Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The BES polling chart that surely means that GE2017 was TMay’s

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 1 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The BES polling chart that surely means that GE2017 was TMay’s first and last election as leader

How voters learned to like JC and dislike TMay. From BBC commissioned academic study of what happened at GE2017. https://t.co/CdPw6Vn8tz pic.twitter.com/MWwDSSXR34

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016
    Lynton Crosby should not expect a call from the next Conservative leader.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576
    If 'The more people saw of TMay during the campaign the less they liked her’then if she’d actuall;y goe on TV she’d have been REALLY hammered!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016
    Someone suggested on pb that the Conservative attack video on Corbyn was a mistake as it made him seem charismatic and even human.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,362
    The challenge for the Tories is to weed out the duffers before they make them leader.

    Like they did in 2005 with David Davis.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,907
    The results reveal a striking correlation between wanting to control immigration and voting Tory on one hand, and wanting access to the single market and voting Labour or Lib Dem on the other.
    For example, the Conservatives lead Labour by more than 40 percentage points among those most in favour of full control of immigration, with Labour having a similar lead among those wanting complete access to the single market.
    In effect this meant the Tories were the party of hard Brexit, while Labour was the party of soft Brexit.
    The Lib Dems were not the first choice for those favouring a soft Brexit - possibly because of the lingering effects of coalition government, a perception of ineffective leadership and a realisation that they could not win in most seats.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,907
    Confirmation that the Tories fought the worst campaign in modern British history ...

    Our pre-election survey, carried out in April and May, found that the Conservatives enjoyed a healthy lead over Labour of 41% to 27%.
    But by the last three days of the campaign, our daily panel put the two main parties neck and neck.
    Overall, 19% of voters switched parties between the April/May survey and the election.
    This is similar to the amount of "churn" we saw in 2015, when 17% of voters switched parties, and slightly less than at the 2010 and 2005 elections.
    But the significant difference in 2017 was that the flow was overwhelmingly in one direction.
    In 2015, Labour and the Conservatives both won about a quarter of these late-switching voters - effectively cancelling each other out.
    However, in 2017 Labour won 54% of switchers, compared with 19% for the Conservatives.
    Additionally, Labour won more than half of those who hadn't made up their minds before the campaign.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016
    Johnny-come-lately! Some of us pointed out during the leadership election that Theresa May's much-vaunted six years at the Home Office was due entirely to Cameron's dislike of reshuffles, and that she'd done nothing -- even on non-EU immigration.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016
    Jonathan said:

    The challenge for the Tories is to weed out the duffers before they make them leader.

    Like they did in 2005 with David Davis.

    David Davis, the favourite to succeed Theresa May? I see what you did there.

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,389

    Johnny-come-lately! Some of us pointed out during the leadership election that Theresa May's much-vaunted six years at the Home Office was due entirely to Cameron's dislike of reshuffles, and that she'd done nothing -- even on non-EU immigration.
    True, but it was her or Leadsome.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,907
    Jonathan said:

    The challenge for the Tories is to weed out the duffers before they make them leader.

    Like they did in 2005 with David Davis.

    The Tories need:
    1. A new leader untainted by Brexit.
    2. Brexit to have happened.
    3. Some credible, popular policies.
    4. Jeremy Corbyn in charge of Labour.

    If they get these they win next time.



  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016

    Johnny-come-lately! Some of us pointed out during the leadership election that Theresa May's much-vaunted six years at the Home Office was due entirely to Cameron's dislike of reshuffles, and that she'd done nothing -- even on non-EU immigration.
    True, but it was her or Leadsome.
    Leadsom would still have a majority of 12.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125

    Confirmation that the Tories fought the worst campaign in modern British history ...

    Our pre-election survey, carried out in April and May, found that the Conservatives enjoyed a healthy lead over Labour of 41% to 27%.
    But by the last three days of the campaign, our daily panel put the two main parties neck and neck.
    Overall, 19% of voters switched parties between the April/May survey and the election.
    This is similar to the amount of "churn" we saw in 2015, when 17% of voters switched parties, and slightly less than at the 2010 and 2005 elections.
    But the significant difference in 2017 was that the flow was overwhelmingly in one direction.
    In 2015, Labour and the Conservatives both won about a quarter of these late-switching voters - effectively cancelling each other out.
    However, in 2017 Labour won 54% of switchers, compared with 19% for the Conservatives.
    Additionally, Labour won more than half of those who hadn't made up their minds before the campaign.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242

    I thought 1987 was as bad if not worse. Fortunately, campaigns made no difference in those days.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,907

    Jonathan said:

    The challenge for the Tories is to weed out the duffers before they make them leader.

    Like they did in 2005 with David Davis.

    David Davis, the favourite to succeed Theresa May? I see what you did there.

    Davis is too closely connected to Brexit to win those who switched to Labour back.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576
    Anyone done a comparison with 1970? Wilson thought he was home and dry, which was why he called the election.
  • Sean_F said:

    Confirmation that the Tories fought the worst campaign in modern British history ...

