Let's hope Lynton Crosby fecks off back to Oz soon as well.
If the woman had any honour at all she would accept that it was herself that was in charge and its she who should take responsibility for the catastrophic election.
She should resign but of course honour and accepting that "the buck stops here" mentality are not happy bedfellows with politicians.
Let's hope Lynton Crosby fecks off back to Oz soon as well.
If the woman had any honour at all she would accept that it was herself that was in charge and its she who should take responsibility for the catastrophic election.
She should resign but of course honour and accepting that "the buck stops here" mentality are not happy bedfellows with politicians.
Plus there's no one else willing or (st)able waiting in the wings......
Let's hope Lynton Crosby fecks off back to Oz soon as well.
If the woman had any honour at all she would accept that it was herself that was in charge and its she who should take responsibility for the catastrophic election.
She should resign but of course honour and accepting that "the buck stops here" mentality are not happy bedfellows with politicians.
Plus there's no one else willing or (st)able waiting in the wings......
I think (as always) there will be a number 'willing' and 'waiting'.
Lord Ashcroft, above, trying to wipe the egg off his face and hope you're didn't notice. There is a great article in the FT, " the election in 7 charts" the final chart is "how did the forecasters do" and he was well out although the hamster Ian Dale was even worse.
More importantly the other charts show there was indeed a strong correlation between Labour Leave voters and the Tory vote strength; less healthy people tended to vote Tory ( which might look counter intuitive), strong Tory vote among the DE classes (again a change in accepted wisdom) and a much stronger Labour vote among Uni educated people - with the model conducted among over 50 grads to screen out the yoof factor. Overall social class has become a much weaker indicator of voting behaviour.
Also in the FT an article explaining how Labour used social media very effectively - somebody ( one of the Eddie Youds handles) noted how I had been spooked by the article writing how effective the Tory manipulators were on Facebook. Turns out that Labour made very effective videos for social media and then spread them via their young Momentum members. Cost them a pittance because the Tories still had to pay £1m to reach Facebook people with their dark ads.
Tell you what, if you are a Centre type biz person, and don't subscribe to the FT, you are missing stuff. I read it as much as the Guardian nowadays. Never thought that day would come, either....
FT has always been good because it honest about what it cares about. Haven't read it for years mind.
That is a very good description. Did you know it endorsed the Lib Demos in this election?
Some insight in the link below on what the DUP may want from the Tories for it's support, plus why one of it's key requirements - Brexit while maintaining a 'frictionless' border with the south - is contradictory and effectively unachievable:
Lord Ashcroft, above, trying to wipe the egg off his face and hope you're didn't notice. There is a great article in the FT, " the election in 7 charts" the final chart is "how did the forecasters do" and he was well out although the hamster Ian Dale was even worse.
More importantly the other charts show there was indeed a strong correlation between Labour Leave voters and the Tory vote strength; less healthy people tended to vote Tory ( which might look counter intuitive), strong Tory vote among the DE classes (again a change in accepted wisdom) and a much stronger Labour vote among Uni educated people - with the model conducted among over 50 grads to screen out the yoof factor. Overall social class has become a much weaker indicator of voting behaviour.
Also in the FT an article explaining how Labour used social media very effectively - somebody ( one of the Eddie Youds handles) noted how I had been spooked by the article writing how effective the Tory manipulators were on Facebook. Turns out that Labour made very effective videos for social media and then spread them via their young Momentum members. Cost them a pittance because the Tories still had to pay £1m to reach Facebook people with their dark ads.
Tell you what, if you are a Centre type biz person, and don't subscribe to the FT, you are missing stuff. I read it as much as the Guardian nowadays. Never thought that day would come, either....
FT has always been good because it honest about what it cares about. Haven't read it for years mind.
I was going to say the same.
The Economist took a sharp downturn up to about a year ago when I stopped buying it. Has it improved now?
Lord Ashcroft, above, trying to wipe the egg off his face and hope you're didn't notice. There is a great article in the FT, " the election in 7 charts" the final chart is "how did the forecasters do" and he was well out although the hamster Ian Dale was even worse.
