Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It’s hard to see how Johnson recovers from this – politicalbetting.com

2456710

Comments

  • HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    Yesterday you accused me of the same i.e. wanting to get rid of Boris so us Liberal remainers can win an election. Chance would be a fine thing. Haven't won for about 100 years. Not going to start now regardless.

    But doesn't the sample of PB tell you how stupid that statement is. Almost the entire cohort of PB Tories want him gone. If he goes the LDs will lose the potential support of every single one of them back to the Tories.
    Given I was actually about the only PB Tory who backed Boris to be leader and said he would win in 2019 from the start why should I care less what they think? The vast majority of PB thought Boris would never become leader nor win a general election
    *Cough*

    I supported him before you did, voted Leave while you voted Remain. And I think he should go.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    If Johnson does go, his legacy will be a long and dishonourable one. From his toxic appointments to the Lords through his debasement of our democracy to his destabilisation of Northern Ireland, he has done immense damage. Supported by the Conservative party every step of the way.
    https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1468850039783051269
  • Chris said:

    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Oh I don't think he has any realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate.

    He has a chance of being selected as one followed by rapid removal as a few posters on here inform the constituency of his posts on here.
    Maybe social media has its virtues after all.
    Another comment regarding our very own HYUFD (a bit of a double edged one) and refuting @StuartDickson's point is that HYUFD is IIRC a Town Councillor. This is the same tier of government as Parish. He is therefore not necessarily representative of the Tories in general
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    .@sajidjavid says he received "assurances" all Covid rules were followed at Xmas party Dec18.
    Last night @BorisJohnson said some "senior" officials had given him such assurances too.
    Yet no minister will say who those senior figures are, or why the Case inquiry now doubts them.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1468859572903452672
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,135
    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:

    Nigelb said:

    Will the Nationality and Borders bill quietly pass during the partygate fallout ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/citizenship-politics-nationality-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
    … Under the proposals, any foreign-born British citizen can be deprived of their citizenship, without notice or notification. Dual citizenship is not a precondition; they can be made stateless so long as the British government believes they are eligible for citizenship of another country. Analysis from the 2011 census, by the New Statesman, finds an astronomical number of people – 5.5 million in England and Wales – who fall into this category, including about 408,000 people born in the UK.…

    This is the end of meaningful British citizenship. If you have an Irish grandparent you could be effectively banished to Ireland. Presumably Boris could be made stateless as he is eligible for American citizenship. Large parts of the cabinet could presumably be banished, thinking about it. Many of them have some non-British heritage.

    The sheer magnitude of what is being proposed is incredible. Will someone stand up in Parliament and point out that the legislation could apply to a very large number of MP's and their families? Maybe they need to THINK about the legislation they are passing.

    This is true authoritarianism (as opposed to the benign stuff on covid passes that agitates backbench tory MPs)
    Well well. I did say that the aim of this policy and the voters the Tories are appeasing was to get rid of the darkies and here it is. It isn't just authoritarian, it's openly racist.
    I don't think this one is racist. It is just using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (the Begum problems), but the possible negative outcomes are catastrophic and far, far exceed any benefit from the legislation. This is the reality of being ruled by an arrogant government with a compliant and broken civil service. Everyone eventually has a breaking point; it is noticeable that almost everyone who posts on this website has reached it with this government over the past few weeks.


    Not just non-British but non-GB heritage.

    I really cannot understand what is being proposed, and fear for my many relatives and friends who have perpetrated the crime of having non-GB parents or grandparents.
    What you have here is the classic loop -

    1) Government* tries to deal with problem X
    2) Opponents push back
    3) Government introduces legislation to deal with X
    4) Opponents render it slow and ineffective
    5) etc

    By iteration 76, the Government will be proposing Senātūs Consultum Ultimatum

    *Both permanent and elected. As Michael Howard said that one of the important jobs of Home Sec. was saying no to the pile of proposals that got put on his desk after every "incident".
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    This doesn't make any sense. Why are Ministers being sent out to say "I was furious when I saw that video" but then say "I don't know if there was a party". If you don't know there was a party what was it in the video that made you so furious?
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1468859918048444416
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,634
    TOPPING said:

    Boris has nothing to worry about because Labour will support him in the vote and hence it passes and he lives to fight another day. 2024 is miles away.

    This will come to be SKS' biggest error. Boring fine, no charisma so what, wooden yes. But supporting the government in vote after vote after vote - unforgiveable.

    A huge mistake. He doesn't understand the job. He should have been looking for a third way.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,295

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Will the Nationality and Borders bill quietly pass during the partygate fallout ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/citizenship-politics-nationality-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
    … Under the proposals, any foreign-born British citizen can be deprived of their citizenship, without notice or notification. Dual citizenship is not a precondition; they can be made stateless so long as the British government believes they are eligible for citizenship of another country. Analysis from the 2011 census, by the New Statesman, finds an astronomical number of people – 5.5 million in England and Wales – who fall into this category, including about 408,000 people born in the UK.…

    Probably more than that, given Irish ancestry etc. Indeed it may include me because of my eligibility for an Australian passport.
    It would also include my wife and children (who were born here).
    A little below 10% of the entire population potentially subject to removal of their citizenship. It is an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible piece of legislation.
    FPT I don't know the details of this law change, dual-citizens (and those eligible) like Begum can already be stripped of their citizenship that's already the law because of Blair.

    So what's new? What's different to the principle that Blair already made the law here?

    Also can someone be stripped of citizenship solely because of eligibility for dual citizenship? Or are there other requirements too, like they're a threat to the country or a terrorist etc? In which case again how is it any different to that which is already the law thanks to Blair?
    Agreed, the earlier legislation was dangerous too - and was made more so under May.
    What's changing is the removal of the automatic statutory requirement for the Home Secretary to give notice, which would make the process much easier to conduct quickly and quietly.
    The greatest current restraints - public opinion and challenge through the courts, are thereby greatly diminished. The power has been there for some time, but this makes it much more practicable for a malign government to use.
  • HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Says a supporter of the Scottish National Party, a party filled with extremist lunatics
    I thought the official BetterTogether2 line was that the SNP had become a bunch of total softy lapdogs, uninterested in independence but merely seeking to retain cosy jobs? Please make up your minds.

