


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> the fuck up I can understand and forgive, the attacks on the woman conducting the interview as a Zionist, not so much.


You mean the ones not from Corbyn and that he's repeatedly condemned - as well as the misogynistic attacks on her that he's also condemned?


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> You mean the ones not from Corbyn and that he's repeatedly condemned - as well as the misogynistic attacks on her?



Funny how this trend of 'political figure entirely responsible for what random people not necessarily even their supporters say on twitter' only ever applies to people who challenge status quo. We had this crap throughout the Independence referendum and it got really stupid during the Democratic primaries with Clintonite partisans retweeting accounts named things like 'BuildTheWall88' as evidence of the nerfarious tendencies of Sanders supporters.


----------



## phillm (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> the fuck up I can understand and forgive, the attacks on the woman conducting the interview as a Zionist, not so much.



She worked for the Telegraph.

Emma Barnett - Wikipedia


----------



## gosub (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> What attacks are those then?



ah, now you going to make link to Paul Staines site.

Corbynistas Send Emma Barnett Anti-Semitic Abuse - Guido Fawkes

which presumably lead to Corbyn Condemns Anti-Semitic Supporters at 'Race and Faith Manifesto' Launch - Guido Fawkes

Israel is n't the same as Judaism.  However to end up looking at everything, including a womens hour interview on child care provision through a prism of "Zionism" is fucked up.


was  writing reply whilst other posts came in


----------



## marty21 (May 30, 2017)

Corbyn is having a great campaign ,helped of course by May's disastrous showing.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 30, 2017)

But has corbyn done any of this ?


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> ah, now you going to make link to Paul Staines site.
> 
> Corbynistas Send Emma Barnett Anti-Semitic Abuse - Guido Fawkes
> 
> ...



So is May responsible every single time a twitter egg sends Sadiq Khan something racist? Where even is the evidence that all these people are Corbyn supporters or even real people?


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 30, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I took a day off today and actually caught the tail end of the interview on Women's Hour, when they were saying they had to stop there to go on to the serial. Thank heavens the important events that I missed were then on every news bulletin after that, with a special segment on World At One. They did have someone from Labour saying "this is ridiculous, the figure is in the manifesto and the tories never have costings for anything anywhere but you never pull them up on it" but mysteriously that seems not to have got a lot of emphasis.


Was it this?



Saw a BBC headline on the way home "Corbyn crumbles on childcare". _Crumbles_! He forgot one bloody figure!

Same BBC ticker had "May's 'strong and stable' campaign" and "May says she is 'ready to go' on Brexit".

Didn't fucking sound it last night...!


----------



## gosub (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> So is May responsible every single time a twitter egg sends Sadiq Khan something racist? Where even is the evidence that all these people are Corbyn supporters or even real people?



Corbyn did the right thing with the condemnation.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> Corbyn did the right thing with the condemnation.



I agree with you, but why is this brought up at all? Where are the news stories implying that May is responsible for Tory racists on social media and calling on her to condemn them? I can think of a few answers to these questions and one of them isn't 'none of that actually happens'. The Guido Fawkes website comment section is overwhelmingly pro-Tory and disgustingly bigoted towards every group out there other than white men, where are the howls of outcry there?


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> Corbyn did the right thing with the condemnation.


Corbyn does a lot of right things


----------



## gosub (May 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I agree with you, but why is this brought up at all? Where are the news stories implying that May is responsible for Tory racists on social media and calling on her to condemn them? I can think of a few answers to these questions and one of them isn't 'none of that actually happens'. The Guido Fawkes website comment section is overwhelmingly pro-Tory and disgustingly bigoted towards every group out there other than white men, where are the howls of outcry there?



her twittername is included in those tweets so she will see them, the scum that inhabit under the guido posts you'd have to go looking for... - why bother?


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> her twittername is included in those tweets so she will see them, the scum that inhabit under the guido posts you'd have to go looking for... - why bother?



What's unique about any of this? What's particular to Corbyn here?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 30, 2017)

I was thinking it could have been a tactical fuck up, as it will draw attention to the fact he's offering 30hrs childcare. Then I listened to it and he sounds like a fucking shambles.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> her twittername is included in those tweets so she will see them, the scum that inhabit under the guido posts you'd have to go looking for... - why bother?


_I see yer Da' understands Twitter._


----------



## newbie (May 30, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I took a day off today and actually caught the tail end of the interview on Women's Hour, when they were saying they had to stop there to go on to the serial. Thank heavens the important events that I missed were then on every news bulletin after that, with a special segment on World At One. They did have someone from Labour saying "this is ridiculous, the figure is in the manifesto and the tories never have costings for anything anywhere but you never pull them up on it" but mysteriously that seems not to have got a lot of emphasis.


It's years since I bothered complaining about the meeja but I got so cross with Wato I wrote in demanding Kearney be sacked.  5 minutes on Labour, entirely about Corbyn forgetting a number followed by a balancing 5 minutes of an uninterrupted speech by May attacking Corbyn.  Just so naked.


----------



## killer b (May 30, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> _I see yer Da' understands Twitter._


 he saying the Teresa May sees stuff that's @'d to her on Twitter?


----------



## gosub (May 30, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> _I see yer Da' understands Twitter._



unlikely, I don't really see the point of twitter, so no chance would I bother getting my septeganarian old man involved with it, he has enough trouble with facebook, Word even, he has ninja skillsz for fucking up printer settings and deleting the idiot proof buttons I build him


----------



## gosub (May 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> he saying the Teresa May sees stuff that's @'d to her on Twitter?



no the journo who did the hatchet job on women' hour.

In a world where carrying a ministers bag is a step up the greasy pole, the PM will not be reading tweets


----------



## danny la rouge (May 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> he saying the Teresa May sees stuff that's @'d to her on Twitter?





Tweets like this ^ after the Corbyn interview.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> no the journo who did the hatchet job on women' hour.
> 
> In a world where carrying a ministers bag is a step up the greasy pole, the PM will not be reading tweets



Do you think that anyone reads Sadiq Khan's twitter? Or Diane Abbot's?


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 30, 2017)

Theresa May ‘Liar Liar’ song hits NUMBER ONE on download chart - why WON'T radio play it?

Ha ha


----------



## danny la rouge (May 30, 2017)

Wry comment on the media's obsession with Corbyn's past.


----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2017)

phillm said:


> Fuck me he's pissed away last night's good innings. Worse than Abbott.



I cringed - and I'm not even a Corbyn fan.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I cringed - and I'm not even a Corbyn fan.



Funnily enough that has been my reaction whenever I have had the misfortunte to listen to Woman's Hour.


----------



## squirrelp (May 31, 2017)

Knotted said:


> The Tories have been riding high ever since May's election as leader. I think this can only partly be explained by the collapse of the UKIP vote. I don't understand it, but it seems that the Tory vote is not going anywhere.


Well my suggestion is that it has been transferring to Labour, balanced by UKIP voters transferring to Tory. But the UKIP buffer as such is being exhausted, so any further swing to Labour is going to hit their vote share.


----------



## Who PhD (May 31, 2017)

Oh noes corbyn forgot a number once! Alert the wizards!

Seriously this is insane. The costs are there in his manifesto, unlike the Tories who think 8p buys a child a decent breakfast healthy enough to sustain then through the lunch they won't be getting under the Tories


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 31, 2017)

Or the fact that no one can ask may about costings , she hasn't got any


----------



## newbie (May 31, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Or the fact that no one can ask may about costings , she hasn't got any



yes she has, 7p per meal for children!

Does anyone know if there's an election diary anywhere that tracks where the leaders appear?  I can't find one, but from what I can make out Corbyn yesterday was interviewed on Womans Hour and the One Show and did a Q&A on Mumsnet. Obviously he's been hammered by the press for them.  TM visited a factory and gave a speech, probably (on past form) to an invited audience in a tiny hall that had been booked for a childrens party or somesuch.  That's why no-one can ask.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 31, 2017)

newbie said:


> yes she has, 7p per meal for children!
> 
> Does anyone know if there's an election diary anywhere that tracks where the leaders appear?  I can't find one, but from what I can make out Corbyn yesterday was interviewed on Womans Hour and the One Show and did a Q&A on Mumsnet. Obviously he's been hammered by the press for them.  TM visited a factory and gave a speech, probably (on past form) to an invited audience in a tiny hall that had been booked for a childrens party or somesuch.  That's why no-one can ask.


6.8p in fact.


----------



## Who PhD (May 31, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> 6.8p in fact.


Just think of all the sugar laden fortified breakfast cereal you could buy for that! Maybe a whole shitty cornflake! 

Truly it is the promise of a new strong and stable golden age


----------



## newbie (May 31, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> 6.8p in fact.


I'm sorry.  Really, really sorry.  I didn't remember or look it up!  

Just like JC I'm not fit to be prime minister


----------



## danny la rouge (May 31, 2017)

newbie said:


> I'm sorry.  Really, really sorry.  I didn't remember or look it up!
> 
> Just like JC I'm not fit to be prime minister


I only pulled you up on it because I'm Jewish.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2017)

its more than likely possible to cost that when buying cheap and in bulk. Prisons are not known for their culinary excellence but last time I looked it was 80p per head per meal for prisoners. But i'm imagining the costing goes to 'those kids who have to have the meal tickets' so doesn't include feeding all of them. Either way it looks proper cruella de ville. Let them eat for less than the value of a chomp bar


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

Is it just me or has the _tone _of the media and bits of the Labour right towards the Labour leadership changed over the past couple of days?


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Is it just me or has the _tone _of the media and bits of the Labour right towards the Labour leadership changed over the past couple of days?


In what way? More +ve?


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> In what way? More +ve?



Ever so slightly less contemptuous of Corbyn, although it might just be a function of the stage of the campaign that we are in.


----------



## The39thStep (May 31, 2017)

Mathew Goodwin made an interesting post looking at most  data of UKIP voters. Initial data suggested that the Tories were mopping ex UKIP voters up like there was no tomorrow but the most recent shows an increase in those who would vote Labour.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Mathew Goodwin made an interesting post looking at most  data of UKIP voters. Initial data suggested that the Tories were mopping ex UKIP voters up like there was no tomorrow but the most recent shows an increase in those who would vote Labour.


Lab message on respecting Brexit reassuring them that a Labour vote won't reverse their Leave votes. After that other issues and tribalism come into play


----------



## danny la rouge (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Ever so slightly less contemptuous of Corbyn, although it might just be a function of the stage of the campaign that we are in.


There's still a lot of negative press covfefe.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> Lab message on respecting Brexit reassuring them that a Labour vote won't reverse their Leave votes. After that other issues and tribalism come into play



Remember a month ago when all the Very Serious British Politics People were telling us what a disaster Corbyn's pragmatic approach to the EU was and how it would lead to the resurgence of their beloved Lib Dems.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Remember a month ago when all the Very Serious British Politics People were telling us what a disaster Corbyn's pragmatic approach to the EU was and how it would lead to the resurgence of their beloved Lib Dems.


I've just been given a long lecture on fb by a friend of a friend on Brexit: surprised the LDs haven't done better, "voice of the 48%", disappointed with Corbyn's attitude towards it all etc etc

These people are very few in number but occupy the airwaves/printed page/cyberspace disproportionately. I tried to say that most of the 48%, me included, are getting on with their lives and worrying about jobs, childcare, the NHS etc. Not making big chin strokey clever posts about the EU and the Lib Dems.

I don't think he understood tbh


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> I've just been given a long lecture on fb by a friend of a friend on Brexit: surprised the LDs haven't done better, "voice of the 48%", disappointed with Corbyn's attitude towards it all etc etc
> 
> These people are very few in number but occupy the airwaves/printed page/cyberspace disproportionately. I tried to say that most of the 48%, me included, are getting on with their lives and worrying about jobs, childcare, the NHS etc. Not making big chin strokey clever posts about the EU and the Lib Dems.
> 
> I don't think he understood tbh



Yes I got a lecture off a hectoring 48%er yesterday too. Absolutely impervious to anything that would challenge their carefully constructed world view.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Remember a month ago when all the Very Serious British Politics People were telling us what a disaster Corbyn's pragmatic approach to the EU was and how it would lead to the resurgence of their beloved Lib Dems.



I wonder if there'll ever come a moment when any of the Freedland's of the world will look at themselves and think 'shit, maybe I'm not as clever as I think I am'.

Probably not tbf.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

There's been plenty to enjoy about this campaign - the lib dem's inability to put any numbers on is one of the most enjoyable.

I even heard they've had to draft their best people in to defend farron's seat.


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

Getting excited now ....Coalition of Chaos here we come !


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> There's been plenty to enjoy about this campaign - the lib dem's inability to put any numbers on is one of the most enjoyable.
> 
> I even heard they've had to draft their best people in to defend farron's seat.


I am dreaming of Hallam falling. It may be a forlorn hope but still

They could win one or two - maybe somewhere in SW London, possibly somewhere like Wells too. But Labour voting friends in Frome seem to be universally sticking with Labour rather than tactically lending their vote out.

I just googled "Lib Dem seats" and came up with loads of articles from April about hopes of winning "dozens" of seats. Don't get many like that now. They've disappeared from the campaign


----------



## The39thStep (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> Lab message on respecting Brexit reassuring them that a Labour vote won't reverse their Leave votes. After that other issues and tribalism come into play


Labour have also made some comments on immigration not being used to undermine wages which would have some resonance.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Labour have also made some comments on immigration not being used to undermine wages which would have some resonance.


Yes - sorry was on my phone but my intention was to include all of that messaging: Brexit/immigration/wages etc. Appealing to the "I'm not racist but all these Poles have driven down wages across my industry" types


----------



## The39thStep (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> Yes - sorry was on my phone but my intention was to include all of that messaging: Brexit/immigration/wages etc. Appealing to the "I'm not racist but all these Poles have driven down wages across my industry" types



That's me covered then


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2017)

How come we'd never even heard of Barry Gardiner until a month ago btw? The guy is nails.


----------



## JTG (May 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> How come we'd never even heard of Barry Gardiner until a month ago btw? The guy is nails.


We often don't find out how good we are until crisis point arrives. And vice versa. Seems this campaign has given wings to a few Labour people specifically and lead weights to some on the other side


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2017)

JTG said:


> We often don't find out how good we are until crisis point arrives. And vice versa. Seems this campaign has given wings to a few Labour people specifically and lead weights to some on the other side



Yes, also very true of Labour leadership election. Plenty who disappointed but a few who confounded expectations in a good way.


----------



## phillm (May 31, 2017)

Not logged into You tube - no suggestions - just logged in and got this so Tories are splurging money on their social media policy. All good policies - thanks Tories for reminding why to vote Labour. 

Music sounds like Requiem for a Dream.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 31, 2017)

gosub said:


> unlikely, I don't really see the point of twitter, so no chance would I bother getting my septeganarian old man involved with it, he has enough trouble with facebook, Word even, he has ninja skillsz for fucking up printer settings and deleting the idiot proof buttons I build him


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 31, 2017)

"Can Corbyn actually win this thing?"

It seems almost assured now, thanks to Dan.


----------



## Knotted (May 31, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Well my suggestion is that it has been transferring to Labour, balanced by UKIP voters transferring to Tory. But the UKIP buffer as such is being exhausted, so any further swing to Labour is going to hit their vote share.



My inclination was to dismiss this theory out of hand as UKIP are too much of minor player to make much difference, but doing some quick and crude number crunching and the median Tory + UKIP vote has declined almost as much as the median Labour vote has increased in the same period (about 5% for the former and 7% for the latter). So maybe.


----------



## oryx (May 31, 2017)

Off to put the TV on. Here's hoping it's a 'Paxman' rather than a 'Woman's' Hour'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Phwoar!



You want to give her a pearl necklace, don't you?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> You want to give her a pearl necklace, don't you?


ma's unhappy cos pa makes her wear a tm mask on saturday nights now.


----------



## shygirl (May 31, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> You want to give her a pearl necklace, don't you?



Fucking men


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2017)

shygirl said:


> Fucking men



Spymaster has a hard-on for female Tory MPs.


----------



## LiamO (Jun 1, 2017)

*http://newsthump.com/2017/06/01/the...lowance-for-failing-to-turn-up-for-interview/*

*Theresa May loses Jobseeker’s Allowance for failing to turn up for interview*






*Theresa May has today had her Jobseeker’s Allowance stopped for failing to turn up for an interview.*

Mrs May, who is applying for the post of Prime Minister, was repeatedly warned that failing to turn up for an interview would harm her chances of receiving benefits.

Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson Simon Williams said, “It’s very simple – to show us that jobseekers are serious about a job we expect them to attend interviews and answer questions so that we can gauge their suitability for the post.

“Otherwise we assume that they’re not up to the job, or just work-shy bastards, and dock their money.

“We might have to give the job to someone else now, though fuck knows who. This is the worst shower of applicants I’ve ever seen.”

Mrs May defended her decision not to turn up, saying that she was dead busy and they never sent her a letter or nothing and anyway she sent her mate Amber along who’s dead good at interviews and aced it for her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Spymaster has a hard-on for female Tory MPs.


yeh it's been a huge embarrassment for years, vp. you wouldn't believe the number of times his attraction to the likes of tory theresas like may, coffey and villiers led to bullying at school


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2017)

I want him to win to see how quickly he becomes cunt number one to the leftists currently supporting him.


----------



## inva (Jun 1, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I want him to win to see how quickly he becomes cunt number one to the leftists currently supporting him.


alternatively to see what percentage of the liberals calling themselves communists on their twitter bios go full Labour loyalist


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

inva said:


> alternatively to see what percentage of the liberals calling themselves communists on their twitter bios go full Labour loyalist



If Corbyn became PM the best thing would be smug anti-Corbyn libs forming a Clintonite style _The Resistance_ against the government.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2017)

inva said:


> alternatively to see what percentage of the liberals calling themselves communists on their twitter bios go full Labour loyalist



I don't really have a problem with anarchists et al voting for Labour. Getting the Tories out is a no brainer.
But yeah. There'll be that small matter of him continuing with austerity to contend with.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don't really have a problem with anarchists et al voting for Labour. Getting the Tories out is a no brainer.
> But yeah. There'll be that small matter of him continuing with austerity to contend with.



If Corbyn won it'd be vital that people continue pushing him to the left as much as possible, people like Paul Mason are already talking about capiulating to capital. Think we might be getting a bit ahead of ourselves though..


----------



## inva (Jun 1, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don't really have a problem with anarchists et al voting for Labour.


me neither. but i bet there's a few people who even just a few months ago wouldn't have thought they'd find themselves attacking the government over police cuts and defending more border guards etc. funny old world.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2017)

inva said:


> me neither. but i bet there's a few people who even just a few months ago wouldn't have thought they'd find themselves attacking the government over police cuts and defending more border guards etc. funny old world.



I have a mate who up until a few weeks ago was denouncing the clamour for dropping principles in favour of a social democrat, then started worrying about the potential loss of tax credits. 
It's funny how the system gets everyone to support it through whatever flavour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 1, 2017)

Think I posted this in the wrong thread. Should be here:

Con 300 seats
Lab 270 seats
SNP 50 seats
Other 30 seats

Jeremy Corbyn to be the next prime minister as the leader of the Coalition of Chaos.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Think I posted this in the wrong thread. Should be here:
> 
> Con 300 seats
> Lab 270 seats
> ...



Is that a hung parliament therefore a Lab SNP coalition? That's the only way he'll be pm imo but couldn't the Tories just have a minority govt?


----------



## Sirena (Jun 1, 2017)

Some betting sites are now only 5/1 for Labour winning most seats.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is that a hung parliament therefore a Lab SNP coalition? That's the only way he'll be pm imo but couldn't the Tories just have a minority govt?



I googled it


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 2, 2017)

Gone for hung parliament. So confident I've even stuck a tenner on it and I very rarely bet. Been listening to talk radio a lot and it's wall to wall people switching off from the tories and on to either labour, libs or abstain. The model used on the yougov poll that predicted a hung parliament was also apparently used in the EU referendum, more than once, and it predicted leave each time.


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 2, 2017)

Hung Parliament just means another torylib coalition though, surely? Tim and Jesus Corbyn won't work together.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 2, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Hung Parliament just means another torylib coalition though, surely? Tim and Jesus Corbyn won't work together.



Depends on the balance of seats. The Lib-Dems are a tiny wizened little rump now (largely due to being in the coalition) and they don't look like making a lot of gains. SNP are likely to have way more seats.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Hung Parliament just means another torylib coalition though, surely? Tim and Jesus Corbyn won't work together.


Yeah, those projected 10 Lib Dem MPs will really make all the difference.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Hung Parliament just means another torylib coalition though, surely? Tim and Jesus Corbyn won't work together.


pls engage brain before posting. a hung parliament means nothing of the sort. if the arithmetic is labour + snp = 330 and tories + lib dems = 320, how do you envisage a tory/lib dem coalition working out?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Hung Parliament just means another torylib coalition though, surely? Tim and Jesus Corbyn won't work together.



Farron has been quite specific in saying that there will be no deals with anyone.  He's been saying it on radio again this morning.  Whether you choose to believe a lib dem leader in another thing.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2017)

They all say no deals now. Then when it's a hung parliament they say 'the electorate voted for a hung parliament so the electorate obviously wants deals'. If parliament is hung there will need to be a coalition of some sort even if it's not the 'unconditional support in return for ministerial cars' deal that the yellow scum offered in 2010.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is that a hung parliament therefore a Lab SNP coalition? That's the only way he'll be pm imo but couldn't the Tories just have a minority govt?


326 is the magic number. There are odds and sods to add to the SNP - Plaid will have 2 or 3, there will be a Green, and there will be three or four SDLP from that there Norn Ireland. Plus Sinn Fein refuse to take their seats, meaning that an effective majority is a tiny bit less than 326.

Convention dictates that the party with the biggest number of seats is given first crack at forming a majority. If they cannot, then the others get a go. Only if no majority can be formed through coalition can there then be a minority govt. (And in our system, historically, a minority govt means a new election within months.) So no, effectively, if Labour can pull together a coalition with 326 seats, the tories then cannot form a minority govt. Famously of course, none of this shit is written down.

If the tories get very close to 326 - 320, say - then they can get the Ulster Unionists involved, either in a formal coalition or, more likely, in an informal agreement to vote through the budgets. But I don't see anybody else touching them, not even the libdems.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 2, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> Jesus Corbyn


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Convention dictates that the party with the biggest number of seats is given first crack at forming a majority.


which is why edward heath was asked by the queen to form a government after the february 1974 election, when the tories had 297 seats and labour 301


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Only if no majority can be formed through coalition can there then be a minority govt. (And in our system, historically, a minority govt means a new election within months.) So no, effectively, if Labour can pull together a coalition with 326 seats, the tories then cannot form a minority govt.


Where are you getting that from?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Where are you getting that from?


The 'unwritten constitution'. It's the convention of how this is done. If there is an agreement for a coalition with 326 seats, any minority govt would fall instantly to a vote of no confidence. Aside from being politically impossible, it's also practically impossible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Where are you getting that from?


he's making it up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The 'unwritten constitution'. It's the convention of how this is done.


is it fuck. explain feb 1974 then.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 2, 2017)

No, clearly there doesn't need to be a formal coalition - a party just needs to be able to get its Queens Speech voted through, be able to show the support of the HoC. If the Tories are largest party they will get first chance of that, though of course they wouldn't actually present the bill in Parliament unless backroom deals meant they knew it was likely to go through. If they aren't confident or fail, the baton would pass to Labour.

Edit - though I didn't know about the 1974 situation. Why did Heath get chosen then?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The 'unwritten constitution'. It's the convention of how this is done.


Based on what source? I don't think that's true Pickman's model has just given a counter example.



littlebabyjesus said:


> If there is an agreement for a coalition with 326 seats, any minority govt would fall instantly to a vote of no confidence. Aside from being politically impossible, it's also practically impossible.


Which means that practicably it would be sensible for the minority not to test it's authority and concede, but that doesn't mean that if May wanted to she couldn't attempt to form a government.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> No, clearly there doesn't need to be a formal coalition - a party just needs to be able to get its Queens Speech voted through, be able to show the support of the HoC.


Exactly. And if there is an agreement between others to form a coalition with 326 seats, that cannot happen. Your 'just' is rather crucial here.

My judgement here is that nobody would touch the tories except possibly the ulster unionists, so formal coalition or no, unless tories + unionists = 326 seats, they cannot do as you suggest above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Based on what source? I don't think that's true Pickman's model has just given a counter example.


yeh, dennis skinner said it on tv on 13 april 1999 in the 'death to the monarchy' episode of counterblast (featuring among others ian bone and chris lowe).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Which means that practicably it would be sensible for the minority not to test it's authority and concede, but that doesn't mean that if May wanted to she couldn't attempt to form a government.