    Our pre-election survey, carried out in April and May, found that the Conservatives enjoyed a healthy lead over Labour of 41% to 27%.
    But by the last three days of the campaign, our daily panel put the two main parties neck and neck.
    Overall, 19% of voters switched parties between the April/May survey and the election.
    This is similar to the amount of "churn" we saw in 2015, when 17% of voters switched parties, and slightly less than at the 2010 and 2005 elections.
    But the significant difference in 2017 was that the flow was overwhelmingly in one direction.
    In 2015, Labour and the Conservatives both won about a quarter of these late-switching voters - effectively cancelling each other out.
    However, in 2017 Labour won 54% of switchers, compared with 19% for the Conservatives.
    Additionally, Labour won more than half of those who hadn't made up their minds before the campaign.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242

    I thought 1987 was as bad if not worse. Fortunately, campaigns made no difference in those days.

    So who grabbed Sir Patrick McCloughlin's lapels and said

    'Patrick, listen to me, we are about to lose this fucking election'
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 59,914
    edited August 1

    Anyone done a comparison with 1970? Wilson thought he was home and dry, which was why he called the election.

    Labour losing in 1970 was down to England losing their coupe du monde quarter final against West Germany.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125

    Sean_F said:

    Confirmation that the Tories fought the worst campaign in modern British history ...

    Our pre-election survey, carried out in April and May, found that the Conservatives enjoyed a healthy lead over Labour of 41% to 27%.
    But by the last three days of the campaign, our daily panel put the two main parties neck and neck.
    Overall, 19% of voters switched parties between the April/May survey and the election.
    This is similar to the amount of "churn" we saw in 2015, when 17% of voters switched parties, and slightly less than at the 2010 and 2005 elections.
    But the significant difference in 2017 was that the flow was overwhelmingly in one direction.
    In 2015, Labour and the Conservatives both won about a quarter of these late-switching voters - effectively cancelling each other out.
    However, in 2017 Labour won 54% of switchers, compared with 19% for the Conservatives.
    Additionally, Labour won more than half of those who hadn't made up their minds before the campaign.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242

    I thought 1987 was as bad if not worse. Fortunately, campaigns made no difference in those days.

    So who grabbed Sir Patrick McCloughlin's lapels and said

    'Patrick, listen to me, we are about to lose this fucking election'
    The campaign was a Clusterfuck, but the Conservatives still had a majority of 100.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/01/nicky-morgan-assessment-citys-readiness-hard-brexit

    The Conservative MP Nicky Morgan has asked the Bank of England to provide comprehensive details of the City’s readiness for a hard Brexit
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,368

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/01/nicky-morgan-assessment-citys-readiness-hard-brexit

    The Conservative MP Nicky Morgan has asked the Bank of England to provide comprehensive details of the City’s readiness for a hard Brexit

    Too bad the BoE has gone on strike!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,907
    The June election is actually a very good result for the Tories long term because it means that the far left will now fully control the Labour party apparatus at the time of the next GE. That means no change when the Tories win. And that means the Tories will never lose. If May had been a better candidate Labour might have become more electable longer term. Now they never will be. Mrs May should be lauded as a Tory hero.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125

    Anyone done a comparison with 1970? Wilson thought he was home and dry, which was why he called the election.

    Local elections (and polls) were dire for Labour from 1967 onwards. But, things suddenly turned in 1970. It turned out the polls were exaggerating the turnaround, but Labour did far better than anyone would have expected, a few months prior to the election.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 160

    The results reveal a striking correlation between wanting to control immigration and voting Tory on one hand, and wanting access to the single market and voting Labour or Lib Dem on the other.
    For example, the Conservatives lead Labour by more than 40 percentage points among those most in favour of full control of immigration, with Labour having a similar lead among those wanting complete access to the single market.
    In effect this meant the Tories were the party of hard Brexit, while Labour was the party of soft Brexit.
    The Lib Dems were not the first choice for those favouring a soft Brexit - possibly because of the lingering effects of coalition government, a perception of ineffective leadership and a realisation that they could not win in most seats.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242

    Which means that a good part of the current support of both parties is built on shifting sands. That is particularly true of Labour whose leadership believe personally in hard Brexit in order to remove restraints on the "Socialist Transformation". There is always a lot of wishful thinking in the electorate but the late surge for Labour must take the biscuit. Cuddly, gentle, plain speaking avuncular Uncle Jez and the perception that Labour will deliver a softer Brexit or even kill Brexit surely take teh biscuit. The latter might be true of course if the party splits.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,001

    The June election is actually a very good result for the Tories long term because it means that the far left will now fully control the Labour party apparatus at the time of the next GE. That means no change when the Tories win. And that means the Tories will never lose. If May had been a better candidate Labour might have become more electable longer term. Now they never will be. Mrs May should be lauded as a Tory hero.

    An interesting take. But what if Britain learns to love the hard left??? This fear was commonplace pre-1979.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125

    Jonathan said:

    The challenge for the Tories is to weed out the duffers before they make them leader.

    Like they did in 2005 with David Davis.

    David Davis, the favourite to succeed Theresa May? I see what you did there.

    Davis is too closely connected to Brexit to win those who switched to Labour back.

    There's been considerable realignment going on over the past decade. Seats that quite recently were marginal now look solidly Conservative or Labour, and vice versa. The SNP won almost everything in 2015, but now their bubble has deflated, and one could easily see Scotland reverting to its traditional pattern of a left wing party dominating the Central Belt, with SCons dominating the rural areas and small towns. Greater London has moved leftwards at a rate of knots, but its hinterland has shifted rightwards.