    Oh… that’s your central office hotline ringing, you’d better slither off and answer it…
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    The goalposts have been shifted so far they’ve fallen down.

    First it was that Labour is 20 points behind. That wasn’t enough.

    Then Labour was tied. It wasn’t enough.

    Then Starmer’s ratings were behind Johnson’s. It wasn’t enough.

    Now Labour is ahead. But it still isn’t enough.

    It never will be enough for certain people.

    Absolutely and quite right too. Its the bare minimum that the Opposition should be significantly in the lead when the government is struggling in midterms. It isn't enough though. It is a 'necessary but not sufficient condition'.

    Ed Miliband polled 15% leads. Was that enough? Did he become Prime Minister?
    Jeremy Corbyn polled 10% leads. Was that enough? Did he become Prime Minister?

    If you think that while the government is mired in scandal that Keir Starmer's Labour polling a 4% lead versus Corbyn's 10% lead he polled is "enough" then please rest on your laurels.
    As always with polls this far out, the direction of travel is the key. When Cameron shat in his pants over UKIP it wasn't over one or two polls, it was because UKIP were continually taking chunks out of them. Its the same here.

    There was a clear political consensus that England was going to vote Tory to get Brexit done. That compact held all the way through Brexit and out the other side as the government tempted people with shiny shiny. Allegations were something that could be ignored because shiny shiny

    Now that we're deep into cuts and taxy taxy the compact is less secure. Stories that did the rounds 6-12 months back (PPE contracts as an example) and didn't make an impact are now rocket fuel for a sleaze story that isn't slowing down.

    So it isn't about any poll you want to look at now whether its the one showing Con +2 or Lab +4. Its that the clear and consistent Tory high base has crumbled and the lead is collapsing into a deficit.
    "When Cameron shat in his pants over UKIP it wasn't over one or two polls, it was because UKIP were continually taking chunks out of them. Its the same here"

    Cameron's Tories went from Coalition to Majority in the GE following those polls
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    In your innermost heart, do you ever question why you are shilling for a schmuck?
    Because I will always be loyal to the leader who won our party the biggest general election victory since Thatcher. Forcing Thatcher out saw the Tories lose 3 out of 4 of the following general elections and I do not want to make the same mistake again.

    See too Labour, after Blair was pushed out it has lost 4 general elections in a row
    Is there anything he could do that would be an event too far for you?
  • HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    You never supported Boris anyway, nor showed any gratitude that it is only down to Boris winning in 2019 you got your precious Brexit
    At least I had the decency to put principle before my own personal desires. Hence the reason I could not vote for Johnson even with the threat to Brexit. Whilst you would do anything to keep your precious party in power no matter how warped or degraded it has become.
    Yes perhaps, but where Richard and I differ on our view on Brexit, I do have respect for the fact that he seems to have always recognised that Johnson (or Boris as you so lovingly call him) is a liability to the country. Boris Johnson is a liar and an incompetent. All of this is now having consequence. He is unfit for office, and he should go for the sake of his party and the country. Only fools think otherwise
  • Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Will the Nationality and Borders bill quietly pass during the partygate fallout ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/citizenship-politics-nationality-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
    … Under the proposals, any foreign-born British citizen can be deprived of their citizenship, without notice or notification. Dual citizenship is not a precondition; they can be made stateless so long as the British government believes they are eligible for citizenship of another country. Analysis from the 2011 census, by the New Statesman, finds an astronomical number of people – 5.5 million in England and Wales – who fall into this category, including about 408,000 people born in the UK.…

    Probably more than that, given Irish ancestry etc. Indeed it may include me because of my eligibility for an Australian passport.
    It would also include my wife and children (who were born here).
    A little below 10% of the entire population potentially subject to removal of their citizenship. It is an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible piece of legislation.
    FPT I don't know the details of this law change, dual-citizens (and those eligible) like Begum can already be stripped of their citizenship that's already the law because of Blair.

    So what's new? What's different to the principle that Blair already made the law here?

    Also can someone be stripped of citizenship solely because of eligibility for dual citizenship? Or are there other requirements too, like they're a threat to the country or a terrorist etc? In which case again how is it any different to that which is already the law thanks to Blair?
    My understanding is that Begum only had the potential to be a dual citizen. Regardless, her claim to dual nationality is in doubt, which means that stripping her of UK citizenship is in a gray area legally, for the courts to decide what the statute is.

    I presume the new bill will make it explicitly lawful to remove UK Citizenship under these circumstances.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,604
    isam said:

    The goalposts have been shifted so far they’ve fallen down.

    First it was that Labour is 20 points behind. That wasn’t enough.

    Then Labour was tied. It wasn’t enough.

    Then Starmer’s ratings were behind Johnson’s. It wasn’t enough.

    Now Labour is ahead. But it still isn’t enough.

    It never will be enough for certain people.

    Absolutely and quite right too. Its the bare minimum that the Opposition should be significantly in the lead when the government is struggling in midterms. It isn't enough though. It is a 'necessary but not sufficient condition'.

    Ed Miliband polled 15% leads. Was that enough? Did he become Prime Minister?
    Jeremy Corbyn polled 10% leads. Was that enough? Did he become Prime Minister?

    If you think that while the government is mired in scandal that Keir Starmer's Labour polling a 4% lead versus Corbyn's 10% lead he polled is "enough" then please rest on your laurels.
    As always with polls this far out, the direction of travel is the key. When Cameron shat in his pants over UKIP it wasn't over one or two polls, it was because UKIP were continually taking chunks out of them. Its the same here.

    There was a clear political consensus that England was going to vote Tory to get Brexit done. That compact held all the way through Brexit and out the other side as the government tempted people with shiny shiny. Allegations were something that could be ignored because shiny shiny

    Now that we're deep into cuts and taxy taxy the compact is less secure. Stories that did the rounds 6-12 months back (PPE contracts as an example) and didn't make an impact are now rocket fuel for a sleaze story that isn't slowing down.

