UK’s hung parliament?

Written By: - Date published: 7:06 am, June 1st, 2017 - 131 comments
Categories: uk politics - Tags: , ,

Remember First Past the Post? The UK election has largely been reported on the total percentage of people wanting to vote for various parties. But in the election itself, the only vote Brits get is for their local candidate, they don’t get to vote for the party. The party with the most candidates wins, not the party with the biggest national percentage. Where no party has an outright majority (i.e. more than 50% of the total seats), parties can form coalitions. So I haven’t really understood why the pre-election coverage focusses on national polling rather than electorate polling (anyone?).

Major market research firm Yougov have just released their electorate by electorate analysis results 9 days out from the General Election and it shows that on current voter intentions there would likely be a hung parliament.

YouGov projection for The Times predicts Tories will be 16 seats short of a majority, leading to hung parliament

From The Times (registration required for full article, 2 reads per week)

The Conservative Party could be in line to lose 20 seats and Labour gain nearly 30 in next week’s general election, according to new modelling by one of the country’s leading pollsters.

YouGov’s first constituency-by- constituency estimate of the election result predicts that the Tories would fall short of an overall majority by 16 seats, leading to a hung parliament.

The central projection of the model, which allows for a wide margin of error, would be a catastrophic outcome for Theresa May, who called the election when polls pointed to a landslide result. Her support appears to have plunged after the poor reception of the party manifesto, including plans to make more elderly voters pay for home care.

YouGov’s model puts the Tories on course to win 310 seats, down from the 330 they held when the election was called. Labour would get 257 seats, up from 229, the Liberal Democrats ten, up from nine, the SNP 50, down from 54, the Greens one and Plaid Cymru three. This would leave the Tories 16 seats short of the 326 they need for an overall majority in the Commons.

The projection allows for big variations, however, and suggests that the Tories could get as many as 345 seats on a good night, 15 more than at present, and as few as 274 seats on a bad night.

YouGov acknowledged that the predictions were controversial and pointed to significant “churn” in voting intentions. But Stephan Shakespeare, its chief executive, said that the model had been publicly tested during the EU referendum campaign last year, when it always had Leave ahead.

The model is based on 50,000 interviews over the course of a week, with voters from a panel brought together by YouGov. This allows the pollster to assess the intention of every type of voter, from where they live to how they voted in the EU referendum, their age and social background, to weight the results.

I don’t know enough about UK politics but I’m guessing that a potential Labour government could be made up from Labour, Scottish National Party, Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru. I don’t know how the Northern Ireland seats fit into that.

Some brief commentary from Sam Coates The Times’ reporter,

Reliable commenter Martin Baxter from Electoral Calculus still predicts a comfortable win for the Conservatives, but also commends Yougov for their new research methods, acknowledges they might be right, and gives a brief explanation.

Whatever happens on June 8th, Corbyn has proved that the electorate is interested social democratic policies and governance. The Tories’ supposed landslide has been reduce to at best a bit of a rockfall, and is potentially disastrous given they had another 3 years to govern before the next mandatory election and instead chose a mid term snap election based on opinion polls.

Maybe it also had something to do with the sentiment of this music video which topped the UK iTunes charts this week,

 

131 comments on “UK’s hung parliament? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tc 1
    1 June 2017 at 7:25 am

    Interesting times, unlike here there’s still remnants of independent media in the U.K. and a massively pissed off middle/lower class who see Maggie v2.0 in May.

    Trust the Tories is a hard sell after johnsons brexit behaviour.

  2. Carolyn_nth 2
    1 June 2017 at 7:52 am

    Conservatives on Twitter calling the left a “coalition of chaos” – and getting a bollocking for it. The replies are fun.

    Conservatives @Conservatives tweeted:

    More taxes, higher immigration, and a Brexit shambles – tonight has made it clear what a coalition of chaos would look like #BBCDebate

    • weka 2.1
      1 June 2017 at 9:44 am

      Do you have a link to the full debate? All I’m getting is analysis.

      • Carolyn_nth 2.1.1
        1 June 2017 at 9:58 am

        I don’t think the video is available outside the UK.

        Oh, parts of it seem to be on youtube.

        And in 4 parts.

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          1 June 2017 at 10:11 am

          Thanks!

        • ianmac 2.1.1.2
          1 June 2017 at 3:40 pm

          Thanks for the link Carolyn. I watched the 90 minutes in its two parts. Fascinating. Don’t know how the audience was chosen but there seemed to be strong support for the Socialist/Left ideas and ridicule for the Conservatives and scorn heaped on the absent Theresa May.
          A very interesting election and the venom being poured on Jeremy from Conservatives suggest that he has them very worried.

  3. ianmac 3
    1 June 2017 at 8:51 am

    Who will create a delicious song like “Liar, Liar, Liar” for us?

    • The decrypter 3.1
      1 June 2017 at 9:57 am

      Joyce could probably supply a “pretty legal” copy ianmac.

    • weka 3.2
      1 June 2017 at 10:12 am

      any luck Darren Watson will be on the case.

    • saveNZ 3.3
      1 June 2017 at 10:14 am

      Can you imagine Liar liar with Key, it would have to be an album because it could not fit on a single.

      I’m sure double dipping, pizza innovater and fitness ‘walk/run’ vids can show the mediocre, characterless, bean counting bore that the Natz are trying to pass off as an Prime Minister who as finance minister has managed to plunge 35% of the country into poverty while giving away free water to foreign billionaires and that’s not even getting into the escalating debt… Dick Smith, Cadbury, Silver Ferns farms, PSA virus, not exactly been good for jobs, just selling off public and private companies cheap and then allowing the new owners to asset strip and close down factories, offshore jobs etc….

      • WILD KATIPO 3.3.1
        1 June 2017 at 10:39 am

        ‘ I’m sure double dipping, pizza innovater and fitness ‘walk/run’ vids can show the mediocre, characterless, bean counting bore that the Natz are trying to pass off as an Prime Minister ‘

        HAHAHAA – maybe I’m in a jocular mood today but some of these comments are striking me as quite humorous .

        🙂

      • weka 3.3.2
        1 June 2017 at 11:30 am

        Lol, the Key Album.

        Blinglish is tricky because he’s bland. Go for the Nats as a whole, the nasty party (cue Bennett and Collins).

        • gsays 3.3.2.1
          1 June 2017 at 3:45 pm

          you are forgetting the rest of the right horrible mob.
          rimmer, yes no yes no Dunne and our caramel cousins in the maori party.

          plenty of material for a rock opera.

          • weka 3.3.2.1.1
            1 June 2017 at 4:43 pm

            I don’t know whether to laugh or cringe at the idea of a pointed anti-RW rock opera 💡

    • adam 3.4
      1 June 2017 at 10:18 am

      Like planet key, it will get banned by the electoral commission. The corrupt little hand puppets of the national party.

