United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:37:29 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 69
Author Topic: United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019  (Read 135832 times)
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #875 on: November 24, 2019, 01:51:20 PM »

So every poll in the last 48 hours gives a Tory lead of 10-13 points. With just one rather glaring exception.
Logged
Roblox
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,245


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #876 on: November 24, 2019, 01:57:30 PM »

The labour manifesto didn't change much, and I suspect the Tory one won't either. They already seem to have most of the leave vote and are close to maxed out, and I doubt theres anything that will cause people to abandon them like the dementia tax last time.

I guess labour will have to hope Boris Johnson unlocks his closet and lets Rees-Mogg out or something Tongue
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #877 on: November 24, 2019, 02:21:00 PM »

The remaining Labour hope is that the current polls are actually a bit out, and tbf they *may* be.

Canvassing accounts from their people on the ground can be described as "mixed", but maybe on the side of doing just a bit better than polls are saying rather than the opposite.

And mostly younger voters continue to register in large numbers, with 2 more days to go.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,624
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #878 on: November 24, 2019, 09:30:51 PM »

The New Statesman article is an excellent example of this weird double-thought when it comes to the Lib Dems, who are supposed to simultaneously be treading water compared to 2017 (the article predicts 14 seats, so only +2 nationally) but also be challenging in a bunch of safely Tory Remain seats and be on the verge of throwing out Raab and Johnson. Either of those could be true, but it's really hard to imagine a world where both are. (Like, at that point we have to imagine that Umunna and Chuka and Luciana and whoever they're running in Wimbledon and St. Albans and a few Cambridgeshire candidates have all won, even if it doesn't say much about their odds in St. Ives or Eastbourne.)
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,624
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #879 on: November 24, 2019, 10:40:36 PM »


Chuka Umunna is a single person, as much as his baffling political transgressions over the past few years might suggest otherwise. Tongue

I agree with the bulk of your argument, though: A LD surge that takes out BoJo is a particularly deranged fantasy. A net loss for the LDs compared to their current total but not their 2017 result is basically guaranteed, as far as I'm concerned.

Meant Gyimah, embarrassingly enough Tongue

I find it hard to imagine them not making it to the mid-20s or so on present numbers; if they win 12 seats on 7%, they should win 24 seats on 14% (which is on the lower end of current polling) assuming their vote stays as efficient as it was in 2017; if anything given that their gains are among strong Remainers, who tend to be a pretty geographically concentrated demographic, I'd expect them to get *more* efficient. (I'd bet on ~30 seats or so, I think).

But I can't imagine the world that some Labour supporters/the editors of the New Statesman seem to be suggesting where they're on 14 seats but are taking Esher & Walton, Wokingham, and Chingford & Wood Green. Surely some Lib Dem seats will come in constituencies without prominent Tories running?
Logged
Walmart_shopper
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,515
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #880 on: November 25, 2019, 01:31:40 AM »


Chuka Umunna is a single person, as much as his baffling political transgressions over the past few years might suggest otherwise. Tongue

I agree with the bulk of your argument, though: A LD surge that takes out BoJo is a particularly deranged fantasy. A net loss for the LDs compared to their current total but not their 2017 result is basically guaranteed, as far as I'm concerned.

Meant Gyimah, embarrassingly enough Tongue

I find it hard to imagine them not making it to the mid-20s or so on present numbers; if they win 12 seats on 7%, they should win 24 seats on 14% (which is on the lower end of current polling) assuming their vote stays as efficient as it was in 2017; if anything given that their gains are among strong Remainers, who tend to be a pretty geographically concentrated demographic, I'd expect them to get *more* efficient. (I'd bet on ~30 seats or so, I think).

But I can't imagine the world that some Labour supporters/the editors of the New Statesman seem to be suggesting where they're on 14 seats but are taking Esher & Walton, Wokingham, and Chingford & Wood Green. Surely some Lib Dem seats will come in constituencies without prominent Tories running?
 