    So it isn't about any poll you want to look at now whether its the one showing Con +2 or Lab +4. Its that the clear and consistent Tory high base has crumbled and the lead is collapsing into a deficit.
    "When Cameron shat in his pants over UKIP it wasn't over one or two polls, it was because UKIP were continually taking chunks out of them. Its the same here"

    Cameron's Tories went from Coalition to Majority in the GE following those polls
    A majority that ultimately did for Cameron as a result of the promises he made to achieve it.
  • HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    You never supported Boris anyway, nor showed any gratitude that it is only down to Boris winning in 2019 you got your precious Brexit
    At least I had the decency to put principle before my own personal desires. Hence the reason I could not vote for Johnson even with the threat to Brexit. Whilst you would do anything to keep your precious party in power no matter how warped or degraded it has become.
    Yes perhaps, but where Richard and I differ on our view on Brexit, I do have respect for the fact that he seems to have always recognised that Johnson (or Boris as you so lovingly call him) is a liability to the country. Boris Johnson is a liar and an incompetent. All of this is now having consequence. He is unfit for office, and he should go for the sake of his party and the country. Only fools think otherwise
    Sorry Richard, for clarity, that was meant as response to HYUFD's comment!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    I see why Government didn't want to put anyone on media yesterday, as today we are at "we were in Salisbury to see the beautiful spire." level of convincing.
    https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1468861113198649345
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Says a supporter of the Scottish National Party, a party filled with extremist lunatics
    I thought the official BetterTogether2 line was that the SNP had become a bunch of total softy lapdogs, uninterested in independence but merely seeking to retain cosy jobs? Please make up your minds.

    Oh… that’s your central office hotline ringing, you’d better slither off and answer it…
    It was HYUFD himself who recommended - to his credit - that website which mapped party views against each other, like Political Compass but a different one. Both those map the SNP and PC as almost as centrist as you can get with the Tories up in the ultra-violent catastrophe part of the graph. So much for extremist lunatics, which admittedly we must seem from his viewpoint - relatively speaking.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,234
    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Remember when people on here were criticising @contrarian and me and others for being anti-lockdown.

    This is how it ends. The government being able to restrict freedoms at will for any number of reasons including but not limited to doggies in Afghan, booze ups in No.10 and oh yes, a virus that has to date infected 0.000016% of the population.

    And just wait until Lab gets in. They have supported and wanted further restrictions all along the way.

    And we the British public have tolerated and encouraged it.

    I disagree with you about the need for lockdowns when we had them - hateful as they were.

    However, you make a very good point about yesterday's announcements. Remember that earlier this week we were told that they do not have sufficient Omicron data to make any decisions, and it would be at least next week before they could do so.

    Then Boris's Bunga Bunga Party became public knowledge. And suddenly "cripes, news conference this afternoon". Where they miraculously DO have the data, we have to do this, following the science etc.

    It was noted on here how glum Whitty looked. That he said "this was a decision of the cabinet". THAT is the key point. They are not following the science - they are using it as a political shield for Liar again.
    And, just like Walter Wolfgang, it is a fantasy to think that governments won't use the tools available and provided by the electorate to do so.

    It was always ever the principle of lockdowns (do they work well of course they do) that I despised because lo and behold at some point instead of doing something that "I" agree with they will do something that I disagree with.

    Plenty here on PB mocked me and @contrarian right up until the point their own red lines were breached at which point they said - ridiculous: no more lockdowns. But by that time they had ceded the ground to the government because right from the beginning they allowed them to do this.

    And lo here we are.
    Either we had lockdowns, or we didn't and death rates soared and the government fell and we had a new government and we had lockdowns. It's like the law of gravity, incredibly dangerous and expensive in many ways but not much point protesting about it
    As @rcs1000 constantly reminded us people would have locked down on their own. So where does that leave furlough without a mandated lockdown. Well the government would have had to make "pandemic payments" to businesses which replicated the furlough.

    Those who were worried would have stayed at home and those not worried would have gone out to party. WFH would have been available to those that wanted.

    None of it needed to be enshrined in law. Oh but we must protect the NHS. Indeed we must. And with enough education and nudging it could have been protected. And then the relationship between the NHS and the people (the former to support the latter not the other way round) could have been firmly reiterated.
    Yes, this is my view. We could have had sternly-worded government health advice. We could have had appeals to our better nature, and to be part of a collective effort - and the vast majority of the public would have responded.

    We did not need to use the force of law, and thereby cast the public in the role of children, needing to be told what to do, and having a subordinate role, rather than an equal one.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,234
    isam said:

    ‘Clearly an electoral liability’ because they’re 4% behind in a poll in the midst of a crisis is stronging it I’d say

    A 4% poll deficit does seem to be way out of kilter with the extent to which Johnson appears to have lost the media class and many of his backbenchers.

    However, what I did find interesting about that poll is that direct Tory -> Labour switchers are up to 8% of 2019 Tory voters (compared to don't knows at 19%), which is a bit higher than in other recent polls. Could be an early sign of trouble there.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    Cabinet ministers from the PM down keep saying they’ve been given “assurances” no rules were broken at the Christmas No10 party, but nobody can say who specifically assured them.
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1468861423698776073
  • eek said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Oh I don't think he has any realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate.

    He has a chance of being selected as one followed by rapid removal as a few posters on here inform the constituency of his posts on here.
    The screenshots have been posted on here. (Not by me I hasten to add.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    In your innermost heart, do you ever question why you are shilling for a schmuck?
    Because I will always be loyal to the leader who won our party the biggest general election victory since Thatcher. Forcing Thatcher out saw the Tories lose 3 out of 4 of the following general elections and I do not want to make the same mistake again.

    See too Labour, after Blair was pushed out it has lost 4 general elections in a row
    Is there anything he could do that would be an event too far for you?
    Giving Ms Sturgeon a referendum on Scottish Independence. Undoubtedly.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,592

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Says a supporter of the Scottish National Party, a party filled with extremist lunatics
    I thought the official BetterTogether2 line was that the SNP had become a bunch of total softy lapdogs, uninterested in independence but merely seeking to retain cosy jobs? Please make up your minds.