    So the voters are more volatile, but at the same time, some allegiances are shifting permanently. I don't think that middle class Conservatives who switched to Labour over Brexit are coming back, nor do I think right wing working class voters will be returning to Labour.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,962
    The thing is, TMays epic cockup has not yet made a huge heap of difference; she is just hostage to a slightly different set of headbangers than she was on June 7. What call me Dave did with the power he won was to preside half heartedly over a couple of crucial referendums, phoning his performance in like an overpaid elderly BBC presenter covering Eurovision, and lose the second and more important one. When he dies they will find Brussels engraved on his heart, and he will go down in history for that and for allegedly irrumating a pigs head.

    He also created a vacancy for TMay to fill, after misrepresenting her ability by leaving her in the HO for years because he couldn't be arsed to move her.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    The thing is, TMays epic cockup has not yet made a huge heap of difference; she is just hostage to a slightly different set of headbangers than she was on June 7. What call me Dave did with the power he won was to preside half heartedly over a couple of crucial referendums, phoning his performance in like an overpaid elderly BBC presenter covering Eurovision, and lose the second and more important one. When he dies they will find Brussels engraved on his heart, and he will go down in history for that and for allegedly irrumating a pigs head.

    He also created a vacancy for TMay to fill, after misrepresenting her ability by leaving her in the HO for years because he couldn't be arsed to move her.

    Dave won two plebiscites and lost the third one.

    How could you forget the Indyref?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,962

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The thing is, TMays epic cockup has not yet made a huge heap of difference; she is just hostage to a slightly different set of headbangers than she was on June 7. What call me Dave did with the power he won was to preside half heartedly over a couple of crucial referendums, phoning his performance in like an overpaid elderly BBC presenter covering Eurovision, and lose the second and more important one. When he dies they will find Brussels engraved on his heart, and he will go down in history for that and for allegedly irrumating a pigs head.

    He also created a vacancy for TMay to fill, after misrepresenting her ability by leaving her in the HO for years because he couldn't be arsed to move her.

    Dave won two plebiscites and lost the third one.

    How could you forget the Indyref?
    LOL
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Z, the EU referendum was not more important than the Scottish one.

    Also, I think Cameron did put the effort in, he simply drastically misunderstood the electorate. Said it at the time, but using a term like 'Little England' in a campaign where most of the voters are English is bloody stupid (despite the giggling glee of some Remain supporters), as was Obama's 'back of the queue' nonsense.
  • Dave only lost the EU ref because like Jesus Christ he was betrayed by Judas Gove.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,644
    edited August 1

    The June election is actually a very good result for the Tories long term because it means that the far left will now fully control the Labour party apparatus at the time of the next GE. That means no change when the Tories win. And that means the Tories will never lose. If May had been a better candidate Labour might have become more electable longer term. Now they never will be. Mrs May should be lauded as a Tory hero.

    Always hard to tell the difference between a Southam Observer and a ray of sunshine. :) I'm not sure any of us has much idea what will happen in British politics, but we can be pretty confident that "never" is an unwise word to use.

    In some ways I think the leadership ratings are both examples of over-egging a message. Theresa May is clearly a reasonably rational, level-headed administrator, Corbyn is clearly a reasonably calm, pleasant exponent of his views. By portraying them as a champion of incredible strength and a terror-loving villain from Central Casting, the Tory campaign came to seem increasingly incredible, which then rubbed off on everything else they said.

    Which is good. The idea that no message can ever be over-exaggerated (and Labour has done it often enough) does real harm to British politics. Love live nuance!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,389

    Johnny-come-lately! Some of us pointed out during the leadership election that Theresa May's much-vaunted six years at the Home Office was due entirely to Cameron's dislike of reshuffles, and that she'd done nothing -- even on non-EU immigration.
    True, but it was her or Leadsome.
    Leadsom would still have a majority of 12.
    ... and that's not a good thing.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Steve McCabe attacked with a brick: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40785740
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125

    Dave only lost the EU ref because like Jesus Christ he was betrayed by Judas Gove.

    I don't think that Gove's opposition to the EU ought to have come as a surprise .
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,176
    If only TMay had been a mother
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 59,914
    edited August 1
    Sean_F said:

    Dave only lost the EU ref because like Jesus Christ he was betrayed by Judas Gove.

    I don't think that Gove's opposition to the EU ought to have come as a surprise .
    It wasn't.

    It was the allegations that he told Dave he wouldn't campaign for Leave or attack his fellow Tories during the campaign.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997
    Ishmael_Z said:

    The thing is, TMays epic cockup has not yet made a huge heap of difference; she is just hostage to a slightly different set of headbangers than she was on June 7. What call me Dave did with the power he won was to preside half heartedly over a couple of crucial referendums, phoning his performance in like an overpaid elderly BBC presenter covering Eurovision, and lose the second and more important one. When he dies they will find Brussels engraved on his heart, and he will go down in history for that and for allegedly irrumating a pigs head.

    He also created a vacancy for TMay to fill, after misrepresenting her ability by leaving her in the HO for years because he couldn't be arsed to move her.

    Do you really believe that rubbish? I mean, only a rabid Europhobe could think: "When he (Cameron) dies they will find Brussels engraved on his heart"

    If that had been the case, he wouldn't have tried for a renegotiation or held a referendum.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,362
    Morning all :)

    I'm always gratified by the certainty so many on here seem to have about future events. The next election is (probably) the thick end of five years away yet SO already says the Conservatives have won.

    Astounding.