      • saveNZ 3.4.1
        1 June 2017 at 10:30 am

        Nope, didn’t planet Key, win in court. I think freedom of speech still ok?

        • dukeofurl 3.4.1.1
          1 June 2017 at 10:38 am

          At first it was banned, not till long after the election was that idiocy removed

          • WILD KATIPO 3.4.1.1.1
            1 June 2017 at 10:42 am

            You are quite correct – and typical of this gutless govt to defer, deflect and diffuse by hiding embarrassing critiques of their feckless dishonesty’s.

            • weka 3.4.1.1.1.1
              1 June 2017 at 11:32 am

              National didn’t ban it.

              And yes, Darren Watson eventually won, so presumably that sets a precedent for this year.

              • WILD KATIPO …
                1 June 2017 at 11:53 am

                There was a stink with the Electoral Commission or something similar if I recall, … and also a few implications from certain corners of ‘ stoogery ‘ going on, which , after years and years of equally as obvious but not provable ‘ stoogery ‘ under Keys National govt led many to suspect there was a few phone calls being made to get the video off the airways.

  4. mikesh 4
    1 June 2017 at 8:55 am

    Looks like SNP would be kingmakers. What price would they demand? Scottish indpendence? A new brexit referendum?

    • weka 4.1
      1 June 2017 at 9:44 am

      I wouldn’t call the SNP kingmakers because there is no way in hell they would go with the Conservatives. Libdems on the other hand, have gone into a coalition with the Conservatives and got hammered after hence their low polling. So I’m assuming they wold support Labour this time, but who knows.

      • Bill 4.1.1
        1 June 2017 at 1:32 pm

        The Democratic Unionist Party of N. Ireland currently has 8 MPs at Westminster. I’ve no idea what they’re currently polling. They’re hard core, protestant throw backs and somewhat natural bed fellows of the Tories.

        BREXIT complicates their allegiance somewhat

        • weka 4.1.1.1
          1 June 2017 at 3:23 pm

          Yougov has NI with 18 seats spread out over a number of parties I think, but I didn’t understand who all the parties were.

      • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.2
        1 June 2017 at 3:38 pm

        Yeah, it’s virtually criminal how much the UK media has been ignoring Northern Ireland in the run-up to the snap election. The winners of those seats could absolutely determine who governs, especially if there’s a strong showing for DUP and the conservatives don’t get an outright majority, but do win enough that Labour can’t effectively govern.

  5. james 5
    1 June 2017 at 9:30 am

    Its really interesting poll result.

    Time will tell if they are right or not – but despite corbyn (imho) being a walking disaster, he seems to be doing a lot (and I mean a lot) better than a lot of the experts predicted, and I most certianly was waaaaay out in where I thought he would be now.

    In fact I think I said he would be the death of the labour party. Seems I might have gotten that one significantly wrong.

    I guess we will find out next week.

    • The decrypter 5.1
      1 June 2017 at 9:45 am

      james. Ya can’t win em all is what I say.

    • Adrian Thornton 5.2
      1 June 2017 at 10:47 am

      In what way would you say he is a walking disaster for Labour UK?

      • WILD KATIPO 5.2.1
        1 June 2017 at 12:32 pm

        I would say Corbyn is walking the UK into a new era of reevaluation of political and social reform, if anything.

        And its his growing popularity that is scaring the pants off those who prematurely thought he was a has been – particularly the neo liberal camp.

    • Matthew Whitehead 5.3
      1 June 2017 at 3:36 pm

      While imagine you’re being philosophical because of your political leanings rather than as a good approach to polling in general, you’re quite correct that it’s difficult to tell whether this is a better methodology than traditional polling in the UK. (my guess is that it is much more reliable, but we’ll see at the general election. We would really have needed a few of these sorts of polls run over a periods of months to get a better idea, but if Corbyn wins I predict this model will be seeing a lot more use!)

      I’ve actually been waiting to see if the coin would turn on Corbyn. While he’s not a very rah-rah my Party Will Win type of leader, he’s actually a very good listener who really cares about making things better for the average person, and has left-wing credibility like Bernie Sanders. The left haven’t really had a place to go to vote in a while in the UK elections, so it’s genuinely possible that if he doesn’t alienate the swing voters too hard, but does push hard to his base at the same time, that he could simply win by turning out disenfranchised left-wing voters. The hard part is that he would have to do it with a significant faction of his party hoping he fails, and with a significant amount of those left-wing voters not wanting to support his opponents within his own party.

      Right now, I’m calling a narrow Conservative win, possibly even relying on DUP and the LibDems to get into government, which would remove their margin for a hard brexit they wanted to argue they had a “mandate” for.

      • weka 5.3.1
        1 June 2017 at 4:45 pm

        Have the Libdems said if they will do what they did last time, in supporting whichever party gets the most seats (or votes)?

      • weka 5.3.2
        1 June 2017 at 4:47 pm

        “The hard part is that he would have to do it with a significant faction of his party hoping he fails, and with a significant amount of those left-wing voters not wanting to support his opponents within his own party.”

        Hadn’t thought about that. So people voting in electorates that have anti-Corbyn Labour candidates, and not wanting to vote for them because they support Corbyn? Crikey.

        • Matthew Whitehead 5.3.2.1
          1 June 2017 at 7:13 pm

          Yep, UK Labour essentially has a Momentum wing, (ie. real leftists and other Corbyn supporters) and an establishment wing, and they’re basically a coalition of two parties in how far the two factions are apart. (I often say that thinking of National as two different parties (one of primarily right-wing candidates with some right-wing liberals thrown in, and one of conservative right-wingers) is helpful in understanding the NZ right wing, but UK Labour has taken that situation to a whole new level)

          So establishment Labour is going hard for the centre, being skeptical of Corbyn, and essentially playing to lose but lose small. Momentum Labour is trying to win by going a populist left-wing route with real criticisms of tory policy, and polling is indicating that it’s actually working, despite what prominent anti-Corbyn naysayers have been claiming about his electability, it’s always the way with left-wing figures that they become much more popular in the campaign than they are at the start.

          So some of the old guard that back Corbyn will get a new constituency of voters, as will the new guard that came in after the leadership election. But a lot of the seats are old guard establishment Labour, and in those cases it will be really interesting to see what happens- I suspect the Lib Dems will do better than establishment candidates in areas where Remain did well, and that establishment Labour will do better in areas where Brexit did well, but of course it’s always more complicated and more about personality, charisma, and campaigning for electorates, so we’ll need to wait and see if that trend eventuates. As for the new guard, I’m honestly not sure where they’ll do well, England is actually pretty conservative, and Scottish Labour is going to have a hard time unseating the SNP, so I suspect their chances are more down to their own campaigning ability than the vagarities of the electorate’s mood for certain large-level policy concerns. (as a lot of the reason that England has been so conservative is that they’ve had centrist Labour, centrist LibDems, and right-wing Conservatives to choose from, so there’s a certain appeal to picking a real Tory over a triangulator)

          Basically, we’re in a similar scenario for UK Labour to what NZ Labour would have been in if Cunliffe hadn’t stepped down after the last General Election. The Party really likes Corbyn and nobody will win without the support of the new Momentum bloc from here on in, but much of the senior caucus members hate him and are causing strife within the party now that it’s clear they’ve lost control. A lot of it is simply going to come down to how strongly Corbyn’s ideas connect and manage to turn out voters for Labour. If they get a lot of new voters or swing a lot of centrists, Momentum will likely take over the party in the long term and the government will change, and will probably go for a soft Brexit in coalition with the SNP. But if Labour lose, it could go very badly for Corbyn, even if it’s closer than expected.

