FlyTheNest

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 6:34 am**

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47%
LAB: 30%
LDEM: 7%
UKIP: 5%
GRN: 3%

(@Survation / phone method)

Looking at the loval elections, that one probably overstates Labour a touch, and understates the Lib Dems.

Corbyn's pledge to "take our wealth back" is quite robust

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 8:09 am**

Morning.

In a sequel to that extraordinary tale of the bloke who blamed his son for a £500 bet on Le Pen in spite of overwhelming evidence proving his own responsibility, guess which news outlet chucks the kid under the bus and reports the idiot sympathetically:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 8:12 am**

Parking charges

http://www.economist.com/blogs/speakers ... cn/tw/once" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There may be ways to alleviate this, but on its face it is a terrible idea.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 8:26 am**

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 8:29 am**

SpinningHugo wrote:Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47%
LAB: 30%
LDEM: 7%
UKIP: 5%
GRN: 3%

(@Survation / phone method)

Looking at the loval elections, that one probably overstates Labour a touch, and understates the Lib Dems.

Corbyn's pledge to "take our wealth back" is quite robust

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also somewhere in that poll...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What with this and the Hartlepool stuff, I can feel my unapologetic sneering elitism coming on.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 10:57 am**

More than a million applications to register to vote have been made since Theresa May called the general election, the Press Association reports.

"A total of 1,038,877 applications have been submitted since April 18, almost a third of them from people aged under 25.

Applications from those aged 25 to 34 make up another third.

By contrast, just 1% have come from people aged over 75.

The figures do not necessarily mean one million new voters will be able to take part in the general election, however.

Applicants typically include people checking to see if they are already registered to vote, as well as those who are ineligible."

Good to see, although possibly not new voters, just younger people more likely to need to re-register as they move around, but at least they're doing so. With an aging population with very different political wants and needs, it's important for the younger generation to turn out and vote so their wants and needs can't so easily be dismissed.

Edited to add - from the G live blog ( where else?! )

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 11:00 am**

Good-morning, everyone

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 11:03 am**

Stephen Bush, brilliant as ever.

http://view.s4.exacttarget.com/?qs=9c17 ... 215dc72591" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think Cooper would be excellent, but I doubt the membership would have her, despite her clearly being the best option. We're going to be left with the fairly useless Starmer instead aren't we?

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 11:17 am**

You have a thing about Starmer. Most (myself included) do not share your view of him.

Cooper offered, at best, only fleeting glimpses of her supposed "excellence" both in Ed's shadow cabinet (remind me who she sparred with, again?) and during her 2015 leadership campaign. She is being puffed up recently because she has asked a few effective questions from the backbench. That is relatively easy and many MPs manage it (indeed, a certain N London member did during his lengthy incarnation outside the Labour front benches)

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 11:59 am**

I doubt you've seen as much of Starmer as I have. You must have seen him as Art 50 went through the Commons. I know he had one hand tied behind his back by Corbyn, but it was pitiful all the same.

I don't think it matters anyway, as I'd be surprised if he has enough PLP support. I'd expect mass nomination of one candidate, probably Cooper as that is who the PLP want (rightly IMO).

After the launch Corybn's campaign bus is going to Salford, Ashton and Wythenshawe, all safe seats the first two rock solid.

You can read the text of his speech here

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-co ... ull-2017-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Clear to me he is aiming at the kind of people who post on flythenest, and not at those thinking of voting Tory. That shows which campaign he is fighting.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 12:02 pm**

Your "expectations" re the PLP are typically quixotic. There are plenty of MPs who didn't want Cooper last time, and won't want her this time.

A tip - please don't believe all the bollix that Tom Watson (semi-anonymously) spouts.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 12:04 pm**

Afternoon all.

Yet another bright sunny day here, long may it continue.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 12:10 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47%
LAB: 30%
LDEM: 7%
UKIP: 5%
GRN: 3%

(@Survation / phone method)

Looking at the local elections, that one probably overstates Labour a touch, and understates the Lib Dems.

To the extent that local elections have any read-through to Westminster ones, it arguably overstates a certain other party more.

(and citing supposed "precedents" in May 1983 and 1987 is arguably somewhat misleading, because unlike this time the GE hadn't actually been called then)

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 12:16 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47%
LAB: 30%
LDEM: 7%
UKIP: 5%
GRN: 3%

(@Survation / phone method)

Looking at the local elections, that one probably overstates Labour a touch, and understates the Lib Dems.
To the extent that local elections have any read-through to Westminster ones, it arguably overstates a certain other party more.

(and citing supposed "precedents" in May 1983 and 1987 is arguably somewhat misleading, because unlike this time the GE hadn't actually been called then)

Maybe.