More importantly the other charts show there was indeed a strong correlation between Labour Leave voters and the Tory vote strength; less healthy people tended to vote Tory ( which might look counter intuitive), strong Tory vote among the DE classes (again a change in accepted wisdom) and a much stronger Labour vote among Uni educated people - with the model conducted among over 50 grads to screen out the yoof factor. Overall social class has become a much weaker indicator of voting behaviour.
Also in the FT an article explaining how Labour used social media very effectively - somebody ( one of the Eddie Youds handles) noted how I had been spooked by the article writing how effective the Tory manipulators were on Facebook. Turns out that Labour made very effective videos for social media and then spread them via their young Momentum members. Cost them a pittance because the Tories still had to pay £1m to reach Facebook people with their dark ads.
Tell you what, if you are a Centre type biz person, and don't subscribe to the FT, you are missing stuff. I read it as much as the Guardian nowadays. Never thought that day would come, either....
Good post PA. 100% agree class is no longer an indicator to voting. The Tories have done a tremendous job of convincing the working classes that it is in their interests to vote for them. Spoke to my dad today who was telling me about his friend who was going to vote Conservative. This being a woman of around 60, lives in a not great part of Medway, husband is a mechanic and she's a nurse FFS. He pulled her up on it and her response was "just because I'm not upper class does not mean I can't act like it". I imagine this mindset is quite prevalent among the older working class Tory voters. There seems to be a real aspiration to become a stereotypical Conservative yet the irony is it's the austerity brought in by them that's likely to keep those people down.
Some insight in the link below on what the DUP may want from the Tories for it's support, plus why one of it's key requirements - Brexit while maintaining a 'frictionless' border with the south - is contradictory and effectively unachievable:
You've said this previously and it just isn't true, there are a number of models that would allow us to leave the EU without imposing a hard border - the Norway model is the most obvious.
@Rob7Lee whilst I disagree with most of what you post I think you set out your reasons and show an ability to think things through (although I am still waiting for a response to the five year funding cuts for schools! (smiley thing)).
But don't you think Corbyn is playing the long game here? He is putting pressure on the Tories and May and he is getting out the message that he and Labour are ready to govern. It is the classic Tory tactic with a twist, he will say we are ready to govern in the next few days it will be all over the news and when the Tory coalition of chaos crumbles (as it will) people will remember the 'ready to govern' bit as that more than anything with ex-Labour voters is what held him back. The twist is that it keeps the awful coalition in the news and keeps the pressure up.
The message is not aimed at you who would never vote for him.
Long game or not, lets just imagine he had the largest majority just 8 short seats of a full majority and May had 60 less seats than him. If she came out with the tripe in that interview he did as others in Labour have as well as Corbyn she would be derided.
By all means say as a party you are ready to govern WHEN you get that mandate at the next election etc, you can spin away but at least be honest ( I know thats hard for most politicians but actually thought Corbyn probably was in the main). To say it now, and to say they won (numerous times), conservators lost the election, he says things like 'we were elected' I could transcript it for you if you like, but seriously, can anyone listen to that 5 minute interview and say he hasn't lost the plot ........ I know a fair few people who voted labour who agree 'what is he going on about'.
On Education i'm waiting for some numbers to come through, having spoken to two Lewisham Heads they have confirmed that from their understanding the school cuts website, for their school is incorrect by some margin. I've also made contact with the school cuts website but as yet have had no response. But then it's the NUT and they don't like me much! but thats another story.
On MI5/Armed police, there is plenty official information on this for McDonnell and Abbot come to that. As an example one letter he signed (would need to check on Abbot) said;
"Expand democracy. A federal republic of Britain: abolish the monarchy and House of Lords. Votes at 16. Re-empower local government. Extend civil liberties and rights to organise and protest. Disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police"
an other part;
"Slash military spending: scrap Trident. Aid for working-class and democratic movements around the world, not support for dictatorships and imperialism."
On Labours wonderful comments about forming a minority government, all very noble, except when it comes to anything in parliament you need a majority and therefore it would be a very dangerous position to put the country in.
You won. Get over it.