          • weka 5.3.2.1.1
            1 June 2017 at 8:51 pm

            If Corbyn wins and gets new voters, what will happen to the establishment in Labour. He’s offered them jobs and they’ve turned him down, right? So he will lead with the backstabbers on the backbencher still backstabbing?

            • Matthew Whitehead 5.3.2.1.1.1
              4 June 2017 at 6:39 pm

              He doesn’t have a choice unless their local committees de-select them next election, so yes, they’ll get to be back-benchers.

              • weka …
                4 June 2017 at 7:03 pm

                Can the party censure MPs?

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  4 June 2017 at 7:42 pm

                  I honestly don’t know.

                  Obviously they can unofficially do so if they don’t have any official power in the bylaws anyway, the issue is whether it would make any difference.

                  I expect things would change in that regard if Corbyn is Prime Minister rather than leader of the opposition, and that there will be some desire to work together constructively, and you know, deliver things to their districts so that they don’t get de-selected.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.4
      1 June 2017 at 5:06 pm

      Eight days out, momentum becomes an issue, too. If it’s a high turn-out election I’d say there’ll be a change of government.

      Wishful thinking is a wonderful thing 🙂

  6. outofbed 6
    1 June 2017 at 9:44 am

    So if the parliamentary wing of the Labour party in the UK hadn’t been so fucking disruptive and anti Corbyn, how far in front would they be now ?

    • weka 6.1
      1 June 2017 at 9:47 am

      Yep. Which suggests that it’s not a two way battle between the old left and right, but a three way battle between conservatives, lefties and neoliberals, with overlap between them all.

      • Adrian Thornton 6.1.1
        1 June 2017 at 10:18 am

        I think the UK conservatives are just as infiltrated and captured by the neoliberal ideology as UK Labour had been (and Labour NZ still is), so I would say it really just a battle of two ideologies that is being played out, any overlap is really a side issue at this stage (in my view).

        Neoliberalism in Britain: From Thatcherism to Cameronism…
        http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/750/795

        I am living for the day when we can participate in that same battle here…it’s coming that much is for sure.

        • weka 6.1.1.1
          1 June 2017 at 11:35 am

          still makes it threeway not two-way, and that’s the stuff that creates political confusion. If Corbyn does nothing else, making that shit visible is a huge service.

          Conservative
          Neoliberal
          Social democrat.

          And that can’t be understood on a line. For too long it’s been Conservative neoliberal vs Centre left neoliberal. It’s not enough to take the neoliberal out, we actually have to replace the centre left with something that has its own identity.

          • Adrian Thornton 6.1.1.1.1
            1 June 2017 at 11:51 am

            JC has always maintained publicly that he is proudly Socialist, so assume Labour UK is essentially running on a Socialist platform?
            So if it is a three way battle ( I think it is a two) wouldn’t that be..
            Conservative
            Neoliberal
            Socialist.

            Not that it really matters…we both know we like what he stands for, and that’s what is important.

            • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1
              1 June 2017 at 12:18 pm

              Socialist/social democrat, a bit too subtle for me sorry.

              • McFlock …
                1 June 2017 at 12:34 pm

                Even more subtle is the distinction between “democratic socialists” and “social democrats” 🙂

                My understanding is that when you’re getting to that level the distinction is mostly in how much government ownership there is:

                Social democrats believe in things like the welfare state, reductions in inequality, healthcare, and representative democracy.

                Socialists are more concerned with the means of production being commonly owned to greater or lesser degrees, alongside social welfare and inequality.

                Democratic socialists overlay that with a representative democracy rather than eg a ruling council that is promoted on merit, or the other direction of more local communalism (as opposed to communism, which is 100% state ownership).

                And, in the great tradition that is still maintained here at TS, the most vicious fighting and dirty tricks committed by left wing groups in periods of change were mostly aimed within the clump of leftist groups whom nobody else could tell apart, rather than aimed at the tories or fascists.

                Hope that’s all as clear as mud 🙂

                • weka …
                  1 June 2017 at 3:23 pm

                  That’s great. I actually like learning that stuff outside of the Pythonesque wars.

              • Bill …
                1 June 2017 at 1:23 pm

                Both social democracy and liberalism are concerned with how best to manage a capitalist market economy.

                Socialism isn’t.

                If social democracy becomes ascendant, it must not be allowed to ‘bed in’. If it is (and putting AGW aside) we’ll just wind up right back *here* eventually.

                Put AGW back into the picture, and we don’t wind up back *here*, but in a world dominated by calamity and abject misery.

                • McFlock …
                  1 June 2017 at 1:37 pm

                  Thing is, I reckon we’ll always end up here again (or a bit worse, or a bit better), regardless.

                  I never really bought the idea that once we hit peak socialism everything would be better forever. Humanity’s ability to snatch itself out of the fire at the last minute is matched only by its ability to fuck up a good thing.

                  • Bill …
                    1 June 2017 at 1:54 pm

                    Don’t know what you mean by ‘peak socialism’. There is either socialism or there isn’t. The idea that socialism could be delivered through parliament (social democracy) was ridiculed by more than just a few socialists at the time it was first mooted.

                    But sure, Labour Parties formed anyway and eventually got voted into power (did some very worthy things too). That alongside the idiocy of Leninist ‘communist’ parties forming and working to infiltrate Labour Parties with the idea of ‘capturing the state’ led to socialists being marginalised for a long, long time.

                    Hopefully, we’ll be seeing things coming to a head over the next few years and socialism coming in from the cold at last. It has to if we’re going to have any chance of extricating ourselves from this mess we’re in.

                    • weka …
                      1 June 2017 at 3:25 pm

                      Leaving aside how things get organised for a moment, there’s alway the issue of how you get everyone to believe roughly the same thing i.e. that socialism is desirable.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 June 2017 at 7:14 pm

                      there’s alway the issue of how you get everyone to believe roughly the same thing

                      Yeah.

                      Good luck with that.

                      That said, in a sense you’re describing the Overton Window.

                      And that said, we know from complex system analysis that major changes are often preceded by a lengthy period of apparent stasis.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 June 2017 at 7:41 pm

                      Overton window: the range of ideas the public will accept.