I can't see Labour under Corbyn doing better than under Miliband. Ukips vote has collapsed. And the Lib Dems are doing better at local level than national.

But yes, all the polls might be wrong as you claim. I don't know, all I can do is exercise judgement.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 12:17 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Your "expectations" re the PLP are typically quixotic. There are plenty of MPs who didn't want Cooper last time, and won't want her this time.

A tip - please don't believe all the bollix that Tom Watson (semi-anonymously) spouts.

I think the pressure this time to unify around someone will be intense. It won't be like last time.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 12:19 pm**

Ah right, the "you're saying the polls are wrong" straw man. I know very well that what the polls are saying is BROADLY correct.

There is still a massive difference between a Tory majority of under 50 and one of over 200. Depending on which way the campaign goes, either is possible.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 12:28 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Ah right, the "you're saying the polls are wrong" straw man. I know very well that what the polls are saying is BROADLY correct.

There is still a massive difference between a Tory majority of under 50 and one of over 200. Depending on which way the campaign goes, either is possible.

I am not sure what you are saying then. Last night and today you've been giving reasons for thinking the Tory lead is overstated. You are, as far as I can see, saying they're wrong, I know you're not claiming Labour is winning.

I think they're probably right, and in line with the local government elections. I'd expect quite a few nasty headlines about the pasts of Corbyn and McDonnell in the last couple of weeks,

I don't think a Tory majority of under 50, or one of over 200, is at all likely. Even in 1983 they "only" got 393 seats, and that took a war and Michael Foot. Now we are 7 years into austerity, in a slump, and May is not much good.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 1:43 pm**

May may not be good. Yet there are plenty in the press that like her, Laura K has a femcrush and the personal polling of May is sky-high. The campaign literature shows that this is framed as give me a strong Brexit mandate. Everything else? Superfluous.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 1:54 pm**

Two from Michael Crick.

Michael Crick‏Verified account
@MichaelLCrick

Only pre-arranged journalists get questions at May events. Those chosen asked by May aide to state Qs in advance

Michael Crick‏Verified account @MichaelLCrick 37m37 minutes ago
More
What shocks me is reporters collaborate with May press team by agreeing to reveal their questions to them in advance

Wouldn't it be great if they simply said "No we won't. What are you going to do about it?"

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 2:06 pm**

RogerOThornhill wrote:Two from Michael Crick.

Michael Crick‏Verified account
@MichaelLCrick

Only pre-arranged journalists get questions at May events. Those chosen asked by May aide to state Qs in advance

Michael Crick‏Verified account @MichaelLCrick 37m37 minutes ago
More
What shocks me is reporters collaborate with May press team by agreeing to reveal their questions to them in advance
Wouldn't it be great if they simply said "No we won't. What are you going to do about it?"

Or asked a different question to the one which was agreed.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 2:06 pm**

Good morfternoon.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 2:35 pm**

Energy. Use it wisely.

First of all, we are Conservatives. We believe in free markets and competition, but we want to see competition working.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 3:06 pm**

The Sky News team sucking up to Theresa May team. I'm shocked I tell you shocked!!

Michael Crick
✔
@MichaelLCrick
Only pre-arranged journalists get questions at May events. Those chosen asked by May aide to state Qs in advance
1:07 PM - 9 May 2017

✔
@RobNisbetSky
To be clear @theresa_may team is preselecting journalists - not questions - before campaign events. We can ask what we want - when picked
1:24 PM - 9 May 2017

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 3:39 pm**

ScarletGas wrote:The Sky News team sucking up to Theresa May team. I'm shocked I tell you shocked!!

Michael Crick
✔
@MichaelLCrick
Only pre-arranged journalists get questions at May events. Those chosen asked by May aide to state Qs in advance
1:07 PM - 9 May 2017

✔
@RobNisbetSky
To be clear @theresa_may team is preselecting journalists - not questions - before campaign events. We can ask what we want - when picked
1:24 PM - 9 May 2017

Or only Michael Crick is being asked to submit questions, to make sure they're not about anything embarrassing like, oh, I don't know.,..are the Tories going to stick to the election spending rules this time, Theresa?

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 3:41 pm**

Kuenssberg making herself the story again. Shocked, shocked I am.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 3:46 pm**

Big swing back to Labour in this one

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 44% (-4)
LAB: 28% (+4)
LDEM: 11% (-)
UKIP: 8% (+1)

(via @TNS_UK / 04 - 08 May)
Chgs. w/ 02 May

(Ukips look high in that one IMO).

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:08 pm**

Trolling again, SH? Tis all about the trend I hear you shout.