I was just answering Cordoban! But Yes, the conservatives won, just someone forgot to tell Corbyn
@mcgrandall what do you think would happen if theres was government by consensus, my guess would be with two parties controlling 90% of the house (say roughly 47%/40%) nothing would ever get agreed, say when Labour propose to Parliament, to increase taxes...... with a minority it will just get shut down, just like most other things, so then what? It would be a car crash, it's going to be a bit of one anyway...... the countries in a poorer state post election.
Let's hope Lynton Crosby fecks off back to Oz soon as well.
If the woman had any honour at all she would accept that it was herself that was in charge and its she who should take responsibility for the catastrophic election.
She should resign but of course honour and accepting that "the buck stops here" mentality are not happy bedfellows with politicians.
She needs to stay exactly where she is @ShootersHillGuru, she is doing a fine job.
Lord Ashcroft, above, trying to wipe the egg off his face and hope you're didn't notice. There is a great article in the FT, " the election in 7 charts" the final chart is "how did the forecasters do" and he was well out although the hamster Ian Dale was even worse.
More importantly the other charts show there was indeed a strong correlation between Labour Leave voters and the Tory vote strength; less healthy people tended to vote Tory ( which might look counter intuitive), strong Tory vote among the DE classes (again a change in accepted wisdom) and a much stronger Labour vote among Uni educated people - with the model conducted among over 50 grads to screen out the yoof factor. Overall social class has become a much weaker indicator of voting behaviour.
Also in the FT an article explaining how Labour used social media very effectively - somebody ( one of the Eddie Youds handles) noted how I had been spooked by the article writing how effective the Tory manipulators were on Facebook. Turns out that Labour made very effective videos for social media and then spread them via their young Momentum members. Cost them a pittance because the Tories still had to pay £1m to reach Facebook people with their dark ads.
Tell you what, if you are a Centre type biz person, and don't subscribe to the FT, you are missing stuff. I read it as much as the Guardian nowadays. Never thought that day would come, either....
FT has always been good because it honest about what it cares about. Haven't read it for years mind.
I was going to say the same.
The Economist took a sharp downturn up to about a year ago when I stopped buying it. Has it improved now?
Well when you stopped buying it @IA they just though "Well fuck it, if IA aint buying it why should we bother".
I know what you mean though I think it has been steadily declining for a few years possibly longer as it was the kind of thing I would only read at hotels and airports. I used to look out for it but stopped bothering.
@Rob7Lee whilst I disagree with most of what you post I think you set out your reasons and show an ability to think things through (although I am still waiting for a response to the five year funding cuts for schools! (smiley thing)).
But don't you think Corbyn is playing the long game here? He is putting pressure on the Tories and May and he is getting out the message that he and Labour are ready to govern. It is the classic Tory tactic with a twist, he will say we are ready to govern in the next few days it will be all over the news and when the Tory coalition of chaos crumbles (as it will) people will remember the 'ready to govern' bit as that more than anything with ex-Labour voters is what held him back. The twist is that it keeps the awful coalition in the news and keeps the pressure up.
The message is not aimed at you who would never vote for him.
Long game or not, lets just imagine he had the largest majority just 8 short seats of a full majority and May had 60 less seats than him. If she came out with the tripe in that interview he did as others in Labour have as well as Corbyn she would be derided.
By all means say as a party you are ready to govern WHEN you get that mandate at the next election etc, you can spin away but at least be honest ( I know thats hard for most politicians but actually thought Corbyn probably was in the main). To say it now, and to say they won (numerous times), conservators lost the election, he says things like 'we were elected' I could transcript it for you if you like, but seriously, can anyone listen to that 5 minute interview and say he hasn't lost the plot ........ I know a fair few people who voted labour who agree 'what is he going on about'.
On Education i'm waiting for some numbers to come through, having spoken to two Lewisham Heads they have confirmed that from their understanding the school cuts website, for their school is incorrect by some margin. I've also made contact with the school cuts website but as yet have had no response. But then it's the NUT and they don't like me much! but thats another story.