                      Sort of the problem, but not in the “people will never accept it” way. Even in a socialist society, a certain percentage of the people will support capitalism: the overton window will be too wide. So in a democratic system, capitalists will always have a chance to gain power again. In a non-democratic system, capitalists will be driven underground as a rot.

                      Either way, even a socialist society is doomed to eventually repeat the problems of the past, including falling for neoliberalism again.

                    • weka …
                      1 June 2017 at 8:43 pm

                      What’s lengthy in that situation OAB?

                      I was thinking about what McFlock had said, about swinging back and forth. Unless everyone wants socialism I can’t see how that wouldn’t happen. And I can’t see how to make everyone want socialism, unless we devolve to small groups where socialism becomes naturally more attractive. Even then it’s likely that some of those groups will remain a dominating system because that’s how most of us are socialised, and then we have to protect ourselves, and now we’re back at the dawn of civilisation starting all over again with that shit.

                      Douglas Adams had right, it was a mistake coming down from the trees in the first place 😉

                    • Bill …
                      1 June 2017 at 9:31 pm

                      the issue of how you get everyone to believe roughly the same thing i.e. that socialism is desirable..

                      You don’t. It’s an idea that gets held in mind and expressed at opportune moments or junctures. You want to “get” people to believe, then your stepping off down the road of various authoritarianisms.

                    • Bill …
                      1 June 2017 at 9:35 pm

                      @ McFlock.

                      A certain percentage of people supporting ideas of capitalism is neither here nor there. It’s only a problem when those people have power. In a democratic scenario (and others) their power is zip.

                • weka …
                  1 June 2017 at 3:26 pm

                  what would you call Corbyn? And Corbyn Labour’s manifesto?

                  • DoublePlusGood …
                    1 June 2017 at 4:20 pm

                    Given how everything has departed far from what it originally was, and everything is now neo-, I think it has to be considered to be neo-democratic neo-socialism…

                    • McFlock …
                      1 June 2017 at 5:27 pm

                      Well, the vibe it creates in the population as a reaction to blairites, so maybe post-modern post-quasi-ternary-liberalist neo-democratic neosocialist? With bells on? 👿

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 June 2017 at 7:20 pm

                      Only in the sense that the right will consistently, relentlessly invent new ways to tell old lies.

                      The interests expressed by the lies are the same lazy knuckledragging bunch that resist the Magna Carta and the UDoHR and the abolition of slavery (when it occurs).

                      Tories don’t change.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  1 June 2017 at 3:57 pm

                  You do know that Social Democracy is basically the modern Labour Party philosophy, right? You’re probably not going to move either the UK or NZ labour party on that, so if you’re voting left, your options at that point are Mana or Greens. (who despite not outwardly looking super socialist and having a lot of liberal types in there, do actually have socialism written into their values and their approach to environmentalism)

                  That said, I agree that a more purely socialist approach without any elements of a command economy would be pretty ideal both politically and in terms of preventing climate change.

          • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.1.1.2
            1 June 2017 at 3:42 pm

            It’s also worth considering that there’s another major axis to this election- that of Brexit. Most of the large parties are pro-brexit, they just disagree about the how. If we see a strong Libdem, green, and regional party showing, that will mean a lot of people were voting for a chance to back out of Brexit, too.

      • SpaceMonkey 6.1.2
        1 June 2017 at 10:46 am

        Exactly… the neoliberals have bought a foot in both camps.

      • WILD KATIPO 6.1.3
        1 June 2017 at 10:48 am

        Which is a pretty accurate summation of the same basic trend in many western govts unfortunately ,… with slight nuances on the theme.

        • RedLogix 6.1.3.1
          1 June 2017 at 11:31 am

          A vivid little picture going on here.

          Fundamentally the neo-libs were never all that interested in left/right politics. At least with the old conservative/socialist divide both parties could more or less agree on the objectives of governance; they merely disagreed on how to get there. Negotiating through this was largely a matter of trading off various self-interests and outcomes.

          Whereas the neo-libs never really believed in government at all. They’re a different beastie with quite incompatible values. Their goal is to stall the process of political compromise and discredit the very idea of a social contract.

          • WILD KATIPO 6.1.3.1.1
            1 June 2017 at 12:05 pm

            Excellent .

            The small govt of the neo liberals ( one where you need a microscope to detect it ) pretty much says it all , – that and aiming to privatize everything to the point where a govt does nothing much of anything of relevance barring having to field off the obvious question of ‘ why do we need a government at all , then ? ‘.

          • Adrian Thornton 6.1.3.1.2
            1 June 2017 at 12:07 pm

            @ RedLogix+1 Well put.
            Which is why I can’t understand why they still hang on to the traditional Left parties that they have infiltrated,that worked very well as a vehicle for their project for a time, that is undeniable, but it is also plainly obvious that that time is over, and the institutions of the western Left are no longer a effective delivery vessel for their ideology.

            • WILD KATIPO 6.1.3.1.2.1
              1 June 2017 at 12:18 pm

              Well , barring running off and creating an ACT party , perhaps remaining in those party’s is more advantageous in keeping them pinned down,… recalling that NZ was the guinea pig test nation for the neo liberal experiment, … and the UK’s population size makes it that much harder to herd the sheep , so to speak…

          • Halfcrown 6.1.3.1.3
            1 June 2017 at 4:56 pm

            Agree with you there Red, I was very comfortable voting for the old National party who had members of integrity and values and were concerned for NZ. like Sir Keith and later members like Mike Minogue, who managed to keep the likes of Richardson in here place, But this fucking lot with no values who are stuffing this once great little country with their neo ideas I would not cross the road to piss on them if they were on fire.

  7. Adrian Thornton 7
    1 June 2017 at 9:48 am

    Check out this slip from Damian Green, where he pretty much he acknowledges that the conservatives are under a real threat from a coalition.
    The conservatives internal polling must be real bad if they are now giving public credibility to the real chance of a Corbyn win.

    What a disaster for May’s campaign, it reminds me a lot of Clinton’s own train wreck, the more the public get to see and hear from them the more they dislike them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoTy2JRQavA

    • saveNZ 7.1
      1 June 2017 at 10:24 am

      The public want change but they want a certain type of change…. a vote for Democrats and Labour UK under Miliband was just going to keep the same old neoliberal models going…… the public don’t want that.

      Corbyn and Bernie got peoples imagination going because they come across as people of integrity, not just manufactured careerist politicians. They have stood for what they believe in, for most of their lives and that is something to deeply admire, these days.

      Integrity and bravery in a politician is hard to find. As is someone who can stomach the gross level of attacks from all areas that politician’s like them find themselves in, often being stabbed in the back from their own side, which in itself can be the down fall of the party.

      Look at Little in NZ under attack with litigation from Scenic Hotels, disgusting attacks constantly in MSM and so forth.

      Last election, Cunliffe absolutely disgustingly smeared, and even neoliberal Goff, framed by the SIS. Not really easy to win, in this climate of big money and organised attacks, controlling everything.