In other news, Fox hunting free vote, yay! The list of fucking nasty Tory plans gets another tick.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:22 pm**

StephenDolan wrote:Trolling again, SH? Tis all about the trend I hear you shout.

In other news, Fox hunting free vote, yay! The list of fucking nasty Tory plans gets another tick.

Can I stop doing these now, unless there is a really interesting one? I get accused of trolling when I post them, and of deliberately not posting good news when there is a good one for Labour I don't post.

The rolling average is a Tory lead of around 17 points. I think we can take that as a given unless and until something dramatic happens.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:23 pm**

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eremy-hunt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour expels three members over attempt to unseat Jeremy Hunt
Kate Townsend, Steve Williams and Robert Park ousted over cross-party alliance bid to unseat Hunt and replace him with a GP

A story that should be about the scandalous state of the NHS under Jeremy Hunt providing useful publicity about the poor Tory record in this area, a record they are trying to hide is, instead, all about Labour.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:24 pm**

1923 - 2017 = 94 years

37 years - Labour government
57 years - Tory government

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:26 pm**

Less than forty years of Labour government(s) within about a century, the rest of those decades, Tory government(s)

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:30 pm**

Actually no if you don't mind SH, you are genuinely providing a service in posting these.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:32 pm**

citizenJA wrote:1923 - 2017 = 94 years

37 years - Labour government
57 years - Tory government

Are you counting the National government (1931-40) and the 2010-15 coalition as Tory? The wartime 1940-45 coalition (Lab and Tory?)

By my ready reckoning, Labour has been in power for 32 years since 1923. 13 of those under "New" Labour, which for some might not count I suppose.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:38 pm**

Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eremy-hunt
Labour expels three members over attempt to unseat Jeremy Hunt
Kate Townsend, Steve Williams and Robert Park ousted over cross-party alliance bid to unseat Hunt and replace him with a GP
A story that should be about the scandalous state of the NHS under Jeremy Hunt providing useful publicity about the poor Tory record in this area, a record they are trying to hide is, instead, all about Labour.

From reports, it seems that not all local Greens and LibDems who have been told they are supporting this "progressive" option are happy either.

Those party members could have got an emergency resolution passed by the local CLP endorsing their candidate standing down in favour of this "progressive alliance" option - if that had happened national party HQ would have found it hard to ignore. I presume they didn't because they lacked the support?

(and this seat was once a serious LibDem target and I doubt if they will therefore be happy to stand aside either)

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:42 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote:1923 - 2017 = 94 years

37 years - Labour government
57 years - Tory government
Are you counting the National government (1931-40) and the 2010-15 coalition as Tory? The wartime 1940-45 coalition (Lab and Tory?)

By my ready reckoning, Labour has been in power for 32 years since 1923. 13 of those under "New" Labour, which for some might not count I suppose.

(1929 - 1935) = Labour
(1940 - 1945) = Tory
(2010- 2015) = Tory
(2015 - present) = Tory

I've used Wikipedia, that's all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... _elections

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:43 pm**

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led Labour party governments

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:46 pm**

citizenJA wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote:1923 - 2017 = 94 years

37 years - Labour government
57 years - Tory government
Are you counting the National government (1931-40) and the 2010-15 coalition as Tory? The wartime 1940-45 coalition (Lab and Tory?)

By my ready reckoning, Labour has been in power for 32 years since 1923. 13 of those under "New" Labour, which for some might not count I suppose.
(1929 - 1935) = Labour
(1940 - 1945) = Tory
(2010- 2015) = Tory
(2015 - present) = Tory

I've used Wikipedia, that's all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... _elections

I don't think 1940-45 was Tory. Attlee was deputy PM.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:49 pm**

This Harris Anywhere but Westminster captures, for me, the astonishing position of the parties given austerity

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:57 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote: (1929 - 1935) = Labour
(1940 - 1945) = Tory
(2010- 2015) = Tory
(2015 - present) = Tory

I've used Wikipedia, that's all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... _elections
I don't think 1940-45 was Tory. Attlee was deputy PM.

You may be correct but let me ask you this, who had real power during this time? Who did regular people think had power during this time? I think the answer is Tory, to both those questions.
I consider the Tory/LibDem coalition government a Tory government because Tories were mostly unhindered by their LibDems coalition partners. The LibDems voted for Tory policy more often than not.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 4:59 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eremy-hunt
Labour expels three members over attempt to unseat Jeremy Hunt
Kate Townsend, Steve Williams and Robert Park ousted over cross-party alliance bid to unseat Hunt and replace him with a GP
A story that should be about the scandalous state of the NHS under Jeremy Hunt providing useful publicity about the poor Tory record in this area, a record they are trying to hide is, instead, all about Labour.
From reports, it seems that not all local Greens and LibDems who have been told they are supporting this "progressive" option are happy either.