    What does for Governments isn't Oppositions generally but the perception the Government has stopped governing and is more interested in other pursuits such as internecine conflict or has simply lost control of events. The Callaghan and Major Governments, albeit under very different circumstances, reached a point of political collapse.

    The Brown Government didn't but the cumulative damage of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s did for them.

    The view I have of the current Government is the archetypal ferrets in the sack. May's authority was shattered by her failed political gamble - her attempts to try to impose some form of authority now look sad and desperate. The contenders jockey for influence and there are clear factions.

    Now, I don't care about the Conservative Party - they could disband tomorrow and do us all a favour - but I do care about the governance of the country and while some so-called "experts" on here seem to think all is going swimmingly with the A50 negotiations, the furore over when Freedom of Movement will end is symptomatic of a Cabinet not all singing from the same hymn sheet.

    Most Governments fail because the relationship between 10 and 11 Downing Street fails or fractures. I suspect we will discover in time the Cameron-Osborne relationship failed just as the Blair-Brown, Thatcher-Lawson and Thatcher-Howe relationships ultimately broke down. The May-Hammond relationship looks disjointed and to be honest if he wants to run the country he shouldn't wait until the Prime Minister is up a Swiss mountain but actively stand against her and argue for his "soft" or "transition-heavy" Brexit.

    He won't because he knows he won't win and as TSE frequently tells us, he (or she) who wields the knife never gets to wear the crown (ok, Thatcher did).

    Thus we have within the Cabinet what we have had since 23/6/16 - the general agreement is we want to leave the EU (well, 52% do but that's enough apparently) but there is huge disagreement over how and on what terms we will leave. That debate and discussion never got going in the long months of the May tenure - indeed, the whole line seemed to be "trust me, I'll sort it out". People like that because it stops them having to think or do anything but it's time we lost and wasted and now we're seeing the fruits of that indecision.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784

    The June election is actually a very good result for the Tories long term because it means that the far left will now fully control the Labour party apparatus at the time of the next GE. That means no change when the Tories win. And that means the Tories will never lose. If May had been a better candidate Labour might have become more electable longer term. Now they never will be. Mrs May should be lauded as a Tory hero.

    I agree and I think May's reward should be to lead the Tories at the next election
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,049
    619 said:

    The June election is actually a very good result for the Tories long term because it means that the far left will now fully control the Labour party apparatus at the time of the next GE. That means no change when the Tories win. And that means the Tories will never lose. If May had been a better candidate Labour might have become more electable longer term. Now they never will be. Mrs May should be lauded as a Tory hero.

    I agree and I think May's reward should be to lead the Tories at the next election
    Good idea. And as she's in want of a majority, maybe she should hold one in the autumn :lol:
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,713

    The June election is actually a very good result for the Tories long term because it means that the far left will now fully control the Labour party apparatus at the time of the next GE. That means no change when the Tories win. And that means the Tories will never lose. If May had been a better candidate Labour might have become more electable longer term. Now they never will be. Mrs May should be lauded as a Tory hero.

    Ridiculously complacent.

    Jezza is one small step from No. 10.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,907

    The results reveal a striking correlation between wanting to control immigration and voting Tory on one hand, and wanting access to the single market and voting Labour or Lib Dem on the other.
    For example, the Conservatives lead Labour by more than 40 percentage points among those most in favour of full control of immigration, with Labour having a similar lead among those wanting complete access to the single market.
    In effect this meant the Tories were the party of hard Brexit, while Labour was the party of soft Brexit.
    The Lib Dems were not the first choice for those favouring a soft Brexit - possibly because of the lingering effects of coalition government, a perception of ineffective leadership and a realisation that they could not win in most seats.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242

    Which means that a good part of the current support of both parties is built on shifting sands. That is particularly true of Labour whose leadership believe personally in hard Brexit in order to remove restraints on the "Socialist Transformation". There is always a lot of wishful thinking in the electorate but the late surge for Labour must take the biscuit. Cuddly, gentle, plain speaking avuncular Uncle Jez and the perception that Labour will deliver a softer Brexit or even kill Brexit surely take teh biscuit. The latter might be true of course if the party splits.

    Voters got what they wanted - a brake on the Tory rush to a no surrender, rock-hard Brexit. The deal we end up with as a result of the election is likely to be far more palatable to far more people than the one we would have got had May been given free rein to stick two fingers up at the EU27 from atop the White Cliffs of Dover.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,049
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    I'm always gratified by the certainty so many on here seem to have about future events. The next election is (probably) the thick end of five years away yet SO already says the Conservatives have won.

    Astounding.

    What does for Governments isn't Oppositions generally but the perception the Government has stopped governing and is more interested in other pursuits such as internecine conflict or has simply lost control of events. The Callaghan and Major Governments, albeit under very different circumstances, reached a point of political collapse.

    The Brown Government didn't but the cumulative damage of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s did for them.

    The view I have of the current Government is the archetypal ferrets in the sack. May's authority was shattered by her failed political gamble - her attempts to try to impose some form of authority now look sad and desperate. The contenders jockey for influence and there are clear factions.

    Now, I don't care about the Conservative Party - they could disband tomorrow and do us all a favour - but I do care about the governance of the country and while some so-called "experts" on here seem to think all is going swimmingly with the A50 negotiations, the furore over when Freedom of Movement will end is symptomatic of a Cabinet not all singing from the same hymn sheet.