      • WILD KATIPO 7.1.1
        1 June 2017 at 12:15 pm

        I’ll not forget that marvelous speech Cunliffe gave right at the beginning when he was voted in – pretty much a Mickey Joseph Savage speech. Something that I thought I’d never ever hear again.

        And those bastard neo liberals in both Labour ( the ABC’s ) and National inline with the MSM teamed on him.

        It was a disgraceful display of the fetid influence that ideology has on this country.

        • RedLogix 7.1.1.1
          1 June 2017 at 1:44 pm

          NZ has a history of getting virulent and persistent strains of bad ideas. Neoliberalism is going to be with us long after it’s been shit-canned everywhere else in the world.

          Working overseas this past four years has really opened my eyes to just how shitty the class war has been back home. NZ is an expensive place to live, yet wages are low and employers have far too much power. A few doing very nicely thank you, the rest are fucked.

          Yes our still relatively low population density mitigates the worst aspects of this inequality, socially and environmentally … but ultimately we fall so very short of what we could and should be. Like you I felt a surge of pride when I saw that speech from Cunliffe, a moment of hope in an adult life of bleakness.

          It was a piece of work watching them snuff him out.

        • Stunned Mullet 7.1.1.2
          1 June 2017 at 3:31 pm

          “It was a disgraceful display of the fetid influence that ideology has on this country.”

          Oh the irony !

        • Halfcrown 7.1.1.3
          1 June 2017 at 4:24 pm

          Wild @ 7.1.1

          I agree with there mate 100% Don’t really watched much of the media these days except Aljazeera, and as soon that lying ugly fucking arsole called Gower appears I change channels. It is a pity that the Labour party don’t remind the punters of the fucking lies this arsole along with that other twat called Armstrong said about Cunliffe at the last election, and question more this fucking arsoles integrity everytime he appears on the TV.

    • dukeofurl 7.2
      1 June 2017 at 11:14 am

      Clinton got 3 mill more votes than trump because they disliked her more ?

      Oh that must be the reason she got 3.5 mill more votes than Sanders, because they disliked her ( that was in a smaller total too).

      Is this how you get around the problem that your views are shared by a very tiny minority.

      Corbyn is a terrible leader, even in France Jean-Luc Mélenchon was streets ahead, if it was a presidential race in UK he wouldnt even be in top 3.
      Fortunately its a parliamentary system, where he isnt a dictator

      • Adrian Thornton 7.2.1
        1 June 2017 at 11:43 am

        @dukeofurl What the hell are you talking about, Clinton lost the most winnable election in US history, against a baboon, and even with pretty much all media in her pocket, or has that fact evaded you?

        Oh and she and the DNC had to cheat to beat Sanders….

        Is this how you get around the problem that your political ideology is being consigned to the dustbin of history as we speak (where it belongs I might add).

        Corbyn will be a very good and inclusive leader, showing quite clearly the way forward for all western democracy’s who want fair and equal societies for ALL their citizens.

        BTW Bernie Sanders is now the most popular politician in the USA, except inwith the corrupt DNC establishment it seems, where as Clinton’s popularity in the USA is at it’s ALL TIME low…lower than Trump for fucks sake….
        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/17/everyone-loves-bernie-sanders-except-democratic-party

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-08/new-poll-shows-hillary-favorability-sinking-all-time-low-35-trump-soars

        SO if there is anyone around here beating a dead horse…that would be you pal.

        • McFlock 7.2.1.1
          1 June 2017 at 1:05 pm

          but didn’t she get more votes than the baboon?

          And how precisely did the dnc cheat?

          • Adrian Thornton 7.2.1.1.1
            1 June 2017 at 2:11 pm

            “And how precisely did the dnc cheat?”

            Are you actually serious?

            • dukeofurl 7.2.1.1.1.1
              1 June 2017 at 2:36 pm

              Apparently the DNC cheated 3.5 mill times !
              Each state democratic organisation runs its own caucuses, nothing to do with the DNC. [ where Sanders did quite well]
              While primaries are run by the state government.
              Clinton was supported by most major democratic leaders and virtually all unions. Most have cheated to get that as well.

              Back to Corbyn, if he wasnt the leader ( and if he wasnt so bad at it) May wouldnt have dared call an early election ( but I think she”ll win as the UK polls have a problem getting the right numbers let alone for a FPTP type election)

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                1 June 2017 at 4:01 pm

                The DNC did cheat in that it is supposed, according to its bylaws, to be a neutral arbiter in the primaries that doesn’t support any one campaign. They pre-concluded that Hillary was the likely winner and backed her. (that’s not to say that if, say, Biden were also running, they wouldn’t have backed both Biden and Clinton. But they bias candidates who can win a traditional campaign rather than simply letting the primaries sort themselves out)

                It’s also very likely that key Party figures were doing a campaign of backroom whispers and leaning on the scale, not just the DNC itself. That’s not really appropriate in my book, but hey, the DNC’s defense of these allegations is basically that if they wanted, they could totally have chosen the candidate in a smoky back room. Yeah.

                • dukeofurl …
                  1 June 2017 at 5:27 pm

                  You still havent explained how the DNC in Washington got Clinton to be 3.5 mill votes ahead, spread across something like 30+ states.
                  leaning on a scale doesnt give 3.5 mill more votes

                  In each state Clinton and Sanders have to run their own campaigns with their own money.
                  That was Clintons advantage, shes been running and raising money since 2012. Sanders started late, has no background organisation in Democratic party ( because he wasnt a democrat!)

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    1 June 2017 at 8:05 pm

                    Clinton started off with a name recognition lead and looked like she was heading for a coronation. Sanders’ performance in the primary is practically record-breaking, closing a huge gap and turning a one-woman race into a real competition, however he failed to make up ground in large states after Clinton’s win in the south on Super Tuesday, and he had several votes stolen from him by rogue committtees.

                    I’m not saying definitively that the cheating swung the election, it’s entirely possible Clinton’s lead was too large for Sanders to close in a single primary campaign no matter what he did. (I’m inclined to think that in some ways he could have actually campaigned more effectively and closed the gap, but you may be right, it was certainly a ridiculous ask for him to win given all the initial odds against him and the right-wing bent to media in the US) But I am saying that there was undeniably cheating (whatever you think of the motivations of the people who initially leaked those stories, they were pretty well corroborated after the fact) and it is unacceptable that the DNC broke its own rules, which is why they’re being sued by Sanders supporters for breaking their own bylaws.

                    As for him not being a Democrat, he’s caucused with them his entire national political career and is now part of the senior senate democratic leadership team, and is campaigning with the DNC’s new chair, but yes, he’s still technically an independent because he’s proud of having won even with an establishment democrat who was acting as a spoiler against him. Yes, he was an outsider candidate, but the DNC doesn’t need to put its thumb on the scale against outsiders. It can just let what happens happen, that’s the whole point of internal party democracy, weak candidates will almost always lose when there’s a competitive field. Whatever you think of the sources of information, it is absolutely credible that for instance the DNC was passing information to Clinton’s campaign, as Donna Brazil lost her job with CNN because of that story breaking about how she abused her position regarding her conflict of interest.

