That's useful this far out, because it makes people realise (for lack of a better word) that they can't give Labour a vote because it "won't matter".
It won't, but the narrative writes itself at the minute.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
That's useful this far out, because it makes people realise (for lack of a better word) that they can't give Labour a vote because it "won't matter".
It won't, but the narrative writes itself at the minute.
I reckon Corbyn will get the 'fuck it!' vote that made Brexit/Trump possible, though it won't be enough to win. Saying that, May is such a shallow, diddering mess that there has to be a couple more slip ups to come, so let's just hope they're big'uns.
Brexit wasn't caused by that and neither was Trump, which is where our noble friends in the luvvie classes get it so wrong.
Brexit/Trump was about identity. A man who won't sing the national anthem, supports the killing of British citizens, appears to revile the Union flag, and wouldn't object if the country was run from Moscow is simply not going to win over the 'so-called' working class.
If you've got a duff hand and it's stick or twist, you're not going to stick. I was pro-Trump and pro-Brexit, but I'd much rather take the risk on Corbyn than face another five years of crap.
I'm really not saying anything controversial. There's no way that Jez can win. People decided a long time ago that he wasn't up to it, and you simply can't turn that around with a spend-free manifesto and a couple of high-profile Tory fuck-ups.
Polls always close during the campaign, but there will still be a heavy Tory win on June 8th. Lyndon Crosby knows what he's doing, although I imagine he's fucking FUMING at the minute.
There was some 'throwback' earlier today to this period in the 1997 campaign, where the Labour lead supposedly wobbled and the Tories thought they had a "fighting chance" to turn it around. Three weeks later and the Lord Blair was sauntering up to Number 10 on the back of a 180 seat majority.
If you were pro-Brexit, you're also not going to vote for a Labour party who are somewhat equivocal on Brexit and a leader who is non-commital on immigration. The Tories are taking about half of the 2015 UKIP vote alone, and you'd expect they'll hold onto that (perhaps even increase it) in the closing weeks. UKIP aren't standing in plenty of constituencies, and if the Tories take half of their vote across the board then plenty of Labour seats which were nominally safe are well in play.
I don't see such a turnaround when you've had fresh local elections.
Jez has had four tests at the ballot box since he became leader. Two sets of local elections (one poor, one dreadful), the EU referendum (where his official side lost and 'many' think it's his fault for clearly not giving a fuck), and the Scottish election where Labour contrived to finish behind the Tories.
There may be mitigating factors for all of these, but he's had 20 months in the job and every contact with actual votes has not gone well. It's not going to change now, particularly with crushing Tory leaders on economic management, Brexit negotiation and leadership (which, if May was up against someone half-competent, wouldn't be the case).
Opinion polls are fine, but actual votes matter - and he's been shit at that part.
I guess this time around he's actually in campaign mode. He might as well not have existed for the referendum. We actually get to see what the frig Corbyn's about.
He's always in campaign mode, that's his problem.
With expected timing, the Tory dead cats begin to make their way firmly onto people's tables:
Jezza is gaining in the polls, and is celebrating by blaming the terrorist attack on UK foreign policy.
The wallies are out in force with the 'How can it be our fault when 11/9 was BEFORE Iraq?' argument, as if Osama bin Laden was some mug who struggled with dates, and 'How come most of the victims are Muslim?', as if all non-state violence done anywhere is all for the same immediate tactical and strategic reasons. Basically, anyone who struggles with these things should be disqualified from holding any position of influence.
Anyway, wasn't Ed Miliband leading the polls until he wasn't? Still, you would lol if a load of greedy pensioners won it for Jezza, if only to watch the mimsy class having to square it with wanting them all dead eleven months ago.
That YouGov poll has probably caused Lynton Crosby's head to explode.
Looks a pretty soft surge to me (driven by non voters), however I think the one thing that really will damage May if it gains traction is the police cuts thing. Whatever other heinous stuff Corbyn will get up to, he won't cut the police and I think there will be a huge crime problem in the next 2-3 years (quite apart from terrorism) because of what she's done as Home Sec.
There's no way it holds. It's driven by non voters and young people, who'll presumably get bored of it all closer to the election. Labour MPs have also been able to get away with saying you can vote for them without worrying about Jez becoming PM. Tightening polls changes that. The Tories will still win a very solid majority, given there's very little evidence their own vote is fluctuating massively from within the margin of error at 45% average.
That said, there's clearly an issue with May not being very good. The social care thing was a disaster from start to finish, and completely unnecessary. She's lucky the choice is her or Jez, really.
I find a lot of how you lot talk to be pretty disingenuous. I can't quite put my finger on why though.
In what way disingenuous?