On MI5/Armed police, there is plenty official information on this for McDonnell and Abbot come to that. As an example one letter he signed (would need to check on Abbot) said;
"Expand democracy. A federal republic of Britain: abolish the monarchy and House of Lords. Votes at 16. Re-empower local government. Extend civil liberties and rights to organise and protest. Disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police"
an other part;
"Slash military spending: scrap Trident. Aid for working-class and democratic movements around the world, not support for dictatorships and imperialism."
On Labours wonderful comments about forming a minority government, all very noble, except when it comes to anything in parliament you need a majority and therefore it would be a very dangerous position to put the country in.
My response was probably a bit misleading as I was solely answering the point about why Labour was saying that they could/should form a government. Re-reading that was not clear, but whatever the rights and wrongs (and it might well be wrong) I was just trying to explain why I think they might be doing it. Time will tell if it works, but as said we are almost certainly not the target audience although you did say that you previously voted for them.
Very interested to see your schools spending evidence as my mini research (about 8 schools) suggests that over 5 years the figures are correct.
@Rob7Lee whilst I disagree with most of what you post I think you set out your reasons and show an ability to think things through (although I am still waiting for a response to the five year funding cuts for schools! (smiley thing)).
But don't you think Corbyn is playing the long game here? He is putting pressure on the Tories and May and he is getting out the message that he and Labour are ready to govern. It is the classic Tory tactic with a twist, he will say we are ready to govern in the next few days it will be all over the news and when the Tory coalition of chaos crumbles (as it will) people will remember the 'ready to govern' bit as that more than anything with ex-Labour voters is what held him back. The twist is that it keeps the awful coalition in the news and keeps the pressure up.
The message is not aimed at you who would never vote for him.
Long game or not, lets just imagine he had the largest majority just 8 short seats of a full majority and May had 60 less seats than him. If she came out with the tripe in that interview he did as others in Labour have as well as Corbyn she would be derided.
By all means say as a party you are ready to govern WHEN you get that mandate at the next election etc, you can spin away but at least be honest ( I know thats hard for most politicians but actually thought Corbyn probably was in the main). To say it now, and to say they won (numerous times), conservators lost the election, he says things like 'we were elected' I could transcript it for you if you like, but seriously, can anyone listen to that 5 minute interview and say he hasn't lost the plot ........ I know a fair few people who voted labour who agree 'what is he going on about'.
On Education i'm waiting for some numbers to come through, having spoken to two Lewisham Heads they have confirmed that from their understanding the school cuts website, for their school is incorrect by some margin. I've also made contact with the school cuts website but as yet have had no response. But then it's the NUT and they don't like me much! but thats another story.
On MI5/Armed police, there is plenty official information on this for McDonnell and Abbot come to that. As an example one letter he signed (would need to check on Abbot) said;
"Expand democracy. A federal republic of Britain: abolish the monarchy and House of Lords. Votes at 16. Re-empower local government. Extend civil liberties and rights to organise and protest. Disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police"
an other part;
"Slash military spending: scrap Trident. Aid for working-class and democratic movements around the world, not support for dictatorships and imperialism."
On Labours wonderful comments about forming a minority government, all very noble, except when it comes to anything in parliament you need a majority and therefore it would be a very dangerous position to put the country in.
Very interested to see your schools spending evidence as my mini research (about 8 schools) suggests that over 5 years the figures are correct.
If I can get hold of the data will let you know, from the 'little' I have/understand right now and the nod & a wink I was given was that the school cuts website doesn't include pupil premium which could make sense as the head that told me their school gets nearly 300k which is more than what the cuts say they will lose. My main knowledge is in Primary so i'd have to do some research on secondary and in particular Post 16.
Some insight in the link below on what the DUP may want from the Tories for it's support, plus why one of it's key requirements - Brexit while maintaining a 'frictionless' border with the south - is contradictory and effectively unachievable:
You've said this previously and it just isn't true, there are a number of models that would allow us to leave the EU without imposing a hard border - the Norway model is the most obvious.
I think you miss the point which as I said is the contradictory and effectively unachievable Brexit aims of the DUP - on whom the Tories now depend.