                    Also, have a look into current polling on Sanders and Clinton. Clinton is underwater with a mid-30s approval rating now, whereas Sanders is literally the most popular politician in the entire US, according to Fox, (outpolling even some key democratic achievements like Obamacare, and with mid-sixties approval ratings) who don’t exactly have an incentive to pump up his popularity. This isn’t a pushover politician, if he had gone on to the general election he likely would have won in a landslide, (three-way polling during the primary predicted he would start out with at least a six point lead on Trump, and he had much more effective populist talking points against him, wheras that same polling predicted Clinton was pretty much tied with Trump and was relying on his campaign self-destructing) and brought in new Democrats to Congress with him.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 June 2017 at 9:25 pm

                      I don’t usually go in for this … but yes, +++++1

                      Whichever way you cut it the difference on the ground was palpable. Clinton could barely fill photo-ops using long tele-lens’, while Sanders was filling halls and stadiums to capacity with enthusiastic crowds.

                      It was a simple as that.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 June 2017 at 9:49 pm

                      Interesting thing is how much she also gave to Sanders’ campaign. Was her conflict with CNN because she tilted the debates for Clinton to look good, or the democrat candidates in general?

                      As for the current polling – well, yeah. Bernie’s a socialist politician in office facing one of the more regressive presidents in fifty years. Clinton’s largely back with private charity work now.

                      DNC folks didn’t like Sanders, but what actual biased things did they do?

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      4 June 2017 at 6:37 pm

                      McFlock- Donna Brazil did not pass any information to the Sanders campaign. That’s the whole point, not only was what she was doing unethical in terms of compromising the rules of the debate, but she did it specifically to favour one candidate.

                      If there had been multiple establishment candidates in the race, I am sure she and other DNC candidates would have cheated in favour of all the establishment candidates. But that’s not the race that happened.

                      I’m not sure how it’s valid to dismiss polls both before and after the election- my point was that he polled better in both situations, so it’s clear that neither was an outlier.

                      As to other biased things that they did, let me condense it by omitting anything we don’t actually have hard evidence of and listing only the most offensive:

                      * The DNC didn’t attempt to compromise between the Hillary campaign’s preferred debate schedule and her competitor- they scheduled a very few debates when she was running a low-presence strategy in the primaries, and then suddenly added more when it was clear that it was hurting her not debating and the extra media was benifitting Sanders.

                      * The DNC disabled the Bernie campaign’s access to their database because the campaign reported that it was insecure and showing other campaigns’ data, which is what you are supposed to do if you gain inappropriate access to data.

                      * DNC officials accused the campaign of condoning violence after their friends in Nevada stole votes from Bernie, taking video out of context.

                      * The DNC had a donation-laundering process worked out that gave money indirectly to Hillary that was supposed to be spent on local state contests.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      4 June 2017 at 6:54 pm

                      Excuse me, when I said “she and other DNC candidates”, I of course meant “she [Donna Brazil] and other DNC staff”.

            • McFlock 7.2.1.1.1.2
              1 June 2017 at 5:16 pm

              Totally.

              I’m not doubting that several in the DNC preferred Clinton over Sanders. But actual evidence of cheating? They didn’t rig a vote in caucus. Even the hacked debate prep emails never showed that Sanders wasn’t given equivalent prep information. Any primary irregularities would have been under the purview of the state, not party, electoral commissioners, many of whom were republican.

              I mean, I get that you take the statement “the DNC rigged the primaries” as being as self evident as “we need air to breath”, but what actually are you basing that on? That someone maybe said mean things about Sanders behind his back? That we saw what the DNC told Clinton but not what they told Sanders?

              And yes, Clinton lost the election, but she got 1% more votes than Trump. Does that say as much about Clinton as it does the electoral college, seriously?

              • adam …
                1 June 2017 at 10:27 pm

                So the court case against the DNC where they have admitted they picked Clinton – I’m guessing you missed it? The DNC did rigged the game, and have admitted it.

                As for your popular vote argument, it’s painful, you sound like a whinging broken record. The real world meant that the democrat’s went into the election knowing they had to win the colleges. They did not do that – so the DNC rigged it, only to pick a loser.

                So seriously enough of you defense of the loser h.r.c. She cheated and she lost, we know it – time to move on.

                • McFlock …
                  1 June 2017 at 11:03 pm

                  Ok, how did they rig the game? That’s what you never answer. Matthew said they were biased, but how did that actually manifest itself?

                  As for the court case, if it’s the one you just linked to – where did they say they rigged it?

                  Sure, they said that there was nothing legal stopping them from rigging it, and described the case the Sanders crowd would have to prove if indeed there had been rigging going on, but when you read the transcript of the hearing did you notice all the times the DNC lawyers used the word “purportedly” or variants thereof?

                  • adam …
                    1 June 2017 at 11:59 pm

                    So now you did not miss the case?

                    So now you accept that they can run an election in a impartial and unfair manner, is that what you are saying?

                    Or that impartiality can’t be defined?

                    Because that was my reading of the primary material presented by the DNC, and by the way the case is not settled yet. My link was to why the DNC wanted the case to be dismissed, which the judge agreed there was no case to dismiss. So the case is playing out as we speak, and the DNC are on trial over impartiality, or in other words – gaming the game.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 June 2017 at 12:14 am

                      The judge is considering whether the case should be dismissed.

                      I googled it after your link, so see if your statement ” The DNC did rigged the game, and have admitted it” was accurate. It wasn’t.

                      You seem to have basically misunderstood the position. The DNC lawyers didn’t admit there was rigging, they simply said that the plaintiff’s case is bullshit because even if rigging occurred, it wouldn’t be litigable for a variety of reasons.

                      They also argued that if rigging had occurred and if rigging were litigable, the plaintiffs haven’t presented anyone actually harmed by it so no damages were incurred. It’s a standard defense in depth, like lawyers do all the time.

                      And at the moment the litigants are waiting to hear if the case will go to trial.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      4 June 2017 at 6:52 pm

                      McFlock is correct that the DNC haven’t admitted to cheating in the primary, even though on its face several of the actions taken by DNC officials were obviously cheating from an organisation whose purpose is to help run the primaries in a neutral fashion, and is, according to the Democratic Party bylaws, not supposed to be partisan until a candidate is selected in the convention.

                      What their lawyer is effectively saying is that there’s no legal requirement that the Democratic Party run a competitive primary, they could simply select the candidate in a backroom if they wanted. He’s wrong of course, the bylaws require a competitive primary, and they are contractually enforceable even if you accept his argument that the DNC is a corporation, not a political party. They would have to change the bylaws first, and even then, if they solicited any donations in a way that promised a primary before that change, they would either be obliged to return the money or run the primary.

