David Cameron's Tory govt has a record 27% lead over Corbyn's Labour shadow cabinet...

[Moshe Gariani]

labour won a bye election yesterday, not that you would know about it from the press. It doesn't fit the agenda. 52% of the turnout apparently. That's real people turning up to vote not phone calls.

shhhhh....

 

[Buzzer]

Still the worst government in a century. Possibly more but my history gets hazy after that.

That makes no sense at all.

Aside from the fact that Macdonald and Eden were far bigger ditherers, Callaghan and Heath were far more incompetent, Lloyd George completely ballsed up his end of the Versaille Treaty what with his hollow promise to pull Britain out of bankruptcy and the treaty itself and its management precipitating WWII and then you have Chamberlain's monumental error of judgement giving Germany a final kick towards war. You've also got Blair who was the first PM in God knows how long to use British forces to actually invade a foreign country and on extremely dodgy evidence and for even dodgier ends. These are all bloody awful legacies and Chamberlain's in particular.

But what really doesn't make sense is that you clearly hate the Tories and have done for a long long time. And with that in mind, apparently you think Cameron is a far more pernicious PM than Thatcher. Sorry, I don't believe you. I'm sure you do hate Cameron (and sorry but you are tribal about politics - if not you do a damn good impression of someone who is) but I think even Cameron's most vociferous opponents in the Labour Party would admit that compared to Thatcher, Cameron comes across as relatively benign.He's certainly a lot nearer the centre than Thatcher was.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

That makes no sense at all.

Aside from the fact that Macdonald and Eden were far bigger ditherers, Callaghan and Heath were far more incompetent, Lloyd George completely ballsed up his end of the Versaille Treaty what with his hollow promise to pull Britain out of bankruptcy and the treaty itself and its management precipitating WWII and then you have Chamberlain's monumental error of judgement giving Germany a final kick towards war. You've also got Blair who was the first PM in God knows how long to use British forces to actually invade a foreign country and on extremely dodgy evidence and for even dodgier ends. These are all bloody awful legacies and Chamberlain's in particular.

But what really doesn't make sense is that you clearly hate the Tories and have done for a long long time. And with that in mind, apparently you think Cameron is a far more pernicious PM than Thatcher. Sorry, I don't believe you. I'm sure you do hate Cameron (and sorry but you are tribal about politics - if not you do a damn good impression of someone who is) but I think even Cameron's most vociferous opponents in the Labour Party would admit that compared to Thatcher, Cameron comes across as relatively benign.He's certainly a lot nearer the centre than Thatcher was.

Cameron is for sure WAY far less right than the Thatcher bitch was, who should have come right out with it and said there was no such thing as humanity, let alone society.Cameron and Brown shared a common sorrow of a dead child and at least on that decent human bond they have a some sort of connection. Tho Cameron (and Osborne) are the front men for the disgusting ruling dynasty of money-grabbers, WAY beyond anything either of Cameron/Osborne could have ever advocated. Figureheads with probably well dodgy photos as a timely reminder as to who their paymasters are, should they ever decide to step out of line.

 

[heathgate]

Hehehe that's some imagination you have.
Lets face it they're only in power due to a fairly weak opposition at the last election and the rise of the scotch..

Its a bitch democracy, isn't it,..... though for the life of me I cannot see where whisky comes into it.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

So would it be feasible for this poll to have overestimated Tory support in an attempt to avoid a similarly laughable cock-up?

I think it's just my own distrust of polls here but I don't understand why this poll (or any poll, regardless of result) should be expected to be any more accurate than the one from the GE (it doesn't actually sound that wrong, but still).

Surely they've all got the potential to be taken from the wrong sample/have a dodgy methodology/be thoroughly lied to by participants?

I suppose anything is feasible but it is in polling companies interests to be as accurate as possible and in the main they are broadly accurate.

The polls were big news because they were wrong. In most elections they aren't the story because they called it correctly.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I can't see that Corbyn will remain as leader and fight GE 2020. What interests me is how long the Labour Party bigwigs will let their party drift under his tenure before they make a change.

There are potentially at least 3 or 4 good leaders but none of them wanted the job. Could a Jarvis or Umunna turn this situation around? Is the party so far behind that no one would want to take over from Corbyn if the party looks bound for certain defeat in GE2020?

And given Cameron has said he wouldn't seek a third term then to pit Corbyn against his successor would be naïve - Osborne would trash him, but against Jarvis or Umunna he'd have a genuine contest.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Hehehe that's some imagination you have.
Lets face it they're only in power due to a fairly weak opposition at the last election and the rise of the scotch..