If you read the article I linked it pointed out that the DUP wants “proper border controls and a tougher immigration policy”, whilst at the same time:
"The DUP, like every other Northern Irish party, wants to keep the current free-flowing border with the Republic of Ireland. But the peril in that stance is that – in order to secure the UK’s borders and to regulate the flow of goods – passport and customs control would be implemented at ports between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Last year I asked Arlene Foster about that prospect of citizens having to use a passport to travel within their own country and she ruled it out categorically as “a red line for us”.
At the launch of the party’s manifesto a fortnight ago, Nigel Dodds, the DUP’s Westminster leader, repeated that assurance, telling me: “We’re not leaving the European Union to get rid of some of its shackles to impose more restrictions between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom – we’re certainly not doing that.”
At Prime Minister’s Questions last November, Mr Dodds asked Mrs May if she could guarantee that Brexit “will not result in any change, alteration or impeding of the way regions, countries and people within the UK connect with one another”. The Prime Minister responded: “I’m very happy to give the Right Honourable Gentleman that assurance in relation to movement around the United Kingdom. There is no change that is going to take place.”
Marrying that assurance with the DUP’s desire not to see the Irish border at the Irish border will not be easy"
However, if it's the Norway- Sweden border arrangements that you're referring to, according to the following article:
"Despite flattering remarks from Belfast, officials in Sweden and Norway are wary about being dragged into the Brexit debate.
Nordic historical tensions lie further back than the Troubles, they point out, while Norway – like Sweden – is a member of Europe’s Schengen passport-free travel area, meaning there are no immigration controls between the two countries.
Simplifying matters further, Norway is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), an associate member status which Brexit campaigners have flagged as an option for the UK and Northern Ireland. But that is not a certainty.
“Without Norway in the EEA things would be more complicated for customs checks,” said Mr Magnusson of Swedish customs. “Without Norway in the EEA, ours would be a normal third-country border.”
It is the difficulty in squaring these contradictory circles and satisfying both wings of the Tories and the DUP (and the electorate) that I was highlighting.
@Rob7Lee I agree with you. I was saying that the only thing that would make it dangerous is following party lines. In principle it should work as it represents the consensus of the electoral vote, even if fptp distorts the vote share to form majorities.
Without getting too deep into it I don't believe the consensus in terms of political spectrum is that wide in this country, we have a lot of shared values on the left and right. It is parties and the whips that make the distinction. Even in the house there is cross-over within the parties themselves. I don't disagree with everything you say for instance.
I suppose ultimately I am sick of the electorate not asking more of their politicians and it saddens me how many people are happy to governed by people parroting three second sound bites because it is what they have come to expect of modern politics.
More convinced then ever we'll end up at a minimum in the EEA, and it's still reasonable to think we may just stay with an emergency break on immigration within the EU
Shami Chakrabarti just said on Question Time that Jeremy Corbyn won the election !
There are far too many fantasists about. (sorry fantasists no offence intended).
And the other lady just called May a robot and Corbyn a clown! Why is it I always seem to agree with whoever isn't a politician......
What the arrogant daily mail reporter - you must be so proud agreeing with her.
We know how many seats Corbyn got, just because we are saying he has won from the undertsanding we have what as happened, I can't see why others are so bothered about it? If you need an explanation, this will be my last because a closed mind can't grasp simple facts - but here goes. At the start of this election there were question marks about Corbyn's position, was he a leader, can Labour survive. It is after all the reason May called the election.
The tories had a major bounce at the expense of UKIP and increased their percentage share - that part of May's calculations were correct. But in the space of 7 weeks, we have found a leader. The more people that just read the crap that is thrown at him and don't study the facts, the less they will understand. An unelectable leader of a dying party at war with itself 7 weeks ago - 20 to 25 points behind in teh polls and the local election results backed this up.
7 Weeks later, the dying party is vibrant - no longer at war with itself. It has found an inspirational leader and broken all the old rules. The young have started to find their voice and they like it. The genie can not be put back in the bottle- thinking about this as just another election is missing the underlying message. The Conservative party is now the party atr war - the coming weeks and months will show this. Kensington and Chelsea voted Labour for the first time ever.Kensington and Chelsea. Victory is the transformation in both parties and that is why we feel like we have won.