                      Essentially, he’s arguing that even if the facts are as the Bernie supporters claim, there’s no case because the DNC is a private corporation that can do whatever it wants. (which also makes no sense because then it would be accountable to shareholders and possibly a board, neither of which it has)

                      This is good legal strategy, although it’s completely moronic PR and probably not worth winning the case if they end up getting soundbites like that trumpeted out over the media.

          • RedLogix 7.2.1.1.2
            1 June 2017 at 4:03 pm

            They did it by the book, but the super delegates unquestionably skew the process right from the outset.

  8. Venezia 8
    1 June 2017 at 10:33 am

    Bernie arrives in the UK today, so watch him light up their young!

  9. Adrian Thornton 9
    1 June 2017 at 10:38 am

    Yes that is exactly right, here is Dennis Skinner saying in 2015 that we are entering an era of non spin…..I believe he is right.
    He also has some pretty insightful comments on Cobyns future.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHGDDMAP5qU&t=7s

    The propaganda model of manufacturing consent is now plainly on it’s last legs, it worked extremely effectively for a long time, but most people have been pushed too far for too long by this same method, that they are now (rightly) very suspicious and untrusting of established media, and the politicians they seem to support.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

  10. SpaceMonkey 10
    1 June 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Great news! Who woulda thunk it, eh? That policies putting people first might actually resonate with the people… 😀

    • Johan 10.1
      1 June 2017 at 4:34 pm

      To SpaceMonkey,
      Me thinks that greed and power will not be relinquished easily;-))

  11. swordfish 11
    1 June 2017 at 12:44 pm

    It’s not only Conservative Central Office where nerves are jangling.

    The entire UK polling industry also seems to be in a state of collective nervousness … both in the shadow of the 2015 debacle … and because it’s currently producing an unusually wide range of results, one extreme of which is suggesting a hung parliament that many felt was unthinkable even just a week or so ago.

    Latest Tory poll leads:

    YouGov: 3pt
    Survation: 6pt
    SurveyMonkey 6pt
    FT poll of polls: 9pt
    Kantar: 10pt
    ICM: 12pt
    ComRes: 12pt
    Panelbase: 15pt

    At least they can’t be accused of deliberately ‘clustering’ as they were at the 2015 election.

    All down to ‘house effects’ (ie systematic methodological differences between polling companies). The key point of difference being how aggressively they weight for turnout.

    ICM, Kantar and ComRes take a particularly ruthless approach (in response to the 2015 poll failure).

    ICM’s 12 point Tory lead, for instance, would have been a mere 3 points (with all its normal demographic and political weights) before they applied their aggressive turnout model, which significantly down-weights younger and more working class voters on the assumption that the 2015 pattern of turnout will be repeated.

    • weka 11.1
      1 June 2017 at 1:08 pm

      What’s a turnout model?

      I assume most of them aren’t polling constituencies and then adding up the seats? How come?

      I liked the word ‘churn’.

      Also, it’s not without precedent for elections to move significantly, right? Isn’t that what landslide actually means?

      • swordfish 11.1.1
        1 June 2017 at 1:53 pm

        turnout model = how pollsters deal with turnout in their weighting

        Do they base it more on respondent demographics – essentially ignoring respondent’s self-reported likelihood to vote and instead aggressively down-weighting younger and poorer C2DE voters on the assumption that the 2015 pattern of turnout will be repeated (ICM, Kantar and ComRes)

        or

        do they continue to use self-reported likelihood to vote (albeit with variations) – Opinium, MORI and YouGov, for instance, still base their turnout models on people’s answers rather than their demographics, but they’ve also made post-2015 changes. YouGov and MORI now weight-down people who didn’t vote in past elections as likely non-voters (as opposed to specifically targeting younger and more working class respondents) while Opinium down-weights people who say they will vote for a party but disapprove of its leader.

  12. Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 12
    1 June 2017 at 2:25 pm

    I think Jeremy will win – and by a landslide – as many as 300 seats!

    But the big question is then – how will the right, the neoliberals react?

    Just as if Bernie had won the nomination and the presidency, how would the right have reacted?

    They sure as hell won’t like to see all their ‘hard won’ gains being given back to the people!

    • Stunned Mullet 12.1
      1 June 2017 at 3:35 pm

      You think he’ll win by a margin of 300 seats ? I think that’s a little bit optimistic.

      • Wayne 12.1.1
        1 June 2017 at 4:28 pm

        Presumably Tony actually meant that Labour would get 300 seats, not that they would have a margin of 300 seats. It would be a comfortable majority in a coalition with SNP.

        We will know in a week.

        Me, I am still betting on a May win.

        The Yougov poll seems more like a survey, not a snapshot poll. So is it really reliable given it is so much out of line with other polls?

        It just seems highly unlikely that 20% of voters would change from the Conservatives to Labour in just a few days. In my experience voters are not that fickle.

        • Halfcrown 12.1.1.1
          1 June 2017 at 4:36 pm

          Yes you are right there Wayne

        • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 12.1.1.2
          1 June 2017 at 4:40 pm

          Well, we shall certainly see in just a few days!

          Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I think there is a real groundswell of change in the UK which will be as startling to the establishment as the Atlee win in 1945.

          And of course I mean that Labour would get 300 seats, not a 300 seat majority – they’ll have to go into coalition with probably the SNP – which itself will cause some problems.

          But Halfcrown is right – expect some pretty grubby deeds from the right – their sense of entitlement will drive them to new lows!

          Just like the National Party, in fact!

        • weka 12.1.1.3
          1 June 2017 at 4:41 pm

          “The Yougov poll seems more like a survey, not a snapshot poll. So is it really reliable given it is so much out of line with other polls?”

          Did you read Martin Baxter’s opinion (linked in the post). He’s a pretty reliable commentator as far as I can tell and does his own analysis.

          “It just seems highly unlikely that 20% of voters would change from the Conservatives to Labour in just a few days. In my experience voters are not that fickle.”

          That’s not what’s happened though. The change has been over a long period of time and you’re not accounting for the previous non-vote.

        • dukeofurl 12.1.1.4
          1 June 2017 at 5:12 pm

          They cant be compared with other ‘phone polls’ which sample a new group of 2000 each time.
          Its a survey panel which they follow all the way through- much like the LA Times poll technique which did predict Trump would win

          “Every day YouGov interviews approximately 7,000 panellists about their voting intentions in the 2017 General Election. Over the course of a week, data are collected from around 50,000 panellists. ”
          “YouGov is using a recently developed technique called Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (or ‘MRP’ for short) to produce estimates for small geographies (local authorities for the EU referendum, states in the 2016 American Presidential election, and Parliamentary constituencies for the 2017 General Election).”
          https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/how-yougov-model-2017-general-election-works/

          The benefits seem to be able to give constituency level data, which is of course what matters in UK.
          Does it work and are they drawing the right conclusions ?

          next week we will find out

        • swordfish 12.1.1.5
          1 June 2017 at 5:20 pm

          Thing is, Wayne, the latest conventional Yougov poll has precisely the same tiny 3 point Tory lead as this experimental 2017 General Election model.