    Oh… that’s your central office hotline ringing, you’d better slither off and answer it…
    The word slither always makes me think of this Guy

    https://youtu.be/fxWHy4f9W30
  • HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Says a supporter of the Scottish National Party, a party filled with extremist lunatics
    There are strange folk in every party.
    Yes but in support of HYUFD (someone has to) the SNP is stuffed with them
    So, you perceive Scots to be “strange”? I wonder what Scots would make of you. What is your electoral record Nigel?
  • eekeek Posts: 22,076
    Unpopular said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Will the Nationality and Borders bill quietly pass during the partygate fallout ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/citizenship-politics-nationality-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
    … Under the proposals, any foreign-born British citizen can be deprived of their citizenship, without notice or notification. Dual citizenship is not a precondition; they can be made stateless so long as the British government believes they are eligible for citizenship of another country. Analysis from the 2011 census, by the New Statesman, finds an astronomical number of people – 5.5 million in England and Wales – who fall into this category, including about 408,000 people born in the UK.…

    Probably more than that, given Irish ancestry etc. Indeed it may include me because of my eligibility for an Australian passport.
    It would also include my wife and children (who were born here).
    A little below 10% of the entire population potentially subject to removal of their citizenship. It is an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible piece of legislation.
    FPT I don't know the details of this law change, dual-citizens (and those eligible) like Begum can already be stripped of their citizenship that's already the law because of Blair.

    So what's new? What's different to the principle that Blair already made the law here?

    Also can someone be stripped of citizenship solely because of eligibility for dual citizenship? Or are there other requirements too, like they're a threat to the country or a terrorist etc? In which case again how is it any different to that which is already the law thanks to Blair?
    My understanding is that Begum only had the potential to be a dual citizen. Regardless, her claim to dual nationality is in doubt, which means that stripping her of UK citizenship is in a gray area legally, for the courts to decide what the statute is.

    I presume the new bill will make it explicitly lawful to remove UK Citizenship under these circumstances.

    Which it can't do because it's against international law to make someone stateless.

    Yes it does mean you end up with situations similar to Begum's where it's a race between the countries to remove citizenship first, for which I can see the reason you may wish to make appeals impossible, but we shouldn't be allowing the Government to make someone stateless - we simply should be given them the means to adopt the very rapid approaches other countries have.
  • "Reports of seven alleged parties held last Christmas across Government have emerged as Boris Johnson faces pressure to widen the investigation."

    Telegraph live blog

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    iNews: Boris Johnson has already lost next week’s North Shropshire by-election in the wake of a series of damaging missteps by the Government in recent weeks, furious Tory MPs have warned.

    Anger among backbenchers has reached new levels following the Prime Minister’s handling of the No 10 Christmas party scandal in the Commons on Wednesday, with some now warning it will cost them at the ballot box next week.

    One senior Conservative MP told i: “Prime Minister’s Questions was terrible. The mood among colleagues is really down. I think we’ve lost North Shropshire.”

    The source pointed to the campaigning work in the constituency, adding: “The Liberals are working really hard and our operation was slow to get going.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,604
    What will do for Johnson, if anything, will be his willingness to throw the civil service under a bus. A huge incentive to leak details of last year’s, seemingly daily, bacchanalian excess.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Cabinet ministers from the PM down keep saying they’ve been given “assurances” no rules were broken at the Christmas No10 party, but nobody can say who specifically assured them.
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1468861423698776073

    Maybe they are talking to their reflections in the shaving mirror of a morning?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675

    "Reports of seven alleged parties held last Christmas across Government have emerged as Boris Johnson faces pressure to widen the investigation."

    Telegraph live blog

    It it's Cummo behind all this, surely he has the final bullet already polished?
  • eekeek Posts: 22,076
    edited December 2021
    DougSeal said:

    What will do for Johnson, if anything, will be his willingness to throw the civil service under a bus. A huge incentive to leak details of last year’s, seemingly daily, bacchanalian excess.

    You currently have more rights as a whistleblower than as someone who remains silent. It won't protect you long term but may give you more time to escape.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    NICOLA: Morning all! Ollie, why do you look like a sad puppy?
    OLLIE: The Christmas party.
    NICOLA: The 'business meeting'?
    OLLIE: Um yeah. There's... video.
    NICOLA: Shit. Does Malcolm know?
    TERRI: It's in the papers.
    NICOLA: SHIT
    TUCKER : Ho FUCKING Ho everyone! /1

    https://twitter.com/garius/status/1468560052911063043
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Says a supporter of the Scottish National Party, a party filled with extremist lunatics
    There are strange folk in every party.
    Yes but in support of HYUFD (someone has to) the SNP is stuffed with them
    So, you perceive Scots to be “strange”? I wonder what Scots would make of you. What is your electoral record Nigel?
    Being Scottish does not equal bring SNP.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,234
    My Dad has recently been granted Austrian citizenship, so I am also eligible. Would the Nationality and Borders Bill mean that I could be stripped of my British citizenship with no notice?

    Who would make such a decision and on what basis? Would I have any right of appeal?

    I was once detained by the Speaker's goons for shouting from the Stranger's Gallery - I suppose someone could use that to make the case that I was an enemy to British democracy if they wanted. Should I be worried? Or would it only be people who might share a name with people on more serious lists that should be directly concerned?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    edited December 2021
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    Yesterday you accused me of the same i.e. wanting to get rid of Boris so us Liberal remainers can win an election. Chance would be a fine thing. Haven't won for about 100 years. Not going to start now regardless.

    But doesn't the sample of PB tell you how stupid that statement is. Almost the entire cohort of PB Tories want him gone. If he goes the LDs will lose the potential support of every single one of them back to the Tories.
    Given I was actually about the only PB Tory who backed Boris to be leader and said he would win in 2019 from the start why should I care less what they think? The vast majority of PB thought Boris would never become leader nor win a general election
    As usual missing the point. Your logic is that I only want Boris gone so the LDs can win (as if). But if Boris goes the LDs will lose the potential support of all the PB Tories back to the Tories so that makes no sense. That is why you should care.

    I know it's a select sample, but...
  • eek said:

    Unpopular said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Will the Nationality and Borders bill quietly pass during the partygate fallout ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/citizenship-politics-nationality-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
    … Under the proposals, any foreign-born British citizen can be deprived of their citizenship, without notice or notification. Dual citizenship is not a precondition; they can be made stateless so long as the British government believes they are eligible for citizenship of another country. Analysis from the 2011 census, by the New Statesman, finds an astronomical number of people – 5.5 million in England and Wales – who fall into this category, including about 408,000 people born in the UK.…

    Probably more than that, given Irish ancestry etc. Indeed it may include me because of my eligibility for an Australian passport.
    It would also include my wife and children (who were born here).
    A little below 10% of the entire population potentially subject to removal of their citizenship. It is an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible piece of legislation.
    FPT I don't know the details of this law change, dual-citizens (and those eligible) like Begum can already be stripped of their citizenship that's already the law because of Blair.

