by Zwackus
Sun May 28th, 2017 at 02:18:09 AM EST
It seems that yet another election campaign built on inevitability is sputtering and gasping in the home stretch. Just a few weeks ago, pundits were wondering whether Labour would lose as badly as it did in 1983 ... or worse. The polls around then suggested that Labour would be lucky to do as well as in that epic defeat. Oh, what a difference a few weeks can make.
Front paged - Frank Schnittger
Elections 2017: Poll tracker shows how Labour has steadily eroded Conservative lead
With less than three weeks to go until polling day, the Conservatives' lead over Labour has been steadily narrowing.
The Independent's poll tracker, which charts the overall trend by taking an average of all mainstream polls, shows Theresa May's party still commands a 10-point lead.
However, the Labour Party has increased its average rating by nine points since the Prime Minister called a snap election, to 34.5 per cent - their best showing in the polls since November last year.
Thank you, horserace reporter. Now on to market analysis.
DOOM!
Pound sterling falls to lowest level since April after Labour slashes Tory lead in latest election poll
The pound suffered its biggest one-day slide in around three weeks on Friday after a new poll showed that Labour had slashed the Conservatives' lead to just five points ahead of next month's general election.
At the London stock market close the pound was more than 1 per cent lower against the dollar, at $1.2787, its lowest level since the end of April.
On the one hand, Corbyn's Labour is obviously a bunch of scary Commies who want to take all the gold and burn the city to the ground, so of course the markets panic. On the other hand, a giant lead for May would, in theory, give her the leverage to tell her Brexit-crazies to shove it, and negotiate a better deal. In theory. A rather doubtful theory, in my opinion, but then again I know nothing.
British Pound: Potential Election Outcomes and their Impacts on the Exchange Rate
If this swing were replicated across the country then Theresa May's majority would be slashed to just two. If current trends continue into polling day Jeremy Corbyn will be in office and the UK will be looking at an unprecendented programme of nationalisations and increased public spending.
The idea was that a strong Conservative win in the upcoming General Election will boost the Pound has been prevalent ever since Sterling rallied in the wake of Theresa May's call for a snap election back in April.
A strong majority will grant May flexibility and allow for a benign transition period once Brexit negotiations complete.
The Guardian sees doom ahead, unwilling to believe in New Old Labour.
It seems crazy to argue that the election will be determined by the economy when events have focused the electorate's attention on national security and the judgment of the main political leaders.
Last year's Brexit vote illustrated many things, among them the propensity of voters to disregard short-term effects on their personal finances in favour of high ideals for a better world, whatever they felt that to be.
Yet the economy looms large in the background of this election and could still play a major role in determining the outcome. And fortunately for Theresa May, the trends of the last few months play into her party's hands. For Labour, jitters over Britain's economic outlook only makes the mountain harder to climb.
Oddly, the author seems to contradict himself before the article even gets going. Hrmn. A revealing tidbit from later in the article shows his target audience clearly.
Looking back over the last seven years, it is easy to see that the feelgood days that came after the summer of 2014 were generated by a sugar rush of low oil prices, low-cost imports and plentiful cheap labour.
Yes, I too feel optimistic when there is a surplus of plentiful and cheap Labour. Why, it just makes me start salivating over all those jobs I could create! Ahem.
Corbyn went back on the campaign trail recently, after a brief hiatus following the Manchester bombing. John Crace can't quite believe that Corbyn didn't stuff things up, and seems kind of sad. Jeremy Corbyn takes security risk and confounds critics | John Crace | Politics
With Tory candidates hastily erasing the Supreme Leader from their campaign leaflets and Labour candidates having to backtrack a little on their promise that it was OK for people to vote for them as there was no chance of them winning the election, Corbyn chose to resume campaigning after the Manchester bombing with a speech in central London on national security.
...
It was the one of very few point-scoring digs at the Conservatives in the entire speech as, for the most part, he chose to rise above party politics. He didn't seek to blame anyone but the bomber for the Manchester attack, only to try to provide a context for it and ended with the hope that the final two weeks of the election campaign could be conducted without name-calling or playing party politics. That was dashed within minutes when the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, took to the airwaves to condemn him for a speech he hadn't made. Corbyn left without taking any questions. There would be more than enough of them from Andrew Neil later in the evening.
Unusually, Neil lobbed Corbyn a gentle loosener to start with by sounding incredulous that the Labour leader was making a link between terrorism and British foreign policy. Corbyn couldn't believe his luck and used the opportunity to point out that he wasn't alone in thinking this. Boris Johnson, two heads of MI5 and the foreign affairs select committee had come to pretty much the same conclusion. Who was he to disagree with such collective wisdom?
Thoughts?