Please feel free to disagree, but understand why and if we are proven wrong - so be it. But it isn't rocket science really.
I and I think the vast majority would agree with all of this. It is not in dispute.
The point you are not grasping is Corbyn, Chakrabarti and others were not saying we did so well, we feel like we won even though we didn't. They are saying we won. Corbyn went further, saying he would form a government without making any deals.
Anyone remember Jose Mouhrino claiming Chelsea were unbeaten at home under him, even though Charlton had won there (albeit I think in extra time) ?
The forming a government claim is tactical. It is sending a message that this unelectable person could form a government if the Tories decided not to get into bed with terrorist sympathisers. That is a message to people in the Labour party as well as the public. Of course, the getting into bed with terrorist sympathisers is going to help Labour form a majority government sooner rather than later.
I really can't see how people are so bothered about Corbyn, Chakrabarti and even I thinking we have won. If you set a target and massively exceed it, it feels like you have won. If you disagree that is fine, but it only shows yourself up if it bothers you.
It does bother me, in exactly the same way as it still rankles that Mouhrino said Chelsea had never lost at home under him, even though Charlton beat them.
What can I say. People talking nonsense rankles with me (that's Corbyn & Chakrabarti not you dear chap).
@Rob7Lee whilst I disagree with most of what you post I think you set out your reasons and show an ability to think things through (although I am still waiting for a response to the five year funding cuts for schools! (smiley thing)).
But don't you think Corbyn is playing the long game here? He is putting pressure on the Tories and May and he is getting out the message that he and Labour are ready to govern. It is the classic Tory tactic with a twist, he will say we are ready to govern in the next few days it will be all over the news and when the Tory coalition of chaos crumbles (as it will) people will remember the 'ready to govern' bit as that more than anything with ex-Labour voters is what held him back. The twist is that it keeps the awful coalition in the news and keeps the pressure up.
The message is not aimed at you who would never vote for him.
Long game or not, lets just imagine he had the largest majority just 8 short seats of a full majority and May had 60 less seats than him. If she came out with the tripe in that interview he did as others in Labour have as well as Corbyn she would be derided.
By all means say as a party you are ready to govern WHEN you get that mandate at the next election etc, you can spin away but at least be honest ( I know thats hard for most politicians but actually thought Corbyn probably was in the main). To say it now, and to say they won (numerous times), conservators lost the election, he says things like 'we were elected' I could transcript it for you if you like, but seriously, can anyone listen to that 5 minute interview and say he hasn't lost the plot ........ I know a fair few people who voted labour who agree 'what is he going on about'.
On Education i'm waiting for some numbers to come through, having spoken to two Lewisham Heads they have confirmed that from their understanding the school cuts website, for their school is incorrect by some margin. I've also made contact with the school cuts website but as yet have had no response. But then it's the NUT and they don't like me much! but thats another story.
On MI5/Armed police, there is plenty official information on this for McDonnell and Abbot come to that. As an example one letter he signed (would need to check on Abbot) said;
"Expand democracy. A federal republic of Britain: abolish the monarchy and House of Lords. Votes at 16. Re-empower local government. Extend civil liberties and rights to organise and protest. Disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police"
an other part;
"Slash military spending: scrap Trident. Aid for working-class and democratic movements around the world, not support for dictatorships and imperialism."
On Labours wonderful comments about forming a minority government, all very noble, except when it comes to anything in parliament you need a majority and therefore it would be a very dangerous position to put the country in.
Very interested to see your schools spending evidence as my mini research (about 8 schools) suggests that over 5 years the figures are correct.
If I can get hold of the data will let you know, from the 'little' I have/understand right now and the nod & a wink I was given was that the school cuts website doesn't include pupil premium which could make sense as the head that told me their school gets nearly 300k which is more than what the cuts say they will lose. My main knowledge is in Primary so i'd have to do some research on secondary and in particular Post 16.
I see what you mean. When I first looked at this site a few months ago I am sure I read something that it included Pupil Premium and all other income for school and reflected changes to all including cuts, increases and FF. But now I can't find that caveat.