It effectively does. You only need to look to 2010 to find precedent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

The convention is the last govt is given first go.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It effectively does. You only need to look to 2010 to find precedent.


That doesn't show anything like what you claimed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> No, clearly there doesn't need to be a formal coalition - a party just needs to be able to get its Queens Speech voted through, be able to show the support of the HoC. If the Tories are largest party they will get first chance of that, though of course they wouldn't actually present the bill in Parliament unless backroom deals meant they knew it was likely to go through. If they aren't confident or fail, the baton would pass to Labour.
> 
> Edit - though I didn't know about the 1974 situation. Why did Heath get chosen then?


queen felt it was in her gift


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Exactly. And if there is an agreement between others to form a coalition with 326 seats, that cannot happen. Your 'just' is rather crucial here.
> 
> My judgement here is that nobody would touch the tories except possibly the ulster unionists, so formal coalition or no, unless tories + unionists = 326 seats, they cannot do as you suggest above.


But the agreement between others doesn't need to be a coalition - just the tacit understanding that the minority government will not be voted down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It effectively does. You only need to look to 2010 to find precedent.


oh do stop talking shit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The convention is the last govt is given first go.


Except that this is not exactly what happened in 2010. There were arguments that it should have happened, and other arguments that the party with the largest number of seats should have the first go. This time around, if the tories have the largest number of seats, they'll get first go no doubt, but they'll fail unless they're within a whisker of a majority anyway.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> The convention is the last govt is given first go.


That's my understanding, so (assuming a hung parliament) if she wants May can attempt to form a gov even if there's a Labour led coalition with a majority. It'd be bloody stupid to of coarse but until the current PM informs the Queen that they don't think they can command the confidence of the house they are still in power.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> But the agreement between others doesn't need to be a coalition - just the tacit understanding that the minority government will not be voted down.


And who will make that agreement with the tories? You might not agree with me, but my judgement is that nobody will except the Ulster Unionists, and even they may need some persuading.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And who will make that agreement with the tories? You might not agree with me, but my judgement is that nobody will except the Ulster Unionists, and even they may need some persuading.


the ulster unionist party has 2 mps. 

TWO MPs.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And who will make that agreement with the tories? You might not agree with me, but my judgement is that nobody will except the Ulster Unionists, and even they may need some persuading.


I'm talking about the anti-Tory bloc. You seem to be suggesting it needs to be a coalition, when it can just as easily be a minority government with tacit support from other parties. Totally agree that the Tories only have the unionists to chum up to, but on the yougov predictions that's likely all they would need.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Except that this is not exactly what happened in 2010. There were arguments that it should have happened, and other arguments that the party with the largest number of seats should have the first go. This time around, if the tories have the largest number of seats, they'll get first go no doubt, but they'll fail unless they're within a whisker of a majority anyway.


You're confusing the inter-party negotiations with being given the nod by the queen. Labour gave up on going to the queen with a coalition as they had no coalition. If labour had been able to get a workable coalition to present this is exactly what would have happened.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I'm talking about the anti-Tory bloc. You seem to be suggesting it needs to be a coalition, when it can just as easily be a minority government with tacit support from other parties. Totally agree that the Tories only have the unionists to chum up to, but on the yougov predictions that's likely all they would need.


not sure the uup's brace of mps really worth the chase. and that's if they get two returned


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

The lib dems would support a tory government. Farron hinted as much on that debate the other night - maybe not formal coalition, but if they held the balance of power they'd go for it like a rat up a drainpipe.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I'm talking about the anti-Tory bloc. You seem to be suggesting it needs to be a coalition, when it can just as easily be a minority government with tacit support from other parties. Totally agree that the Tories only have the unionists to chum up to, but on the yougov predictions that's likely all they would need.


I think that would be politically impossible if Labour are not the biggest single party, particularly given what happened in 2010.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

Incidentally, I am right in thinking that with the Fixed Term Parliament Act a government could fail to get a Queen's Speech passed but still remain government if there was no explicit VONC brought against it (or such a VONC failed)? 

I mean it's all rather theoretical but the FTP act does explicitly make the Queens Speech no longer a confidence motion.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> not sure the uup's brace of mps really worth the chase. and that's if they get two returned


Ummm, what about the DUP?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> The lib dems would support a tory government. Farron hinted as much on that debate the other night - maybe not formal coalition, but if they held the balance of power they'd go for it like a rat up a drainpipe.



On LBC this morning he explicitly ruled it out, no deals with anyone.

I agree with you though.  I bet Vince Cable is sifting through the Jaguar brochure as we speak.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> The lib dems would support a tory government. Farron hinted as much on that debate the other night - maybe not formal coalition, but if they held the balance of power they'd go for it like a rat up a drainpipe.




scum


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> On LBC this morning he explicitly ruled it out, no deals with anyone.
> 
> I agree with you though.  I bet Vince Cable is sifting through the Jaguar brochure as we speak.


His pitch during the leaders debate was all about what influence they could have on the tories over brexit: what influence _could_ they have, if not as quid-pro-quo?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Ummm, what about the DUP?


different from the ulster unionist party, dup have 8 mps tho


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> different from the ulster unionist party, dup have 8 mps tho


Yeah different but they'll all back the Tories, especially the DUP who backed Brexit (UU were for remain)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Yeah different but they'll all back the Tories, especially the DUP who backed Brexit (UU were for remain)


you'd think so, perhaps, but i would not be so sure, not after the likes of ian paisley jr have said those nice things about getting irish passports


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 2, 2017)

labour could win, he can be replaced afterwards.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> he can be replaced afterwards.


how's that going to happen?


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

If Labour end up in government next week, Corbyn will have delivered probably the biggest electoral turnaround we've ever seen, in a little over a month. Any dissenting members of the PLP will be destroyed by their local parties. They'll shut the fuck up and come begging for junior ministerial positions.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> If Labour end up in government next week, Corbyn will have delivered probably the biggest electoral turnaround we've ever seen, in a little over a month. Any dissenting members of the PLP will be destroyed by their local parties. They'll shut the fuck up and come begging for junior ministerial positions.


He's unelectable, don't choo know.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> He's unelectable, don't choo know.



He's certainly no Owen Smith is he?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> He's certainly no Owen Smith is he?


If only Felicity Kendal or whatever she was called was in charge.  Labour would have 60% of the vote by now.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> He's unelectable, don't choo know.



I remember reading about these comments by Zac Goldsmith a few years back.  Seems that no one in his party listened to him....

Zac Goldsmith again warns Conservative Party it would be "mad to underestimate" Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 2, 2017)




----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2017)

yesterday



> Answering questions after a speech by Mr Corbyn in Basildon, Essex, Ms Thornberry was asked whether Labour would be ready to do a coalition deal - or even try to persuade MPs from Sinn Fein to attend the House of Commons in order to support them.
> 
> She replied: "The truth is we are fighting to win and we are fighting to win with a majority. That's what we are fighting to do.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

newbie said:


> yesterday


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

newbie said:


> yesterday


seriously tho no one's going to say 'yes we'll go into coalition' until the votes and in and counted and then we'll see what's what.


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> seriously tho no one's going to say 'yes we'll go into coalition' until the votes and in and counted and then we'll see what's what.


If they have an electoral triumph big enough to gain the opportunity to present a QS there's nothing for Labour in a formal coalition.   Going in with the SNP isn't going to happen because the demand for a 2nd indyref and special Brexit treatment would open a can of worms that has no benefit to Corbyn's team.  No-one will touch the LDs. The rest  will fall into line.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

newbie said:


> If they have an electoral triumph big enough to gain the opportunity to present a QS there's nothing for Labour in a formal coalition.   Going in with the SNP isn't going to happen because the demand for a 2nd indyref and special Brexit treatment would open a can of worms that has no benefit to Corbyn's team.  No-one will touch the LDs. The rest  will fall into line.


yeh cos no party's ever gone into coalition in the uk with the junior partner setting a referendum as a pre-condition for the alliance.


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos no party's ever gone into coalition in the uk with the junior partner setting a referendum as a pre-condition for the alliance.



If unelectable Corbyn's lot win enough seats to be in a position to present the Queens Speech (that's a huge if) their victory will be plain.  In 2010 there was an obvious movement to the LDs, who got 1/4 of the total votes and held the balance of power because neither of the main parties had won a clear victory.  The SNP won't get above 5% of the total vote.  Labour lost in 2015 partly because of the _tail wags dog_ scares about coalition.  They have nothing to gain and plenty to lose in future elections.

They'll call the SNP bluff: go back to your constituents and explain why there is a tory government.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2017)

Just saw today's Telegraph front page.  Utter Corbyn panic with a non-story about twitterbots that is a real case of the blind leading the stupid.  It's great fun.

Have a look here: The Papers - BBC News


----------



## agricola (Jun 2, 2017)

From Plaid's Facebook page (apologies if its been posted before):



> f you like Jeremy Corbyn the last thing you should do in Wales is vote Welsh Labour - their MPs are more likely to try to get Corbyn SACKED than support him. Remember Ponty MP Owen Smith? Welsh Labour MPs were at the heart of the plot to have Corbyn removed last year and will do so again if you vote for them. Give your vote to the only party you can trust





edit: (quote slightly edited to remove facebook auto-link thing)


----------



## Tom A (Jun 2, 2017)

Voted "Heart says yes, head says no", and "Tories will squeak it". However I am more hopeful about the outcome of the election and its aftermath than I have been in almost a year, and really hope that Labour can pull a massive upset and all those Corbynistas haven't been wasting their time preaching to the converted.

This is coming from someone who has up till now conceded that the Labour Party are fucked - Corbyn or no Corbyn.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you'd think so, perhaps, but i would not be so sure, not after the likes of ian paisley jr have said those nice things about getting irish passports


IP Jr. lost out to the Robinson faction years ago, though.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

agricola said:


> From Plaid's Facebook page (apologies if its been posted before):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wtf are they on


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2017)

Why are we talking about a hung parliament? It's not going to happen


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

because it's well within the range of current polling?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 2, 2017)

Game changer!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> because it's well within the range of current polling?


It was going to be a hung parliament last time. Remain would win. Trump would lose.

I just can't face all this _hope_.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> wtf are they on


think that is pretty accurate tbh


----------



## NoXion (Jun 2, 2017)

I think it's going to be a narrow Tory victory. Reason being that I don't think Corbyn's performance over the long term has convinced swing voters in marginals or whoever's votes it is that really count in this system. But then I thought that Clinton and Remain would squeak it. We all know how that turned out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

NoXion said:


> I think it's going to be a narrow Tory victory. Reason being that I don't think Corbyn's performance over the long term has convinced swing voters in marginals or whoever's votes it is that really count in this system. But then I thought that Clinton and Remain would squeak it. We all know how that turned out.


perhaps a narrow tory victory but may losing her seat


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

should of course be 90% dissatisfied


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps a narrow tory victory but may losing her seat



I'd love it if she lost her seat.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2017)

The PLP slugs and hangers on are falling into line now.

I thought Labour was heading for disaster. Now I’m voting Corbyn | Calum Campbell



> When Theresa May called a snap general election, the first thing I did was call my dad, Alastair Campbell, to tell him how smart and strategic a move I thought it was. I believed that the Labour party would face catastrophe. That voters in Labour strongholds across the north of England would crave her policies on immigration, fear Jeremy Corbyn’s historical links to the IRA, and clamour for the modern-day iron lady. Theresa May clearly felt the same, kicking off her campaign in Hartlepool with a smile that suggested a belief that the election was over before it had even started.
> 
> What this campaign has shown is just how out of touch I was. Britain is a country that is desperate for change. People in Brexit strongholds, such as Burnley – the home of my football club and where I have close friends – voted for Brexit in unprecedented numbers.
> 
> ...



Alan Johnson says he may have been wrong to write off Corbyn | TotalPolitics.com


----------



## ddraig (Jun 2, 2017)

slimey turds


----------



## JimW (Jun 2, 2017)

J Ed said:


> ...
> 
> Alan Johnson says he may have been wrong to write off Corbyn | TotalPolitics.com


No flies on our Alan, the twat.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It was going to be a hung parliament last time. Remain would win. Trump would lose.
> 
> I just can't face all this _hope_.


The polls have had a variable hit rate recently, but they're all we've got to go on - anything else is finger in the air bullshit. To an extent the polls themselves are finger in the air bullshit too, but they are at least based on real data, rather than a weird assumption that because two bad things have happened, another bad thing must surely follow. Your dire warnings about nailed on victories for Le Pen and Nuttall both turned out to be bollocks, for example.

A few weeks ago, there was no serious discussion about Labour managing anything better than a not-catastrophic wipeout, because that's the best the data told us we could expect. Now, the data, the direction of travel and the mood of the campaign are all suggesting something different is possible. Maybe not probable, but there at least - so of course we're going to talk about it.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 2, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It was going to be a hung parliament last time. Remain would win. Trump would lose.
> 
> I just can't face all this _hope_.


but last time Milliband was in charge and ate a bacon sarnie badly and it all went tits up as he carved 10 commandments of blandness onto a chunk of concrete.

This time it seems to be Theresa May who's on the run and utterly shitting herself. Her tactic now seems to be attempting to hide as far from the press as possible for the next 7 days and hoping the tabloid and social media attack dogs can win it for her.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> The polls have had a variable hit rate recently, but they're all we've got to go on - anything else is finger in the air bullshit. To an extent the polls themselves are finger in the air bullshit too, but they are at least based on real data, rather than a weird assumption that because two bad things have happened, another bad thing must surely follow. Your dire warnings about nailed on victories for Le Pen and Nuttall both turned out to be bollocks, for example.
> 
> A few weeks ago, there was no serious discussion about Labour managing anything better than a not-catastrophic wipeout, because that's the best the data told us we could expect. Now, the data, the direction of travel and the mood of the campaign are all suggesting something different is possible. Maybe not probable, but there at least - so of course we're going to talk about it.


I just can't face being hopeful anymore. The last 40 years back me up on this. I'm done.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

off you fuck then.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> I'd love it if she lost her seat.



It's down to QueenOfGoths and she'll need to account for herself next Friday if May is still in her seat


----------



## Edie (Jun 2, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I just can't face being hopeful anymore. The last 40 years back me up on this. I'm done.


You're probably not wrong. Tories are gonna clean up it seems


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 2, 2017)




----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

it's ok, bees reckons the polls can't be trusted.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 2, 2017)

Proving that bone structure and a famous sister can't stop an individual from being stupid. Innit.


----------



## chilango (Jun 2, 2017)

You can tell that's rubbish cos it's got the LibDems gaining 3 seats...


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Proving that bone structure and a famous sister can't stop an individual from being stupid. Innit.




Fuck off


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> it's ok, bees reckons the polls can't be trusted.



I've never been polled in my life, nor has my wife, nor have my work colleagues. The 18-25 year olds who have signed up to vote could make my holiday to Menorca a celebration!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> it's ok, bees reckons the polls can't be trusted.


Recent history suggests exactly that though, what's suddenly changed


----------



## ddraig (Jun 2, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Proving that bone structure and a famous sister can't stop an individual from being stupid. Innit.



you fucking what??? Akala would destroy any argument you had in his sleep


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> off you fuck then.


Nobody will be happier than me to be proved wrong on the 9th June. Like I said though, all this hope is just depressingly familiar.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Recent history suggests exactly that though, what's suddenly changed


The polls are suggesting anywhere between a hung parliament and a substantial tory majority. Are you calling a Labour victory now?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 2, 2017)

ddraig said:


> you fucking what??? Akala would destroy any argument you had in his sleep



Comedy post of the thread.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 2, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Comedy post of the thread.


how so? what is your issue with Akala?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 2, 2017)

i wouldn't put much weight on the forecasts or the polls being spot on. There are too many variables - which way will brexiters and remainers vote? the youth vote? turnout? will there be an upsurge in tactical voting? 
We can say that labour have closed the gap significantly over a short period of time.
We know that may has got less popular and corbyn more so (but is still behind).
The gap could be 12%. It could be 3%. the polls may be underestimating the youth vote (some of the polls downplay the youth vote significantly). Their polls may be understating the quiet tory vote again. 
Fuck knows. Head still says tory majority of around 50 cos of fundamentals like leader and economic competence ratings. But may is on the run - so who knows?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jun 2, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's down to QueenOfGoths and she'll need to account for herself next Friday if May is still in her seat


You ain't seen me right *hides dynamite and fuses*


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 2, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Comedy post of the thread.



From the poster who has offered absolutely fuck all of note since arriving here, that's quite amusing too


----------



## free spirit (Jun 2, 2017)

so I've just come to the realisation that who forms our next government probably depends on whether it's sunny or pissing it down on Thursday.

Sunny = Labour, Pissing it down = Tory because the 'I always vote come what may' Tory vote will turn out in the rain (they can all drive to the polling station anyway), but the enthusiasm of the young might well not cope so well with a sodden walk to the polling station.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 2, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> i wouldn't put much weight on the forecasts or the polls being spot on. There are too many variables - which way will brexiters and remainers vote? the youth vote? turnout? will there be an upsurge in tactical voting?
> We can say that labour have closed the gap significantly over a short period of time.
> We know that may has got less popular and corbyn more so (but is still behind).
> The gap could be 12%. It could be 3%. the polls may be underestimating the youth vote (some of the polls downplay the youth vote significantly). Their polls may be understating the *quiet tory vote* again.
> Fuck knows. Head still says tory majority of around 50 cos of fundamentals like leader and economic competence ratings. But may is on the run - so who knows?



The 'shy tory' thing wasn't a thing. It was precisely because they overestimated the youth vote. At the time people put it down to shy tories, but that has been discredited now they know what was really going on.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 2, 2017)

free spirit said:


> so I've just come to the realisation that who forms our next government probably depends on whether it's sunny or pissing it down on Thursday.
> 
> Sunny = Labour, Pissing it down = Tory because the 'I always vote come what may' Tory vote will turn out in the rain (they can all drive to the polling station anyway), but the enthusiasm of the young might well not cope so well with a sodden walk to the polling station.



Well, here in Stoke it's forecast to be somewhat drizzly and grey all day. A bit far out yet to be certain on the forecast, of course. Sunshine every day either side of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

hardcore entusiasm


----------



## Libertad (Jun 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> hardcore entusiasm



Happy hardcore.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

free spirit said:


> so I've just come to the realisation that who forms our next government probably depends on whether it's sunny or pissing it down on Thursday.
> 
> Sunny = Labour, Pissing it down = Tory because the 'I always vote come what may' Tory vote will turn out in the rain (they can all drive to the polling station anyway), but the enthusiasm of the young might well not cope so well with a sodden walk to the polling station.


Research suggests this particular theory is total bollocks IIRC


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

BBC News - Does the weather influence elections?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

Labour voters stuck down mine.


----------



## JimW (Jun 2, 2017)

Manchester would never hold an election if that was true.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Research suggests this particular theory is total bollocks IIRC


research on past elections when the vote wasn't so heavily split between the generations, nor so much on a knife edge with the youth turn out being viewed by pretty much all pollsters now as being the crucial deciding factor between a tory majority and not a tory majority.

It's not the only factor, but if it even resulted in 10% more of the youth vote staying home that could be enough to swing it. Depends how determined they really are to vote.

Apart from anything else, it will be a lot easier to keep more activists out knocking up the vote etc on the day for longer if they're not piss wet through, and that's where Labour have a massive numbers advantage this time around.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

Hark at pol pot here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

free spirit said:


> research on past elections when the vote wasn't so heavily split between the generations, nor so much on a knife edge with the youth turn out being viewed by pretty much all pollsters now as being the crucial deciding factor between a tory majority and not a tory majority.
> 
> It's not the only factor, but if it even resulted in 10% more of the youth vote staying home that could be enough to swing it. Depends how determined they really are to vote.
> 
> Apart from anything else, it will be a lot easier to keep more activists out knocking up the vote etc on the day for longer if they're not piss wet through, and that's where Labour have a massive numbers advantage this time around.


People like you are ...fucking hell


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

free spirit said:


> research on past elections when the vote wasn't so heavily split between the generations, nor so much on a knife edge with the youth turn out being viewed by pretty much all pollsters now as being the crucial deciding factor between a tory majority and not a tory majority.
> 
> It's not the only factor, but if it even resulted in 10% more of the youth vote staying home that could be enough to swing it. Depends how determined they really are to vote.
> 
> Apart from anything else, it will be a lot easier to keep more activists out knocking up the vote etc on the day for longer if they're not piss wet through, and that's where Labour have a massive numbers advantage this time around.


research from the previous 15 elections before 2010. I reckon it'd have cropped up at some point in those if it was going to be a problem.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

seriously, this bullshit is worse than bees' despair.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> seriously, this bullshit is worse than bees' despair.


Same coin though.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> seriously, this bullshit is worse than bees' despair.


You say despair, I'd say realism. Guess we'll find out next Friday morning. I hope you're right and I'm wrong


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 2, 2017)

Looking at polls at this point is just masochism.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

I'm not predicting anything. I haven't the faintest idea which way it's going to go.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

Edie said:


> You're probably not wrong. Tories are gonna clean up it seems


1) That's hardly "clean up", especially compared to where we were a couple of weeks ago.
2) That's *not *a prediction of what they think will happen on June 8th but a prediction of what they think the result would be _if the election was at this moment_
3) Different pollsters are using different methods this time around, I'm not sure simply averaging those results and using UNS model (plus some other bits and pieces) is the best method

That said I still think an increased Tory majority is odds on, something around what Ashcroft is predicting


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

Fascism come


----------



## Edie (Jun 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Fascism come


Well that's what I said on the other thread and pickmans laughed me out of town


----------



## Idaho (Jun 2, 2017)

Edie said:


> Well that's what I said on the other thread and pickmans laughed me out of town


Pickman's has a few he fawns over, and the rest he sneers at.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> If Labour end up in government next week, Corbyn will have delivered probably the biggest electoral turnaround we've ever seen, in a little over a month. Any dissenting members of the PLP will be destroyed by their local parties. They'll shut the fuck up and come begging for junior ministerial positions.



I'd love to see my MP try to square THAT circle.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 2, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd love to see my MP try to square THAT circle.


And my MP (Rosena Allin-Khan) who belongs to the Sadiq Khan club where they're Labourites who speak not the name of Jeremy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2017)

JimW said:


> No flies on our Alan, the twat.



There should be though, given he's a first class turd.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 2, 2017)




----------



## Wilf (Jun 3, 2017)

In terms of Feb 74 I think it's true that Heath was given the first chance to form a government.  However he did that by refusing to resign immediately and held talks with Jeremy Thorpe (who told him to fuck off).  I'm not sure whether he was ever 'asked' to form a government (can't remember).  In some ways, from memory, 2010 was the same but the other way round.  Brown stayed on for a day or two, but didn't himself want to try and put a coalition together.  However in any of these scenarios it's all about back channels stuff with the palace/chief sec to the cabinet perhaps?  The real substance to it is the electoral maths and the chats the 2 leading parties have with their respective gimp parties.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> BBC News - Does the weather influence elections?


Note the word 'suggests' in your link. 'Suggests' is a quite different beast to 'proves'.

I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that weather affects turnout, the question is to what degree and it does not surprise me that 15 elections is not sufficient to detect the effect as there will be all sorts of confounders and unique circumstances to those elections.

You are perhaps aware of the reasons that medicine uses controlled studies with large sample sizes to detect effects. Not possible here. We don't get to replay the 1979 election with the same leaders but opposite weather pattern. 100 times


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 3, 2017)

It's been fairly consistent for a few many years now that the shitest option gets the mandate. 
Arguably Brexit wasn't the shitest option, until you remember it'll probably be Tories negotiating it.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 4, 2017)

UK PM May's lead cut to just 1 point over Labour - Survation poll


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 4, 2017)

from Craig Murray's blog:

***
It is by now notorious that the difference between different opinion pollsters is down to the extent by which they allow for differing turnouts between age groups and social classes. Those still showing a substantial Tory lead, are assuming the young and the dispossessed will vote in very low numbers, as has been historically the case. Those showing Labour close to overtaking the Tories, are accepting people’s own description of their likelihood to vote.

...
I expect the young and less affluent will now vote in greater numbers than usual in general elections because, for the first time in decades, there is a chance to vote for a real change that will make a positive difference to their lives. Historically they were unenthused because there was nothing to enthuse them. Only in Scotland was there a realistic chance for most people to elect somebody who was not simply a shade of Tory.

Now there is real choice and they are enthused, be it by Corbyn or by Independence, depending on location, and they will vote.

But also they will vote because they are going to get reminded to vote on social media on election day, many, many times. 