I'm sure part of it is that the LibDem's support may he almost comically disproportionate, largely bottled up in quaint and insulated remain constituencies in London--the sort of people who can't fathom supporting Jezza the supposed British Hugo Chavez but also can't fathom supporting a Tory party taken over by what they see as xenophobic chavs taking away their remain-y multinational corporate European dream. Obviously, there are only a precious few places like this, but it is entirely possible that the LibDems may do quite well in them even as they do poorly nationally.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #881 on: November 25, 2019, 04:58:13 AM »


Chuka Umunna is a single person, as much as his baffling political transgressions over the past few years might suggest otherwise. Tongue

I agree with the bulk of your argument, though: A LD surge that takes out BoJo is a particularly deranged fantasy. A net loss for the LDs compared to their current total but not their 2017 result is basically guaranteed, as far as I'm concerned.

Meant Gyimah, embarrassingly enough Tongue

I find it hard to imagine them not making it to the mid-20s or so on present numbers; if they win 12 seats on 7%, they should win 24 seats on 14% (which is on the lower end of current polling) assuming their vote stays as efficient as it was in 2017; if anything given that their gains are among strong Remainers, who tend to be a pretty geographically concentrated demographic, I'd expect them to get *more* efficient. (I'd bet on ~30 seats or so, I think).

But I can't imagine the world that some Labour supporters/the editors of the New Statesman seem to be suggesting where they're on 14 seats but are taking Esher & Walton, Wokingham, and Chingford & Wood Green. Surely some Lib Dem seats will come in constituencies without prominent Tories running?

One of the issues here is that you're confusing what seats they're actually targeting - Chingford & Woodford Green is a Tory v. Labour contest, though possibly you're mixing it up with Hornsey & Wood Green?

Another is that the polling doesn't show them winning Esher & Walton, it shows them getting reasonably close and potentially being in reach if they can squeeze the Labour vote more effectively.

And the third reason is that if they're consolidating affluent remainers in southern England so effectively but doing poorly elsewhere, it may mean that they're losing several seats they already hold - several of their MPs have quite small majorities and are in fairly leave-y territory.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #882 on: November 25, 2019, 06:27:24 AM »

Speaking of that, what Lib Dem seats are in danger of flipping? Because looking at their 2017 seats I am not sure how many are actually in danger. My extremely uninformed ratings would be something like this, italics for leave seats:

Bath: Safe LD
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross: Safe LD
Carshalton and Wallington: Tossup

East Dunbartonshire: Safe LD
Eastbourne: Tossup
Edinburgh West: Safe LD
Kingston and Surbiton: Safe LD
North Norfolk: Lean Tory
Orkney and Shetland: Safe LD
Oxford West and Abingdon: Safe LD
Twickenham: Safe LD
Westmoreland and Lonsdale: Safe LD

So of their 12 seats in 2017 Lib Dems won 4 Leave seats. Of them the Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross seat should be safe, considering it's an SNP vs Lib Dem battle (or possibly a 3 way with the Tories?) I don't think Brexit will influence much that seat

As for the other 3, 2 of them are pure tossups with only North Norfolk being an unlikely hold. In a worst case scenario they would lose 3 of their seats, which considering they probably make more than 3 pickups elsewhere (NE Fife and Richmond Park are essencially Safe LD now) it would still be a positive for them, even if the result would still be a massive disappointment.
Logged
DaWN
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,370
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #883 on: November 25, 2019, 07:09:39 AM »

The idea that the Lib Dems are only doing well with affluent Londoners is pretty disingenuous. They are clearly targeting a certain type of voter that fits that mould but they certainly exist across the country (being concentrated more in London and the SE, which is true, is not the same as just existing there) and give them a solid path to a seat total in the low-twenties, which was always the realistic goal (the idea they were going to do better than Clegg in 2010 was always fanciful). The path to 20 seats is probably as follows:

Hold 11 of 12 2017 seats (Aside from North Norfolk, all are varying degrees of safe apart from Eastbourne, which will be tough but Lloyd has a good shot of pulling it off)
Richmond Park
NE Fife
Cheltenham
St Albans
Winchester
Sheffield Hallam
Cheadle
Ceredigion
Hold Brecon & Radnorshire

The secondary targets any one of which can make up for a loss in Eastbourne or will just signify a pretty good night overall (no particular order but in general the easier ones are towards the top):
Hazel Grove
Guildford
Esher & Walton
Cambridge
Leeds NW
St Ives
Wells
Lewes
Cities of L&W
Kensington
Finchley & Golders Green
Ross, Skye & Lochaber
Wokingham
Totnes (?)
Romford (ha just kidding)

So a net gain compared to dissolution is far from impossible, although far from guaranteed either of course. I'd be happy with 20; 10-15 would be very disappointing, 15-20 I'd be content with and 20-25 I'd be pretty ecstatic with. Any higher than that is unrealistic.

Of course, the other main goal the Lib Dems have this election is something they failed miserably at in 2017: to get as many targets as possible for 2024. Even if they don't win Cities of L&W or Kensington or Wokingham or Esher & Walton, getting them close enough to be realistic targets next time is a good way of getting the party back on the road to 2005/2010 levels within three elections or so.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #884 on: November 25, 2019, 09:16:50 AM »

Speaking of that, what Lib Dem seats are in danger of flipping? Because looking at their 2017 seats I am not sure how many are actually in danger. My extremely uninformed ratings would be something like this, italics for leave seats:

Bath: Safe LD
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross: Safe LD
Carshalton and Wallington: Tossup

East Dunbartonshire: Safe LD
Eastbourne: Tossup
Edinburgh West: Safe LD
Kingston and Surbiton: Safe LD
North Norfolk: Lean Tory
Orkney and Shetland: Safe LD
Oxford West and Abingdon: Safe LD
Twickenham: Safe LD
Westmoreland and Lonsdale: Safe LD

So of their 12 seats in 2017 Lib Dems won 4 Leave seats. Of them the Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross seat should be safe, considering it's an SNP vs Lib Dem battle (or possibly a 3 way with the Tories?) I don't think Brexit will influence much that seat

As for the other 3, 2 of them are pure tossups with only North Norfolk being an unlikely hold. In a worst case scenario they would lose 3 of their seats, which considering they probably make more than 3 pickups elsewhere (NE Fife and Richmond Park are essencially Safe LD now) it would still be a positive for them, even if the result would still be a massive disappointment.


I don't think you can realistically say that anybody with a majority under 1000 is safe. I would in particular note that the SNP seems to be doing better than in 2017 (and in the case of Edinburgh West, they also won't have the backlash from Michelle Thomson to deal with this time round.) Farron will probably do better this time, as he will have been able to devote more time to constituent service, but I wouldn't guarantee it. And Moran will probably be OK, but the Tory floor in the seat is pretty high and the poor level of LD-Labour relations may mean she struggles to get the levels of tactical voting she got last time, so it's at risk if the LDs underperform their current polling and the Tories overperform theirs.
Logged
DaWN
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,370
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #885 on: November 25, 2019, 09:30:41 AM »

I seriously don't see much of a chance of the Lib Dems losing Remainy, middle class seats like Edinburgh West and Oxford West & Abingdon while their national vote share is more than doubled from 2017. That's really not how these things work. Talk of Carshalton baffles me as well - if Brake could survive the last two elections, I really see no reason why he'd lose this time around. With his leadership a distant memory, Farron probably won't struggle either, and people are making a mistake if they're assuming Westmoreland is a typical rural seat.