    So what's new? What's different to the principle that Blair already made the law here?

    Also can someone be stripped of citizenship solely because of eligibility for dual citizenship? Or are there other requirements too, like they're a threat to the country or a terrorist etc? In which case again how is it any different to that which is already the law thanks to Blair?
    My understanding is that Begum only had the potential to be a dual citizen. Regardless, her claim to dual nationality is in doubt, which means that stripping her of UK citizenship is in a gray area legally, for the courts to decide what the statute is.

    I presume the new bill will make it explicitly lawful to remove UK Citizenship under these circumstances.

    Which it can't do because it's against international law to make someone stateless.

    Yes it does mean you end up with situations similar to Begum's where it's a race between the countries to remove citizenship first, for which I can see the reason you may wish to make appeals impossible, but we shouldn't be allowing the Government to make someone stateless - we simply should be given them the means to adopt the very rapid approaches other countries have.
    Indeed, but this Government thinks that's fine so long as they break it in a limited and specific way.

    My personal opinion is that a State should not be able to remove citizenship, if legitimately held, from any citizen.
  • MrEd said:

    Give @HYFUD some slack everyone. He is giving everyone a different view on things than the consensus groupthink. Which, from a betting perspective, is a plus.

    It's also teetering on a pile-on but HYFUD can look after himself

    I agree about the betting perspective. We need a range of views here.
  • kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    In your innermost heart, do you ever question why you are shilling for a schmuck?
    Because I will always be loyal to the leader who won our party the biggest general election victory since Thatcher. Forcing Thatcher out saw the Tories lose 3 out of 4 of the following general elections and I do not want to make the same mistake again.

    See too Labour, after Blair was pushed out it has lost 4 general elections in a row
    Is there anything he could do that would be an event too far for you?
    Probably not. HYUFD would give Johnson undying loyalty if he ordered a slaughter of the first born to celebrate Xmas and was videoed in flagrante delicto with the Downing Street cat while dressed as Hitler shouting "This is my type of Christmas Party"
  • IanB2 said:

    "Reports of seven alleged parties held last Christmas across Government have emerged as Boris Johnson faces pressure to widen the investigation."

    Telegraph live blog

    It it's Cummo behind all this, surely he has the final bullet already polished?
    No doubt. But he will enjoy the drip, drip of the slow water torture of leak after leak leading up to the final burst.
  • HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    Yesterday you accused me of the same i.e. wanting to get rid of Boris so us Liberal remainers can win an election. Chance would be a fine thing. Haven't won for about 100 years. Not going to start now regardless.

    But doesn't the sample of PB tell you how stupid that statement is. Almost the entire cohort of PB Tories want him gone. If he goes the LDs will lose the potential support of every single one of them back to the Tories.
    Given I was actually about the only PB Tory who backed Boris to be leader and said he would win in 2019 from the start why should I care less what they think? The vast majority of PB thought Boris would never become leader nor win a general election
    Yes. You truly are the only gay in the village.

    Well done.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    Downing Street adviser Ed Oldfield not answering questions from reporters this morning over the leaked video he appeared in alongside Allegra Stratton 👇🏻 https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1468864252312182785/video/1
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,355

    If the Afghan dogs thing proves to be true, while some will say 'Aww poor little doggies', more will be horrified, and many more will ask why his (female) PPS has to 'carrie' the can.

    Of course, if one of the mutts were to develop rabies ......

    Scott_xP said:

    “It is their shocking sense of superiority, the sneering elitism and the subsequent lies that are most angering voters.”

    The Telegraph is quite the read this morning! 🧐

    https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1468850814571712512
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/08/boris-johnson-may-not-recover-double-covid-catastrophe/

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Will the Nationality and Borders bill quietly pass during the partygate fallout ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/citizenship-politics-nationality-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
    … Under the proposals, any foreign-born British citizen can be deprived of their citizenship, without notice or notification. Dual citizenship is not a precondition; they can be made stateless so long as the British government believes they are eligible for citizenship of another country. Analysis from the 2011 census, by the New Statesman, finds an astronomical number of people – 5.5 million in England and Wales – who fall into this category, including about 408,000 people born in the UK.…

    Probably more than that, given Irish ancestry etc. Indeed it may include me because of my eligibility for an Australian passport.
    It would also include my wife and children (who were born here).
    A little below 10% of the entire population potentially subject to removal of their citizenship. It is an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible piece of legislation.
    I am writing a header on this. It is an appalling piece of legislation.

    But I also have to earn some money.

    Pazienza, amici miei .......
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    The scientists could do for him before even the Tory Party - they're furious.

    No Tory leader will be re elected locking down again, the Tory press are clear on that. Vaxports are the only viable alternative on that, the right-wing press may not like them either but they are better than another lockdown and popular with the public
    It's not just lockdown or extreme measures. The scientists are furious that their whole message, any public health message, has been invalidated.
    Yep, Boris has zero authority to give any sort of public health/lockdown measures now.
    I don't think it's needed, but you simply can't have a govt in this position in a developing pandemic now.
    Utter bollocks. The Barnard Castle thing was worse than this party stuff. Yet people still did what was asked of them last winter.

    Vaccines are far more of a problem when it comes to getting the public to obey the rules now.
    Was Barnard Castle worse? You can certainly conclude that the choices made were wrong, but the context of worrying about children's care and panicking about it were at least plausible. Many parents may have sympathy for it. But the parties, if that is indeed what happened, were active choices to flout the rules 'because they had been working hard'. Well tough shit, I bet it wasn't much fun on the covid wards as 500 people died every day.

    You are correct on the point of how the public respond though. Huge anger, and almost a sense of well we ARE going to obey the rules, even if you don't
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    Dura_Ace said:

    IanB2 said:

    "Reports of seven alleged parties held last Christmas across Government have emerged as Boris Johnson faces pressure to widen the investigation."