If Michael Foot Had Facebook and Twitter - Craig Murray


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 5, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 326 is the magic number. There are odds and sods to add to the SNP - Plaid will have 2 or 3, there will be a Green, and there will be three or four SDLP from that there Norn Ireland. Plus Sinn Fein refuse to take their seats, meaning that an effective majority is a tiny bit less than 326.
> 
> Convention dictates that the party with the biggest number of seats is given first crack at forming a majority. If they cannot, then the others get a go. Only if no majority can be formed through coalition can there then be a minority govt. (And in our system, historically, a minority govt means a new election within months.) So no, effectively, if Labour can pull together a coalition with 326 seats, the tories then cannot form a minority govt. Famously of course, none of this shit is written down.
> 
> If the tories get very close to 326 - 320, say - then they can get the Ulster Unionists involved, either in a formal coalition or, more likely, in an informal agreement to vote through the budgets. But I don't see anybody else touching them, not even the libdems.



It's quite likely both the Sdlp and UU will have even less seats after yet another election . They're both increasingly obsolete and facing oblivion . It's conceivable both won't be returned with any seats . They face a real neck and neck struggle to retain even their safest ones . UU leader mike Nesbit resigned after a disastrous local assembly Election . He was then shortly afterwards knocked out in a hotel by a Belfast granny . I suspect a similar fate awaits his party . What's left of it .







Gran, 72, reveals she punched Northern Irish politician Mike Nesbitt after he was pictured face down on hotel floor



Our predictions for the north's 18 constituencies on polling day


As regards Corbyns chances apologies if this has been posted already . Seems a tad optimistic but still.

http://www.politico.eu/article/8-ways-jeremy-corbyn-is-winning/


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

A bit of a cold shower to the dream here:

From the NME to No 10 – could the youth vote win Corbyn the election?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> A bit of a cold shower to the dream here:
> 
> From the NME to No 10 – could the youth vote win Corbyn the election?


This is the most important part of that:

"The potential army of young voters may also be in the wrong places. Ian Warren, a polling expert who worked with Labour in 2015, has calculated that there are only 75 seats where 18-24s outnumber over-65s – and Labour already holds 57 of them, with an average majority of 14,247 votes. It means the voters aren’t well placed to help Labour make gains."

Even if Craig Murray is right and turnout in England does what it did in Scotland between 2010 and 2015 (it went from 63% to 71%), that would need to disproportionately represent young people, and they'd need to disproportionately live in those Tory-held seats where their votes would make a difference between a Labour and Tory MP (i.e. Not simply boost the Labour candidate into a better second place).


----------



## bemused (Jun 5, 2017)

I curious if they talking to anyone who isn't a student? I was talking to some people recently none of whom were students and only one of them was going to vote all in this apparaently super motivated age group. 
How do they stop these online panels becoming self selecting by politcal nerds?


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

bemused said:


> How do they stop these online panels becoming self selecting by politcal nerds?


I believe this was the exact problem that caused the failure of the polls last time - they weren't able to reach enough non-voters


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 5, 2017)

I have a couple of friends with 18 year old children (not students, or not yet anyway) and they're reporting general enthusiasm for Corbyn and a lot of excitement about the election amongst their children and friends. It's going to be fascinating to see whether the young and formerly non-voters really do turn out for a more radical message.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

Two teenagers started talking about the election with me this morning. Both are too young to vote, and neither seemed to express a preference for any candidate (beyond laughing at them all) however they both reckoned "Jezza will win" based upon what they're hearing/experiencing in different Tory home counties seats.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> I believe this was the exact problem that caused the failure of the polls last time - they weren't able to reach enough non-voters


Indeed. Or rather their tools for correcting against that bias were blunt. The reason for the variation this time is that different pollsters are trying different ways of correcting against that effect.

(Look at the number of us on here who do YouGov polls. We're not representative of the population. We're political junkies).


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

I think it's really difficult to call. There's a danger on here of hyping ourselves up. As Danny says, we're not representative. 

But there is equally a danger of over-compensating for that.

I dunno about anyone else, but I don't live in a left-wing bubble IRL, and my IRL surroundings are showing a quite remarkable swing from Tory to Labour. This election definitely feels different from anything since '97 at least.  

Does that mean Corbyn will win?

I still don't think so. But what do I know?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed. Or rather their tools for correcting against that bias were blunt. The reason for the variation this time is that different pollsters are trying different ways of correcting against that effect.
> 
> (Look at the number of us on here who do YouGov polls. We're not representative of the population. We're political junkies).


That's why I'm quite interested in the SurveyMonkey polls, possibly an interesting way of doing polling. Sadly they've not done another poll since 31st May


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 5, 2017)

still calling it for cons me. Although of course its not over till jeremey vine sings


----------



## Idaho (Jun 5, 2017)

It's going to be exciting to watch on Thursday (until it inevitably gets depressing).


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> I think it's really difficult to call. There's a danger on here of hyping ourselves up. As Danny says, we're not representative.
> 
> But there is equally a danger of over-compensating for that.
> 
> ...



Similar here. I don't live in a left-wing bubble, but I did spend some years a while back in work where I spent a lot of time in and around it, and the rallies etc. I've been at (or rather, near - I don't really do public cheerleading myself) recently do give the impression that the majority in the Corbyn camp are inhabitants of that bubble, and maybe that they're not generally that good at perceiving that fact themselves.

On the other hand, that's just explicitly political events and the type of people who go to them. I'm also seeing more Labour posters in windows in my fairly mixed constituency (Labour, not a key marginal but less clear-cut than some in the North East) than I've seen in many years, and in a greater variety of neighbourhoods/housing types than usual. 

But on the other hand again, I wouldn't want to disregard the pride factor motivating enthusiastic public displays of support for Corbyn vs. the shame/reluctant-duty element in supporting May and the incumbent party without necessarily wanting to shout it from the rooftops. Even if the people who've said how they're going to vote actually do, that's still only reflective of the people who've said anything at all.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 5, 2017)

ICM Guardian up at an 11% lead
Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2017 - Wikipedia
... though that's not _quite_ as bad as it looks. They were on 12% in their last one.  Still, if the impossible was going to happen - or even a hung parliament - Labour would need to be a lot closer.


----------



## newbie (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Two teenagers started talking about the election with me this morning. Both are too young to vote, and neither seemed to express a preference for any candidate (beyond laughing at them all) however they both reckoned "Jezza will win" based upon what they're hearing/experiencing in different Tory home counties seats.


Jezza.  Hmm, what did they call the other one?


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

Wilf said:


> ICM Guardian up at an 11% lead
> Theresa May urged not to suppress report into funding of jihadi groups
> ... though that's not _quite_ as bad as it looks. They were on 12% in their last one.  Still, if the impossible was going to happen - or even a hung parliament - Labour would need to be a lot closer.





> Labour will require unusual voters to turn out in unlikely numbers.



Very true. It's what this election hinges on IMO.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

newbie said:


> Jezza.  Hmm, what did they call the other one?



"Theresa"


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jun 5, 2017)

You have to remember all the people who don't admit to voting Tory until they actually do on polling day.


----------



## newbie (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> "Theresa"


I was hoping for 'the vermin'.  Oh well.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 5, 2017)

DJWrongspeed said:


> You have to remember all the people who don't admit to voting Tory until they actually do on polling day.


According to the analysis last time 'shy Tories' weren't actually much of a problem for the polls, it's a bit of a myth. It was people not voting who said they would, and unrepresentative samples of people in the polls.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 5, 2017)

polling is fucked. way too many variables. 
spoke to the ex-labour mp for my seat - asked him for his inside info. he rekons a tory majority of under 40 and considers that a decent result. hes old labourish  but not an out and out corbynite.

Been a few articles with anti-corbyn mps still slagging him off (anonymously) and rekon they are not seeing any surge. But they also said they are not seeing this flood of new canvassers - but I know this is definitely happening in leeds and other areas so pinch of salt needed here - to wash down their sour grapes.


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

DJWrongspeed said:


> You have to remember all the people who don't admit to voting Tory until they actually do on polling day.


There aren't any of those - see the UKpollingreport blog on the polling enquiry (you could read the full report too if you can be arsed) UK Polling Report

*There probably weren’t any Shy Tories*
_
“Shy Tories” is the theory that people who were not natural Tories were reluctant to admit to interviewers (or perhaps even to themselves!) that they were going to vote Conservative. If people had lied during the election campaign but admitted it afterwards, this would have shown up as late swing and it did not. This leaves the possibility that people lied before the election and consistently lied afterwards as well. This is obviously very difficult to test conclusively, but the inquiry team don’t believe the circumstantial evidence supports it. Not least, if there was a problem with shy Tories we could reasonably have expected polls conducted online without a human interviewer to have shown a higher Tory vote – they did not._


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 5, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> ...
> Been a few articles with anti-corbyn mps still slagging him off (anonymously) and rekon they are not seeing any surge. But they also said they are not seeing this flood of new canvassers - but I know this is definitely happening in leeds and other areas so pinch of salt needed here - to wash down their sour grapes.



I've been barely aware of Labour campaigning locally, but then bumped into forty members of the local party on a train on their way back from canvassing a swing seat. Given my local MPs majority, not to mention her terrible politics, this seemed like the best use of their time.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> polling is fucked. way too many variables.
> spoke to the ex-labour mp for my seat - asked him for his inside info. he rekons a tory majority of under 40 and considers that a decent result. hes old labourish  but not an out and out corbynite.
> 
> Been a few articles with anti-corbyn mps still slagging him off (anonymously) and rekon they are not seeing any surge. But they also said they are not seeing this flood of new canvassers - but I know this is definitely happening in leeds and other areas so pinch of salt needed here - to wash down their sour grapes.



I get the feeling, round here at least, that the Labour "surge" has nothing to do with the Labour Party itself and that they're probably barely more aware of it than we are. It *seems* to be something people are doing for themselves.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 5, 2017)

Round here it's definitely something the local party knows about. They don't usually have 30 people turning up every session to canvass and run out of space at phone banks (my partner's involved). There is a remarkably high amount of posters up, more all the time. 

Is there any likelihood of some disgruntled Tory voters staying home rather than switching? Any previous evidence of this I'm unaware of? It just strikes me as such a shite campaign from them that they might have people say they are going to vote and then not turn up to or are older voters always nailed on even if it's entirely without enthusiasm? I'm probably clutching at straws!


----------



## cantsin (Jun 5, 2017)

if JME's not careful, he's going to get starry eyed old farts like me wondering if there is suddenly going to be a load of newly politicised youth getting woke, +  turning up to vote for the first time on thurs, with all the implications that carries (not that that's the be all / end all, by any stretch.)

( doubt it, but his / other Grime bods role in all this has been encouraging / inspiring anyway)


----------



## Arbeter Fraynd (Jun 5, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> Is there any likelihood of some disgruntled Tory voters staying home rather than switching?



I can imagine a big chunk of the UKIP potential switch to Tory not bothering to vote.  Hard to imagine many people have been excited by May's campaign, and no-one is suggesting we could stay in the EU who has a chance of winning


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 5, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Been a few articles with anti-corbyn mps still slagging him off (anonymously) and rekon they are not seeing any surge. But they also said they are not seeing this flood of new canvassers - but I know this is definitely happening in leeds and other areas so pinch of salt needed here - to wash down their sour grapes.



In plenty of areas with anti-Corbyn Labour MPs, or even on-the-fence ones, the potential flood of new canvassers has been very deliberately stemmed by self-defeating shenanigans over who gets put on what mailing lists, last-minute changes of time/venue for canvassing, all that kind of thing. How sadly stereotypical of the left is it that they'd rather gamble on still getting in with a reduced majority than allow their own local campaign to be tainted by the support of people (fellow party members!) who they don't fully agree with...


----------



## MightyTibberton (Jun 5, 2017)

I see that Steve Hilton has called for Theresa May to resign rather than run for re-election. 

Granted, Steve Hilton's a dick. And granted, Steve Hilton's a dick who is looking for publicity for his new shit programme on Fox in America. 

But he's not helping TM! 

I wonder if there's any politicking going on here - Cameron was said to be angry with May for her luke-warm referendum support... sicks mate on May? 

Anyway. It's out there if you want to find it.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

After being very optimistic last week, I'm all doom and gloom and convinced it's going to be a landslide today. Eugh.  Covfefe.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 5, 2017)

A chum was verbally assailed  and mocked whilst giving out Pro Corbyn  leaflets on a stall at the weekend.  

By Blairites.  

true story


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

Don't know what it's like in other parts of Scotland, but there's no Labour campaign at all in Stirling. I've only seen Tory and SNP activity (post locals). That's street stalls, window posters, leafleting, whatever.

Even Labour's "campaign headquarters" is hidden out of the way in a middle class backwater. They always used to have a town centre shop. Not this time.  I have the impression they're just completely demoralised.

You know those "here's the team getting a great response on the doorsteps" photos?  Here's the latest one from Stirling Labour:



That's the former MP, the current candidate, and the person taking the photo (the election agent?).  In the Raploch.  One of the working class areas of the city that used to be Labour's strongholds.  That's their boast.  Three people, Saturday before polling.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jun 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> There aren't any of those - see the UKpollingreport blog on the polling enquiry (you could read the full report too if you can be arsed) UK Polling Report



Thanks for the info. I stand corrected although  I think the last election did suffer from a social media left wing bias that was only perceived afterwards. I'm not talking about old media obviously.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 5, 2017)

in contrast to the above Scotland post - according to their social media - in Wolves SW (marginal), Labour had over 50 out on Saturday


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Thanks for the info. I stand corrected although  I think the last election did suffer from a social media left wing bias that was only perceived afterwards. I'm not talking about old media obviously.


Our perception of things, perhaps. Not the polling though.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jun 5, 2017)

MightyTibberton said:


> I see that Steve Hilton has called for Theresa May to resign rather than run for re-election.
> 
> Granted, Steve Hilton's a dick. And granted, Steve Hilton's a dick who is looking for publicity for his new shit programme on Fox in America.
> 
> But he's not helping TM!



He's always chattering away from the sidelines. I'm not sure who really listens him these days.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This is the most important part of that:
> 
> "The potential army of young voters may also be in the wrong places. Ian Warren, a polling expert who worked with Labour in 2015, has calculated that there are only 75 seats where 18-24s outnumber over-65s – and Labour already holds 57 of them, with an average majority of 14,247 votes. It means the voters aren’t well placed to help Labour make gains."
> 
> Even if Craig Murray is right and turnout in England does what it did in Scotland between 2010 and 2015 (it went from 63% to 71%), that would need to disproportionately represent young people, and they'd need to disproportionately live in those Tory-held seats where their votes would make a difference between a Labour and Tory MP (i.e. Not simply boost the Labour candidate into a better second place).



This is what I've been wondering about. It's all very well that this or that age group are coming out for Corbyn or the polls are swinging his way, but unless it's in the marginals and/or the children of solid tory voters are registering to vote, and vote Corbyn despite their parents, then it won't count for much in the end.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jun 5, 2017)

quimcunx said:


> This is what I've been wondering about. It's all very well that this or that age group are coming out for Corbyn or the polls are swinging his way, but unless it's in the marginals and/or the children of solid tory voters are registering to vote, and vote Corbyn despite their parents, then it won't count for much in the end.



All the naysaying about the youth vote is focusing too much on the 18-25 demographic, but Corbyn is in the lead amongst everyone under 50, not just people under 25. Aren't 25-35 year olds overwhelmingly Labour too, and will they also be more likely to vote this time?


----------



## Libertad (Jun 5, 2017)

gawkrodger said:


> in contrast to the above Scotland post - according to their social media - in Wolves SW (marginal), Labour had over 50 out on Saturday



Fwiw Plymouth, Sutton & Devonport, 125'ish out on Saturday I've been told.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

Rimbaud said:


> All the naysaying about the youth vote is focusing too much on the 18-25 demographic, but Corbyn is in the lead amongst everyone under 50, not just people under 25. Aren't 25-35 year olds overwhelmingly Labour too, and will they also be more likely to vote this time?


It's not about focussing "too much" on the youth vote; it's about recognising the built-in persistence of the FTPT set up.  Looking at where the effects are likely to be.

And remembering that there is no third party: no UKIP voters to soak up Tory _vote majorities_ in marginals; no Lib Dems to speak of to soak up Tory Westminster _seat majorities_ in Parliament.  The bar is higher for Labour this time in both respects.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

A few things I've been thinking about:

There's an assumption that the UKIP vote will pretty much transfer to the Tories. I'm not sure that it will happen as simply as that. The "anti-establishment/fuck you" element of the vote may well not turn out at all, and is as likely to go Corbyn as it is Tory if it does.  Also I doubt May is that appealing to the ex-Tory segment of the UKIP vote either. Sure, there'll be a substantial transfer, but I don't think it can be taken for granted.

The Greens and the Lib Dems votes have collapsed. Almost entirely to Labour I suspect. These are more likely to be dedicated voters who will turn out.  In Southern marginals this might be crucial.

The "youth vote" turnout doesn't have to be universal. It just has to happen in the marginals. 

Lots is being assumed on the basis of previous elections. After all what else is there to base assumptions on, right? But I'm not sure that elections are following historical patterns anymore.


----------



## squirrelp (Jun 5, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Been a few articles with anti-corbyn mps still slagging him off (anonymously) and rekon they are not seeing any surge. But they also said they are not seeing this flood of new canvassers - but I know this is definitely happening in leeds and other areas so pinch of salt needed here - to wash down their sour grapes.


The anti-corbyn mps should be disregarded - they have simply been spinning against Corbyn to whatever extent they can get away with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> A few things I've been thinking about:
> 
> There's an assumption that the UKIP vote will pretty much transfer to the Tories. I'm not sure that it will happen as simply as that. The "anti-establishment/fuck you" element of the vote may well not turn out at all, and is as likely to go Corbyn as it is Tory if it does.  Also I doubt May is that appealing to the ex-Tory segment of the UKIP vote either. Sure, there'll be a substantial transfer, but I don't think it can be taken for granted.
> 
> ...


The auld rulebook's been ripped up


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Lots is being assumed on the basis of previous elections. After all what else is there to base assumptions on, right? But I'm not sure that elections are following historical patterns anymore.


This is a very good point.  Only three more sleeps until we find out!


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 5, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> The anti-corbyn mps should be disregarded



Easily said. Maybe they _should_. If they _were_, the advances made by Corbyn and co. in recent weeks now that he's actually getting something approaching a fair amount of airtime might have happened eighteen months ago.

Had that happened, of course, there's no way May would have called this election in the first place...


----------



## ska invita (Jun 5, 2017)

cantsin said:


> if JME's not careful, he's going to get starry eyed old farts like me wondering if there is suddenly going to be a load of newly politicised youth turning up to vote for the first time on thurs, with all the implications that carries :
> 
> ( doubt it, but his / other Grime bods role in all this has been encouraging / inspiring anyway)



Boris Better Know


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This is a very good point.  Only three more sleeps until we find out!


No sleep til corbyn as the beastie boys might have said


----------



## Sirena (Jun 5, 2017)

I've been keeping an eye on the betting for weeks now and witnessing the incredibly shortening odds on Labour....

I've never betted  but I believe bookies know more about what's going on - at street level - than any pollsters.

But for the last 2 days, there has been almost no movement.  They currently stand at 5/1 or 6/1.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Lots is being assumed on the basis of previous elections. After all what else is there to base assumptions on, right? But I'm not sure that elections are following historical patterns anymore.



Exactly, especially as apparently so much hinges on youth turnout, and you've got the Brexit vote and all its implications intervening between now and any past GEs. I wouldn't like to be that Curtiss bloke, whose job on Thursday will be to choose between (i) saying nowt for _hours _or (ii) probably making a massive tit of himself.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This is a very good point.  Only three more sleeps until we find out!


Or possibly four sleeps, depending on your Thursday night plans.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 5, 2017)

Labour don't exist where I live in the North East of Scotland, in terms of a visible ground campaign.

The bumptious Tory haemorrhoid is talking himself up, whereas the Labour campaign seems confined to facebook and shouty-crack green ink letters to the local paper.

There have been allegations of Unionist collusion to try and oust the SNP which means that, in large swathes of Scotland, Labout simply aren't bothering, and hoping for a Tory win.

Then they wonder why their vote has collapsed and former diehard Labour-voting areas now turn their backs on their candidates with a mixture of contempt and scorn.

The irony is that Labour probably need Scottish independence now for a revivial in fortunes; can't see it happening this side of a Yes vote.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 5, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I've been keeping an eye on the betting for weeks now and witnessing the incredibly shortening odds on Labour....
> 
> I've never betted  but I believe bookies know more about what's going on - at street level - than any pollsters.
> 
> But for the last 2 days, there has been almost no movement.  They currently stand at 5/1 or 6/1.



betfair still 7/1 labour (punter to punter betting, normally most accurate ) , no real movement for a week or so , and 1/10 Tory. If this was a horse race, no one would bother even watching.

I took 14/1 Lab ( 20/1 was best on offer) , but not ordering my eightball to spunk the winnings on tbh.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Or possibly four sleeps, depending on your Thursday night plans.


I wasn't including Granda' naps either.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

Betting was heavy against Brexit.  Odds aren't a magic mirror, they just reflect the same information back that we all already have.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 5, 2017)

the odds have not changed for many punts , but the offerings around numbers of seats has  - the pivotal above/below entry level gamble for the Conservatives has dropped from c. 360+ to 350 on most of the gamble sites in the past few days - still at 5/6 but with a lower level. if that makes any sense


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I've been keeping an eye on the betting for weeks now and witnessing the incredibly shortening odds on Labour....
> 
> I've never betted  but I believe bookies know more about what's going on - at street level - than any pollsters.
> 
> But for the last 2 days, there has been almost no movement.  They currently stand at 5/1 or 6/1.


Why do you you think the bookies are best informed? What extra information do you think they have?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> Why do you you think the bookies are best informed? What extra information do you think they have?


Well, they do have the knowledge of where the money is being bet.  But that money is still just bet based on the same knowledge, so in the end it largely comes back to the same thing.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Or possibly four sleeps, depending on your Thursday night plans.



Is anyone planning to stay up beyond the revealing of the exit polls at 10pm?  I mean when they forecast a tory majority.  They seemed pretty accurate last time around.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Is anyone planning to stay up beyond the revealing of the exit polls at 10pm?  I mean when they forecast a tory majority.  They seemed pretty accurate last time around.


That's my plan.  Last time, I thought the exit poll was ludicrous and worth staying up to see it overturned.  I was very wrong.  This time, I am assuming the exit poll will be pretty spot on.  If it predicts fun times, I will stay up.  If it predicts Tory victories, I won't bother.


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

Sirena said:


> But for the last 2 days, there has been almost no movement.  They currently stand at 5/1 or 6/1.


apropos of nothing, Trump's odds were 6/1 on winning just before the US election.


----------



## Old Spark (Jun 5, 2017)

Wheres Watson ?

Wheres Hammond ?

Wheres Fox ?

Wheres Lamb ?

Unwanted by their parties or in fights too close to call.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> apropos of nothing, Trump's odds were 6/1 on winning just before the US election.


They also said that the vagaries of the FPTP system in the US would make it impossible for Trump to win.  As I recall, the phrase of the time was that he had no "pathway".


----------



## cantsin (Jun 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> apropos of nothing, Trump's odds were 6/1 on winning just before the US election.



and went out to 10/1 on the night, pre Florida ( i think )


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

I don't understand complicated betting.

Can I put money on a Tory win and make a profit?


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> I don't understand complicated betting.
> 
> Can I put money on a Tory win and make a profit?


you could have a few days ago iirc, gimme a second.


----------



## JimW (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> I don't understand complicated betting.
> 
> Can I put money on a Tory win and make a profit?


For what profits a man if he gains thirty quid at ten to one but loses his own soul?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> I don't understand complicated betting.
> 
> Can I put money on a Tory win and make a profit?



£10 gets you £2.50 if they have a majority, or alternatively you can bet £10 they will be the largest party and get £1.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> I don't understand complicated betting.
> 
> Can I put money on a Tory win and make a profit?



Yes, assuming they actually do win. Not a lot though as they're strong favourites. 

Chuck it on the Lib-Dems instead you'll be a millionaire if they win.


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)




----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

JimW said:


> For what profits a man if he gains thirty quid at ten to one but loses his own soul?


 A consolation prize.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 5, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> £10 gets you £2.50 if they have a majority, or alternatively you can bet £10 they will be the largest party and get £1.


who like Esau sold his birthright for a pound


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 5, 2017)

JimW said:


> For what profits a man if he gains thirty quid at ten to one but loses his own soul?



Fair point. If I was gambling my soul I'd put way more than three quid on it.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> £10 gets you £2.50 if they have a majority, or alternatively you can bet £10 they will be the largest party and get £1.



Sadly I don't have the capital to make that low-rate return worthwhile. Busfare to the bookies would cost more than i'd make...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 5, 2017)

Loving the self flagellating hopefulness on display.