The vulnerable Lib Dem seats right now are North Norfolk and Eastbourne - any further than that and we're in meltdown territory that polling at the moment isn't backing up.
Logged
Arkansas Yankee
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,175
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #886 on: November 25, 2019, 10:31:55 AM »

Two British firms move assets overseas to avoid Corbyn’s threat of nationalization.  That is how to build an economy.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/10417047/britains-power-firms-abroad-protect-labour-nationalisation/
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,724


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #887 on: November 25, 2019, 10:55:28 AM »

I think it is right to say that the worlds where the Lib-Dems make huge gains in the 'slice' of West London and the world where the Lib-Dems remain in the teens are mutually exclusive. I have already mentioned before how the Lib-Dems seat totals are hard to predict because of 'activation' and how if their voters are not activated by a targeted Lib-Dem campaign then they scatter. With this in mind, I m going to say that right now my personal model/prediction has the Lib-Dems in the mid-30s, which is far higher than anyone else. This however is all because of that wealthy slice  of London I keep going on about. Outside of London the Lib-Dems aren't doing that much better than the usual models, and all their gains are coming from the usual suspects like Winchester, Colchester, Sheff-Hallam, and St. Albans. Perhaps it's closer to their 'high-end' outside of London, but this is more to square with what is going on inside the city. Currently I am saying that the Lib-Dems walk away with more than 10 seats from London, mostly from the Tories but some from Labour. Together, the Lib-Dems and Labour push the conservatives to their 'bleed-over' seats along the edges of the city that hold more similarities to the SE/E than the city.

Now, there is a reason why I always perk up at the mention of this 'slice,' why I never shirk from discussions concerning it's vote, why I keep posting the constituency polls from the region, and why I have it all going Orange. In my eyes, wealthy West London is going to not only determine the Lib-Dems future as a party, it's the key to this entire election. So lets tackle each of those:

Lib Dems Future: Since the demise of the coalition the Lib-Dems have lacked any seats they can truly call their 'base.' Old strongholds in the celtic fringe isn't coming back in the numbers it did before. The Lib-Dems, both locally and nationally have therefore been a party of locals and targeted issues. This isn't sustainable, especially if polarizing culture wars issues are to dominate the entire island. Leafy West London offers the Lib-Dems a launchpad towards a future base and a future niche. The area is too wealthy for Corbyn's populism, but too Remain for BoJo's Leave. This all seems like a natural fit for the Lib-Dems, and it can grow into a base if the Tories keep taking this nationalistic approach to politics in the future.

Key to the Election: Right now, constituency polls from the region are exactly what the Lib-Dems are hoping for. Throwing aside the uncertain topline, we see that a majority of voters, nearly all Llib-Dems and Labourites, along with some Tories, are primed to vote tactically. Fairly understandable considering the demographics of the region match with those demographics more attuned to the political winds. This means that once the Lib-Dems seriously get in there we may see voters get activated and seats start flipping. If you think West London is going to have a lot of Orange, than Boris's path gets that much harder. He loses 5-8 seats right there. If Corbyn ends up turning this thing around (a harder question to answer) than BoJo cannot afford to just write these off. If he is on track for a small majority, which is more likely right now, than losing these seats mean replacements need to be found in Wales and the N/NE. If you think the Lib-Dems have the ability to swipe a bunch of seats off the board for both parties than the other parties will need to work harder to get to a dominant position. Therefore, a vote in the 'Slice'  is likely to be the most powerful vote in the country, ahead of the Scottish seats and the universal-swing seats between Labour and the Conservatives.
Logged
Continential
The Op
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,543
Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -5.30

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #888 on: November 25, 2019, 11:11:46 AM »

Swinson is being attacked by everyone, and people have been saying sexist remarks about her, I think Clegg accepting being Deputy Leader was the worst thing to happen to the Lib Dems, because of the conservatives being conservatives and the Lib Dems voting for the measures.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,624
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #889 on: November 25, 2019, 11:49:33 AM »


Chuka Umunna is a single person, as much as his baffling political transgressions over the past few years might suggest otherwise. Tongue

I agree with the bulk of your argument, though: A LD surge that takes out BoJo is a particularly deranged fantasy. A net loss for the LDs compared to their current total but not their 2017 result is basically guaranteed, as far as I'm concerned.