    Telegraph live blog

    It it's Cummo behind all this, surely he has the final bullet already polished?
    Sunak as PM giving DC a peerage (Baron Cummings of Barnard Castle for the memes) and bringing him into the cabinet would be a good plot twist.

    Dunno why people are getting the arsehole with HYUFD. He's always been very straightforward about his politics and doesn't try to finesse his position like most of the other tories on here.
    You are the master of understatement, as ever.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,634
    dr_spyn said:

    Johnson may be in trouble, but so far the 'outrage' over a party almost 48* weeks ago continues on the front pages. There have been noises on Twitter from Douglas Ross and Ruth Davidson, but if they are joined by more public misgivings, criticism from Tory MPs who have remained quiet, then the tide might be turning.

    There have been unattributed quotes on Twitter from Senior Tories, but until they go pubic, he may remain safe for the time being. Haven't yet seen any PPSs standing aside to spend more time on the back either. Perhaps a storm might be unleashed after the weekend, or perhaps not.

    The other political parties need to be certain that the press can't find anything on their leading figures hosting parties, events and celebrations in the run up to Christmas.

    * I'm not happy that Christmas was difficult for so many last year, but am still surprised that so many people kept that celebration secret for so long.

    I'm beginning to worry that this Labour Party are starting to look like a bunch that wouldn't party even if they were allowed. This joyless humourless look isn't a good one. I can see the attraction of contrasting themselves with the arch hedonist but there are other ways. 'Labour' is a brand and misery isn't a great seller. Optimism and humour are much better
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    Cyclefree said:

    If the Afghan dogs thing proves to be true, while some will say 'Aww poor little doggies', more will be horrified, and many more will ask why his (female) PPS has to 'carrie' the can.

    Of course, if one of the mutts were to develop rabies ......

    Scott_xP said:

    “It is their shocking sense of superiority, the sneering elitism and the subsequent lies that are most angering voters.”

    The Telegraph is quite the read this morning! 🧐

    https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1468850814571712512
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/08/boris-johnson-may-not-recover-double-covid-catastrophe/

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Will the Nationality and Borders bill quietly pass during the partygate fallout ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/citizenship-politics-nationality-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
    … Under the proposals, any foreign-born British citizen can be deprived of their citizenship, without notice or notification. Dual citizenship is not a precondition; they can be made stateless so long as the British government believes they are eligible for citizenship of another country. Analysis from the 2011 census, by the New Statesman, finds an astronomical number of people – 5.5 million in England and Wales – who fall into this category, including about 408,000 people born in the UK.…

    Probably more than that, given Irish ancestry etc. Indeed it may include me because of my eligibility for an Australian passport.
    It would also include my wife and children (who were born here).
    A little below 10% of the entire population potentially subject to removal of their citizenship. It is an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible piece of legislation.
    I am writing a header on this. It is an appalling piece of legislation.

    But I also have to earn some money.

    Pazienza, amici miei .......
    Good. I will look forward (in one sense, but I fear not another) to seeing it.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    IanB2 said:

    "Reports of seven alleged parties held last Christmas across Government have emerged as Boris Johnson faces pressure to widen the investigation."

    Telegraph live blog

    It it's Cummo behind all this, surely he has the final bullet already polished?
    Sunak as PM giving DC a peerage (Baron Cummings of Barnard Castle for the memes) and bringing him into the cabinet would be a good plot twist.

    Dunno why people are getting the arsehole with HYUFD. He's always been very straightforward about his politics and doesn't try to finesse his position like most of the other tories on here.
    Agreed. HYUFD is simply expressing support for his party. Disagreement should be civil. I know what it's like to experience a PB pile-on, cut him some slack people!
    On topic, I agree, Johnson is a dead man walking. I don't think I would put more than a 10% chance on him making it through the end of next year - and he will probably go well before then.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025
    MrEd said:

    Give @HYFUD some slack everyone. He is giving everyone a different view on things than the consensus groupthink. Which, from a betting perspective, is a plus.

    It's also teetering on a pile-on but HYFUD can look after himself

    It is a pile-on. @HYFUD shouldn't have to look after himself, even if he can do so. This site is better when people stick to facts and arguments.

    In any case I think @HYFUD's arguments are interesting even (or especially) if I don't agree with many of them.
  • isam said:

    The goalposts have been shifted so far they’ve fallen down.

    First it was that Labour is 20 points behind. That wasn’t enough.

    Then Labour was tied. It wasn’t enough.

    Then Starmer’s ratings were behind Johnson’s. It wasn’t enough.

    Now Labour is ahead. But it still isn’t enough.

    It never will be enough for certain people.

    Absolutely and quite right too. Its the bare minimum that the Opposition should be significantly in the lead when the government is struggling in midterms. It isn't enough though. It is a 'necessary but not sufficient condition'.

    Ed Miliband polled 15% leads. Was that enough? Did he become Prime Minister?
    Jeremy Corbyn polled 10% leads. Was that enough? Did he become Prime Minister?

    If you think that while the government is mired in scandal that Keir Starmer's Labour polling a 4% lead versus Corbyn's 10% lead he polled is "enough" then please rest on your laurels.
    As always with polls this far out, the direction of travel is the key. When Cameron shat in his pants over UKIP it wasn't over one or two polls, it was because UKIP were continually taking chunks out of them. Its the same here.

    There was a clear political consensus that England was going to vote Tory to get Brexit done. That compact held all the way through Brexit and out the other side as the government tempted people with shiny shiny. Allegations were something that could be ignored because shiny shiny

    Now that we're deep into cuts and taxy taxy the compact is less secure. Stories that did the rounds 6-12 months back (PPE contracts as an example) and didn't make an impact are now rocket fuel for a sleaze story that isn't slowing down.

    So it isn't about any poll you want to look at now whether its the one showing Con +2 or Lab +4. Its that the clear and consistent Tory high base has crumbled and the lead is collapsing into a deficit.
    "When Cameron shat in his pants over UKIP it wasn't over one or two polls, it was because UKIP were continually taking chunks out of them. Its the same here"

    Cameron's Tories went from Coalition to Majority in the GE following those polls
    Of course they did! They pledged an in-out referendum! Doing so was the pant shatting I referred to. And when you watch The Cameron Years documentary series you will see the rest of his inner team massively opposed saying they warned him it was stupid.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,908
    In the small hours of this morning, as I have no life, I was mulling potential next leader for the Tories.