My info comes from heads and teachers (some of it third hand) who confirm the % loss by 2022 (although I think some of the original research was up to 2020 but the election has changed the dates). I can only really talk of confidence bout Devon where schools and local Councillors have been outrage.
Would be interested to see any extra data that you may have access to although I guess we are both talking about a small sample.
Shami Chakrabarti just said on Question Time that Jeremy Corbyn won the election !
There are far too many fantasists about. (sorry fantasists no offence intended).
And the other lady just called May a robot and Corbyn a clown! Why is it I always seem to agree with whoever isn't a politician......
What the arrogant daily mail reporter - you must be so proud agreeing with her.
We know how many seats Corbyn got, just because we are saying he has won from the undertsanding we have what as happened, I can't see why others are so bothered about it? If you need an explanation, this will be my last because a closed mind can't grasp simple facts - but here goes. At the start of this election there were question marks about Corbyn's position, was he a leader, can Labour survive. It is after all the reason May called the election.
The tories had a major bounce at the expense of UKIP and increased their percentage share - that part of May's calculations were correct. But in the space of 7 weeks, we have found a leader. The more people that just read the crap that is thrown at him and don't study the facts, the less they will understand. An unelectable leader of a dying party at war with itself 7 weeks ago - 20 to 25 points behind in teh polls and the local election results backed this up.
7 Weeks later, the dying party is vibrant - no longer at war with itself. It has found an inspirational leader and broken all the old rules. The young have started to find their voice and they like it. The genie can not be put back in the bottle- thinking about this as just another election is missing the underlying message. The Conservative party is now the party atr war - the coming weeks and months will show this. Kensington and Chelsea voted Labour for the first time ever.Kensington and Chelsea. Victory is the transformation in both parties and that is why we feel like we have won.
Please feel free to disagree, but understand why and if we are proven wrong - so be it. But it isn't rocket science really.
I and I think the vast majority would agree with all of this. It is not in dispute.
The point you are not grasping is Corbyn, Chakrabarti and others were not saying we did so well, we feel like we won even though we didn't. They are saying we won. Corbyn went further, saying he would form a government without making any deals.
Anyone remember Jose Mouhrino claiming Chelsea were unbeaten at home under him, even though Charlton had won there (albeit I think in extra time) ?
The forming a government claim is tactical. It is sending a message that this unelectable person could form a government if the Tories decided not to get into bed with terrorist sympathisers. That is a message to people in the Labour party as well as the public. Of course, the getting into bed with terrorist sympathisers is going to help Labour form a majority government sooner rather than later.
I really can't see how people are so bothered about Corbyn, Chakrabarti and even I thinking we have won. If you set a target and massively exceed it, it feels like you have won. If you disagree that is fine, but it only shows yourself up if it bothers you.
It does bother me, in exactly the same way as it still rankles that Mouhrino said Chelsea had never lost at home under him, even though Charlton beat them.
What can I say. People talking nonsense rankles with me (that's Corbyn & Chakrabarti not you dear chap).
No-one won the election, just like 2010. But the biggest winners were Labour and the biggest losers were the Conservatives: there can be no doubt about that.
Yep. We're supposed to be starting the Brexit negotiations in less than a fortnight, and we're pissing about with all this bullshit, which would have been totally unnecessary if Theresa May, David Davis and co had got on with doing their homework, rather than playing silly buggers for their own political advantage.
Comments
She should resign but of course honour and accepting that "the buck stops here" mentality are not happy bedfellows with politicians.
Whether they're '(st)able' is another thing....
That is a very good description. Did you know it endorsed the Lib Demos in this election?
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/unlikely-may-seem-dup-planning-day/
The Economist took a sharp downturn up to about a year ago when I stopped buying it. Has it improved now?
@mcgrandall what do you think would happen if theres was government by consensus, my guess would be with two parties controlling 90% of the house (say roughly 47%/40%) nothing would ever get agreed, say when Labour propose to Parliament, to increase taxes...... with a minority it will just get shut down, just like most other things, so then what? It would be a car crash, it's going to be a bit of one anyway...... the countries in a poorer state post election.