Meant Gyimah, embarrassingly enough Tongue

I find it hard to imagine them not making it to the mid-20s or so on present numbers; if they win 12 seats on 7%, they should win 24 seats on 14% (which is on the lower end of current polling) assuming their vote stays as efficient as it was in 2017; if anything given that their gains are among strong Remainers, who tend to be a pretty geographically concentrated demographic, I'd expect them to get *more* efficient. (I'd bet on ~30 seats or so, I think).

But I can't imagine the world that some Labour supporters/the editors of the New Statesman seem to be suggesting where they're on 14 seats but are taking Esher & Walton, Wokingham, and Chingford & Wood Green. Surely some Lib Dem seats will come in constituencies without prominent Tories running?
 

I'm sure part of it is that the LibDem's support may he almost comically disproportionate, largely bottled up in quaint and insulated remain constituencies in London--the sort of people who can't fathom supporting Jezza the supposed British Hugo Chavez but also can't fathom supporting a Tory party taken over by what they see as xenophobic chavs taking away their remain-y multinational corporate European dream. Obviously, there are only a precious few places like this, but it is entirely possible that the LibDems may do quite well in them even as they do poorly nationally.

This is an FPTP election; the more bottled up in specific communities support is, the more seats you get out of it.

More broadly, if they've doubled their support (they've gone from 7% in 2017 to an average of 14.6% in the last 5 polls) they should be at least doubling their seat count. In general in the FPTP system votes become more efficient the more of them you have, and more efficient the more concentrated they are; the Lib Dem vote is expected to both double and become more concentrated to parts of London. So you should conservatively expect them to win double as many seats as they did last time around (which would be 24), unless you're assuming that their gains are concentrated in places they did poorly in 2017. Unlikely; it doesn't sound like anyone's ramping Thurrock.

Based on constituency polling (which I know is terrible, but comparing like with like here), their surge in West London might be very seat-specific, with them within striking distance in certain seats (C of L&W, Kensington, Wimbledon), but very far from winning others, like Chelsea.

Starting with the formation of the Alliance, here's how extrapolating from what percentage it took to win a seat last time around do for the Lib Dems:
1983: Toy model predicts every 1.25% wins a seat --> 20 seats. Alliance wins 23.
1987: Toy model predicts every 1.10% wins a seat --> 21 seats. Alliance wins 22.
1992: Toy model predicts every 1.03% wins a seat --> 17 seats. Lib Dems win 20.
1997: Toy model predicts every 0.89% wins a seat --> 19 seats. Lib Dems win 46 (!).
2001: Toy model predicts every 0.37% wins a seat --> 49 seats. Lib Dems win 52.
2005: Toy model predicts every 0.35% wins a seat --> 63 seats. Lib Dems win 62.
2010: Toy model predicts every 0.35% wins a seat --> 66 seats. Lib Dems win 57.
2015: Toy model predicts every 0.40% wins a seat --> 20 seats. Lib Dems win 8.
2017: Toy model predicts every 0.99% wins a seat --> 7 seats. Lib Dems win 12.

Broadly this basically always works except in 1997, when there was a large amount of pro-Lib Dem tactical voting, and in 2015, when there was a large amount of anti-Lib Dem tactical voting. (Clegg's 2010 campaign does not seem all that great by this metric either; by contrast Farron seems like he exercised a successful refocus on their heartlands at a time when the party should have lost seats and was facing extinction).

This model shows that Lib Dems won a seat for every 0.62% of the vote they won in 2017, so unless they become less efficient -- and winning more support almost always makes you more efficient -- you're going to forecast, on present polling numbers, 14.6%/0.62% --> 23.5 seats as a prediction you expect them to slightly outdo.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,724


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #890 on: November 25, 2019, 12:12:39 PM »
« Edited: November 25, 2019, 12:45:08 PM by Oryxslayer »



New welsh barometer poll from YouGov/ITV.