    Most Governments fail because the relationship between 10 and 11 Downing Street fails or fractures. I suspect we will discover in time the Cameron-Osborne relationship failed just as the Blair-Brown, Thatcher-Lawson and Thatcher-Howe relationships ultimately broke down. The May-Hammond relationship looks disjointed and to be honest if he wants to run the country he shouldn't wait until the Prime Minister is up a Swiss mountain but actively stand against her and argue for his "soft" or "transition-heavy" Brexit.

    He won't because he knows he won't win and as TSE frequently tells us, he (or she) who wields the knife never gets to wear the crown (ok, Thatcher did).

    Thus we have within the Cabinet what we have had since 23/6/16 - the general agreement is we want to leave the EU (well, 52% do but that's enough apparently) but there is huge disagreement over how and on what terms we will leave. That debate and discussion never got going in the long months of the May tenure - indeed, the whole line seemed to be "trust me, I'll sort it out". People like that because it stops them having to think or do anything but it's time we lost and wasted and now we're seeing the fruits of that indecision.

    Interesting analysis, a lot of common sense in there imho. The government has been following a Mr Micawber planning philosophy, and that's no way to run the country!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,049

    The June election is actually a very good result for the Tories long term because it means that the far left will now fully control the Labour party apparatus at the time of the next GE. That means no change when the Tories win. And that means the Tories will never lose. If May had been a better candidate Labour might have become more electable longer term. Now they never will be. Mrs May should be lauded as a Tory hero.

    Ridiculously complacent.

    Jezza is one small step from No. 10.
    "One small step for man, one giant leap for the country"
  • If only TMay had been a mother

    Daenerys Leadsom, mother of dragons would have made a better PM than Theresa May.

    She wouldn't have lost Dave's majority within a year for starters.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,049

    If only TMay had been a mother

    Daenerys Leadsom, mother of dragons would have made a better PM than Theresa May.

    She wouldn't have lost Dave's majority within a year for starters.
    I assume you are being ironic TSE!? Whatever else May has done, at least she (inadvertently) saved us from the hell that would have been a Leadsom administration!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,204

    If only TMay had been a mother

    Daenerys Leadsom, mother of dragons would have made a better PM than Theresa May.

    She wouldn't have lost Dave's majority within a year for starters.
    Dave lost Daves majority when he flounced off

    come to terms with it

    #spineless

    Remain was lost on the playing fields of Eton
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,849
    I expect the US was behind the arrest of Venezuelan opposition leaders too:

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/87967/ken-livingstone-blames-us-and-‘establishment-elite
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,125
    PMI data has been far better than official numbers, so far this year, but the latter do get revised.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,362
    It would be foolish to deny the economy has been doing better than many expected in the first flush of Brexit though it's fair to say the sudden devaluation of sterling die our exporters no harm whatsoever.

    I still get the sense of a fin-de-siècle splurge of economic activity and spending before what many think will be a sharp slowdown immediately before and during the end of the A50 process. People are spending it while they have it because they don't think they'll have it in the future and the perpetuation of historically low interest rates encourages borrowing to spend and consume which is good for the economy in the short term but does nothing for our obscene levels of personal and consumer debt about which no one seems that bothered.

    For those who think Brexit is the greatest thing that has ever happened and will lead to decades of unparalleled prosperity, all good news is of course great news.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. F, I wonder if there's a +0.1% revision we'll hear foam-flecked blathering about a spike in the economy :tongue:

    [For those unaware, a 0.1% rise in inflation months ago was reported as a spike by Sky News].
  • glwglw Posts: 3,872
    edited August 1
    stodge said:

    For those who think Brexit is the greatest thing that has ever happened and will lead to decades of unparalleled prosperity, all good news is of course great news.

    Anyone with a clue would surely realise that in the grand scheme of things Brexit was never likely to be a big deal either way. In a hundred years time it will be a mere footnote in the history of this country, and there are far greater challenges facing us than something as trifling as what supranational bodies we belong to.

    And while I'm here it's always depressing to see Amber Rudd in the news, I honestly do not think she has a bloody clue about technology and security.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. glw, what random madness has she been coming out with today?
  • glwglw Posts: 3,872
    edited August 1

    Mr. glw, what random madness has she been coming out with today?

    Encryption only benefits "baddies".

    The second paragraph quoted here shows she is clueless.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/08/to-find-out-why-people-value-whatsapp-encryption-rudd-should-talk-to-her-own-colleagues.html
  • sladeslade Posts: 514
    A question for the PB brains trust. How many Lib Dem MPs have there been since the party was formed in 1988? (the answer is surprising).
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,302
    I don't think Theresa May has any intention of fighting the next election so it won't be an issue for the Tories.

    The focus now should be on trying to find someone suitable to take over from her.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,302
    edited August 1

    I expect the US was behind the arrest of Venezuelan opposition leaders too:

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/87967/ken-livingstone-blames-us-and-‘establishment-elite

    Yet didn't the official GDP numbers suggest "manufacturing" was negative/in recession in Q2?
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    slade said:

    A question for the PB brains trust. How many Lib Dem MPs have there been since the party was formed in 1988? (the answer is surprising).