I can't quite place it. None of it reads much like a conversation of any kind, but a disjointed series of obfuscated observations and references that seem largely self-serving in a back-patting, "we're proper knowledgeable, us lot" kind of way, rather than being any kind of honest attempt to actually discuss anything.
As I say, I can't quite pinpoint it and maybe I'll put it better later, or maybe someone else can express it better.
We've spent the last 7 years being right about elections on here (GS's pathetic Labour supporting phase aside), cut us some slack.
Statistically, one poll can be an outlier, so I wouldn't take too much notice unless there are others. Still, nice to see Tories sweat.
That was more than seven years ago, I'm pleased to say. I was still a student when I was pro left. It was actually going to work and going out to various companies etc as part of the job that made me realise it was all bollocks.
Hammer - it's not disingenuous. We follow polling, know historical turnout for different segments etc. None of this is rocket science. The warning signs are all there for the Labour vote being very soft.
Incidentally I think the social care nonsense will lose her about 5-10 seats, and the Manchester attack will have no effect either way (unless Jeremy really ballses it up).
I'm a big one for people's jobs informing their political views (which is why arts people, who rely on government handouts, are all lefties as are charities, academics and public sector workers).
People scrapping for their own money out there in the big wide world tend to be more likely to vote Tory.
The positive from the poll tightening is that it prevents Tory complacency. They'll go very, very heavy on his views on defence, security and terrorist apology now. Plus they can leverage the unpopularity of the SNP and Lib Dems dictating terms to him to swing votes in the marginals.
I think the two key stats here are 1) that the 65+ vote for the Tories is steady in the late sixties, suggesting little actual impact from the social care policy, and 2) they're now getting over 50% of the 2015 UKIP vote.
She'll win by 13, I think.
It's not just that, but you go out to a big company and see how well their internal controls are working, that it's not run by robots determined to shaft the proletarians and, more importantly, the sheer number of people they employ.
You stop buying the rhetoric that you did when you were at university and didn't know any better. It's why people like Corbyn make me suspicious. Holding the same view you did at university suggests a lack of intellectual rigour.
You wouldn't, hence May will get away with it, but she won't get away with it mid term onwards next time.
There is a crime surge coming.
She'll go in three and a half years, I reckon.
I don't know. She seems like the clinging on in the bunker type.
They'll knife her. It's not as if you could let her lead you into the next election on the evidence of this complete clusterfuck.
It also may, just possibly, be the other way around, with them having values and, just perhaps, seeking out jobs that are in line with those values.
What is a value? I probably have identical 'values' to you.
I believe in fairness.
Lots of people, if not most, don't have a massive degree of choice in the matter. Bit of both, as ever.
Oh right, so it's both. Ok.
Do you even try to be consistent?
I said above that one thing happens. That doesn't mean that another thing doesn't also happen.
Cats exist, and so does rice.
You could say they aren't mutually exclusive.
@John have I got that right? This is my moment to shine.
It's a great example of what I was referring to earlier, really. How about just expressing your perspective?
I said that earlier, but my actual point isn't that, it's actually that with elements of this
Um ok.
It's a case of recognising people have self interest. Parties of the left are looser with public money, ergo if you rely on it for your job / livelihood then you're more likely to support the party who are going to give you more of it.
If you're in the private sector, policies which make it easier for your business / employer to grow and spend their money on you through development, promotion, and pay increases are going to sound better. The money goes to you as an employee and not too the exchequer to be redirected to the aforesaid public money recipients. You'll also be less interested in arguments about welfare etc. when you're the one whose taxes are paying for it.
I would imagine this is quite normal.
It's almost like having people understanding precisely what is meant isn't even the point.
I've assumed it was due to stupidity, and then due to poor expression. I'm starting to think that even if it's a throwaway, half-baked observation that adds very little to anything, people really think that's it's worth something and that people are interested. Self-absorption, then? Or a complete lack of any self-awareness whatsoever? Do people really think that their perspective is important, in and of itself, even if it adds nothing to the conversation? That's the only explanation I can think of for people expressing themselves in this way.
GS's post further up is a good example of it too. I mean, he's basically just parroted what you've said and added literally nothing to conversation that wasn't there already. Why would he post it? I don't know. I don't think anyone will know.
And then you look through the thread and wonder why it's become a circle-jerk between about four people rather than an interesting conversation about an important subject. I'm guessing most other members chat about this stuff elsewhere.
I posted it because you appeared to be incapable of understanding his quite basic point.
There are only five posters in the thread with more than fifty posts. One of them is Henners, one of them is some bot that reproduces shit Twitter snark and Guardian extracts, and the others - with over a hundred each - are GS, Floyd, and me. Is it all that surprising that we might tend towards addressing each other rather than the wider universe?