    For a while I’ve always believed/hoped Rishi would be a shoe-in. I have now come to the conclusion that if a change were to happen in next two months he won’t get it.

    Firstly I think he is in danger of being viewed as part of the problem now and too close to Boris. He’s been his COE and maybe some of the party will see him as complicit in all that’s going wrong on policy areas (obviously not wallpaper/parties/lies etc) and this will act against him - he could fight against Plan B, he’s possibly behind broken dreams of huge spending up north etc. I think if the storm passed and things were stable in six months and there was a change he would be back in the lead of the hunt but not now.

    Also against him is a potential perception that he is lightweight. He’s clearly very clever and slick but after Boris the party might be more inclined to a more sober and traditional leader. People like Wallace or even outsiders like tugendhat might have more gravitas and seem less tainted. Another factor in their favour is that if it does kick off in Ukraine then people will look at Rishi and wonder if he is the man for serious times when he would be better concentrating on his calculator.

    Truss could benefit as not having been in a senior post for long and being a bit different to the rest but again I’m not sure she has the gravitas that might be required where the party feels the need for a “reaction” to the clown show.

    Hunt could sneak in as detached from this govt (like a footballer who gets better the longer he doesn’t play when injured and you forget he wasn’t Messi when he did…) and has more weight to him although PMQs with him and Starker would be like watching a live action version of the woodentops.

    In Dr Who terms it’s picking Kenneth Branagh to replace Jodie Whittaker or choosing Sheridan Smith. In Bond terms it’s choosing Timothy Dalton to take over from Roger Moore or choosing to continue with the light humour bond.
  • HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Says a supporter of the Scottish National Party, a party filled with extremist lunatics
    There are strange folk in every party.
    Yes but in support of HYUFD (someone has to) the SNP is stuffed with them
    So, you perceive Scots to be “strange”? I wonder what Scots would make of you. What is your electoral record Nigel?
    Pathetic attempt @StuartDickson .

    Unlike those that follow your hate filled creed I consider Scots the same as I consider all human beings: some good some not so good. I consider Scottish Nationalists the same as all nationalists (English, Russian, Trumpian) as hate filled wankers who derive their sense of entitlement and snivelling exceptionalism from a simplistic and very sad view of the world. Clearly the fact you have abandoned living in Scotland has not broadened your very narrow mind.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,604
    Dura_Ace said:

    IanB2 said:

    "Reports of seven alleged parties held last Christmas across Government have emerged as Boris Johnson faces pressure to widen the investigation."

    Telegraph live blog

    It it's Cummo behind all this, surely he has the final bullet already polished?
    Sunak as PM giving DC a peerage (Baron Cummings of Barnard Castle for the memes) and bringing him into the cabinet would be a good plot twist.

    Dunno why people are getting the arsehole with HYUFD. He's always been very straightforward about his politics and doesn't try to finesse his position like most of the other tories on here.
    Because (a) he’s literally the only person on here defending the PM and (b) it’s fun.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,592
    IanB2 said:

    iNews: Boris Johnson has already lost next week’s North Shropshire by-election in the wake of a series of damaging missteps by the Government in recent weeks, furious Tory MPs have warned.

    Anger among backbenchers has reached new levels following the Prime Minister’s handling of the No 10 Christmas party scandal in the Commons on Wednesday, with some now warning it will cost them at the ballot box next week.

    One senior Conservative MP told i: “Prime Minister’s Questions was terrible. The mood among colleagues is really down. I think we’ve lost North Shropshire.”

    The source pointed to the campaigning work in the constituency, adding: “The Liberals are working really hard and our operation was slow to get going.

    Expectations management. I wonder how many postal votes are in.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    Stocky said:

    Oh I see. "Leaving drinks" - work by definition - is now a party is it?
    Angels on a pin head. Drinks and nibbles and everyone gathers round - do you think the rest of the country was doing that at the time? Of course, not - businesses were too responsible.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,649
    Nigelb said:

    One point about the restrictions, vaxports etc being brought in - they include a sunset clause for (I think) the end of January.

    At which point Boris gets the fool Starmer to vote them through again.
  • Good morning

    In the light of a new day we wake up to a topsy-turvy political scene with Boris in the centre of a pincer movement and in real difficulty

    He will get his increased covid regulations through because labour will support them, and it is undeniable that the public are in favour of them in contrast to a considerable number of conservative mps who are incandescent over the issue

    For Boris to lose office it has either to be proved he lied to the HOC or for his mps to take him down

    I am not convinced either will happen, and I think he is safe for the time being even if he loses North Shropshire which seems inevitable

    However, I really hope his mps collectively decide to act in the early part of next year as his magic has been much diminished by the Paterson and partying controversies
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,355
    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025
    Noteworthy the severe reaction to Plan B in England. It is a slightly watered down version of what is already in place in Scotland. This is neither particularly onerous nor massively effective. If the aim is to avoid lockdown, you need to be somewhat more rigorous.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    iNews: Boris Johnson has already lost next week’s North Shropshire by-election in the wake of a series of damaging missteps by the Government in recent weeks, furious Tory MPs have warned.

    Anger among backbenchers has reached new levels following the Prime Minister’s handling of the No 10 Christmas party scandal in the Commons on Wednesday, with some now warning it will cost them at the ballot box next week.

    One senior Conservative MP told i: “Prime Minister’s Questions was terrible. The mood among colleagues is really down. I think we’ve lost North Shropshire.”

    The source pointed to the campaigning work in the constituency, adding: “The Liberals are working really hard and our operation was slow to get going.

    Expectations management. I wonder how many postal votes are in.
    Except they started doing the NS won't be so easy shtick the very morning after the last by election.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,076
    edited December 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Not a clue - because there is no public health justification at the moment (the impact on R0 of these changes are minimal) and he does need to oppose.