          As a former pollster for the UK Labour Party has tweeted

          This (3 point Tory lead in conventional poll) much riskier from Yougov than their model. Bread & butter of their biz is representative samples. Must think race fundamentally changed.

          I agree, however, with your general scepticism , Wayne, – though I’m not too sure where you get the “20% of voters would change from the Conservatives to Labour in just a few days” from. I don’t think any pollster has suggested anything of the sort.

        • Macro 12.1.1.6
          4 June 2017 at 1:45 am

          The real cruncher for the Tories has been their dispicable Manifesto – not only hitting hard the older generations with their “dementia tax” – and pensioners have been turning off the Tories in droves by all accounts – but also attacking the younger generations with their cuts on school lunches in favour of school breakfast. This is calculated to affect around 100,000 school children from working poor families as well. Plus May has not fronted up to the media or opposition leaders and the Corby Textor Slogan “Strong and Stable” has gone down like a lead ballon. The populace are waking up to the obvious fact that the Tories frankly don’t care about the average person. The comments from some Tory MP’s have been appallingly insensitive. I’ve just returned from two months in the UK and from my observations this has been the most appauling campaign by the Tories who went into this snap election with an arrogance that was palpable.
          I’m not surprised in the least as to the current polling. J C has run an outstanding campaign and whilst the media have tried to trip him up and the drive a wedge between him and the rest of his Party – overall they have been very disciplined and he has shown himself to be a man of the people. The Labour manifesto actually offers hope to a country that over the past decade has been in steady decline. If you don’t believe me – leave the motorways and just take drive down any A road you like and count the potholes. As for the towns! Walk down any High Street and count the number of empty shops and the number of people forced into begging. Ask any person who is not a CEO or official of some form or other (there are two economies in the UK – the haves and the have nots) They will tell you quite plainly the the country is in a state of decay – and it shows.

    • Halfcrown 12.2
      1 June 2017 at 4:13 pm

      You have a very valid point there Tony, They won’t give up without a fight and we must remember their war chests will be bottomless. Stand by for a massive campaign by the media and there is certainly going to be a lot of dirty bloody tricks and politics by the rightwing arsoles.
      I doubt if Corbyn will win with a 300 seat majority, if at all.

  13. Michael who failed Civics 13
    1 June 2017 at 2:26 pm

    I’d wait until the votes are counted before cheering the Tories’ defeat. I also note that UK Labour is refusing to collaborate with the SNP after the election – although I suppose that could change rapidly if Corbyn and comrades see the keys to Number 10 remaining within Tory grasp. But if Labour wins this election, and if it can form a government, it will mean a real defeat for the Tories and neoliberalism too (some might say it represents a defeat for common sense and sanity but vox populi, vox dei and all that). Whatever happens, it’s certainly exciting for a political junkie like me (and helps divert my attention from the moribund political landscape here in NZ).

  14. james 14
    1 June 2017 at 4:49 pm

    It will be interesting – But it wouldn’t surprise me if Corbyn still loses badly.

    No doubt anything other than a mammoth thrashing will be hailed as a win by the left.

    Excused will include but not be limited to

    Bloody Blairrights.
    Bloody media was stacked against him
    Bloody neolibs
    Bloody tories told lies and people believed them
    Bloody voting public are idiots.

    • The decrypter 14.1
      1 June 2017 at 5:03 pm

      Bloody james,—–He started this bloody post yesterday, Got me all excited it did.

      • weka 14.1.1
        1 June 2017 at 5:33 pm

        Lol. I noticed James’s angst yesterday too. I was already intending to write the post from when Coates first tweeted a few days ago what was about to be released. James does seem worried though. He’s right, because I’ll take that worry as a win too 😆

    • Ed 14.2
      1 June 2017 at 8:36 pm

      You seem a bit worried, James.

      • James 14.2.1
        1 June 2017 at 10:42 pm

        A little hit for sure. But happy to admit it and also that my predictions were wrong

        I know it’s a strange concept for some on here who think they are intellectual goliants who can never be wrong.

        As a mortal – I’m happy to admit when I make a call that’s proven wrong as opposed to making excuses.

        But before you get too much joy from the poll results- remember – actual results may vary.

  15. weka 15
    1 June 2017 at 9:05 pm

    Alastair Thompson reckons the critical parts of the electorate are moving away from the Conservatives (pensioners, men)

    https://twitter.com/althecat/status/870195610342887425


    I doubt there has ever been such a rapid change in political fortunes in the course of a contemporary election campaign. /6

    It’s helpful to observe that in this case there is a clear ratonale and narrative that explains the spectacular movements. /7

    Alastair Thompson‏ @althecat 8m8 minutes ago

  16. WILD KATIPO 16
    1 June 2017 at 9:37 pm

    All Jeremy Corbyn has to do is keep polishing up the handle of the big front door and he will get there. And I don’t mean that he has to be a yes man lackey such as the one Gilbert and Sullivan mentioned in their lyrics.

    Hehehe I loved Gilbert and Sullivan as a kid ( strange childhood lol !) so here’s two of my favs 🙂

    Gilbert & Sullivan – When I Was A Lad/HMS Pinafore (Martyn Green …
    Video for martin green polished up the handles youtube▶ 2:49

    • WILD KATIPO 16.1
      1 June 2017 at 9:42 pm

      Lol ! – so delightfully stuffy and so very English – ahaahahaha ! This one should be Corbyn’s victory anthem – except Corbyns not into pompous old elitist gits l0l !

      Gilbert and Sullivan – “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General …
      Video for very model of a modern major general you tube▶ 2:54

  17. left_forward 17
    2 June 2017 at 11:47 am

    Whatever – this Labour rally in the polls is incredibly encouraging.
    Perhaps the globally exposed Trump madness is finally waking people up – a rejection of the utter selfishness of the right – can’t resist such a thought!

  18. web-developer 18
    3 June 2017 at 2:33 pm

    The best part of all of this is the small moves to Labour on an aggregate level masks a huge shift at a constituency level.

    UKIP registered 12.6% of the vote there in 2015, but only got one seat. What happened was the majority in a large number of Labour seats and Liberal Democrat seats were hobbled by UKIP (mainly Labour seats, the LDs separately didn’t do themselves any favours).

    Now that those pro-leave Labour voters have got what they want out of UKIP, they are going to be filtering back to Labour. Erstwhile LD voters disappointed with the relationship their party had with the Conservatives may also be as well as their tally continues to drop.

    So a +5pp gain overall may be unlocking dozens of electorates at a time. I did some math and there are 63 electorates where a combined Labour + UKIP tally from 2015 would flip Conservative seats.