----------



## Ranbay (Jun 5, 2017)

I have £20 on JC! at 9/1

so fingers crossed!


----------



## JimW (Jun 5, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Fair point. If I was gambling my soul I'd put way more than three quid on it.


Stretching to a fiver? Fair play but steady now.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 5, 2017)

bookies odds are created by punters.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 5, 2017)

JimW said:


> For what profits a man if he gains thirty quid at ten to one but loses his own soul?



Dunno TBH, if it drifts to, say 30 back from the £100 investment, I might a load in for the 'emotional hedge'


----------



## cantsin (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> I don't understand complicated betting.
> 
> Can I put money on a Tory win and make a profit?



put on 10, get back 11 ( on Betfair ) for Tories most seats


----------



## cantsin (Jun 5, 2017)

discokermit said:


> bookies odds are created by punters.



no,. initial odds ( the book) , created by bookies, the punters bets then mean the bookies change the odds accordingly - but they still manipulate the odds throughout, to ensure they come out on top .

Betfair is the only one that is punter betting with punter.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 5, 2017)

cantsin said:


> no,. initial odds ( the book) , created by bookies, the punters bets then mean the bookies change the odds accordingly - but they still manipulate the odds throughout, to ensure they come out on top .
> 
> Betfair is the only one that is punter betting with punter.


who puts their hand in their pockets and gets the money out?
without that a bookie is just someone shouting numbers into the wind.
anyways, bookies have/are been made redundant by online gambling markets, which enable punters to set the odds between themselves. the market takes a percentage of every bet made.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 5, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Betfair is the only one that is punter betting with punter.


no it isn't.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 5, 2017)

discokermit said:


> who puts their hand in their pockets and gets the money out?
> without that a bookie is just someone shouting numbers into the wind.
> anyways, bookies have/are been made redundant by online gambling markets, which enable punters to set the odds between themselves. the market takes a percentage of every bet made.



lolz...wtf are you on about fam ?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 5, 2017)

Rather than risk a slab to get a pittance, chuck a tenners worth of shrapnel on a swathe of utter abusurdities at high odds. Much more fun


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Rather than risk a slab to get a pittance, chuck a tenners worth of shrapnel on a swathe of utter abusurdities at high odds. Much more fun


More fun and far more likely to result in long term success.  The more absurd the situation, the more likely you are to have information that isn't priced into the odds.

As Taleb said in Black Swans, don't be the person picking pennies up in front of a steamroller.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> As Taleb said in Black Swans, don't be the person picking pennies up in front of a steamroller.


isn't that what you do for a job?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

discokermit said:


> isn't that what you do for a job?


Well, I more kind of predict how bad the steamroller will be when it does hit.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

The only actuary I know irl is predicting a Tory landslide.


----------



## Santino (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Well, I more kind of predict how bad the steamroller will be when it does hit.



And sell steamroller accident insurance.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 5, 2017)

I backed trump through the primaries and onto the presidency using this approach- for virtually no layout at all


----------



## discokermit (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Well, I more kind of predict how bad the steamroller will be when it does hit.


as well as working out what you think the speed and trajectory of the steamroller is and whether you can grab some of those pennies. in the meanwhile another steamroller you didn't see runs you flat.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> The only actuary I know irl is predicting a Tory landslide.


Eh, what do actuaries know?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

discokermit said:


> as well as working out what you think the speed and trajectory of the steamroller is and whether you can grab some of those pennies. in the meanwhile another steamroller you didn't see runs you flat.


It's okay, I specifically note in the limitations document that I am not considering other types of steamroller.

Also, much like the bookie, I personally win either way.  You don't think it's MY money invested in this, do you?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Eh, what do actuaries know?


How to calculate insurance premiums.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Eh, what do actuaries know?



Not actuary very much


----------



## MightyTibberton (Jun 5, 2017)

I think it's a bit innacturate to say that.


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Eh, what do actuaries know?


----------



## discokermit (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It's okay, I specifically note in the limitations document that I am not considering other types of steamroller.
> 
> Also, much like the bookie, I personally win either way.  You don't think it's MY money invested in this, do you?


that's the pennies in front of the steamroller. insurance company, betting that your house won't burn down (for example). steamroller, some unforseen and not calculated for event, a black swan, somehow causes all the houses in the world to burn down.
lots of people get rich off the pennies most of the time til the steamroller they can't see hits them.


----------



## Septimus Rufiji (Jun 5, 2017)

That's what government bailouts are for, to ensure a win win.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 5, 2017)

There was an interesting paragraph in Popbitch this week - which I'll have to paraphrase as I can't access personal emails from work since Theresa May's English NHS Windows XL Meltdown 2017 (shakes fist) - saying that with Brexit the odds favoured Remain as more money overall had been bet on it but that a greater number of individual bets had been placed on Leave. The same held true with the US Presidential election; odds and money overall went for Clinton, but more small individual punts for Trump.

The odds and more money overall have been placed for the Tories, but there are apparently loads more bets on for Labour in this election.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 5, 2017)

popbitch is as good as anything the shitting mainstream press have been pumping out, it has to be said


----------



## kabbes (Jun 5, 2017)

discokermit said:


> that's the pennies in front of the steamroller. insurance company, betting that your house won't burn down (for example). steamroller, some unforseen and not calculated for event, a black swan, somehow causes all the houses in the world to burn down.
> lots of people get rich off the pennies most of the time til the steamroller they can't see hits them.


I've already been paid though.  If my company goes bust, well, that's the way it goes, eh?


----------



## discokermit (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I've already been paid though.  If my company goes bust, well, that's the way it goes, eh?


if you're not earning your living in extremistan then you are picking up the pennies with the rest of us.


----------



## agricola (Jun 5, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> popbitch is as good as anything the shitting mainstream press have been pumping out, it has to be said



that ongoing Farage-related story especially


----------



## Wilf (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


>


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 5, 2017)

I still think the Tories will get an increased majority but I can see them gaining some seats and holding others that on a UNS they "should" lose. For example I think there could be a swing to Labour across London, they might hold Lancaster and Fleetwood etc.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 5, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I still think the Tories will get an increased majority but I can see them gaining some seats and holding others that on a UNS they "should" lose. For example I think there could be a swing to Labour across London, they might hold Lancaster and Fleetwood etc.


Pollsters assumptions are all over the place methodologically, but then Labour have never actually had a lead, even when polls have been coming in up to 10% different on a daily basis.  A week ago, I was thinking there might have just been a 50 seat tory majority, I'm now edging back towards a 10%+ gap and whatever seat lead that produces a.k.a. something close to a landslide.


----------



## 1927 (Jun 5, 2017)

Dianne Abbot on Sky News doing her best to lose the election. Why do they allow her out on her own?


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jun 5, 2017)

What's she said now?


----------



## 1927 (Jun 5, 2017)

PursuedByBears said:


> What's she said now?


She was absolutely woeful.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 5, 2017)

More than 10,000 people out tonight in the rain in Gateshead.  To see Jeremy Corbyn...


----------



## tim (Jun 5, 2017)

kabbes said:


> As Taleb said in Black Swans, don't be the person picking pennies up in front of a steamroller.



Even if they are 1933 pennies?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 5, 2017)

Sirena said:


> More than 10,000 people out tonight in the rain in Gateshead.  To see Jeremy Corbyn...


I've just done an estimate on the area involved and I'm fairly sure that crowd is well over 20,000, could be as many as 30,000

Eta - actually I got mixed up about which bit of this area was being used, probably was nearer 10k.


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

I've just looked deep into my own arsehole, and would say there's at least 50,000 people there.


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

The number seems to double each time I read about Gateshead this afternoon. The 3,000 it started off as was impressive enough tbh.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 5, 2017)

He seems always able to fill an event, significantly more than his competitors for the labour leadership could, and more than a tory politician can, but whether this will translate into seats in the house of commons at the general election, we can only wait until Thursday night to find out.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> The number seems to double each time I read about Gateshead this afternoon. The 3,000 it started off as was impressive enough tbh.


There's quite a few...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> It's not about focussing "too much" on the youth vote; it's about recognising the built-in persistence of the FTPT set up.  Looking at where the effects are likely to be.
> 
> And remembering that there is no third party: no UKIP voters to soak up Tory _vote majorities_ in marginals; no Lib Dems to speak of to soak up Tory Westminster _seat majorities_ in Parliament.  The bar is higher for Labour this time in both respects.


When I wrote the above I didn't know this:

"In the seats where UKIP are not standing there were 1,246,965 votes for UKIP in 2015. Over 1 million of those votes are in Con-held seats."

(From @election_data Twitter account).

So, those million votes, if they go Tory, would be doing nothing at all.


----------



## gosub (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> When I wrote the above I didn't know this:
> 
> "In the seats where UKIP are not standing there were 1,246,965 votes for UKIP in 2015. Over 1 million of those votes are in Con-held seats."
> 
> ...



but its less effort and resources required..


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

gosub said:


> but its less effort and resources required..


For whom? To what effect? With regards to what?


----------



## gosub (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> For whom? To what effect? With regards to what?



Means tories can move bits of their machine to areas that are more contested


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

gosub said:


> Means tories can move bits of their machine to areas that are more contested


True, but I hadn't realised how few of those votes were in marginals.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 5, 2017)

killer b said:


> The number seems to double each time I read about Gateshead this afternoon. The 3,000 it started off as was impressive enough tbh.


I've checked a few more photos and realised it was on a different section to the one I'd originally measured.

The official section would have had around 6-8,000 in it, with another 4-5,000 or so in the overspill in the carpark area.

The official estimate is apparently 9,000.

Massive turnout for a politician either way.

Main crowd






Overspill in the car park.







And the view from above / the sage gallery.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> When I wrote the above I didn't know this:
> 
> "In the seats where UKIP are not standing there were 1,246,965 votes for UKIP in 2015. Over 1 million of those votes are in Con-held seats."
> 
> ...


They'd be helping to stop Labour from gaining / regaining those seats.

That's the problem in the 2 key seats in Leeds that Labour are trying to take back from the tories.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 5, 2017)

If Corbyn can get a crowd of 5000 in Basildon I'll take that as a sign that he's on to something with the winning thing. Gateshead not so much.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2017)

free spirit said:


> They'd be helping to stop Labour from gaining / regaining those seats.
> 
> That's the problem in the 2 key seats in Leeds that Labour are trying to take back from the tories.


Fair point. But the average majority in those Con-held seats in which UKIP are not standing is 12,279 votes, so they're not marginals.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Fair point. But the average majority in those Con-held seats in which UKIP are not standing is 12,279 votes, so they're not marginals.


the average isn't a very useful metric.


----------



## killer b (Jun 5, 2017)

Not sure if you're in a position  to be pronouncing on the usefulness of someone else's numbers right now tbh


----------



## Sirena (Jun 5, 2017)

This may not really mean anything because, presumably, the paper ran a poll and slightly fewer than 500 responded...

Poll shows landslide win for Labour in Harrogate and Knaresborough - Harrogate Informer

But if you look at the 2015 results...

General Election 2015: Harrogate and Knaresborough
Conservative Andrew Jones 28,153
Liberal Democrat Helen Flynn 11,782
UKIP David Simister 5,681
Labour Jan Williams 5,409
Green Shan Oakes 2,351

it might just augur something very special going on....


----------



## chilango (Jun 5, 2017)

Feeling less optimistic after an evening in the pub (not drinking probably hasn't helped) listening to people consider voting Lib Dem "because Corbyn".


----------



## Cid (Jun 5, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Fair point. But the average majority in those Con-held seats in which UKIP are not standing is 12,279 votes, so they're not marginals.



Some SY seats near me are standing UKIP candidates, but they all saw a kipper surge in 2015 that might drop back to 2010 levels. If those kippers go Conservative they could swing some seats (particularly Halifax). Whether they go conservative is a different question of course... I mean the ones I had a quick look at (NE Derbyshire, Stocksbridge and Pensitone, Halifax) were labour in 2010 with much lower UKIP votes. There may, given the former industrial nature of some areas, be an an entrenched aversion to voting Conservative that doesn't apply in the same way to UKIP.


----------



## Cid (Jun 5, 2017)

Sirena said:


> This may not really mean anything because, presumably, the paper ran a poll and slightly fewer than 500 responded...
> 
> Poll shows landslide win for Labour in Harrogate and Knaresborough - Harrogate Informer
> 
> ...



It's an absurd polling method, it has no significance.


----------



## tim (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Feeling less optimistic after an evening in the pub (not drinking probably hasn't helped) listening to people consider voting Lib Dem "because Corbyn".



Never mind console yourself with the fact the men in sandals, the backbone of the old Liberal Party, have defected en-masse to Labour as they see Corbyn as one of their own


----------



## Gerry1time (Jun 5, 2017)

Weren't people saying a while ago that UKIP was taking more votes off Labour than the Tories? If so, if UKIP collapse, why would those former Labout voters switch to the Tories rather than back to Labour?


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 5, 2017)

1927 said:


> Dianne Abbot on Sky News doing her best to lose the election. Why do they allow her out on her own?


Oh god I couldn't watch it all. I'm sure she never used to be this bad? 

Watch: Diane Abbott's disastrous turn on Sky News | Coffee House
.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 5, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> If Corbyn can get a crowd of 5000 in Basildon I'll take that as a sign that he's on to something with the winning thing. Gateshead not so much.


As I've said I think the Tories will get an increased majority nor do I think the Labour party is the way forward but getting 5000 people to turn out to hear a politician speak is something. When was the last time a politician managed to get turnouts like that in England? 

Whatever you think of Corbyn and Labour it would daft not to recognise that he has caught something, around some people at least, and think about how this could be turned to pro-wc politics.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 5, 2017)

Gerry1time said:


> Weren't people saying a while ago that UKIP was taking more votes off Labour than the Tories? If so, if UKIP collapse, why would those former Labout voters switch to the Tories rather than back to Labour?




I liked this question. Is the UKIP collapse universally pro Tory, everywhere?? 

I only ask, because I honestly don't know


----------



## Sirena (Jun 5, 2017)

Cid said:


> It's an absurd polling method, it has no significance.


Yes, but the headline in the paper creates an impact.

If we are moving to an age where your voting preference is much more a movable feast than ever it was before, where it has become more of a dynamic tool, then those who oppose the tories (and that includes the liberal bloc in this case) might migrate to Labour because of that impact.

I shall keep an eye on this constituency because Harrogate General Hospital was where I was born.....


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 5, 2017)

chilango said:


> Feeling less optimistic after an evening in the pub (not drinking probably hasn't helped) listening to people consider voting Lib Dem "because Corbyn".



How the fuck do these people still exist?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 5, 2017)

The ideas are out there now, so I am happier than I should be. Whatever the flaccid Mayhem takes on board after a win will be a non winnable  fucking shitstorm anyway.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 6, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> I liked this question. Is the UKIP collapse universally pro Tory, everywhere??
> 
> I only ask, because I honestly don't know


it's increasingly been moving away from the tories and to Labour in the polls, but still at around 50% Tory, 25% Labour, 25% UKIP. Question is, how many of those who originally came from Labour who're still saying they'll vote tory will actually do it come election day.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 6, 2017)

just a little reminder of what commentators were saying when May called the election - here's Johnathan Freedland 

The real gamble for Theresa May would have been to wait until 2020 | Jonathan Freedland



> The standard way of describing a move such as the one Theresa May made on Tuesday morning is to call it a “gamble”. A prime minister with a Commons majority and three years left to run on her parliamentary term does not throw that away without risk. In that sense, May has gambled – but as gambles go, it’s about the surest bet any politician could ever place.





> And bear in mind that until now the Tories have barely had to lay a glove on Corbyn: they’ve left that job to the Labour leader’s internal opponents. But Conservative strategists all but slaver at the juiciness of the prey they will now hunt.



thank god for theses sages dispensing  their wisdom.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 6, 2017)

Diane Abbott and Amber Rudd to debate on Woman's Hour this morning at 10am.

BBC Radio 4 - Woman's Hour, Phone-in with politicians from five parties in extended programme

Ffs won't somebody stop her.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

They can't, she's the shadow home secretary.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

Boris on R4 a few minutes ago was a complete car wreck too.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> They can't, she's the shadow home secretary.



Indeed, that's the problem.


----------



## Cid (Jun 6, 2017)

Oh god, please tell me she's spent the last 12 hours getting briefed.

It really says a lot about today's political class.


----------



## wiskey (Jun 6, 2017)

chilango said:


> Feeling less optimistic after an evening in the pub (not drinking probably hasn't helped) listening to people consider voting Lib Dem "because Corbyn".


I'm acutely aware that I am living in a bubble and it's probably not very representative of the real world


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Boris on R4 a few minutes ago was a complete car wreck too.


This is the thing. Both sides have these ludicrous shitheads cunting things up every other day. I think they probably cancel each other out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> This is the thing. Both sides have these ludicrous shitheads cunting things up every other day. I think they probably cancel each other out.


Labour shitheads more widely reported than tory shitheads tho


----------



## bimble (Jun 6, 2017)

I think Labour's going to win. I'm almost always wrong though.


----------



## Combustible (Jun 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> They can't, she's the shadow home secretary.



If the prime minister can do it, why can't she go and have a long hard think about Brexit somewhere.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Diane Abbott and Amber Rudd to debate on Woman's Hour this morning at 10am.
> 
> BBC Radio 4 - Woman's Hour, Phone-in with politicians from five parties in extended programme
> 
> Ffs won't somebody stop her.



Correction it's on now. Diane Abbott has been taken ill and has been replaced by Emily Thornberry.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Labour shitheads more widely reported than tory shitheads tho


And despite the number of people saying "oh, god, Boris as foreign secretary!", the media reaction was more muted. He seems to get some kind of a pass.

But his spot this morning was really, really bad. Whether on not you agreed with the line of questioning (and I didn't), he couldn't deal with it.


----------



## Sue (Jun 6, 2017)

Find it quite astonishing really. This is their job and most of them have been doing it (or variations on it) for years and years and they're still utterly fucking shit at it.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> And despite the number of people saying "oh, god, Boris as foreign secretary!", the media reaction was more muted. He seems to get some kind of a pass.
> 
> But his spot this morning was really, really bad. Whether on not you agreed with the line of questioning (and I didn't), he couldn't deal with it.


They tried to play a bit of it on the 9am bulletin, but there must have been _technical problems_ 'cause it didn't play.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 6, 2017)

Sue said:


> Find it quite astonishing really. This is their job and most of them have been doing it (or variations on it) for years and years and they're still utterly fucking shit at it.



They're largely from a class which gets congratulated from birth on their ability and brilliance. Even those who don't tend to spend years in the political bubble which tells itself it has special aptitude and insight, and works so terribly hard. It's an echo chamber of clueless mediocrity, by and large.


----------



## chilango (Jun 6, 2017)

Sue said:


> Find it quite astonishing really. This is their job and most of them have been doing it (or variations on it) for years and years and they're still utterly fucking shit at it.





Plumdaff said:


> They're largely from a class which get congratulated from birth on their ability and brilliance. Even those who don't tend to spend years in the political bubble which tells itself it has special aptitude and insight, and works so terribly hard. It's an echo chamber of clueless mediocrity, by and large.



If you encounter these types in other fields (an ex-CEO of mine was Eton & Oxbridge iirc) you'll find that the pattern is often similar. They may be competent or they may be inept but that has little bearing on how they got to be in that position and how they get to stay in it regardless.

C L A S S.

As ever


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> I've just looked deep into my own arsehole, and would say there's at least 50,000 people there.


It looks to be quite wet up there from the pic.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

killer b said:


> They tried to play a bit of it on the 9am bulletin, but there must have been _technical problems_ 'cause it didn't play.


I've just looked at their twitter page and the section of the interview they have on there has edited out the car crash. 

The section I'm talking about, for anyone who was listening, was when he was questioned on his voting record on detention without trial, while he was in mid-flow of a Corbyn tirade. I opposed the measures, but Boris couldn't answer why _he_ did. It was cringe-making.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

It's not gone unnoticed though. But I can't help thinking that if this was Diane Abbott, that's the section they'd be playing non-stop.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

Sue said:


> Find it quite astonishing really. This is their job and most of them have been doing it (or variations on it) for years and years and they're still utterly fucking shit at it.


yeh when i was little i thought the people in charge must be in some way a different species, with special politician powers. i have been disabused of that notion, and they are - by and large - far more stupid than anyone i meet in my everyday life.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 6, 2017)

BoJo was fucking dreadful this morning. Seemed pathologically unable to answer a question on his personal record without talking shit about corbyn. Was an infuriating experience having to listen to that blustering blowhard using extreme verbosity to say nothing at all. But then again twas ever thus with that mendacious dickhead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

Nylock said:


> BoJo was fucking dreadful this morning. Seemed pathologically unable to answer a question on his personal record without talking shit about corbyn. Was an infuriating experience having to listen to that blustering blowhard using extreme verbosity to say nothing at all. But then again twas ever thus with that mendacious dickhead.


i would like to suggest the neologism "blowtard" for this sort of poncified eton-oxbridge twat


----------



## hash tag (Jun 6, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Correction it's on now. Diane Abbott has been taken ill and has been replaced by Emily Thornberry.




Diane Abbott pulls out of Woman's Hour debate due to illness


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Diane Abbott pulls out of Woman's Hour debate due to illness


how desperately sad that the election campaign's taken such a toll on abbott's health


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

Eton is like Lord of the flies innit. You masses with your inner city comps and drive by shootings have no idea how difficult it is to survive in a traditional public school - you have to be tough and think on your feet to get through it


----------



## hash tag (Jun 6, 2017)

Quelle suprise "Reports at the weekend suggested aides to Corbyn were trying to minimise Abbott’s media exposure."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Eton is like Lord of the flies innit. You masses with your inner city comps and drive by shootings have no idea how difficult it is to survive in a traditional public school - you have to be tough and think on your feet to get through it


fairly certain this sort of thing would end in suspensions and exclusions at any state school


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 6, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think Labour's going to win. I'm almost always wrong though.


What do you mean by win? That they'll get a majority (cloud cuckoo land)? That they'll be the largest party? That they'll take a higher share of the vote? Or that they'll be in government?


----------



## Cid (Jun 6, 2017)

chilango said:


> Feeling less optimistic after an evening in the pub (not drinking probably hasn't helped) listening to people consider voting Lib Dem "because Corbyn".



Yeah, I'm still getting this from some... Its become totally irrational. Their original arguments were; he's ruined the electability of the party, his stand on brexit is weak, his policies are too left wing.

The first is clearly being shot to pieces. I mean I kind of know I'll have that horrible sinking feeling come Friday morning, but the statistics will be vastly better than they envisaged. And obviously they aren't helping by voting LD.

Second his brexit team is right up their street (literally, North London types). And they'll happily let in the most incompetent brexit team conceivable.

Third the only really left wing policy remaining is nationalisation, which is presented as being European style in any case and therefore a characteristic of the community they wanted to remain in. They were more worried about mansion taxes (like I said, North London) and the like originally, but have moved several goalposts. They're rallying against a moderate social democrat manifesto, which I know they'd have been content with coming from a Miliband.

Some Sheffield people too, though sort of facebook acquaintances. Arguments are similar, though in this case younger people (30s-40s) who have been 'activists' in the LP since the Blair years and feel betrayed. Basically, whether from North London or Sheffield, they're moaning, ungenerous, bitter shits. But they may be significant in some of the more m/c constituencies that stuck it through the Blair years. Hopefully those constituencies will also contain some of the energised youth vote, but basically impossible to tell.

That's my analysis anyway. Based on the significant sample of about four people.


----------



## chilango (Jun 6, 2017)

Cid said:


> Yeah, I'm still getting this from some... Its become totally irrational. Their original arguments were; he's ruined the electability of the party, his stand on brexit is week, his policies are too left wing.
> 
> The first is clearly being shot to pieces. I mean I kind of know I'll have that horrible sinking feeling come Friday morning, but the statistics will be vastly better than they envisaged. And obviously they aren't helping by voting LD.
> 
> ...



Nothing so sophisticated amongst last nights sample of of three. One it's about nukes, the other two think he's "utter twat".

Still outnumbered by their peers (20-30 something yr old graduates with decent jobs but no money) who are voting labour, enthusiastically. Being older and less m/c than the rest of the group lent my opinions a certain difference in perspective shall we say.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

Plot against Corbyn already underway, FT suggests:


----------



## JimW (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Plot against Corbyn already underway, FT suggests:
> 
> View attachment 108614
> 
> View attachment 108616


Are they just casting their minds back to the last time their stories succeeded in making Corbyn look bad? Not that I'd put it past the PLP.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

I fucking hope not Cooper. I have £50 on Starmer


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Plot against Corbyn already underway, FT suggests:
> 
> View attachment 108614
> 
> View attachment 108616



ffs - so if the tories marginally increase their majority - say to about 30 but labour increase their vote share to say 36/37% - they think that "proves" that corbyn has to go?  Despite that being a huge improvement on 2015 and the biggest labour vote share  for 17 years and with a hugely enthused membership and support base - leaving them in a much stronger position to fight the next election post brexit.