    112?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. glw, fair point. Locks on doors only benefit baddies too. They stop the police getting into baddies' houses quickly. What are these door-lockers hiding?
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    I bet the brick came off worse.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,244
    Surely electors vote for the PM because he/she is strong not because they are likeable?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,362
    glw said:


    Anyone with a clue would surely realise that in the grand scheme of things Brexit was never likely to be a big deal either way. In a hundred years time it will be a mere footnote in the history of this country, and there are far greater challenges facing us than something as trifling as what supranational bodies we belong to.

    Possibly but most people don't operate to those timescales. I would also contend the transformation in our country and society from say 1914 to now has been fundamental. Whether without all the history around it the transformation would have taken the form it has is debatable.

    One for the counterfactual buffs is what would the Britain of 2017 look like if there had been no world wars in the 20th Century ? Just a thought.

    The history of the 21st Century will profoundly affect the Britain in which we live - try to imagine life in 2117 Britain - not easy, is it ?

  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    Allan said:

    slade said:

    A question for the PB brains trust. How many Lib Dem MPs have there been since the party was formed in 1988? (the answer is surprising).

    112?
    OK slade it is 111.
    https://stephenwilliamsmp.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/liberal-democrats-111-mps-so-far-but-where-next/
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,244

    Mr. F, I wonder if there's a +0.1% revision we'll hear foam-flecked blathering about a spike in the economy :tongue:

    [For those unaware, a 0.1% rise in inflation months ago was reported as a spike by Sky News].

    When reprting economic statistics about inflation, GDP etc the media should give the absolute numbers before they give the percentage change.

    RPI has far more impact on people than CPI but the media rarelt quote the RPI.
    (Inflation linked gilts are linked to RPI, many company pensions are linked to RPI, rail fares are linked to RPI etc.)

    Plus GDP should be quoted as GDP per head of the population.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,936
    I don't think they have got to the bottom of the relative importance of the campaign versus the polling error in the pre-vote figures. Comparing a hypothetical 'before' poll with one taken after the event isn't necessarily like for like. The YouGov model suggests that the campaign didn't make nearly as much difference as it might appear.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,872

    Mr. glw, fair point. Locks on doors only benefit baddies too. They stop the police getting into baddies' houses quickly. What are these door-lockers hiding?

    Rudd starts with "Encryption plays a fundamental role in protecting us all online." but is all but dismissing it by the second paragraph. I know it causes the security services a lot of trouble, but you can't un-invent it, mathematics will beat the law of the land every time. Backdoors, golden keys, key escrow whatever is proposed they all basically mean creating an additional means of decrypting communication and in many cases a single point of weakness. And we know from experience that such technical means are not exclusively used in a lawful manner by the "good guys" alone.

    I'll be surprised if the Silicon Valley executives can keep a straight face whilst listening to Rudd.


  • sladeslade Posts: 514
    Allan said:

    Allan said:

    slade said:

    A question for the PB brains trust. How many Lib Dem MPs have there been since the party was formed in 1988? (the answer is surprising).

    112?
    OK slade it is 111.
    https://stephenwilliamsmp.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/liberal-democrats-111-mps-so-far-but-where-next/
    Yes. I was aware of virtually all of them - but I had a blind spot for Peter Brand ( Isle of White).
  • sladeslade Posts: 514
    slade said:

    Allan said:

    Allan said:

    slade said:

    A question for the PB brains trust. How many Lib Dem MPs have there been since the party was formed in 1988? (the answer is surprising).

    112?
    OK slade it is 111.
    https://stephenwilliamsmp.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/liberal-democrats-111-mps-so-far-but-where-next/
    Yes. I was aware of virtually all of them - but I had a blind spot for Peter Brand ( Isle of White).
    Sorry- Wight.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,180
    slade said:

    Allan said:

    Allan said:

    slade said:

    A question for the PB brains trust. How many Lib Dem MPs have there been since the party was formed in 1988? (the answer is surprising).

    112?
    OK slade it is 111.
    https://stephenwilliamsmp.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/liberal-democrats-111-mps-so-far-but-where-next/
    Yes. I was aware of virtually all of them - but I had a blind spot for Peter Brand ( Isle of White).
    I think this list has 116

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Liberal_Democrat_MPs
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,936

    The results reveal a striking correlation between wanting to control immigration and voting Tory on one hand, and wanting access to the single market and voting Labour or Lib Dem on the other.
    For example, the Conservatives lead Labour by more than 40 percentage points among those most in favour of full control of immigration, with Labour having a similar lead among those wanting complete access to the single market.
    In effect this meant the Tories were the party of hard Brexit, while Labour was the party of soft Brexit.
    The Lib Dems were not the first choice for those favouring a soft Brexit - possibly because of the lingering effects of coalition government, a perception of ineffective leadership and a realisation that they could not win in most seats.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40630242

    Which means that a good part of the current support of both parties is built on shifting sands. That is particularly true of Labour whose leadership believe personally in hard Brexit in order to remove restraints on the "Socialist Transformation". There is always a lot of wishful thinking in the electorate but the late surge for Labour must take the biscuit. Cuddly, gentle, plain speaking avuncular Uncle Jez and the perception that Labour will deliver a softer Brexit or even kill Brexit surely take teh biscuit. The latter might be true of course if the party splits.
    Of course the main party support is based on shifting sands. Party attachment has been declining for decades, as the cultural ties that linked families to supporting one particular party fall away and people become more choosy and individualistic. The circumstances of the 2017 election drove people to support May or Corbyn, but we would be rash to conclude that a result that looks like one from the 1960s (outside Scotland, at least) is the sudden return of two-party politics.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,180

    slade said:

    Allan said:

    Allan said:

    slade said:

    A question for the PB brains trust. How many Lib Dem MPs have there been since the party was formed in 1988? (the answer is surprising).