This is a gain of nine for Labour since early November, a gain of four for the Tories, down one for PC, down three for Lib Dems, down two for Greens, and down seven for Brexit. last time Labour led the barometer by 1 overall.

Now time for the downside for Labour: wales is one of the places where the Tories are far more vote efficient at the outset. Losing 11 points from 2017 will disproportionately effect those seats outside of the southern valley, so the combined opposition probably gains more than universal swing suggests. The welsh barometer from the same time period (two weeks out) of the 2017 campaign is presented below, subsequent barometers had Labour gain a tiny bit more:



The barometer was very accurate in 2017.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #891 on: November 25, 2019, 12:52:59 PM »

hahahahahahahaha



Maybe if they didn't have student loans to pay...
Logged
DaWN
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,370
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #892 on: November 25, 2019, 12:58:41 PM »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.
Logged
Walmart_shopper
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,515
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #893 on: November 25, 2019, 01:09:07 PM »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.

Loans to rent? That is absolutely the worst idea ever. And it's so LibDem. Let's help people by further burying them under our Thatcherite delusion. Have any LibDems, like, ever met a poor person before?
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,285


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #894 on: November 25, 2019, 01:13:30 PM »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.

Loans to rent? That is absolutely the worst idea ever. And it's so LibDem. Let's help people by further burying them under our Thatcherite delusion. Have any LibDems, like, ever met a poor person before?

Having difficulty coming up with a security deposit and various other upfront costs to renting because it's a large chunk of money to pay at once for people who have little or no savings is a regular poor-person problem, at least here in (an expensive city in) the U.S. Maybe it's different in the U.K., but the idea doesn't seem crazy or humorous. Certainly you *could* have a bad program with high interest rates and whatnot, but it doesn't seem presumptively bad.
Logged
DaWN
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,370
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #895 on: November 25, 2019, 01:16:41 PM »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.

Loans to rent? That is absolutely the worst idea ever. And it's so LibDem. Let's help people by further burying them under our Thatcherite delusion. Have any LibDems, like, ever met a poor person before?

I wasn't aware bad policies automatically created comedy. The Labour manifesto would be in line for a comedy award if that were the case. And there's a chance of that actually being implemented, unlike this, which is a dumb, vague soundbite and nothing more.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,724


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #896 on: November 25, 2019, 01:20:36 PM »



FTR, that fact that we are arguing about Labour and Lib-Dem proposals probably means that 2017 won't be repeated as far as 'dementia tax' and 'police cuts' are concerned. This unfortunately means the Tories likely win this media cycle, since May set the bar incredibly low manifesto-wise.
Logged
DaWN
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,370
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #897 on: November 25, 2019, 01:22:17 PM »



FTR, that fact that we are arguing about Labour and Lib-Dem proposals probably means that 2017 won't be repeated as far as 'dementia tax' and 'police cuts' are concerned. This unfortunately means the Tories likely win this media cycle, since May set the bar incredibly low manifesto-wise.

It was always unlikely. They might be idiots over at the Tory Party HQ but nobody is quite that stupid. It's been fairly clear it was going to be relatively uncontroversial this time. Relatively being the operative word of course, its still dreck from cover to cover.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #898 on: November 25, 2019, 03:29:54 PM »

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.

Loans to rent? That is absolutely the worst idea ever. And it's so LibDem. Let's help people by further burying them under our Thatcherite delusion. Have any LibDems, like, ever met a poor person before?

In particular, it is very easy for unscrupulous landlords to withhold security deposits, so effectively their flagship offer to renters is actually a subsidy to landlords.
Logged
DaWN
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,370
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #899 on: November 25, 2019, 04:12:17 PM »



Ouch. Someone needs to make an emergency delivery of ointment to Edinburgh.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 69  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 11 queries.