They will try - but I would hope they might have some difficulty making that argument stick. They would have to argue that cooper or burnham would have done better with the same old same old, cheese pairing bits of policy wonkery + soundbites.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Plot against Corbyn already underway, FT suggests:
> 
> View attachment 108614
> 
> View attachment 108616



10:02 massive departures from the membership. Not that they'd care, winning the proles is the least important of their games.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 6, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> ffs - so if the tories marginally increase their majority - say to about 30 but labour increase their vote share to say 36/37% - they think that "proves" that corbyn has to go?  Despite that being a huge improvement on 2015 and the biggest labour vote share  for 17 years and with a hugely enthused membership and support base - leaving them in a much stronger position to fight the next election post brexit.
> 
> They will try - but I would hope they might have some difficulty making that argument stick. They would have to argue that cooper or burnham would have done better with the same old same old, cheese pairing bits of policy wonkery + soundbites.



Nah, all they have to do is grind that enthused membership down. Any sellable defeat and another attack - people will give up on Labour. Probably sensibly tbh.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 6, 2017)

They will be straight in there to frame the narrative as soon as the exit poll comes out. But corbyn has won over a lot of doubters - im hoping a lot of labour people - not just membership but less ideological plp members, unions etc will tell them to get to fuck.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 6, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> They will be straight in there to frame the narrative as soon as the exit poll comes out. But corbyn has won over a lot of doubters - im hoping a lot of labour people - not just membership but less ideological plp members, unions etc will tell them to get to fuck.



Membership have done that twice already, erode that enthusiasm and a third time may be a stretch. Maybe overly pessimistic but if that happens I'm reverting to non party politics and answers there.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 6, 2017)

Are Labour likely to do better than last time even if they don't win? I think they are but I don't have the relevant figures handy. If so, how are the plotters likely to frame that?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 6, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Are Labour likely to do better than last time even if they don't win? I think they are but I don't have the relevant figures handy. If so, how are the plotters likely to frame that?



'Given the conditions it should have been a Labour landslide. It's only due to it being Corbyn and not a winning political master like Burnham/Cooper/Smith/Kendall that that didn't happen.'


----------



## flypanam (Jun 6, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 'Given the conditions it should have been a Labour landslide. It's only due to it being Corbyn and not a winning political master like Burnham/Cooper/Smith/Kendall that that didn't happen.'


or Eagle.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> ffs - so if the tories marginally increase their majority - say to about 30 but labour increase their vote share to say 36/37% - they think that "proves" that corbyn has to go?  Despite that being a huge improvement on 2015 and the biggest labour vote share  for 17 years and with a hugely enthused membership and support base - leaving them in a much stronger position to fight the next election post brexit.
> .


If something like that is the outcome, the one thing you can say with any certainty is the right and the PLP in all their briefings, manoeuvres and votes of no confidence are the ones who lost it.  Without all that 36/7 would surely have been something like 40%/hung parliament territory. What success Labour have had has been in the last month at most, the period when the right have, by and large, kept their mouths shut. If they could have done that 18 months ago there would have been momentum and the nationalisation plans would have been firmed up in people's minds.

Pedantic point: there were accidental advantages in the nationalisation plans appearing late, meant there wasn't months of ideological flak from the papers, bbc and others. But overall, a united party getting its message out for the last 18 months would have been in a much stronger position.  Mild as that message is, it is something different to the consensus and needed embedding.


----------



## gosub (Jun 6, 2017)

Wilf said:


> If something like that is the outcome, the one thing you can say with any certainty is the right and the PLP in all their briefings, manoeuvres and votes of no confidence are the ones who lost it.  Without all that 36/7 would surely have been something like 40%/hung parliament territory. What success Labour have had has been in the last month at most, the period when the right have, by and large, kept their mouths shut. If they could have done that 18 months ago there would have been momentum and the nationalisation plans would have been firmed up in people's minds.
> 
> Pedantic point: there were accidental advantages in the nationalisation plans appearing late, meant there wasn't months of ideological flak from the papers, bbc and others. But overall, a united party getting its message out for the last 18 months would have been in a much stronger position.  Mild as that message is, it is something different to the consensus and needed embedding.



A united party also wouldn't need/have Diane Abbott in the shadow cabinet...


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> A united party also wouldn't need/have Diane Abbott in the shadow cabinet...


Yep. Corbyn's had a pretty limited pool to choose from, though Diane Abbot was still a poor choice for one of the most high profile posts.  But yeah, I don't want to get into lauding the abilities of people like Hilary Benn, but had he and the rest been available they'd at least of had a shadow cabinet of people who could actually do the job.

There are always problems incorporating people you disagree with into a shadow cabinet and accepting collective responsibility, but most parties manage it.  I'm not actually defending the idea of collective shadow cabinet responsibility.  But that's _their_ game, those are the rules _they_ play by.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 6, 2017)

There's a lot of creativity on the net, sparked by Corbyn.

Cassetteboy has excelled himself with a work that must have taken days or weeks of editing



and this one is a piece of lyrical excellence


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yep. Corbyn's had a pretty limited pool to choose from, though Diane Abbot was still a poor choice for one of the most high profile posts.  But yeah, I don't want to get into lauding the abilities of people like Hilary Benn, but had he and the rest been available they'd at least of had a shadow cabinet of people who could actually do the job.
> 
> There are always problems incorporating people you disagree with into a shadow cabinet and accepting collective responsibility, but most parties manage it.  I'm not actually defending the idea of collective shadow cabinet responsibility.  But that's _their_ game, those are the rules _they_ play by.


Hilary Benn a man promoted far beyond his ability


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Hilary Benn a man promoted far beyond his ability


A modest man with much to be ... slapped about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Hilary Benn a man promoted far beyond his ability



Living proof of the Peter principle.


----------



## phillm (Jun 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Hilary Benn a man promoted far beyond his ability



it's not about personalities but the 'ishoos' as his dad was won't to say....


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 6, 2017)

In a way, Corbyn has already 'won', in that he has notched up two momentous achievements - whatever the result.
First, he's giving the the Tories - and every complacent mainstream 'expert' the (nasty) shock of their lives. When May declared the election, the near universal assumption was a  Tory landslide, with the only question being where between 150 and 200 the Tory majority would fall. 
The Tories certainly acted like that from the start - they've campaigned as if all they ever had to do was to turn up, keep repeating 'strong and stable', 'coalition of chaos'. 'mandate for brexit' 'long term economic plan' etc, etc - and Labour's incoherence, complete disorganisation and incoherence, disunity of the PLP and Corbyn's general ineptitude and unsellability as a leader would do the rest.
In fact, things have panned out very, very differently. Labour have had an excellent campaign, the Tories an awful one, Corbyn's ratings have increased as may's have plummeted,and ever since the 'dementia tax' row a\ real struggle has been on, to an extent that nobody would have ever predicted back at the starter gate.
Second, they've put a genuine, credible democratic socialist platform out there, for the first time since the 1980s, and gained surprising traction with it. if anything Labour have pulled the Tories leftward, much as Labour were themselves pulled rightward in the 1990s.
Those, I think, are considerable achievements.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jun 6, 2017)

If Jezza loses by a big margin then we're all pretty much screwed, the PLP (that of it which survives) is going to get the knives out big time and then it is going to be a case of, This is what the voters want! They will offer up the same shit as the Tories  with sugar on it to disguise the taste but still shit. If he loses by a small margin or a hung parliament there may still be hope. The Labour manifesto has got lots of good stuff in it, this is the third election I will have voted in and the first one where I have felt there is a real choice between Tory Classic and Tory-Lite. I don't think it's a co-incidence that the polls improved so much after the mainfesto was published.
A "Just About" loss will probably cost Corbyn his shot at PM but a chance that the Labour party can move forward veering to the left under another leader.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Plot against Corbyn already underway, FT suggests:
> 
> <snip>


To me that rather reads that they're sacred that Labour will do well enough that ousting him might be a challenge and they want to lay the groundwork. 

If Labour break 35% then I think they''ll have to work to remove Corbyn.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I fucking hope not Cooper. I have £50 on Starmer


Cooper's a busted flush


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 6, 2017)

I'm finding it hard to believe that all the polls are all completely wrong & it will be the big win for the tories as predicted when the election was called. I think a Labour majority might be optimistic but I reckon worst case scenario will be a small Tory majority. If it's a hung parliament then it's a result imo.

I get the impression most people don't really want the sort of world the current tories seem to be offering.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> To me that rather reads that they're sacred that Labour will do well enough that ousting him might be a challenge and they want to lay the groundwork.
> 
> If Labour break 35% then I think they''ll have to work to remove Corbyn.


They're deluded. They still think they're movers and shakers. The party membership, on the other hand, seems to have been delighted by Corbyn's campaign. The idea of them wanting to ditch him if there's an any way decent result seems remote.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jun 6, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I'm finding it hard to believe that all the polls are all completely wrong & it will be the big win for the tories as predicted when the election was called. I think a Labour majority might be optimistic but I reckon worst case scenario will be a small Tory majority. If it's a hung parliament then it's a result imo.
> 
> I get the impression most people don't really want the sort of world the current tories seem to be offering.


 I plan to stay up and watch the election through the night, the biggest downside of May (after calling an election to get a majority) ending up with no overall majority is that it will upset my Mum after she finds my body in the living room having laughed myself to death.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I'm finding it hard to believe that all the polls are all completely wrong


Whatever happens, at least some of them are!

That's why I'm staying up to watch! Nobody knows!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Plot against Corbyn already underway, FT suggests:
> 
> View attachment 108614



No mercy, lol. There was no mercy last time either. Not even a basic level of respect. Unfortunately for Watson and pals there were also no ideas, no credible figureheads and no political competence with which to challenge Corbyn either.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 6, 2017)

Whatever happens it's a result.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> No mercy, lol. There was no mercy last time either. Not even a basic level of respect. Unfortunately for Watson and pals there were also no ideas, no credible figureheads and no political competence with which to challenge Corbyn either.


Yeah, Cooper clearly still has her eyes on it but she'd be a lot stupider than I think she is if she declares first, they'll want a stalking horse. (I'm assuming that the polls aren't completely wrong and Labour is going to be around the 35% mark).

And on Cooper the Guardian have very kindly provided her with a nice puff piece up at the top of the website.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 6, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> In a way, Corbyn has already 'won', in that he has notched up two momentous achievements - whatever the result.
> First, he's giving the the Tories - and every complacent mainstream 'expert' the (nasty) shock of their lives. When May declared the election, the near universal assumption was a  Tory landslide, with the only question being where between 150 and 200 the Tory majority would fall.
> The Tories certainly acted like that from the start - they've campaigned as if all they ever had to do was to turn up, keep repeating 'strong and stable', 'coalition of chaos'. 'mandate for brexit' 'long term economic plan' etc, etc - and Labour's incoherence, complete disorganisation and incoherence, disunity of the PLP and Corbyn's general ineptitude and unsellability as a leader would do the rest.
> In fact, things have panned out very, very differently. Labour have had an excellent campaign, the Tories an awful one, Corbyn's ratings have increased as may's have plummeted,and ever since the 'dementia tax' row a\ real struggle has been on, to an extent that nobody would have ever predicted back at the starter gate.
> ...


yes, add also the fight to reform the labour party, of which the campaign continues positively. Autumn conference the next battle ground. All that will be some small consolation at 4am on Friday morning.

Positive thoughts are needed when faced with the potential of a Boris Johnson seceding a wounded May and welcoming Trump on his state visit.


----------



## Sirena (Jun 6, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> That's why I'm staying up to watch!



I'm going to stay up too, just in case.

The last two times, I went to bed, confident in my assessment of the outcome (EU referendum and US Presidential Election) all hell seemed to break loose the minute my head hit the pillow....

I can't take that risk again.  Thursday night is lonely vigil night.  Keep my eyes on the prize.....


----------



## newbie (Jun 6, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I'm going to stay up too, just in case.
> 
> The last two times, I went to bed, confident in my assessment of the outcome (EU referendum and US Presidential Election) all hell seemed to break loose the minute my head hit the pillow....
> 
> I can't take that risk again.  Thursday night is lonely vigil night.  Keep my eyes on the prize.....


are you sure?  I'd kinda like all hell to break loose on thursday night!


----------



## Sirena (Jun 6, 2017)

newbie said:


> are you sure?  I'd kinda like all hell to break loose on thursday night!


For me all hell breaking loose would be the tories romping home and all the vibe and the hopes of all my friends being dashed..

I feel really quite confident that Labour should perform outstandingly well.....


----------



## StoneRoad (Jun 6, 2017)

I wonder how much affect the tactical voting idea will have ?
I live in a "safe" tory seat, but if most of the anti-tory vote went to one candidate, and the youth vote turn out as well, the incumbent might be replaced. I live in hope ...


----------



## newbie (Jun 6, 2017)

Sirena said:


> For me all hell breaking loose would be the tories romping home and all the vibe and the hopes of all my friends being dashed..
> 
> I feel really quite confident that Labour should perform outstandingly well.....


really, get some sleep. If you've got the magic touch, use it.  Let the outsider snatch the result from the favourite, as with the other two you slept through


----------



## mx wcfc (Jun 6, 2017)

StoneRoad said:


> I wonder how much affect the tactical voting idea will have ?
> I live in a "safe" tory seat, but if most of the anti-tory vote went to one candidate, and the youth vote turn out as well, the incumbent might be replaced. I live in hope ...



17,000 tory majority here but the lib dems have traditionally held the seat, and "won" the local elections in this constituency.  It is a difficult choice - waste a vote on Labour or hold my nose and vote Lib Dem, in case they can get rid of one tory held seat.  It was 70% remain here too - and the tory got slated in the local media for voting for Article 50 against his constituency's view.  He is a weasly little shit who voted against gay marriage, has done nothing around major local issues, but gets his face in the paper every week opening school fetes and visiting old ladies' garden parties.  

 Plus people are getting over the Lib Dem's treachery in the coalition.  

I may well vote tactically in the end, and just not tell anyone!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 6, 2017)

StoneRoad said:


> I wonder how much affect the tactical voting idea will have ?
> I live in a "safe" tory seat, but if most of the anti-tory vote went to one candidate, and the youth vote turn out as well, the incumbent might be replaced. I live in hope ...


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 6, 2017)

Tactical voting is the only sensible option under FPTP. It was the collapse of the LD vote in 2015 - with many Labour voters abandoning them in the South West - that let the Tories in.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 6, 2017)

I missed the vote deadline, but I would have voted that it's possible - if there's one lesson to learn from the past few years it's that conventional wisdoms and assumptions are now redundant, 

Anything can happen


----------



## MrSki (Jun 6, 2017)

WHAT THE FUCK!


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2017)

MrSki said:


> WHAT THE FUCK!


Pure desperation. The Mail is shitting itself.


----------



## 03gills (Jun 6, 2017)

Carvaged said:


> Tactical voting is the only sensible option under FPTP. It was the collapse of the LD vote in 2015 - with many Labour voters abandoning them in the South West - that let the Tories in.



This can't be emphasised enough. Although Ed Miliband's failure to significantly increase his party's vote share from 2010 has to be a seen as contributing factor as well. 

If he'd gotten something like 34-35% of the popular vote, even if you factor in the Lib Dem collapse the Pig Fucker probably wouldn't have ended up with a majority. Remember the majority he did get was _awfully_ slim.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2017)

I don't think this is desperation necessarily - they were always going to run a front page like this the day before the election.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 6, 2017)

its not like DM readers are wavering on who to vote for


----------



## SovietArmy (Jun 7, 2017)

I run out of toilet paper I could use shit paper on my ass.  Hate Daily Mail.


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

Should anyone be surprised that the Mail, Sun and Telegraph are coordinating a last-minute anti-Corbyn flourish? They always do the same shit.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> its not like DM readers are wavering on who to vote for



Yup. Tbh it's so exaggerated it merely happily entrenches the anti-Corbyn brigade. It (hopefully) have any magnetism to any level-headed undecideds (like, say, an attack on his economics might).


----------



## JimW (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> I don't think this is desperation necessarily - they were always going to run a front page like this the day before the election.


Desperate in the sense of how thin it looks and same-old, same-old maybe. It's like they haven't found a stick to beat him with that actually hurts so have just got a bigger one of the same.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 7, 2017)

can folks go into super markets and deposit these rags behind the bog rolls where they belong?


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> can folks go into super markets and deposit these rags behind the bog rolls where they belong?



They can, but they don't. British politics in microcosm.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 7, 2017)

Pick up the top twenty copies and turn them over, then burn them.


----------



## phillm (Jun 7, 2017)

editor said:


> Pure desperation. The Mail is shitting itself.



some of us are old and have long memories and would expect little else from the scumbags of Fleet Street (does anyone call it that anymore).


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

phillm said:


> some of us are old and have long memories and would expect little else from the scumbags of Fleet Street (does anyone call it that anymore).


Ironic, really, given their latter embracing of reductions in immigration.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

phillm said:


> some of us are old and have long memories and would expect little else from the scumbags of Fleet Street (does anyone call it that anymore).


Yes, but that's just trash talk.  They didn't call him a terrorist.


----------



## phillm (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, but that's just trash talk.  They didn't call him a terrorist.



"apologists for terror. "They would have no doubt found another stick to beat him with if needed. That said they didn't need to as Thatcher romped home - helped in no small measure by the Mail/Sun.  I remember walking to Walworth Road HQ on the Friday morning teary eyed and hearing his resignation speech. But the feelings weren't as intense as 1979 when I was in a SWP party near Guildford. Then we really did think the sky was falling in...

*“My sorrow is that millions, particularly those who do not have the strength to defend themselves, will suffer because of the election of another Conservative government”*

The young folk and young at heart folk probably need to stock up with Kleenex for Friday morning. Ashcroft's model (I have no idea if it is as good as it is shilled) is predicting a 64 majority now down from 162 at their high point. My gut instinct is May increases her majority to 40. 

http://www.conservativehome.com/pla...-a-potential-conservative-majority-of-64.html



Neil Kinnock resigns as Labour leader: from the archive, 14 April 1992


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 7, 2017)

My mother reads the fucking Mail - and she helps out with a disability charity.


----------



## Ranbay (Jun 7, 2017)

My dad still reads it


----------



## Nylock (Jun 7, 2017)

as does mine


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2017)

editor said:


> Pure desperation. The Mail is shitting itself.


It's not desperation, it's entirely calculated and part of their modus operandi.


----------



## inva (Jun 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> its not like DM readers are wavering on who to vote for


my mum is a keen Daily Mail reader and she told me she's voting Labour lol


----------



## Who PhD (Jun 7, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Pick up the top twenty copies and turn them over, then burn them.


and then get arrested for arson


----------



## Nylock (Jun 7, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> and then get arrested for trearson


<dailymail>FTFY</dailymail>


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> I don't think this is desperation necessarily - they were always going to run a front page like this the day before the election.


I agree, they probably see it as the final kick on a beaten opponent.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I agree, they probably see it as the final kick on a beaten opponent.


Not so sure about that. There was a very sudden switch yesterday in the tone of political coverage – it went from neck and neck (or at least a decent Labour showing) to the Tories definitely winning easily and the Corbyn surge being an illusion. Other than a load of op-ed pieces just happening to reach this conclusion at the exact same time, and maybe one bit of analysis by a polling company, I’ve not seen anything real that could have caused this sudden change in tone.

Whether these bits of analysis & opinion reflect reality, are doomy fingers in the air clumping round what they think is most likely, or are part of a last-minute concerted attempt to dampen enthusiasm and expectations of Corbyn supporters… I dunno.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Not so sure about that. There was a very sudden switch yesterday in the tone of political coverage – it went from neck and neck (or at least a decent Labour showing) to the Tories definitely winning easily and the Corbyn surge being an illusion. Other than a load of op-ed pieces just happening to reach this conclusion at the exact same time, and maybe one bit of analysis by a polling company, I’ve not seen anything real that could have caused this sudden change in tone.
> 
> Whether these bits of analysis & opinion reflect reality, are doomy fingers in the air clumping round what they think is most likely, or are part of a last-minute concerted attempt to dampen enthusiasm and expectations of Corbyn supporters… I dunno.


My own musings on all this are obviously impressionistic, guesses and the like.  As such, I don't know how strategic the press are being. They've certainly been hit by the terror attacks and are maybe just getting back into gear.  In turn, now that May herself is using the attacks, no holds barred, they are playing their part.

Suppose my take is that the Crobyn surge has always been illusory.  It's based on real sentiment, provided a bit of hope for younger people, given a glimpse of what things might be.  But - and here I descend into the vague and impressionistic - it's also been a kind of protest (poll) vote, not something that was going to find it's way into a polling booth in big enough numbers.  There's a deeper narrative of neo-liberalism, no alternative, free markets are the only way, Labour are incompetent, nationalisation is from another world.  Brexit wasn't Lexit, so there's been little done to undermine that logic.  People are not dupes, they can see that there's another way of living, but it's somehow not quite there as a functioning choice.  Of course a near miss on Thursday not only proves me wrong about the result, but also about all of that. Fingers crossed, but - the short version of all this - I don't think Corbynism has deep enough roots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 7, 2017)

i can't help thinking we'd have a rather different take on this if fewer of us lived in london, if this was e.g. a basildon based board. or carlisle.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i can't help thinking we'd have a rather different take on this if fewer of us lived in london, if this was e.g. a basildon based board. or carlisle.


Corbyn was in Middlesbrough yesterday. It rained. A lot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Corbyn was in Middlesbrough yesterday. It rained. A lot.


on that point i think i know how middlesborough felt


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i can't help thinking we'd have a rather different take on this if fewer of us lived in london, if this was e.g. a basildon based board. or carlisle.


After spending the night at the premier in in Basildon last week , I did really get a sense blue coverage


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## skyscraper101 (Jun 7, 2017)

(((the markets)))


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 7, 2017)

The only market I give a shit about at the moment is borough market


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> After spending the night at the premier in in Basildon last week , I did really get a sense blue coverage



Spending time in any budget hotel is bound to bring out the Alan Partridge in the best of us. Not sure how useful it is to know what people are thinking in Basildon, though. It goes without saying they are thinking they will elect a Tory.

I live reasonably far from London, and the sense I get here is a strong swing from the Tories to Labour. It's really difficult to find people who are not (saying they are) planning to vote Labour. There are some posher bits of the constituency where it might be different. But YouGov has us as a "tossup", which I think has to be underestimating things.


----------



## Mojofilter (Jun 7, 2017)

It's a really difficult one. 
I live in a very safe Tory seat and I work in a big office for one of the big high street banks. I don't live in a left wing bubble.

Yet nobody is talking about voting Tory, lots of people are talking about voting Labour, including people that I really wouldn't expect to.
I'm really struggling to explain this happening when the polls say otherwise.

I think the Tories will win with a healthy majority but I wouldn't be overly supprised by any result.


.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> My own musings on all this are obviously impressionistic, guesses and the like.  As such, I don't know how strategic the press are being. They've certainly been hit by the terror attacks and are maybe just getting back into gear.  In turn, now that May herself is using the attacks, no holds barred, they are playing their part.
> 
> Suppose my take is that the Crobyn surge has always been illusory.  It's based on real sentiment, provided a bit of hope for younger people, given a glimpse of what things might be.  But - and here I descend into the vague and impressionistic - it's also been a kind of protest (poll) vote, not something that was going to find it's way into a polling booth in big enough numbers.  There's a deeper narrative of neo-liberalism, no alternative, free markets are the only way, Labour are incompetent, nationalisation is from another world.  Brexit wasn't Lexit, so there's been little done to undermine that logic.  People are not dupes, they can see that there's another way of living, but it's somehow not quite there as a functioning choice.  Of course a near miss on Thursday not only proves me wrong about the result, but also about all of that. Fingers crossed, but - the short version of all this - I don't think Corbynism has deep enough roots.


I think this is spot on. The Labour party of old was deeply embedded in communities and work places. Corbynism just feels like froth in comparison. When the election was called I expected Labour to do better than predicted and to make up ground. But there simply wasnt enough time for them to do what is necessary to actally win.

Of course hopefully we will feel like idiots come Friday morning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 7, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I think this is spot on. The Labour party of old was deeply embedded in communities and work places. Corbynism just feels like froth in comparison. When the election was called I expected Labour to do better than predicted and to make up ground. But there simply wasnt enough time for them to do what is necessary to actally win.
> 
> Of course hopefully we will feel like idiots come Friday morning.


anyone who's voted tory will feel like a mug within months of any continuing tory administration


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

Mojofilter said:


> I think the Tories will win with a healthy majority but I wouldn't be overly supprised by any result.
> 
> 
> .