    112?
    OK slade it is 111.
    https://stephenwilliamsmp.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/liberal-democrats-111-mps-so-far-but-where-next/
    Yes. I was aware of virtually all of them - but I had a blind spot for Peter Brand ( Isle of White).
    I think this list has 116

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Liberal_Democrat_MPs
    Ah.. his list is of MPs elected as LDs, not all LD MPs.. Convenient way to leave out Cyril!
  • Alice_AforethoughtAlice_Aforethought Posts: 772
    edited August 1
    stodge said:

    Most Governments fail because the relationship between 10 and 11 Downing Street fails or fractures. I suspect we will discover in time the Cameron-Osborne relationship failed just as the Blair-Brown, Thatcher-Lawson and Thatcher-Howe relationships ultimately broke down.

    The Thatcher relationships failed because of Europe. Lawson was trying to shadow the DM and brought about renewed inflation in consequence. Howe was a Europhile who thought the PM should butt out of his brief. Blair in contrast failed in Iraq. Brown failed because of his own bungling as Chancellor.

    Conservative PMs lose their jobs over Europe.
    stodge said:

    The May-Hammond relationship looks disjointed and to be honest if he wants to run the country he shouldn't wait until the Prime Minister is up a Swiss mountain but actively stand against her and argue for his "soft" or "transition-heavy" Brexit.

    That is not how it works. A number of MPS, I think 35, have to write a letter asserting no confidence. There is then a confidence vote. If the leader loses they are out and cannot be a candidate in the ensuing election. There is no mechanism to 'actively stand against her'.
    stodge said:

    who wields the knife never gets to wear the crown (ok, Thatcher did).

    The 1975 leadership election was in fact called by Heath. Hugh Fraser and Thatcher stood against him. In the second round, whe he was eliminated, there were four candidates. We hear this crown thing a lot but AFAIK the only individual to whom it actually applies is Heseltine.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478

    We hear this crown thing a lot but AFAIK the only individual to whom it actually applies is Heseltine.

    Which is in itself not entirely accurate since it was really Howe who wielded the dagger.
  • We hear this crown thing a lot but AFAIK the only individual to whom it actually applies is Heseltine.

    Which is in itself not entirely accurate since it was really Howe who wielded the dagger.
    Not in the sense of issuing an actual leadership challenge.

    Cameron also lost because of Europe of course.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    F1: article suggests McLaren won't have a Mercedes engine. A shame, as it'd be good to see that [if true]:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/40776162
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,375
    Sean_F said:

    PMI data has been far better than official numbers, so far this year, but the latter do get revised.
    Hopefully in time for my bet with Robert!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,644

    Surely electors vote for the PM because he/she is strong not because they are likeable?

    Voters have all kinds of reasons making up their decisions. Being likeable isn't enough for most voters, but nor is merely being strong (without going all Godwin there are counter-examples of strong leaders of all persuasions who didn't turn out well). I think being stable, having a positive, reasonably coherent agenda and not being positively dislikeable add up to what most people will settle for.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. L, what's the bet?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,364
    slade said:

    A question for the PB brains trust. How many Lib Dem MPs have there been since the party was formed in 1988? (the answer is surprising).

    100?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,389

    Surely electors vote for the PM because he/she is strong not because they are likeable?

    Voters have all kinds of reasons making up their decisions. Being likeable isn't enough for most voters, but nor is merely being strong (without going all Godwin there are counter-examples of strong leaders of all persuasions who didn't turn out well). I think being stable, having a positive, reasonably coherent agenda and not being positively dislikeable add up to what most people will settle for.
    So, strong and stable should do it?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048

    Surely electors vote for the PM because he/she is strong not because they are likeable?

    Voters have all kinds of reasons making up their decisions. Being likeable isn't enough for most voters, but nor is merely being strong (without going all Godwin there are counter-examples of strong leaders of all persuasions who didn't turn out well). I think being stable, having a positive, reasonably coherent agenda and not being positively dislikeable add up to what most people will settle for.
    So, strong and stable should do it?
    Strong, stable and smiling.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,872

    Plus GDP should be quoted as GDP per head of the population.

    Totally agree with that. It is a very misleading stat when population is growing rapidly.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,302

    F1: article suggests McLaren won't have a Mercedes engine. A shame, as it'd be good to see that [if true]:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/40776162

    I have a feeling McLaren may disappear from the grid within the next 3-4 years. Suspect Ron Dennis was a large part of the driving force behind their motor racing operation...
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Dave only lost the EU ref because like Jesus Christ he was betrayed by Judas Gove.

    No, he lost it because he wasn't prepared to argue for Remain.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 894
    glw said:

    Mr. glw, fair point. Locks on doors only benefit baddies too. They stop the police getting into baddies' houses quickly. What are these door-lockers hiding?

    Rudd starts with "Encryption plays a fundamental role in protecting us all online." but is all but dismissing it by the second paragraph. I know it causes the security services a lot of trouble, but you can't un-invent it, mathematics will beat the law of the land every time. Backdoors, golden keys, key escrow whatever is proposed they all basically mean creating an additional means of decrypting communication and in many cases a single point of weakness. And we know from experience that such technical means are not exclusively used in a lawful manner by the "good guys" alone.