I know what you mean though I think it has been steadily declining for a few years possibly longer as it was the kind of thing I would only read at hotels and airports. I used to look out for it but stopped bothering.
My response was probably a bit misleading as I was solely answering the point about why Labour was saying that they could/should form a government. Re-reading that was not clear, but whatever the rights and wrongs (and it might well be wrong) I was just trying to explain why I think they might be doing it. Time will tell if it works, but as said we are almost certainly not the target audience although you did say that you previously voted for them.
Very interested to see your schools spending evidence as my mini research (about 8 schools) suggests that over 5 years the figures are correct.
I think you miss the point which as I said is the contradictory and effectively unachievable Brexit aims of the DUP - on whom the Tories now depend.
If you read the article I linked it pointed out that the DUP wants “proper border controls and a tougher immigration policy”, whilst at the same time:
"The DUP, like every other Northern Irish party, wants to keep the current free-flowing border with the Republic of Ireland. But the peril in that stance is that – in order to secure the UK’s borders and to regulate the flow of goods – passport and customs control would be implemented at ports between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Last year I asked Arlene Foster about that prospect of citizens having to use a passport to travel within their own country and she ruled it out categorically as “a red line for us”.
At the launch of the party’s manifesto a fortnight ago, Nigel Dodds, the DUP’s Westminster leader, repeated that assurance, telling me: “We’re not leaving the European Union to get rid of some of its shackles to impose more restrictions between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom – we’re certainly not doing that.”
At Prime Minister’s Questions last November, Mr Dodds asked Mrs May if she could guarantee that Brexit “will not result in any change, alteration or impeding of the way regions, countries and people within the UK connect with one another”. The Prime Minister responded: “I’m very happy to give the Right Honourable Gentleman that assurance in relation to movement around the United Kingdom. There is no change that is going to take place.”
Marrying that assurance with the DUP’s desire not to see the Irish border at the Irish border will not be easy"
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/unlikely-may-seem-dup-planning-day/
As for the 'Norway model', which is often cited, according to the following link:
"Norway is also outside the EU, but is a member of the (EEA). As such, Norway must apply the same free movement rules as EU member states"
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/immigration-and-justice/norway-and-switzerland/
However, if it's the Norway- Sweden border arrangements that you're referring to, according to the following article:
"Despite flattering remarks from Belfast, officials in Sweden and Norway are wary about being dragged into the Brexit debate.
Nordic historical tensions lie further back than the Troubles, they point out, while Norway – like Sweden – is a member of Europe’s Schengen passport-free travel area, meaning there are no immigration controls between the two countries.
Simplifying matters further, Norway is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), an associate member status which Brexit campaigners have flagged as an option for the UK and Northern Ireland. But that is not a certainty.
“Without Norway in the EEA things would be more complicated for customs checks,” said Mr Magnusson of Swedish customs. “Without Norway in the EEA, ours would be a normal third-country border.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/close-sweden-norway-ties-despite-eu-border-dividing-them-1.2683072
It is the difficulty in squaring these contradictory circles and satisfying both wings of the Tories and the DUP (and the electorate) that I was highlighting.
Without getting too deep into it I don't believe the consensus in terms of political spectrum is that wide in this country, we have a lot of shared values on the left and right. It is parties and the whips that make the distinction. Even in the house there is cross-over within the parties themselves. I don't disagree with everything you say for instance.
I suppose ultimately I am sick of the electorate not asking more of their politicians and it saddens me how many people are happy to governed by people parroting three second sound bites because it is what they have come to expect of modern politics.
What can I say. People talking nonsense rankles with me (that's Corbyn & Chakrabarti not you dear chap).
My info comes from heads and teachers (some of it third hand) who confirm the % loss by 2022 (although I think some of the original research was up to 2020 but the election has changed the dates). I can only really talk of confidence bout Devon where schools and local Councillors have been outrage.
Would be interested to see any extra data that you may have access to although I guess we are both talking about a small sample.
Her war on privacy continues, she seems determined to do this stuff regardless of what happened.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40236152