 Yeah, that's about it for me really.  There was brexit and trump, the unexpected happening.... only problem is, the unexpected in this case could be a 15-18% tory majority.  I don't remotely understand spread betting, but in a range of uncertain outcomes, I'd expect that more than I'd expect a hung parliament.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I think this is spot on. *The Labour party of old was deeply embedded in communities and work places*. Corbynism just feels like froth in comparison. When the election was called I expected Labour to do better than predicted and to make up ground. But there simply wasnt enough time for them to do what is necessary to actally win.
> 
> Of course hopefully we will feel like idiots come Friday morning.


 Yeah, the link to class was stronger in the old Labour Party.  In many ways it was a conservative version of class politics, a loyalty rather than an involvement, a class politics that acted as, cliché alert, capitalism's second 11. But it did form the basis for voting.  The Corbyn, post-Blair/Neo-Liberal Labour, version still has a core of voters feeling attached to Labour by class and place, but it does have that froth as well.  The cynical version would be to call it facebook flashmob socialism, but that would be too cynical, even if there's an element of that. The other part is that Corbyn has been attracting voters on the basis of _belief_, which can't be a bad thing, people thinking there really is a way out of neo-liberalism. That's hopeful.  Somehow though, it's never managed to become a movement *or* a functioning parliamentary socialism (the latter because of the perfidious Labour right).  

I suspect I've written hundreds of posts on corbynism, partly as I was a Labour lefty in the 80s.  I really don't support it and find the attempt to see a silver lining in Corbyn 'losing by less than Miliband' as quite depressing.  But then thinking about 5 years of the tories murdering disabled people is even more depressing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2017)

Lurdan posted something about that that rings true to stuff I've read elsewhere- old labour as much the boss as the old boss. It wasn't socialism on the factory floors etc and communities still had to fight wanker bosses, the council etc etc. Can't remember his point now or mine except as some warning about rose tinted glasses for something that never was.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 7, 2017)

It's a bit odd to think that the Corbyn surge is 'illusory' or somehow not real (or not worthwhile) because it isn't how Labour used to be. Labour will never again be how Labour used to be - society has irreversibly altered. So it has to do and be something new if it is to succeed electorally.


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

I'm not sure there's much "depth" to the Corbyn surge. Much of it (round here at least) is a one-off backing of Corbyn against May and of "hope" against well, nothing but more of the same. It's not a comittment to the Labour Party beyond Thursday's momentary box ticking.

This doesn't mean it isn't real or some grounds for optimism. More that we probably shouldn't factor it into the Labour Party's post-election fortunes.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

Mojofilter said:


> It's a really difficult one.
> I live in a very safe Tory seat and I work in a big office for one of the big high street banks. I don't live in a left wing bubble.
> 
> Yet nobody is talking about voting Tory, lots of people are talking about voting Labour, including people that I really wouldn't expect to.
> ...


The polls include great swathes of the south-east that are 50% or even 60% Tory.  I live in one of those constituencies.  This Tory base is always going to give them a certain minimum percentage.  So I'm not surprised at the poll numbers, even given experiences like yours.

The key, of course, is how much vote share they manage to gather outside these kind of safe seats, and whether this is uselessly dispersed or concentrated into marginals.  40% could mean them having a 50 seat majority or it could mean a hung parliament.  This is where stories like yours give me hope.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 7, 2017)

Where are the vermin likely to pick up seats? I can't see them snatching anything in London for example. Is it focused anywhere geographically?  I've heard Wakefield may be lost (and nearby Morley was at the last election) - will it be Tory gains in the sort of working class areas that have enough rural/suburbs within the constituency to provide a reasonable base Tory vote that with the added kipper migrants will knock Labour off the perch? Will the WC be blamed for it the same way they have been (unreasonably IMO) singled out for supporting Brexit?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 7, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Where are the vermin likely to pick up seats? I can't see them snatching anything in London for example. Is it focused anywhere geographically?  I've heard Wakefield may be lost (and nearby Morley was at the last election) - will it be Tory gains in the sort of working class areas that have enough rural/suburbs within the constituency to provide a reasonable base Tory vote that with the added kipper migrants will knock Labour off the perch? Will the WC be blamed for it the same way they have been (unreasonably IMO) singled out for supporting Brexit?


Eltham is Labour, but by a margin less than the number of UKIP votes last time. There has been epic amounts of canvassing there, as you can imagine, but it could go either way.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> It's a bit odd to think that the Corbyn surge is 'illusory' or somehow not real (or not worthwhile) because it isn't how Labour used to be. Labour will never again be how Labour used to be - society has irreversibly altered. So it has to do and be something new if it is to succeed electorally.


I think it's illusory purely at the level of it wasn't there a month ago, lasted for 2-3 weeks in the polls, but won't be there on Thursday.  Whether it - the activists and potential voters - goes anywhere, inside or outside the party after Thursday is another matter.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> but won't be there on Thursday



What is making you say this?


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

Which marginals can Labour win? 

Here's a list of targets (from The Mirror): Surely a bunch of them are winnable? Especially when you bear in mind seats like Bristol NW and Reading East look possible but aren't even on the list.

*KEY: *Seat name (ruling party if not Tory, majority size)


*Gower* (27)
*Derby North *(41)
*Croydon Central *(165)
*Vale of Clwyd* (237)
*Bury North* (378)
*Morley & Outwood* (422)
*Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport* (523)
*Thurrock* (536)
*Brighton, Kemptown* (690)
*Telford* (730)
*Bolton West *(801)
*Weaver Vale *(806)
*Plymouth, Moor View* (1,026)
*Bedford* (1,097)
*Lincoln* (1,443)
*Peterborough* (1,925)
*Cardiff North *(2,137)
*Southampton, Itchen* (2,316)
*Sheffield, Hallam* (Lib Dem, 2,353)
*Waveney* (2,408)
*Corby* (2,412)
*Warrington South* (2,750)
*Carlisle* (2,774)
*Leeds North West* (Lib Dem, 2,907)
*North Warwickshire *(2,973)
*Keighley* (3,053)
*Halesowen and Rowley Regis* (3,082)
*Northampton North* (3,245)
*Blackpool North and Cleveleys* (3,340)
*Erewash* (3,584)
*Crewe and Nantwich* (3,620)
*Arfon* (Plaid Cymru, 3,668)
*East Renfrewshire* (SNP, 3,718)
*Hendon* (3,724)
*Ipswich* (3,733)
*Northampton South *(3,793)
*Aberconwy* (3,999)
*Na h-Eileanan *(SNP, 4,102)
*Amber Valley* (4,205)
*Dudley South* (4,270)
*Broxtowe* (4,287)
*Calder Valley* (4,427)
*Norwich North* (4,463)
*Pudsey* (4,501)
*Morecambe and Lunesdale *(4,590)
*Sherwood* (4,647)
*Enfield, Southgate *(4,753)
*Harrow East* (4,757)
*Hastings and Rye* (4,796)
*Stroud* (4,866)


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Where are the vermin likely to pick up seats?


Scotland is one place this could happen.  And I never thought I'd be saying that.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> Which marginals can Labour win?
> 
> Here's a list of targets (from The Mirror): Surely a bunch of them are winnable? Especially when you bear in mind seats like Bristol NW and Reading East look possible but aren't even on the list.
> 
> ...



I said above that I have a strong feeling that the constituency I live in will go from Con to Lab. Not certainty, but enough to bet small money if that was the kind of thing I did. But it isn't even on that list.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jun 7, 2017)

I've spent a bit of time over the last few days attempting to improve the labour voting turnout in a very safe tory seat ... mixed success.

Might even try to persuade the boss to let the locals vote during the day - on company time, the polling station is about 10 - 15 mins walk away ... I shall be going early morning.

I don't want the queue in the evening, looking at the weather forecast - it is due to be wet between 0930 - 1700 so that will make the queues worse in the evening. Timing is all !


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> Which marginals can Labour win?
> 
> Here's a list of targets (from The Mirror): Surely a bunch of them are winnable? Especially when you bear in mind seats like Bristol NW and Reading East look possible but aren't even on the list.
> 
> ...


I think Labour has a chance in Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles - incidentally without "an Iar", that just says The Islands. Which is a bit non specific given the geography of Scotland!).

The sitting MP has been involved in an extra marital affair scandal, and one of the few places that would still matter is the Western Isles! 

But I'm less convinced about East Renfrewshire. It's Jim Murphy's old seat and the Labour candidate is the Better Together chief, Blair McDougall. The two are very closely linked with the No campaign. That's what did for Labour there, so a big Unionism push is unlikely to work if there is anything like the 81% turnout they saw there in 2015. If turnout is down, I think the SNP might be less safe: it is a very middle class area and used to be a Tory seat in the more distant past.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

I suppose you should also ask which marginals Labour could lose.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 7, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I think this is spot on. The Labour party of old was deeply embedded in communities and work places. Corbynism just feels like froth in comparison. When the election was called I expected Labour to do better than predicted and to make up ground. But there simply wasnt enough time for them to do what is necessary to actally win.
> 
> Of course hopefully we will feel like idiots come Friday morning.



not sure if Labour's embeddedness (?) "in communities " has changed particularly over the years, but with TU membership having declined by 50 % since 1980, you'd have to assume Lab's workplace presence would have declined roughly in parallel, so it would be hard to blame any alleged "frothiness" on Corbynism's part on it's detachment from the workplace ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19521535'froth


----------



## Fingers (Jun 7, 2017)

I am off to see Corbz this evening in Islington.  8.45 kick off.  I assume I will have to get there very early.  6.45?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 7, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Where are the vermin likely to pick up seats? I can't see them snatching anything in London for example. Is it focused anywhere geographically?  I've heard Wakefield may be lost (and nearby Morley was at the last election) - will it be Tory gains in the sort of working class areas that have enough rural/suburbs within the constituency to provide a reasonable base Tory vote that with the added kipper migrants will knock Labour off the perch? Will the WC be blamed for it the same way they have been (unreasonably IMO) singled out for supporting Brexit?



Scotland (let's not forget the SNP monooly is their high water mark - it's like when that recedes, it will probably go to Tories) and Ukips.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 7, 2017)

He'll have to get his skates on, he's live in  north Wales at the moment to by the sounds of it a large crowd.


Fingers said:


> I am off to see Corbz this evening in Islington.  8.45 kick off.  I assume I will have to get there very early.  6.45?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

I have a little model I've written that allows me to apply various uniform swings to each constituency and also allow a given % of previous non-voters to become Labour votes (proportional to the number of non-voters, not the total population).  It makes the potential results look interesting.

330 Tory seats drop to 312 (18 swing to Labour) if you assume that 10% of previous non-voters are now willing to vote for labour.

At a rough guess, I then put in 33% swing from Green to Labour, 20% swing from Lib Dem to Labour, 50% swing from UKIP to Tory, 15% swing from UKIP to Labour and 15% swing from SNP to Tory

That pushes it back up to 329 Tory seats (-1).  Labour end up with 246 (+14), but one of those is at the expense of the Green seat, which I don't think will happen.  Lib Dem get wiped out from 8 to 2, which again sounds unrealistic.  SNP drop from 56 to 51.  Tory majority is the result.

It's all very sensitive.  If we assume the same swings but 20% of previous non-voters become Labour supporters, the Tories lose 17 and Labour gain 36, with SNP + Labour exactly equal to Tory.

The engagement of previous non-voters is the key, which is exactly the point a lot of us were making when Corbyn became leader and was accused of being unelectable.  There are a lot of people out there that can swing it, if they can just be engaged.

I've attached the spreadsheet in a zip in case you want to play with it.  I've ordered the constituencies by Labour's closest Tory targets, which makes it interesting.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> What is making you say this?


Just that I think Labour will lose by some significant margin, probably a 10%+ gap. The very best polls got it close, but as I've said I think they overestimated Labour support and they included lots of people who may well not vote. Also, just a feeling that this last week and the aftermath of the terror attacks hasn't gone well for Labour. Don't think it's anything as crude as may's strong and stable shite hitting home, just a feeling that Labour hasn't actually been assertive enough about Saudis, arms deals, police cuts and the like.  It's very cynical to talk about how to 'play' a terrorist attack - so apologies for taking the discussion in that direction - but I think Labour should have been quite shouty this week.  I've also said on some thread or other that that might have been counter productive, so that's the bit I'm least sure of. It's just that the last few hours are going to be dominated by Corbyn-Hamas-IRA stuff, when it should have been massive pictures of May-House of Saud.


----------



## Sue (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I have a little model I've written that allows me to apply various uniform swings to each constituency and also allow a given % of previous non-voters to become Labour votes (proportional to the number of non-voters, not the total population).  It makes the potential results look interesting.
> 
> 330 Tory seats drop to 312 (18 swing to Labour) if you assume that 10% of previous non-voters are now willing to vote for labour.
> 
> ...


You're such an actuary.


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I have a little model I've written that allows me to apply various uniform swings to each constituency and also allow a given % of previous non-voters to become Labour votes (proportional to the number of non-voters, not the total population).  It makes the potential results look interesting.
> 
> 330 Tory seats drop to 312 (18 swing to Labour) if you assume that 10% of previous non-voters are now willing to vote for labour.
> 
> ...



I think you'll have a bigger Green to Labour swing than 33% (in seats that Labour have even a remote chance of at least!)


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> I think you'll have a bigger Green to Labour swing than 33% (in seats that Labour have even a remote chance of at least!)


That could be critical.  A 50% swing from Green to Labour instead of 33% would actually produce something like a 3 seat swing from Tory to Labour.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> I think you'll have a bigger Green to Labour swing than 33% (in seats that Labour have even a remote chance of at least!)



Outside of Brighton I think it'll be 50-60%. I was in the Greens a few years back for my sins and still have lots of Greens on social media, outside the Brighton party nearly all are talking about voting for Corbyn. I think Plaid are going to have a shocker too (because of Corbyn, not the dismal Welsh Labour leadership message).


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> That could be critical.  A 50% swing from Green to Labour instead of 33% would actually produce something like a 3 seat swing from Tory to Labour.



I live in a a ward with 3 Green councillors out of 3 seats. Normally its awash with Green posters, regular door knocking and leafletting from the Greens. None of that this time. Labour poster after Labour poster. No Green campaigning that I've seen. Green voters saying they're voting Labour this time. Labour posters up in windows where in previous years there's been green posters. It's not on the list of Labour's 50 target seats but YouGov are now saying "Lean Labour"  Are we the only seat where this is happenning? I doubt it. It may be confined to bits of the SE perhaps, but that could be very significant if labour can pinch even a small handul of  seats in the region.


----------



## phillm (Jun 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> My own musings on all this are obviously impressionistic, guesses and the like.  As such, I don't know how strategic the press are being. They've certainly been hit by the terror attacks and are maybe just getting back into gear.  In turn, now that May herself is using the attacks, no holds barred, they are playing their part.
> 
> Suppose my take is that the Crobyn surge has always been illusory.  It's based on real sentiment, provided a bit of hope for younger people, given a glimpse of what things might be.  But - and here I descend into the vague and impressionistic - it's also been a kind of protest (poll) vote, not something that was going to find it's way into a polling booth in big enough numbers.  There's a deeper narrative of neo-liberalism, no alternative, free markets are the only way, Labour are incompetent, nationalisation is from another world.  Brexit wasn't Lexit, so there's been little done to undermine that logic.  People are not dupes, they can see that there's another way of living, but it's somehow not quite there as a functioning choice.  Of course a near miss on Thursday not only proves me wrong about the result, but also about all of that. Fingers crossed, but - the short version of all this - I don't think Corbynism has deep enough roots.



I think you're spot on plus there are a lot of 'dirty secret' tories who tell no-one what they are up to and put the x in the polling both - some holding their nose , some their breath and some don't care who knows. They think they will be paying for Comrade Corbyn's magic money tree  - and they're not having it. My prediction is Tories with a 40 seat majority.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 7, 2017)

cantsin said:


> not sure if Labour's embeddedness (?) "in communities " has changed particularly over the years, but with TU membership having declined by 50 % since 1980, you'd have to assume Lab's workplace presence would have declined roughly in parallel, so it would be hard to blame any alleged "frothiness" on Corbynism's part on it's detachment from the workplace ?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19521535'froth


Most working class people living where there is a Labour Council might question how embedded Labour are in their communities .


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

phillm said:


> I think you're spot on plus there are a lot of 'dirty secret' tories who tell no-one what they are up to and put the x in the polling both - some holding their nose , some their breath and some don't care who knows.


as mentioned loads of times recently, there's no evidence shy tories exist.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 7, 2017)

Fingers said:


> I am off to see Corbz this evening in Islington.  8.45 kick off.  I assume I will have to get there very early.  6.45?



Where is he speaking? Might pop up for a look. Couldn't see anything on the local Labour twitter account (Islington South) and their website is 404, which makes it sound like they're not putting a lot of effort in here!


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

He's at Union Chapel I believe.


----------



## phillm (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> as mentioned loads of times recently, there's no evidence shy tories exist.



They are certainly scared to put up posters in London though - not so in Norfolk.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 7, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Where is he speaking? Might pop up for a look. Couldn't see anything on the local Labour twitter account (Islington South) and their website is 404, which makes it sound like they're not putting a lot of effort in here!



Union chapel at 8.45 apparently.   After he does Harrow at 7.


----------



## Fingers (Jun 7, 2017)

Yes, Union Chapel


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2017)

phillm said:


> They are certainly scared to put up posters in London though - not so in Norfolk.



NfN, innit?


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jun 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I have a little model I've written that allows me to apply various uniform swings to each constituency and also allow a given % of previous non-voters to become Labour votes (proportional to the number of non-voters, not the total population).  It makes the potential results look interesting.
> 
> 330 Tory seats drop to 312 (18 swing to Labour) if you assume that 10% of previous non-voters are now willing to vote for labour.
> 
> ...


Could you do my spreadsheets for me please? Love your work


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Spending time in any budget hotel is bound to bring out the Alan Partridge in the best of us. Not sure how useful it is to know what people are thinking in Basildon, though. It goes without saying they are thinking they will elect a Tory.
> 
> I live reasonably far from London, and the sense I get here is a strong swing from the Tories to Labour. It's really difficult to find people who are not (saying they are) planning to vote Labour. There are some posher bits of the constituency where it might be different. But YouGov has us as a "tossup", which I think has to be underestimating things.


do fuck off , how is it being partridge for making a simple observation ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

Oh no, it's all over! Lord Surrallun Sugar is urging people not to vote Corbyn.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> do fuck off , how is it being partridge for making a simple observation ?



Being in a Premier Inn always makes me feel a bit Alan Partridge. Not sure what you're getting offended about.


----------



## pesh (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh no, it's all over! Lord Surrallun Sugar is urging people not to vote Corbyn.


hes also posted a high res scan of the cheque he paid his tax bill with while utterly failing in his attempts to mask the sort code and account number


----------



## Santino (Jun 7, 2017)

It may be chocolate to you, Jill, but to an unwitting member of staff this could look like some sort of… dirty protest against the standard of service in the hotel, which I happen to think is very good. I mean, it’s not five-star but it’s certainly competitive.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

pesh said:


> hes also posted a high res scan of the cheque he paid his tax bill with while utterly failing in his attempts to mask the sort code and account number


I _knew_ I shouldn't have blocked him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 7, 2017)

pesh said:


> hes also posted a high res scan of the cheque he paid his tax bill with while utterly failing in his attempts to mask the sort code and account number


i bet his pin is 1961


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 7, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Being in a Premier Inn always makes me feel a bit Alan Partridge. Not sure what you're getting offended about.


well im not you , can you answer the question with facts please ? if you feel partridge , why would you think someone else is ? maybe im not so shallow


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

it was a very cheerful video to wake up to that one.


----------



## pesh (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I _knew_ I shouldn't have blocked him.


----------



## pesh (Jun 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 108718


Tory candidate asks Keighley hustings if they want Corbyn as PM


----------



## agricola (Jun 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> anyone who's voted tory will feel like a mug within months of any continuing tory administration



That is the one thing that will console me during the darkness to come, the bleating of those who trusted them because they weren't crazed Marxists.


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

pesh said:


> Tory candidate asks Keighley hustings if they want Corbyn as PM




1:00  Brilliant.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> well im not you , can you answer the question with facts please ? if you feel partridge , why would you think someone else is ? maybe im not so shallow



I think you're reading something into my comment that I didn't intend. It wasn't supposed to be snide, just an inconsequential comment about what it's like to be in a budget hotel.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 7, 2017)

ok im sorry , am a bit pissed at the moment, im just trying to get my head round some stuff , not your fault of course, im just not thinking straight at the moment and acting out


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> ok im sorry , am a bit pissed at the moment, im just trying to get my head round some stuff , not your fault of course, im just not thinking straight at the moment and acting out



No harm done.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 7, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> It's a bit odd to think that the Corbyn surge is 'illusory' or somehow not real (or not worthwhile) because it isn't how Labour used to be. Labour will never again be how Labour used to be - society has irreversibly altered. So it has to do and be something new if it is to succeed electorally.


It's not about wanting old Labour back. It is an observation that Corbynism does not (yet) feel 'solid'. Certainly not solid enough to reach enough non-voters for Labour to win.

The bigger question is what happens after Thursday. I am worried that after the election all the support and momentum built up will evaporate. Mind you I don't espically want to see it juat channled into trying to revive the Lavour party either.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

Labour apparently raised five million quid in individual donations (average 20 quid) over the election period. That's engagement of a sort (and an unprecedented sum too)


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Labour apparently raised five million quid in individual donations (average 20 quid) over the election period. That's engagement of a sort (and an unprecedented sum too)



As is people printing off their "Vote Labour" posters to stick up. I saw a homemade "Labour" banner on someone's balcony today too.

But as I said elsewhere I don't think this is a sign of commitment beyond Thursday, yet.


----------



## lazythursday (Jun 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Labour apparently raised five million quid in individual donations (average 20 quid) over the election period. That's engagement of a sort (and an unprecedented sum too)


Yeah, I had a very persuasive phone call and gave some money, then had some more calls and heart-tugging emails and gave a bit more. A very professional fundraising operation. The performance of the Labour machine has been pretty outstanding, especially given it was so lacklustre just before the election was called - I assumed that it must be stuffed with disillusioned right wing staffers who couldn't bring themselves to promote Corbyn, but something certainly changed.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 7, 2017)

Not a lot to cheer about on the betting market (been glued to it the past few days), though there's always hope. This graph is (arguably) the wrong way around (most recent days are to the left)


----------



## Sirena (Jun 7, 2017)

Shortest serving British Pime Ministers

1. George Canning, 119 days
2. Frederick John Robinson, 130 days
3. Andrew Bonar Law, 211 days
4. William Cavendish, 225 days
5. William Petty, 266 days
6. John Stuart, 317 days
7. Theresa May, 330 days


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 7, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh no, it's all over! Lord Surrallun Sugar is urging people not to vote Corbyn.


Mick Hucknells the same


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 7, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Mick Hucknells the same



Tomorrow is my mum's birthday. She keeps asking me to tell Corbyn to give her a victory for her birthday. It's also Hucknall's birthday.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Mick Hucknells the same


he would be behind austerity governments after all. Money's to tight to mention


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 7, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> he would be behind austerity governments after all. Money's to tight to mention


Missed your pithy remarks. 
Haven't see nino_savatte either  Hope all's well with both of you.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jun 7, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> Tomorrow is my mum's birthday. She keeps asking me to tell Corbyn to give her a victory for her birthday. It's also Hucknall's birthday.


Give your Mum everyone's best wishes and tell her we will try our best


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Mick Hucknells the same


He's a fucking twat anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> Missed your pithy remarks.
> Haven't see nino_savatte either  Hope all's well with both of you.


 and to you cmrd


----------



## J Ed (Jun 7, 2017)

Plausibly depressing.

Jeremy Corbyn's surge: is Labour's poll boost real?



> *Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband in vote share, but will end up with fewer seats*
> 
> My strong expectation from travelling the country and talking to campaigners is that Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband’s vote share in 2015 and may even match Tony Blair’s in 2005. But I also think that these extra voters are insufficiently distributed thanks to first past the post, and that the party will lose significant numbers of seats.
> 
> ...


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Plausibly depressing.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn's surge: is Labour's poll boost real?