    I'll be surprised if the Silicon Valley executives can keep a straight face whilst listening to Rudd.


    I watched Rudd pretty closely during the Referendum campaign. For the life of me I cannot understand why she's touted as a possible successor to May.

    She's a good TV performer maybe, but her understanding of any brief seems to be puddle deep, and yet nobody seems to notice. She just doesn't seem to do research - a purely political animal.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Gin, the chassis and aerodynamics are actually pretty good. Even with a Renault engine, they'd be competitive for points often and the odd podium, I think.

    It all went wrong after 2012, when the car was unreliable but very quick. They went for a different suspension approach which lost them performance, then switched to Honda, which proved about as wise as accepting an offer of a handjob from Edward Scissorhands.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,872
    TonyE said:

    I watched Rudd pretty closely during the Referendum campaign. For the life of me I cannot understand why she's touted as a possible successor to May.

    She's a good TV performer maybe, but her understanding of any brief seems to be puddle deep, and yet nobody seems to notice. She just doesn't seem to do research - a purely political animal.

    Yes I think she looks and sounds the part, which is never a bad thing for a politician, but that doesn't mean she is competent.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 255
    glw said:

    Plus GDP should be quoted as GDP per head of the population.

    Totally agree with that. It is a very misleading stat when population is growing rapidly.
    That's a pretty daft thing to say. Of course total GDP matters more than GDP per head, unless you are seriously trying to argue that Norway is more powerful than China or the US.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 742
    Sean_F said:

    PMI data has been far better than official numbers, so far this year, but the latter do get revised.
    I think the estimated GDP figures published each quarter are just nonsense. The last one said that Construction had fallen. I dont think the construction industry in this Country has ever been busier.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,523
    HHemmelig said:

    glw said:

    Plus GDP should be quoted as GDP per head of the population.

    Totally agree with that. It is a very misleading stat when population is growing rapidly.
    That's a pretty daft thing to say. Of course total GDP matters more than GDP per head, unless you are seriously trying to argue that Norway is more powerful than China or the US.
    Depends if you're using a figure to justify the benefits of growth to the inhabitants of the country, or comparing growth with other nations, surely?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,322
    HHemmelig said:

    glw said:

    Plus GDP should be quoted as GDP per head of the population.

    Totally agree with that. It is a very misleading stat when population is growing rapidly.
    That's a pretty daft thing to say. Of course total GDP matters more than GDP per head, unless you are seriously trying to argue that Norway is more powerful than China or the US.
    If you're trying to measure national power then yes, but how much wealth each person is creating also seems like an interesting number. It just depends what you want the number for.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,872
    HHemmelig said:

    glw said:

    Plus GDP should be quoted as GDP per head of the population.

    Totally agree with that. It is a very misleading stat when population is growing rapidly.
    That's a pretty daft thing to say. Of course total GDP matters more than GDP per head, unless you are seriously trying to argue that Norway is more powerful than China or the US.
    Both are interesting stats depending on the context, but I do think that most people tend to want to know how well off they are or should be, which is what GDP is used by the press as a sort of proxy for. GDP per head would be better for that, GDP is misleading in that case if the country only has a large economy because of immigration and a rising birth rate.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,872

    HHemmelig said:

    glw said:

    Plus GDP should be quoted as GDP per head of the population.

    Totally agree with that. It is a very misleading stat when population is growing rapidly.
    That's a pretty daft thing to say. Of course total GDP matters more than GDP per head, unless you are seriously trying to argue that Norway is more powerful than China or the US.
    If you're trying to measure national power then yes, but how much wealth each person is creating also seems like an interesting number. It just depends what you want the number for.
    Snap.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,375

    Mr. L, what's the bet?

    That GDP would exceed 1.6% this year. I think I am right in saying that both of us expected somewhat higher growth at the start of the year and some reduction in the second half. If that happens I am on the losing side because I am behind the target at the moment.
  • sladeslade Posts: 514

    slade said:

    Allan said:

    Allan said:

    slade said:

    A question for the PB brains trust. How many Lib Dem MPs have there been since the party was formed in 1988? (the answer is surprising).

    112?
    OK slade it is 111.
    https://stephenwilliamsmp.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/liberal-democrats-111-mps-so-far-but-where-next/
    Yes. I was aware of virtually all of them - but I had a blind spot for Peter Brand ( Isle of White).
    I think this list has 116

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Liberal_Democrat_MPs
    Ah.. his list is of MPs elected as LDs, not all LD MPs.. Convenient way to leave out Cyril!
    Cyril Smith was never a Lib Dem MP. He opposed the merger and did not stand in 1992. The discrepancies are caused by MPs elected for other parties but who subsequently took the Lib Dem whip e.g. Emma Nicholson.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,375
    currystar said:

    Sean_F said:

    PMI data has been far better than official numbers, so far this year, but the latter do get revised.
    I think the estimated GDP figures published each quarter are just nonsense. The last one said that Construction had fallen. I dont think the construction industry in this Country has ever been busier.
    Yep, if you believed the published construction figures for the last few years our construction industry would be someone fitting double glazing to a flat in north London. It has officially been shrinking pretty much continuously with the odd revisal up again for years.

    When I was down at the Test I noticed that notwithstanding these figures the south side of the Thames seems to be as covered with cranes as ever.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. L, best of luck.
This discussion has been closed.