I did say IF!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Labour won a bye election yesterday, not that you would know about it from the press. It doesn't fit the agenda. 52% of the turnout apparently. That's real people turning up to vote not phone calls.

Where did this happen?

 

[scamander]

I can't see that Corbyn will remain as leader and fight GE 2020. What interests me is how long the Labour Party bigwigs will let their party drift under his tenure before they make a change.

There are potentially at least 3 or 4 good leaders but none of them wanted the job. Could a Jarvis or Umunna turn this situation around? Is the party so far behind that no one would want to take over from Corbyn if the party looks bound for certain defeat in GE2020?

And given Cameron has said he wouldn't seek a third term then to pit Corbyn against his successor would be naïve - Osborne would trash him, but against Jarvis or Umunna he'd have a genuine contest.

Poisoned chalice straight after the election. As I pointed out in an earlier post the chance of coming in 2 years before the election and keeping anything which resonated with voters whilst making the party seem more moderate is a great opportunity. Cameron will definitely want Corbyn to stick around.

Jarvis et co to make a move 2 years from the election and the entire situation could change. Especially if there's been no real movement on the financial front. The cooking grenade is what will happen when the interest rates have to rise.

 

[Buzzer]

Where did this happen?

In Stockton on Tees. I wouldn't read too much into it. Both council seats in the ward were Labour held and by some margin in 2015. The Tories also increased their share of the vote too from 2015. Funnily enough, I was reading this article yesterday about Stockton-on-Tees and there's been a 15% swing from Labour to the Tories since 1997.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in.../local-by-election-preview-january-28th-2016/


The article also has a very revealing statistic that is far more meaningful than trying extrapolate anything from one by-election: There's been 'an average swing of 1.2% from Lab to Con at all the by-elections since the general election (and a 2.5% swing from Lab to Con since Corbyn’s election compared to last time)'

and the article concludes: ' you do begin to wonder whether any seat that Labour has to defend can be truly called “safe” '.

 

[heathgate]

I believe the result, I don't trust the polling process.

Unless it had Red Jezza as the top dog of course.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

In Stockton on Tees. I wouldn't read too much into it. Both council seats in the ward were Labour held and by some margin in 2015. The Tories also increased their share of the vote too from 2015. Funnily enough, I was reading this article yesterday about Stockton-on-Tees and there's been a 15% swing from Labour to the Tories since 1997.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in.../local-by-election-preview-january-28th-2016/


The article also has a very revealing statistic that is far more meaningful than trying extrapolate anything from one by-election: There's been 'an average swing of 1.2% from Lab to Con at all the by-elections since the general election (and a 2.5% swing from Lab to Con since Corbyn’s election compared to last time)'

and the article concludes: ' you do begin to wonder whether any seat that Labour has to defend can be truly called “safe” '.

Thanks for that yes solid Labour areas so no great surprise.

As you say the underlying picture isn't looking great as the Shadow cabinet were warned only recently.

Labour warned to expect losses in May local elections
Shadow cabinet members listen in ‘stoical silence’ to predictions of council seat decline and Scotland and Wales setbacks

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...arned-to-expect-losses-in-may-local-elections

Possibly damage limitation or underplaying their chances to claim success with modest results .. time will tell.

 

[martin tyler]

That is like being 3-0 down after twenty minutes: time to recover but it isn't looking good...

Potentially the only way back in to the game though is to make some subs

 

[Javeaseagull]

Where did this happen?

Parkfield & Oxbridge. Not surprised you had to ask as it's hidden away. I found out on Twitter.

 

[beorhthelm]

Parkfield & Oxbridge. Not surprised you had to ask as it's hidden away. I found out on Twitter.

it was a council election. how often do council elections get any more than local coverage? "Labour holds council in the North East" is hardly a news story.

 

[The Clamp]

Unless it had Red Jezza as the top dog of course.

Well I wouldn't believe that result either. I like him but the majority don't so no, I wouldn't believe that.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

Be wiped out over night if the wrong successor to Cameron is chosen

The only way they could loose that lead, would be to appoint Corbyn as leader

 

[Grombleton]

They have a big lead, it's probably the only thing that's gone right for them this week.

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/01/29/9-humiliating-tory-defeats-might-missed-week/

 

[Westdene Seagull]

They have a big lead, it's probably the only thing that's gone right for them this week.

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/01/29/9-humiliating-tory-defeats-might-missed-week/

You only need to look at the front page of that website to realise that it's more than slightly biased.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

You only need to look at the front page of that website to realise that it's more than slightly biased.

Biased yes but all true and it omits the fact that the planning and housing bill also got an absolute panning in Lords this week.