Preparing the ground for post-election proportional representation and/or progressive alliance campaigning.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 7, 2017)

I do have the same suspicion - that Labours increase in the vote is largely in safe Labour and safe Tory seats. There's probably some seats where it will help Labour (e.g Leeds NW, even if they don't win they'll push Mulholland close) but overall not enough of an increase in swing voters in key marginals


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 7, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Give your Mum everyone's best wishes and tell her we will try our best



My facebook is a flurry of Labour/Corbyn/ForTheMany hashtags and my mum's had to ask me to keep the anger, enthusiasm, etc in check. She knows what I have gone through with depression, anxiety and IDS driven DWP shit and it hasn't been easy on her to have been confined to watch my yoyoing backwards and forwards from it all. In her mind I'm too political for my own good. I'm in Dominic Raab's constituency so I feel quite useless in blue land. I've canvassed here but I've also invested in travelling to London to help out in marginals. I've been using my free call minutes in getting people to vote. All I can't is give my own vote cos I have none. 
My mum's in Portugal where a left coalition of sorts is trying to alleviate EU imposed austerity. She's less politically literate than I am but she's a small s socialist who has a good idea of how important this is not just for the UK but for the rest of Europe. She couldn't believe there were Portuguese supporters among kippers (I was a teller next to one of them in the locals) until she spotted a black guy being interviewed by a Portuguese journalist at a Le Pen rally. With Trump on the other side of the pond and France Insoumise not having been given it's real importance (and with me explaining it's all quite deliberate) it really feels scary for her at the moment for me and my son.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 7, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> My facebook is a flurry of Labour/Corbyn/ForTheMany hashtags and my mum's had to ask me to keep the anger, enthusiasm, etc in check. She knows what I have gone through with depression, anxiety and IDS driven DWP shit and it hasn't been easy on her to have been confined to watch my yoyoing backwards and forwards from it all. In her mind I'm too political for my own good. I'm in Dominic Raab's constituency so I feel quite useless in blue land. I've canvassed here but I've also invested in travelling to London to help out in marginals. I've been using my free call minutes in getting people to vote. All I can't is give my own vote cos I have none.
> My mum's in Portugal where a left coalition of sorts is trying to alleviate EU imposed austerity. She's less politically literate than I am but she's a small s socialist who has a good idea of how important this is not just for the UK but for the rest of Europe. She couldn't believe there were Portuguese supporters among kippers (I was a teller next to one of them in the locals) until she spotted a black guy being interviewed by a Portuguese journalist at a Le Pen rally. With Trump on the other side of the pond and France Insoumise not having been given it's real importance (and with me explaining it's all quite deliberate) it really feels scary for her at the moment for me and my son.



Great to see you back here anyway, MochaSoul. Always enjoy your well informed and passionate posts.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jun 7, 2017)

I'm not totally convinced that the Tories will get as many of the ex-UKIP voters has the polls think, I think a lot of people who voted UKIP at the last election did so out of protest rather than supporting their policies, the traditional home of the protest vote has always been the LibDems but their copybook was blotted by having been in the coalition. The UKIP was a safe vote since there was no way they were ever going to win.
The Labour Party in 2015 was basicaly the Tory Party Lite with a smiley face on it, now it's a very different beast indeed.
Just because people don't like hearing people talking "foreign" in the street doesn't mean they don't want employment rights, decent jobs and good housing. 
May is promising to get rid of the scary strange people and deliver all the good stuff, whereas Corbyn is saying "tough, you're just going to have to learn to live in this scary new world but let's try to share out the good stuff a bit more"
I don't honestly know whether Corbyn can or will deliver what he says he will but I sure as hell know May will not deliver on anything she says.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 7, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Mick Hucknells the same


Mick Hucknall is a twat of the highest order!
He was born in Denton, a little place a few miles from where I spent most of my life. I can pretty much guarantee that Denton is 100% Labour, despite this cunt's views.


----------



## mx wcfc (Jun 7, 2017)

MrSki said:


> WHAT THE FUCK!



Grim, I know, but they are preaching to the converted, and really scrapping the barrel anyway.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 7, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Great to see you back here anyway, MochaSoul. Always enjoy your well informed and passionate posts.


There's a lot more people who hate my passion than there are those who love it so that's reaaally appreciated.
And it's great to find you here too whenever I get back.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

Yet another Tory voter wobbling here in Berkshire. A week ago she was definitely voting Conservative and couldn't believe we had a Labour poster in the window*. Today she is saying she agrees with what Corbyn is saying but worries about how it's going to be paid for. I'm not sure she'll take the plunge and vote Labour, but it's likely a lost Tory vote.

*I can't believe it either tbh. But for very different reasons


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> Preparing the ground for post-election proportional representation and/or progressive alliance campaigning.


Either is dead in the water


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 7, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Mick Hucknall is a twat of the highest order!
> He was born in Denton, a little place a few miles from where I spent most of my life. I can pretty much guarantee that Denton is 100% Labour, despite this cunt's views.


Life long Labour he says but can't bring himself to vote for Corbyn


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 7, 2017)

The39thStep said:


> Life long Labour he says but can't bring himself to vote for Corbyn


Then he's a deluded cunt who's lying to himself. Probably because he now has a lot of money, which he fears Corbyn might tax.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 7, 2017)

MrSki said:


>


I'm putting that on my FB LOL


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2017)

those mock front pages are appalling.


----------



## pesh (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## mx wcfc (Jun 7, 2017)

Oh, bugger, I was suckered - trouble is the mail is so shit nothing is beyond them.


----------



## Wookey (Jun 7, 2017)

Carvaged said:


> Should anyone be surprised that the Mail, Sun and Telegraph are coordinating a last-minute anti-Corbyn flourish? They always do the same shit.



I've heard quite a few people who normally read those rags, remark on the clear anti-Corbyn slant they've taken, and that they see through the bias and subterfuge and it's annoyed them into voting Labour.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 7, 2017)

mx wcfc said:


> the mail is so shit...


No flies on you!


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

chilango said:


> Nothing so sophisticated amongst last nights sample of of three. One it's about nukes, the other two think he's "utter twat".
> 
> Still outnumbered by their peers (20-30 something yr old graduates with decent jobs but no money) who are voting labour, enthusiastically. Being older and less m/c than the rest of the group lent my opinions a certain difference in perspective shall we say.



One of the would-be Lib Dem voters has now pledged to vote Labour


----------



## MrSki (Jun 7, 2017)

Tomorrow's headlines.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 7, 2017)

DP


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 7, 2017)

Nuclear Surrender


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 7, 2017)

About time these shit rags had their offices razed tbh


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jun 7, 2017)

So what was that stupid effigy at Dover all about then?


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2017)

I like almost all the things on that list!


----------



## JimW (Jun 7, 2017)

It's Surrey golf clubhouse bingo


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 7, 2017)

Marxist Extremist C'mon then Urban


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jun 7, 2017)

The Scum costs 50 pence now? Surely you could see a lot more by instead dropping it in a pint glass...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 7, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> Marxist Extremist C'mon then Urban


It's just fucking nonsense, too. He's about as Marxist as Ted Heath.


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

I must admit, the Sun is pretty good at what it does. That kind of headline will appeal to a lot of people who aren't capable of critical thinking.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 7, 2017)

Carvaged said:


> I must admit, the Sun is pretty good at what it does. That kind of headline will appeal to a lot of people who aren't capable of critical thinking.



tbf, just the fact that he agreed to pose for a photo in a bin makes him unfit.


----------



## Carvaged (Jun 7, 2017)

^ well, smelly certainly


----------



## tim (Jun 7, 2017)

I fear that the British electorate has been infiltrated by Trotskyite entryists!


----------



## RD2003 (Jun 7, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Mick Hucknall is a twat of the highest order!
> He was born in Denton, a little place a few miles from where I spent most of my life. I can pretty much guarantee that Denton is 100% Labour, despite this cunt's views.


Was half-living with a woman in the early 1990s who had Hucknall as a near neighbour in Old Trafford. Seems he kept the place, which was, if I remember correctly, a fairly modest semi-detached, as a base for when he was in Manchester. Didn't seem a particularly big deal for the locals (he was, after all, 'one of us'...) He seemed to scurry from his car into the house and out again. Had shutters which he kept closed literally all the time, as far as I ever noticed (don't suppose you can blame him.) Never once saw him in person. Could have even been just a rumour.

Didn't he once say he'd be prepared to pay more tax as long as Labour were in government and not the Tories?

Never liked him anyway, not only for his wanky music but for his sickly celebrity Manyoo shit.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 8, 2017)

Wookey said:


> I've heard quite a few people who normally read those rags, remark on the clear anti-Corbyn slant they've taken, and that they see through the bias and subterfuge and it's annoyed them into voting Labour.



Think I stuck a grab of a load of comments s from DM readers few weeks back, from beneath the usual sort of anti Corbo piece, along lines of " seems like decent bloke tbh" , with 1000s of upvotes ( likes)


----------



## Raheem (Jun 8, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Think I stuck a grab of a load of comments s from DM readers few weeks back, from beneath the usual sort of anti Corbo piece, along lines of " seems like decent bloke tbh" , with 1000s of upvotes ( likes)



I saw that and assumed that they were understaffed for moderators and were temporarily just allowing the system to take its course.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jun 8, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> So what was that stupid effigy at Dover all about then?



Probably the front page if the Tories win, May telling EU to fuck off from across the channel as she shows Britain is united.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 8, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I saw that and assumed that they were understaffed for moderators and were temporarily just allowing the system to take its course.



could be that ...interesting none the less


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 8, 2017)

Hmmm...Betting markets have swung back sharply.

Was anything from 1/16 to 1/30 this morning, now you can get 1/10 on May. Not massive (and of course, still pitiful), but an odd change in the direction of travel at this stage


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 8, 2017)

Ted Striker said:


> Hmmm...Betting markets have swung back sharply.
> 
> Was anything from 1/16 to 1/30 this morning, now you can get 1/10 on May. Not massive (and of course, still pitiful), but an odd change in the direction of travel at this stage


Look, I know nothing about gambling, and I can't really follow the logic behind the setting of odds. . . but could this just be a marketing ploy by the bookies, intended to hoover up the last stray punters' pennies on this one, and not actually a sign of a swing for or against any party?


----------



## jakethesnake (Jun 8, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Look, I know nothing about gambling, and I can't really follow the logic behind the setting of odds. . . but could this just be a marketing ploy by the bookies, intended to hoover up the last stray punters' pennies on this one, and not actually a sign of a swing for or against any party?


So cynical


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 8, 2017)

But doesn't the shift in odds make betting for the Conservatives a, marginally, more attractive proposition? If the Tories really are set to win, it means that the punters will be taking a little money off the bookies... No?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 8, 2017)

Ted Striker said:


> Hmmm...Betting markets have swung back sharply.
> 
> Was anything from 1/16 to 1/30 this morning, now you can get 1/10 on May. Not massive (and of course, still pitiful), but an odd change in the direction of travel at this stage


How do betting odd work? What does 1/10 mean exactly?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 8, 2017)

Bet 10 quid to win a quid


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2017)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> How do betting odd work? What does 1/10 mean exactly?



Stick a tenner down, get a quid back plus your original stake.
Doesn't necessarily mean their opinion has changed, though - they could just be balancing the books after some bets on Jezza.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 8, 2017)

Lot's of Labour activity in Croydon today. First I saw the normal old guard doing the rounds with rosettes, but there are quite a large number of young people marching together (to who knows what) and young people just walking around with 'vote labour' placards. Maybe because it's a college area? I don't know, but it's nice to see. 
There has been a lot of fly posting asking the young to vote too, and some of those fake tory adverts with may and trump holding hands.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 8, 2017)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Lot's of Labour activity in Croydon today. First I saw the normal old guard doing the rounds with rosettes, but there are quite a large number of young people marching together (to who knows what) and young people just walking around with 'vote labour' placards. Maybe because it's a college area? I don't know, but it's nice to see.
> There has been a lot of fly posting asking the young to vote too, and some of those fake tory adverts with may and trump holding hands.


Croydon Central has been a convergence point for activists from all over South London, all attempting to slay the Goblin Barwell. Whether or not it swings to Labour will be an interesting test of whether all this activity on the street has paid off.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 8, 2017)

jakethesnake said:


> So cynical


When you my age have reached, look so good you will not.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 8, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Croydon Central has been a convergence point for activists from all over South London, all attempting to slay the Goblin Barwell. Whether or not it swings to Labour will be an interesting test of whether all this activity on the street has paid off.


I actually saw most stuff over towards addiscombe out of the centre. I think it's usually a bit tory around here. I only got one tory knocker, which is a shame because it's easy to pick them apart this time more than ever.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 8, 2017)

Can Corbyn win this thing? Who knows. 

But in the meantime, there's this:


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 8, 2017)

corbyn's carry oot shame


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 8, 2017)

that's an awfully small munchybox jezza


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 8, 2017)

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Proving that bone structure and a famous sister can't stop an individual from being stupid. Innit.



Ok I'm a bit late to the party on this one because I've only just seen it, but that post is yet another demonstration of how internet anonymity can breed faux bravery, otherwise known as cowardice. It's the sort of thing that web generals don't have the balls to say to peoples faces. Anyway, "stupid"? You've got to be kidding right. Akala has got bare brains I would say bordering on genius, quite the opposite of "stupid". He speaks eloquently and in my opinion is well informed. I thought he gave a very good account of himself on that Andrew Neil show, and I agree with what he said.  Jeremy Corbyn did well in spite of his own MP's and the mostly hostile media. There are large pools of stupid on the internet, however I think the internet and social media helped JC to counter the editorial big guns in the MSM. Props to Akala for helping Corbyn to put up a half decent fight and give the Tories a bloody nose.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 9, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Just that I think Labour will lose by some significant margin, probably a 10%+ gap. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*whistles innocently as he walks by*


----------



## emanymton (Jun 9, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> *whistles innocently as he walks by*


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)

Spot on...


Or local Labour MP who just got re-elected was one of those stabbing Corbs in the back, and she's still in her job because we voted not for her but for JC and his principles.

"_All the Labour MP's who voted against Corbyn, you fucking Blairite, centrist, faux left, faux socialist, faux fucking give a fuck...how do you feel this morning? Fucking glad you're still in a fucking job I bet, cos it turns out we don't want a Tory tribute act as an opposition, we want a genuine socialist alternative. Can you imagine what you would have achieved if you supported your leader this campaign. YOU'D BE IN GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW.

More to the point can you imagine what would have happened if your favourite Owen former pharmaceutical lobbyist neo liberal cock sucker Smith was leader of your party, like you wanted, I guarantee you'd be waking up this morning unemployed and with your new Tory MP taking a shit on your front lawn._" ​


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> Ok I'm a bit late to the party on this one because I've only just seen it, but that post is yet another demonstration of how internet anonymity can breed faux bravery, otherwise known as cowardice. It's the sort of thing that web generals don't have the balls to say to peoples faces. Anyway, "stupid"? You've got to be kidding right. Akala has got bare brains I would say bordering on genius, quite the opposite of "stupid". He speaks eloquently and in my opinion is well informed. I thought he gave a very good account of himself on that Andrew Neil show, and I agree with what he said.  Jeremy Corbyn did well in spite of his own MP's and the mostly hostile media. There are large pools of stupid on the internet, however I think the internet and social media helped JC to counter the editorial big guns in the MSM. Props to Akala for helping Corbyn to put up a half decent fight and give the Tories a bloody nose.



And therein we see the problem.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 9, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> that's an awfully small munchybox jezza



Ogling at a man's munchybox when he's out and about is not the sort behaviour I expect from an upstanding citizen. Behave yourself will you!


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> And therein we see the problem.


Yeah...an internet coward that makes no sense. I thought it was Akala that was supposed to be the stupid one.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> Can you imagine what you would have achieved if you supported your leader this campaign. YOU'D BE IN GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW.



I'm not sure it's not better the way things have turned out. Corbyn opponents in Labour represent an ideology that's almost diametrically opposed to the one Corbyn represents. There are a certain number of them, such as Woodcock, that should have lost their seats. He lingers by the skin of his teeth (I bow to those people in Barrow & Furness who could have voted for him for the sake of Corbyn but chose not to because it's as important to purge the Labour Party of its New Labour element). Chukka and Cooper adding to their majorities is not that helpful.


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> I'm not sure it's not better the way things have turned out. Corbyn opponents in Labour represent an ideology that's almost diametrically opposed to the one Corbyn represents. There are a certain number of them, such as Woodcock, that should have lost their seats. He lingers by the skin of his teeth (I bow to those people in Barrow & Furness who could have voted for him for the sake of Corbyn but chose not to because it's as important to purge the Labour Party of its New Labour element). Chukka and Cooper adding to their majorities is not that helpful.


I think there might be something to that. It might have been a bit of a poisoned chalice had he been elected Prime Minister. The two leadership elections and this snap general election have somewhat strengthened Corbyn's hand and hopefully he will be taken a bit more seriously after being written off so many times. The Parliamentary Labour Party is going to have to listen to it's members who have overwhelmingly backed Corbyn against the odds. He might be in an even stronger position if the Tories manage to screw things up.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 9, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> I'm not sure it's not better the way things have turned out. Corbyn opponents in Labour represent an ideology that's almost diametrically opposed to the one Corbyn represents. There are a certain number of them, such as Woodcock, that should have lost their seats. He lingers by the skin of his teeth (I bow to those people in Barrow & Furness who could have voted for him for the sake of Corbyn but chose not to because it's as important to purge the Labour Party of its New Labour element). Chukka and Cooper adding to their majorities is not that helpful.



I think this is a good point.  Even if Corbyn had won there must have been a real potential for him to not be able to get the manifesto through parliament.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> Yeah...an internet coward that makes no sense. I thought it was Akala that was supposed to be the stupid one.



Go away. Find a dark room. Or maybe go and read (perhaps Shakespeare - your friend apparently has much to say about 'MC Shakespeare'). An idiot can look like a genius to other idiots.


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Go away. Find a dark room. Or maybe go and read (perhaps Shakespeare - your friend apparently has much to say about 'MC Shakespeare'). An idiot can look like a genius to other idiots.


^ which is why this idiot internet coward thinks he's a genius. Come back when you can find something intelligent to say. Perhaps we should get Akala to school you.


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)




----------



## cyril_smear (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


>




Yes, and the left prevailed...


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> ^ which is why this idiot internet coward thinks he's a genius. Come back when you can find something intelligent to say. Perhaps we should get Akala to school you.[/QUOTE
> 
> You are talkin' bare bollocks. There, does that help, blud? You get me?


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)

^ lol, this moron can't even fucking quote properly. Before you call others stupid take off your dunce cap...innit.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> Spot on...
> 
> 
> Or local Labour MP who just got re-elected was one of those stabbing Corbs in the back, and she's still in her job because we voted not for her but for JC and his principles.
> ...




What reputable new outlet is this guy from? Fancy getting caught doing this on air.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> ^ lol, this moron can't even fucking quote properly. Before you call others stupid take off your dunce cap...innit.



Nah, I just thought it might make it easier for you to 'get me blud', you know, doing the vernacular + stupidity thing.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


>



Except Kettle did what was expected of it. Where had Pot been half of the time in the runnup to it? Ooh! I know. It was lost in contemplation of Kettle's shinier and more sophisticated bits


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Nah, I just thought it might make it easier for you to 'get me blud', you know, doing the vernacular + stupidity thing.


Christ, are you still here? You don't really _get_ U75, do you?


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)

If the BNP wasn't happy with Akala and his "bone structure", it's not going to like Lowkey either. Too bad I'm going to post this anyway...


----------



## rekil (Jun 9, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Look, I know nothing about gambling, and I can't really follow the logic behind the setting of odds. . . but could this just be a marketing ploy by the bookies, intended to hoover up the last stray punters' pennies on this one, and not actually a sign of a swing for or against any party?


Bookies set odds for markets which are then influenced by the amount of money being put on. The more money that goes on, the shorter the odds become.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 9, 2017)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I actually saw most stuff over towards addiscombe out of the centre. I think it's usually a bit tory around here. I only got one tory knocker, which is a shame because it's easy to pick them apart this time more than ever.


Addiscombe is Croydon Central, and is usually very Labour. The Tory bits are the southern most bits of the constituency including Shirley, which I only recently found out was in Croydon Central. Even New Addington, that sprawling housing estate in the south of the Borough, is in Croydon Central. Fuck knows how that lot normally vote, if at all.  UKIP, probably.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> I think there might be something to that. It might have been a bit of a poisoned chalice had he been elected Prime Minister. The two leadership elections and this snap general election have somewhat strengthened Corbyn's hand and hopefully he will be taken a bit more seriously after being written off so many times. The Parliamentary Labour Party is going to have to listen to it's members who have overwhelmingly backed Corbyn against the odds. He might be in an even stronger position if the Tories manage to screw things up.





Teaboy said:


> I think this is a good point.  Even if Corbyn had won there must have been a real potential for him to not be able to get the manifesto through parliament.



Argh... ere goes a simplistic argument

A considerable part of the PLP represents neoliberal capital (not just in the Labour Party but elsewhere) and they have been propped up by Labour grandees (Blair, Mandelson,etc) as well as media such as The Guardian. They hate Corbyn because he put a spanner in their works in more ways than they expected (his stance on Brexit, nationalisations, higher tax for corporates, etc).
They'll take as much credit from the result as they possibly can so as to then be able to portray their re-elections and increased majorities as mandates from their voters to carry on their (supposed centre) line but *they'll be subtle* about it both as, now, they reposition themselves, and later, as they start putting their spanners in McDonnell's works.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Christ, are you still here? You don't really _get_ U75, do you?



Sorry. who are you?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> If the BNP wasn't happy with Akala and his "bone structure", it's not going to like Lowkey either. Too bad I'm going to post this anyway...




Okay. Just so you don't embarass yourself, use the form B&P, otherwise you indicate 'group think' - and a special kind of idiocy at that. Moreover, I'll report your post for a using a highly loaded signifier without evidence. And, perhaps most significantly, your justification will be non-existent.  You know, the attempt at justification.

All of the above, of course, does not detract from the idiocy of your argument. And, just so we are clear, if you want to fuck with me 'blud' try going to the 'What Are You Listening To Now' thread' or the 'Old School Hip Hop' thread, just to get a sense of what you are dealing with. You get me?


----------



## killer b (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> if you want to fuck with me 'blud' try going to the 'What Are You Listening To Now' thread' or the 'Old School Hip Hop' thread, just to get a sense of what you are dealing with. You get me?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Sorry. who are you?


I know who you are. You're a racist cunt who should be fucked off from here for fucking good.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I know who you are. You're a racist cunt who should be fucked off from here for fucking good.



Reported.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Okay. Just so you don't embarass yourself, use the form B&P, otherwise you indicate 'group think' - and a special kind of idiocy at that. Moreover, I'll report your post for a using a highly loaded signifier without evidence. And, perhaps most significantly, your justification will be non-existent.  You know, the attempt at justification.
> 
> All of the above, of course, does not detract from the idiocy of your argument. And, just so we are clear, if you want to fuck with me 'blud' try going to the 'What Are You Listening To Now' thread' or the 'Old School Hip Hop' thread, just to get a sense of what you are dealing with. You get me?


Desperate stuff, bnp. Desperate stuff.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I know who you are. You're a racist cunt who should be fucked off from here for fucking good.



And you are a fuckwit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Reported.


You must be doing something wrong if so many people think you're a race-baiting cunt.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Desperate stuff, bnp. Desperate stuff.



Nah, I recall your involvement and accusations regarding this matter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> And you are a fuckwit.


Yeh. That's told the effete and ineffectual liberal  he's got you bang to rights, bnp


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Nah, I recall your involvement and accusations regarding this matter.


Jesus that's feeble even by your abysmal standards


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Jesus that's feeble even by your abysmal standards


 
You are a white male. You want to lecture me? I do wonder PM, do you get paid on the basis of word count? It can't be quality of content.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> You are a white male. You want to lecture me? I do wonder PM, do you get paid on the basis of word count? It can't be quality of content.


If it was done on quality of content you'd be up to your neck in debt


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> If it was done on quality of content you'd be up to your neck in debt



So. White male continues to write  / speak.

You are fucking fraud on every level. Oh, and a white male.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> So. White male continues to write  / speak.
> 
> You are fucking fraud on every level. Oh, and a white male.


Yeh. So you say. But on the positive side I'm not a race-baiting cunt.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. So you say. But on the positive side I'm not a race-baiting cunt.



Reported.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> If it was done on quality of content you'd be up to your neck in debt



You need to go back to your 'Handler'. You know, 'back story' and all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> You need to go back to your 'Handler'. You know, 'back story' and all.


Carry on, the mods'll love it


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Carry on, the mods'll love it



You mean making accusations of racism towards another poster (without evidence), in a celebratory manner? That will be you. With no evidence. Yes, the Mods will love it - oh wait - are you a Mod via nother log in?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> You mean making accusations of racism towards another poster (without evidence), in a celebratory manner? That will be you. With no evidence. Yes, the Mods will love it - oh wait - are you a Mod via nother log in?