Those party members could have got an emergency resolution passed by the local CLP endorsing their candidate standing down in favour of this "progressive alliance" option - if that had happened national party HQ would have found it hard to ignore. I presume they didn't because they lacked the support?

(and this seat was once a serious LibDem target and I doubt if they will therefore be happy to stand aside either)

Although rare, Martin Bell in Tatton is a precedent for parties standing aside over a shared ethos in an extreme situation. Personally, I think the current state of the NHS and the media's under-reporting of it is a similar extreme situation. As such, I find it hard to believe that loyal party members would be summarily thrown out of the party simply for talking about the merits of doing so, even if at the end of the day the Libdems not playing ball means it doesn't turn out to be a runner. Just discussing in the media whether to back the NHA party candidate against Jeremy Hunt puts more pressure on him and the Tories' handling of the NHS than anything we'll get from the poodle press. I just feel Labour could have handled this in a way which kept the negatives on Hunt, rather than turning them back on themselves.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 5:03 pm**

Dan F Hodges on Sky News showing,yet again,what a complete (with apologies to asses everywhere) ass he is.

He claims Corbyns speech was the "worst ever" by a leader going into a general election. Looking at Andrew Sparrow (whilst he makes the point that the speech is aimed squarely at his core vote) he claims this "may have been his best speech yet as Labour leader"

I know who (with some reservations)who I would consider the more balanced and impartial of the two.

Why,retorical question, do these news organisations have these clowns on when the readers of this board (and a goodly minority of voters watching the news during the afternoon) could probably recite what would spew from his unthinking mouth.

Lets have some nuanced observation rather than the predictable rantings of a deluded zealot.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 5:05 pm**

Forgive me for not paying attention to the expelled Labour party members & the Tory health minister.
When I saw the headline, my first thought was a few Labour party members bodily tipping him over some where.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 5:25 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:This Harris Anywhere but Westminster captures, for me, the astonishing position of the parties given austerity

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I saw the South West one of these. It's not looking good for a Libdem revival south of Bath, either.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 5:46 pm**

citizenJA wrote:Forgive me for not paying attention to the expelled Labour party members & the Tory health minister.
When I saw the headline, my first thought was a few Labour party members bodily tipping him over some where.

If only......!

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 6:16 pm**

May and her husband are on the One Show this evening.

I can't believe I'm writing this, juxtaposed with the last ten minutes of the usual on BBC News.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 6:23 pm**

NonOxCol wrote:May and her husband are on the One Show this evening.

Pass the sick bag.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 6:36 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Actually no if you don't mind SH, you are genuinely providing a service in posting these.

Indeed, there are lots of polls I miss a fair few.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 6:40 pm**

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 26506.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
During a visit to a factory in Leeds, the Prime Minister said: "This is a situation on which individuals will have one view or the other, either pro or against.

"As it happens, personally I have always been in favour of ~~fox hunting~~, torturing, terrifying and murdering living, sentient creatures and we maintain our commitment, we have had a commitment previously as a Conservative Party, to allow a free vote.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 6:52 pm**

ScarletGas wrote:Dan F Hodges on Sky News showing,yet again,what a complete (with apologies to asses everywhere) ass he is.

He claims Corbyns speech was the "worst ever" by a leader going into a general election. Looking at Andrew Sparrow (whilst he makes the point that the speech is aimed squarely at his core vote) he claims this "may have been his best speech yet as Labour leader"

I know who (with some reservations)who I would consider the more balanced and impartial of the two.

Why,retorical question, do these news organisations have these clowns on when the readers of this board (and a goodly minority of voters watching the news during the afternoon) could probably recite what would spew from his unthinking mouth.

Lets have some nuanced observation rather than the predictable rantings of a deluded zealot.

I guess it depends on your perspective. He is clearly not trying to win, but it did ok at enthusing the base. In fact they could both be right in that it could be Corbyn's best speech as leader and also the worst of any leader going into an election.

Although Theresa May is hardly a great public speaker.

Posted: **Tue 09 May, 2017 7:00 pm**

tinyclanger2 wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 26506.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
During a visit to a factory in Leeds, the Prime Minister said: "This is a situation on which individuals will have one view or the other, either pro or against.

"As it happens, personally I have always been in favour of ~~fox hunting~~, torturing, terrifying and murdering living, sentient creatures and we maintain our commitment, we have had a commitment previously as a Conservative Party, to allow a free vote.

Give her a mandate for Brexit so she can torture wildlife. Odious loathsome piece of scum.

FlyTheNest

Tuesday 9th May 2017

Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017

Re: Tuesday 9th May 2017