Yeh right, I'm auld fridgy's sneaky login


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> You mean making accusations of racism towards another poster (without evidence), in a celebratory manner? That will be you. With no evidence. Yes, the Mods will love it - oh wait - are you a Mod via nother log in?


You're on your own now chuck, have fun


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You're on your own now chuck, have fun



Bring it.

Cunty fuck.

(You got that telephone call, eh?)


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 9, 2017)

Worst urban argument ever. Im on team pickman's.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 9, 2017)

I'm on nobody's team. You're all pricks.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Worst urban argument ever. Im on team pickman's.



Noted. Except there is no team PM - he's the kind who would sell his family out to protect his on position (including you). As long as he gets paid.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Noted. Except there is no team PM - he's the kind who would sell his family out to protect his on position (including you). As long as he gets paid.



Why are you posting a like?


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Okay. Just so you don't embarass yourself, use the form B&P, otherwise you indicate 'group think' - and a special kind of idiocy at that.


lol, whut? I'll use whatever acronym I feel like using, Mr Paribas. Wait, hang on a minute, weren't you previously known as Numpty Fuckwit (NF) in a former life before changing your name to Extremely Dumb Lame-ass (EDL).



Beats & Pieces said:


> Moreover, I'll report your post for a using a highly loaded signifier without evidence. And, perhaps most significantly, your justification will be non-existent.  You know, the attempt at justification.


This is hilarious. Who are you going to report me to, and precisely what for? You are a joke. I'm willing to bet that whoever you report me to will laugh in your cowardly web warrior face. 



Beats & Pieces said:


> All of the above, of course, does not detract from the idiocy of your argument. And, just so we are clear, if you want to fuck with me 'blud' try going to the 'What Are You Listening To Now' thread' or the 'Old School Hip Hop' thread, just to get a sense of what you are dealing with. You get me?


Thanks for the offer but I'd rather not fuck with you, I'm already in a monogamous relationship and even if I did find you attractive (which I don't), I'd rather not risk catching crabs or some other horrible STI.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

killer b said:


>



Exactly. If you know, you would know and recognise - and that is the most telling point.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Noted. Except there is no team PM - he's the kind who would sell his family out to protect his on position (including you). As long as he gets paid.



That's why I would be happy to support him in all his endeavours.

If I got sold out by PM I don't know what I would do but he wouldn't do that to me.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> lol, whut? I'll use whatever acronym I feel like using, Mr Paribas. Wait, hang on a minute, weren't you previously known as Numpty Fuckwit (NF) in a former life before changing your name to Extremely Dumb Lame-ass (EDL).
> 
> This is hilarious. Who are you going to report me to, and precisely what for? You are a joke. I'm willing to bet that whoever you report me to will laugh in your cowardly web warrior face.
> 
> ...



NF and EDL.

Reported. You dumb fuck.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> That's why I would be happy to support him in all his endeavours.
> 
> If I got sold out by PM I don't know what I would do but he wouldn't do that to me.



He already has. Bless.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> He already has. Bless.



Come on Pickman's model you gotta like this great banter. 

How do you catch these fish on the internet?


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jun 9, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Labour will be utterly destroyed. If you think otherwise, you're in dreamland.





Pickman's model said:


> Quoted for 9/7/17



I know you wanted to wait a month, Pickmans. But yes, I was gloriously wrong! Thankfully!


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Come on Pickman's model you gotta like this great banter.
> 
> How do you catch these fish on the internet?



He doesn't. Simples.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2017)

*taps watch*


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 9, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> NF and EDL.
> 
> Reported. You dumb fuck.


I'm sitting here a quakin' in my boots waiting for the Special Patrol Group to knock down my door. While I'm waiting, I think I'll just sit back, relax, and listen to some more words of wisdom.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 9, 2017)

PaoloSanchez said:


> I'm sitting here a quakin' in my boots waiting for the Special Patrol Group to knock down my door. While I'm waiting, I think I'll just sit back, relax, and listen to some more words of wisdom.




Is it 'cos he's black?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 9, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> Addiscombe is Croydon Central, and is usually very Labour. The Tory bits are the southern most bits of the constituency including Shirley, which I only recently found out was in Croydon Central. Even New Addington, that sprawling housing estate in the south of the Borough, is in Croydon Central. Fuck knows how that lot normally vote, if at all.  UKIP, probably.


I just meant they were not in the town centre as I thought that's what he meant.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 10, 2017)

I really don't see how may is going to get away with this DUP team up , she's fucked herself into an impossible position, she is going to get shit from every direction. She may think she is all powerful but she is going to find put pretty soon she isn't.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> Even New Addington, that sprawling housing estate in the south of the Borough, is in Croydon Central. Fuck knows how that lot normally vote, if at all. UKIP, probably.



Care to expand on this?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 10, 2017)

The working class scum eh, daring to vote UKIP or not at all even though Labour has sold them out for years?! Perhaps Labour people might actually go and engage with those communities again and work to improve their lives rather than just writing them off.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 10, 2017)

Y'see, Corbyn (almost singlehandledly) might have mobilised especially the student and young vote this time and some lost older supporters, but it's still volatile and isn't enough on its own. If Labour, PLP and CLP, still don't learn anything from this, and regain those lost core voters, then the party is still fucked in the longer term. If 'lefties', 'socialists', and 'union activists' have forgotten the whole point is to defend, mobilise and liberate the working class, then we'll still be in this shit in 10 years time. And still Labourites will be 'wondering' why parties like UKIP are gaining traction and why Labour aren't attracting votes from 'that lot'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> The working class scum eh, daring to vote UKIP or not at all even though Labour has sold them out for years?! Perhaps Labour people might actually go and engage with those communities again and work to improve their lives rather than just writing them off.



Is this a response to Guineveretoo 's post? Who has called the WC scum? She was referring to Croydon, namely New Addington and far from ignoring the community Labour won Croydon Central with a swing of 10.1 from the Torys. So they have been engaging with people.

Both Labour's and the Tory increase in votes could be to do with UKIP voters going back to the their preferred party as UKIP's numbers are way down on their 2015 third place.

Croydon Central (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 10, 2017)

'Even New Addington, that sprawling housing estate in the south of the Borough, is in Croydon Central. Fuck knows how that lot normally vote, if at all. UKIP, probably.'

You don't see the problem with a comment like this, about those on a housing estate like New Addington, from someone like Guineveretoo whom I thought was a Labour/union activist of some sort?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 10, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Is this a response to Guineveretoo 's post? Who has called the WC scum? She was referring to Croydon, namely New Addington and far from ignoring the community Labour won Croydon Central with a swing of 10.1 from the Torys. So they have been engaging with people.
> 
> Both Labour's and the Tory increase in votes could be to do with UKIP voters going back to the their preferred party as UKIP's numbers are way down on their 2015 third place.
> 
> Croydon Central (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia


Yeh. It isn't necessary to explicitly call someone scum to give the clear impression that's what you mean, as well you know.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> 'Even New Addington, that sprawling housing estate in the south of the Borough, is in Croydon Central. Fuck knows how that lot normally vote, if at all. UKIP, probably.'
> 
> You don't see the problem with a comment like this, about those on a housing estate like New Addington, from someone like Guineveretoo whom I thought was a Labour/union activist of some sort?



Given that Guin is those things afaik I would have thought it would be useful to actually ask her what she meant. Yes I agree her post seems dismissive and I would be keen to understand why but suggesting she means they are 'scum' is a bit much.

Also, my post wanted to point out that Labour has engaged in those areas leading to the swing away from the torys. It's the same candidate as 2015 aswell. I know that a few Urbs have been active in the Labour campaign in that area too so if we are lucky they may see this and pipe up...it would be good to get their perspective on what has been happening.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Libertad said:


> Care to expand on this?


In what way? it is a sprawling housing estate which, although it is in the South of the Borough, isn't likely to be Tory.  UKIP and even the BNP were campaigning there in the past. 

How else would you like me to expand it?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> The working class scum eh, daring to vote UKIP or not at all even though Labour has sold them out for years?! Perhaps Labour people might actually go and engage with those communities again and work to improve their lives rather than just writing them off.


Er, what?  How on earth have you concluded that from what I said?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> 'Even New Addington, that sprawling housing estate in the south of the Borough, is in Croydon Central. Fuck knows how that lot normally vote, if at all. UKIP, probably.'
> 
> You don't see the problem with a comment like this, about those on a housing estate like New Addington, from someone like Guineveretoo whom I thought was a Labour/union activist of some sort?


Please do expand on this for me?  I am genuinely bewildered as to the problem you have perceived here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> In what way? it is a sprawling housing estate which, although it is in the South of the Borough, isn't likely to be Tory.  UKIP and even the BNP were campaigning there in the past.
> 
> How else would you like me to expand it?


Surely you can investigate if they vote and which way they vote online, with local election records. Now you appear to be identifying them with parties which have just campaigned there.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Given that Guin is those things afaik I would have thought it would be useful to actually ask her what she meant. Yes I agree her post seems dismissive and I would be keen to understand why but suggesting she means they are 'scum' is a bit much.
> 
> Also, my post wanted to point out that Labour has engaged in those areas leading to the swing away from the torys. It's the same candidate as 2015 aswell. I know that a few Urbs have been active in the Labour campaign in that area too so if we are lucky they may see this and pipe up...it would be good to get their perspective on what has been happening.


I know urbs who went down to New Addington to leaflet and a close friend of mine is a Labour councillor down there. 

Even the wikipedia link mentions the fact that the BNP were active down there in recent years, and UKIP targeted it. 

My comment was about the fact that it is sprawling and in the South of the Borough, which is where all the bastard Tories are, but it is unlikely to align with them. But who knows? It is a huge area.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> I know urbs who went down to New Addington to leaflet and a close friend of mine is a Labour councillor down there.
> 
> Even the wikipedia link mentions the fact that the BNP were active down there in recent years, and UKIP targeted it.
> 
> My comment was about the fact that it is sprawling and in the South of the Borough, which is where all the bastard Tories are, but it is unlikely to align with them. But who knows? It is a huge area.


If a close friend is a new Addington cllr then a) you know they vote; b) you know which way they vote


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> Please do expand on this for me?  I am genuinely bewildered as to the problem you have perceived here.



Well I apologise if that's the case, but it comes across as classist and disparaging every time I read it. As I expect it did to Libertad and others too.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Surely you can investigate if they vote and which way they vote online, with local election records. Now you appear to be identifying them with parties which have just campaigned there.


FFS! What is this all about?

It was not a serious, researched comment - it was simply a point about the fact that New Addington is huge and is in the South of the Borough, right up against leafy Surrey, which is a Tory stronghold. Although it currently has Labour councillors, across its two wards, all of whom I know, it has also returned Conservative councillors in the past, and, as I say, UKIP were active down there, and there were quite a few votes for them previously. So, unlike the wards in the North of the Borough, which have been Labour for a long time, the New Addington wards have changed hands several times, as far as I know, and can certainly not be relied upon as Labour supporters. 

But I have to get offline now, so I will leave you all to imagine whatever you like into my words.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Well I apologise if that's the case, but it comes across as classist and disparaging every time I read it. As I expect it did to Libertad and others too.


Classist?

FFS!

I despair.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> If a close friend is a new Addington cllr then a) you know they vote; b) you know which way they vote


Yes, I do, and I know the struggle they got to be elected when they first stood. But that is not relevant. 

i have also been at the count, including for the London Assembly election, when there was a disappointing number of votes for UKIP in those wards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> FFS! What is this all about?
> 
> It was not a serious, researched comment - it was simply a point about the fact that New Addington is huge and is in the South of the Borough, right up against leafy Surrey, which is a Tory stronghold. Although it currently has Labour councillors, across its two wards, all of whom I know, it has also returned Conservative councillors in the past, and, as I say, UKIP were active down there, and there were quite a few votes for them previously. So, unlike the wards in the North of the Borough, which have been Labour for a long time, the New Addington wards have changed hands several times, as far as I know, and can certainly not be relied upon as Labour supporters.
> 
> But I have to get offline now, so I will leave you all to imagine whatever you like into my words.


 How dare they change their votes, it's as though they cannot be taken for granted


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Well I apologise if that's the case, but it comes across as classist and disparaging every time I read it. As I expect it did to Libertad and others too.


Agreed, you and Libertad weren't the only ones to see it in that way. It was a nasty dismissal of people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> Yes, I do, and I know the struggle they got to be elected when they first stood. But that is not relevant.
> 
> i have also been at the count, including for the London Assembly election, when there was a disappointing number of votes for UKIP in those wards.


New Addington and fieldway returned Labour cllrs in 2014 and went for sadiq khan in 2016. I understand na returned one tory cllr in 2010, the first time since the 1960s.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Well I apologise if that's the case, but it comes across as classist and disparaging every time I read it. As I expect it did to Libertad and others too.



In the absence of any other context that _was_ how I read it.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Agreed, you and Libertad weren't the only ones to see it in that way. It was a nasty dismissal of people.


No it wasn't.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Libertad said:


> In the absence of any other context that _was_ how I read it.


And then the context was provided. 

Get over yourselves, folks. It was a throwaway remark addressed to a fellow croydon resident who will know that new addington is a huge area close to Surrey which includes posh, villagey bits, a bishops palace that is now a posh hotel, private houses as well as social housing. 

So, it's a good place to canvass as, unlike the north of the borough, it's not at all clear how they will vote.


----------



## andysays (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> No it wasn't.



Whatever you meant to say or thought you meant, and whatever your background etc which I know nothing about, this comment on its own can really only be read as nastily dismissive of "that lot", ie everyone living in New Addington



Guineveretoo said:


> ...Fuck knows how that lot normally vote, if at all.  UKIP, probably.



Given the number of people who have now commented on this, you might want to reconsider whether it was it such a great comment to make, worded the way you did, and whether a different form of words might have been better.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> No it wasn't.


Yet myself, andysays, steph, Libertad etc all picked up on it, so maybe yes it is.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> New Addington and fieldway returned Labour cllrs in 2014 and went for sadiq





andysays said:


> Whatever you meant to say or thought you meant, and whatever your background etc which I know nothing about, this comment on its own can really only be read as nastily dismissive of "that lot", ie everyone living in New Addington
> 
> 
> 
> Given the number of people who have now commented on this, you might want to reconsider whether it was it such a great comment to make, worded the way you did, and whether a different form of words might have been better.



I accept that, and have provided context and explained it over and over again. 

But nobody will accept that I didn't mean it the way it has been read, so I'm wasting my time, and will stop responding. 

The mistake I made was to respond flippantly to a friend I know off the boards as well, without realising that this was not a friendly thread. 

Without checking, i speculate that it's in the politics forum which is a really unfriendly and unforgiving place which does not allow people to make flippant remarks to their friends if they are perceived as someone it's worth having a go at. 

Because I work for a trade union, I'm seen as being the enemy. Which can be amusing, but is also tiresome, not least because I don't post on urban with my professional hat on, and I certainly don't think about what I say to make sure it is crystal clear what I mean, because I assume I'm amongst friends and people who don't put a negative spin on things I type. My mistake


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 10, 2017)

What absolute pathetic self-pitying rubbish.

Who considers trade union employees the enemy? Utter nonsense without a shread of basis in fact.

As for it being a flippant remark, well maybe it was but that doesn't mean that it wasn't also a nasty classist one too. Flippant remarks about race, gender and sexuality are picked up on too, that doesn't mean P&P an "unfriendly and unforgiving place" it means that people are willing to challenge shit that should be challenged.


----------



## Callie (Jun 10, 2017)

I think it was very poorly worded Guin. You specifically mentioned the council estate element and painted everyone who inhabits the estate with the same brush (didn't vote or ukip). I read it and felt it was pretty off.

I think you would accept that council estates and poorer areas are going to be targeted by shitehawks like the BNP and ukip, doesn't mean that's what the people that live there want.


----------



## andysays (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> I accept that, and have provided context and explained it over and over again.
> 
> But nobody will accept that I didn't mean it the way it has been read, so I'm wasting my time, and will stop responding.
> 
> ...



Again, I know absolutely nothing about your background as, I suspect, do the majority of those reading and commenting on this thread.

I read your comment shortly after you made it and before anyone had responded and simply on its content, thought it was a bit off.

I return to the thread a few hours later to find that, instead of simply apologising and/or saying that you had expressed yourself badly (very badly IMO, if what you were actually trying to get across was that the BNP and UKIP have campaigned in New Addington in the past), you've chosen to complain about the Politics forum being unfriendly and you being seen as "the enemy" because you apparently work for a trade union.

TBH, I hope it's not the TU I'm a member of which you work for...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> I accept that, and have provided context and explained it over and over again.
> 
> But nobody will accept that I didn't mean it the way it has been read, so I'm wasting my time, and will stop responding.
> 
> ...


I'm on my union branch committee. Your comment read as at best dismissive, not because of who you are or what you do but because of what it said.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm on my union branch committee.


Likewise. There's bloody loads of P&P posters that are involved with their union somehow or other.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Yet myself, andysays, steph, Libertad etc all picked up on it, so maybe yes it is.


But it wasn't. You chose to read it that way and will not accept my explanation.

Nowhere else to go with it.

You can consider me classist if you want.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Callie said:


> I think it was very poorly worded Guin. You specifically mentioned the council estate element and painted everyone who inhabits the estate with the same brush (didn't vote or ukip). I read it and felt it was pretty off.
> 
> I think you would accept that council estates and poorer areas are going to be targeted by shitehawks like the BNP and ukip, doesn't mean that's what the people that live there want.


I agree that it was poorly worded and I've tried to explain why it was. Several times. 

I did not refer to the Council estate, except in a later post when I was explaining, or trying to, that New Addington is really mixed and difficult to predict. That's not because it's all council housing, because it's not. It's not because it's all working class, because it's not. 

I'm sorry that I put a flippant remark on a thread in the politics forum - I would not have deliberately done so because, from past experience, I used to get picked on because I was perceived as the enemy. Perhaps that's not the case anymore, which would be good. It's why I stopped posting in that forum. 

I also apologise, sincerely, if anyone was offended by what I said. It was not what I intended. 

But please can we move on from It now?


----------



## Callie (Jun 10, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Given that Guin is those things afaik I would have thought it would be useful to actually ask her what she meant. Yes I agree her post seems dismissive and I would be keen to understand why but suggesting she means they are 'scum' is a bit much.
> 
> Also, my post wanted to point out that Labour has engaged in those areas leading to the swing away from the torys. It's the same candidate as 2015 aswell. I know that a few Urbs have been active in the Labour campaign in that area too so if we are lucky they may see this and pipe up...it would be good to get their perspective on what has been happening.



Do you know if many of those people were campaigning in New Addington? It's quite far away from everything else in Croydon, isolated almost though transport links have been improved.


----------



## gosub (Jun 10, 2017)

cyril_smear said:


> Yes, and the left prevailed...



Mr Blair and his friends can't be happy tbf.


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> Mr Blair and his friends can't be happy tbf.


It'll be interesting to see what happens next. Labour should be preparing itself for the next election, but will the PLP be able to get their shit together and get behind Jezza in time? Party members need to organise themselves and hold their local Labour representatives to account and to kick them out if they are not supportive. I haven't voted since I helped Blair "Tory light" party into power (regrettfully) and wasn't intending to vote again. Corbyn was the only reason that I could be arsed because I liked what he stood for, but my local Labour MP was one of the many that were stabbing Jeremy in the back. I told her that I wasn't happy with her behaviour when we went to help with canvassing. 

Blair, Brown, Mandelson, David Milliband, Sadiq Khan, Chukka, Cooper etc all need to either get fully behind their leader, support his efforts and stop trying to sabotage his every move, or just shut the fuck up.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Callie said:


> Do you know if many of those people were campaigning in New Addington? It's quite far away from everything else in Croydon, isolated almost though transport links have been improved.


Yes, there were hundreds of people canvassing there, including some urbs, in fact.

People were driven there the other day, when there was that huge canvassing campaign that owen jones and mark steel were promoting. People thought they were going to be canvassing and leafleting around the north of croydon central (as it were) and many did, but there were also cars driving people down to the New Addington and Shirley bits. Particularly the more rural bits which had missed out on the posters, I believe.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Sarah Jones won with a comfortable majority this time, a lot of which is likely to be because of the brilliant work people were doing, canvassing and leafleting across the constituency. 

Gavin Barwell is a complete bastard, so it is great to have got shot of him. 

I have a lot of time for Sarah Jones, and I think she will make an excellent constituency MP. I hope she also carves a slot for herself in the House of Commons, but I don't know how politically ambitious she is, or whether she will focus on the constituency.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 10, 2017)

Callie said:


> Do you know if many of those people were campaigning in New Addington? It's quite far away from everything else in Croydon, isolated almost though transport links have been improved.


No I don't know that is why I said hopefully someone would comment and give us their perspective. Not gonna tag anyone as that's unfair in terms of their privacy.

I simply checked the results to see what constituency NA is in and how the parties had done in recent years. I also knew that canvassers had targeted that constituency. What the results don't show obviously is how many voters there actually are from whatever party on this particular estate or how that may have changed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 10, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> Yes, there were hundreds of people canvassing there, including some urbs, in fact.
> 
> People were driven there the other day, when there was that huge canvassing campaign that owen jones and mark steel were promoting. People thought they were going to be canvassing and leafleting around the north of croydon central (as it were) and many did, but there were also cars driving people down to the New Addington and Shirley bits. Particularly the more rural bits which had missed out on the posters, I believe.


Details. 

Hopefully those visits don't stop now the election day has passed.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Details.
> 
> Hopefully those visits don't stop now the election day has passed.


Good point! But loads of them were from outside the Borough. I had a canvasser knocking on my door who was from Bethnal Green Labour Party. That's quite a trek.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jun 10, 2017)

I did some leafletting in fieldway and Shirley wards which are  a mix of relatively wealthy owner occupiers and mixed estates - I didn't canvass door to door  there nor New Addington. 

Each ward was targeted a number of times for canvassing 

Anecdotally Woodside , Ashburton, Fairfield and Addiscombe drew a lot of canvassers as they have much better transport links .  

It will be interesting to where the  Labour  7k+ increase came from.   A lot of the canvassing strategy was mobilising the Labour or unknown vote.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Miss-Shelf said:


> I did some leafletting in fieldway and Shirley wards which are  a mix of relatively wealthy owner occupiers and mixed estates - I didn't canvass door to door  there nor New Addington.
> 
> Each ward was targeted a number of times for canvassing
> 
> ...



Fieldway is one of the New Addington wards 

Anecdotally, the additional 7000 people who voted for her included a lot of young people and other first time voters, but also, I reckon, people in the south of the ward, who had previously not voted, or voted for another party.

Certainly, in the polling station where I was working, turnout was much higher than last year, and even than 2015.

Not been able to check numbers, but I think Barwell got more votes this time than in 2015. That must rankle  Jones got thousands more than last time, and ended up with a majority of nearly 6,000.


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 10, 2017)

Pie spot on again...



_"...and I also wonder whether Labour are actually in a better position to be in opposition at the moment, I wonder whether they're quite ready for government yet, because you've got all these Blairites within the Labour party that have only woken up and gone 'Jeremy Corbyn's alright isn't he' for the first time, so it's going to take a little while for all the Blairites and the centrists in the Labour party to finally get behind their leader."_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> The working class scum eh, daring to vote UKIP or not at all even though Labour has sold them out for years?! Perhaps Labour people might actually go and engage with those communities again and work to improve their lives rather than just writing them off.



I think that's more about the fact that New Addington had a very large BNP vote back before Griffin shat the bed.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 10, 2017)

Um...


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 11, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that's more about the fact that New Addington had a very large BNP vote back before Griffin shat the bed.


Wait...didn't you know that you're not allowed to mention the BNP otherwise you run the risk of getting yourself reported. (looool) 
Apparently The BNP don't really see eye to eye with the genius Akala.


----------



## PaoloSanchez (Jun 11, 2017)

More appreciation of the pie :-



_"We can all agree that she ran a fucking appalling campaign and Corbyn didn't...aside from the occasional embarrassing accounting error every other day on the radio, and sorry Jeremy, if you're a life long member of CND, I would have expected a more robust response to questions on nuclear weapons, AND, if you're gonna high five Emily Thornberry, make sure her right tit doesn't get in the way" _​
I think Pie spot on again regarding Corbyn. There's a lot more work to be done before he can even think of becoming PM. He's done well so far to defy the odds and smack down the detractors inside and outside the Labour party. If he is ever going to win over the public he's going up his game even more. It would also be better if he didn't have so much pressure and responsibility on his shoulders and that he had enough good wingmen/women with similarly good strong principles and ethics to watch his back and protect it from the many knives.
_


_


----------