    Even better voting against this because of the financial impact on businesses would show how split the Tory party is (and in all likelihood result in the rules being abandoned as the votes don't exist).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Scott_xP said:

    This doesn't make any sense. Why are Ministers being sent out to say "I was furious when I saw that video" but then say "I don't know if there was a party". If you don't know there was a party what was it in the video that made you so furious?
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1468859918048444416

    Enough ammunition for an excitable media to keep the story running?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,790



    Agreed. HYUFD is simply expressing support for his party. Disagreement should be civil. I know what it's like to experience a PB pile-on, cut him some slack people!

    I am a card carrying member of the #dirtbagleft (as typified by Chapo Trap House and Cum Town) so I utterly reject civility and liberalism. But, otherwise, you are right.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,050

    As I predicted, the Swedish Greens have been punished by resigning from the coalition government: now on 3.7%, under the 4% threshold (along with the Liberals).

    Magdalena Andersson (S), our first woman PM, gives her party a big boost, to 29% (+4).

    All other changes in VI too small to be statistically reliable.

    Government (S) and C&S parties:
    Social Democrats (S) 29% (+4)
    Left Party 10% (-1)
    Centre Party 8% (-1)
    Greens 4% (-1)

    Opposition:
    Moderates 21% (-2)
    Sweden Democrats 19% (nc)
    Christian Democrats 5% (+1)
    Liberals 3% (nc)

    Novus/SVT today

    How does that translate into seats overall though? Losing her coalition partner's seats as they drop out might make forming a Government all the more difficult.
    Government and C&S parties: 178 legislators
    Socialdemokraterna 111 mandat Social Democrat government
    Vänsterpartiet 38 mandat Left Party C&S
    Centerpartiet 29 mandat Centre Party C&S

    Opposition: 171 legislators
    Moderaterna 81 mandat Moderates
    Sverigedemokraterna 72 mandat Sweden Democrats
    Kristdemokraterna 18 mandat Christian Democrats

    (Greens and Liberals both fail to return to parliament.)

    https://www.svt.se/special/valjarbarometern/

    As you can see, the next election (next September) is totally up for grabs.
    What is the current view of the Sweden Democrats as potential allies (at least in Confidence and Supply) among the Moderates and Christian Democrats?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,355
    Re A

    If the Afghan dogs thing proves to be true, while some will say 'Aww poor little doggies', more will be horrified, and many more will ask why his (female) PPS has to 'carrie' the can.

    Of course, if one of the mutts were to develop rabies ......

    Turns out that Trudy Harrison, Boris's PPS and my MP, was campaigning for this charity. But not for the animals - but the Afghan vets working for it.

    Will she be called to give evidence to the Select Committee?

    And what will she say if she is?

    Personally I'd do pretty much anything to avoid being added to the list of women let down by Boris. That group must be so large by now they could probably hold their support meetings at the Albert Hall.
  • My Dad has recently been granted Austrian citizenship, so I am also eligible. Would the Nationality and Borders Bill mean that I could be stripped of my British citizenship with no notice?

    Who would make such a decision and on what basis? Would I have any right of appeal?

    I was once detained by the Speaker's goons for shouting from the Stranger's Gallery - I suppose someone could use that to make the case that I was an enemy to British democracy if they wanted. Should I be worried? Or would it only be people who might share a name with people on more serious lists that should be directly concerned?

    Given his US birth, but then giving up US citizenship voluntarily later on, I wonder whether the ambitious Home Secretary could remove the current PM's nationality as part of a vicious leadership challenge?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,604

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Says a supporter of the Scottish National Party, a party filled with extremist lunatics
    There are strange folk in every party.
    Yes but in support of HYUFD (someone has to) the SNP is stuffed with them
    So, you perceive Scots to be “strange”? I wonder what Scots would make of you. What is your electoral record Nigel?
    So the Venn diagram of SNP and Scots overlaps completely? I was under the mistaken impression that Scots residents of all national origins were welcome in the SNP and that some Scots (gasp!) were not supporters. One gets a better view from Sweden I guess.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,076

    Good morning

    In the light of a new day we wake up to a topsy-turvy political scene with Boris in the centre of a pincer movement and in real difficulty

    He will get his increased covid regulations through because labour will support them, and it is undeniable that the public are in favour of them in contrast to a considerable number of conservative mps who are incandescent over the issue

    For Boris to lose office it has either to be proved he lied to the HOC or for his mps to take him down

    I am not convinced either will happen, and I think he is safe for the time being even if he loses North Shropshire which seems inevitable

    However, I really hope his mps collectively decide to act in the early part of next year as his magic has been much diminished by the Paterson and partying controversies

    Boris has lied to the HoC multiple times - but given that it's impossible to prove that it won't work

    The only way Boris goes is if he resigns or his MPs get fed up with him - and following the attempt to get rid of May I suspect that won't happen until everyone is sure if a VoC was called, Boris couldn't win it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,773
    boulay said:

    In the small hours of this morning, as I have no life, I was mulling potential next leader for the Tories.

    For a while I’ve always believed/hoped Rishi would be a shoe-in. I have now come to the conclusion that if a change were to happen in next two months he won’t get it.

    Firstly I think he is in danger of being viewed as part of the problem now and too close to Boris. He’s been his COE and maybe some of the party will see him as complicit in all that’s going wrong on policy areas (obviously not wallpaper/parties/lies etc) and this will act against him - he could fight against Plan B, he’s possibly behind broken dreams of huge spending up north etc. I think if the storm passed and things were stable in six months and there was a change he would be back in the lead of the hunt but not now.

    Also against him is a potential perception that he is lightweight. He’s clearly very clever and slick but after Boris the party might be more inclined to a more sober and traditional leader. People like Wallace or even outsiders like tugendhat might have more gravitas and seem less tainted. Another factor in their favour is that if it does kick off in Ukraine then people will look at Rishi and wonder if he is the man for serious times when he would be better concentrating on his calculator.

    Truss could benefit as not having been in a senior post for long and being a bit different to the rest but again I’m not sure she has the gravitas that might be required where the party feels the need for a “reaction” to the clown show.

    Hunt could sneak in as detached from this govt (like a footballer who gets better the longer he doesn’t play when injured and you forget he wasn’t Messi when he did…) and has more weight to him although PMQs with him and Starker would be like watching a live action version of the woodentops.

    In Dr Who terms it’s picking Kenneth Branagh to replace Jodie Whittaker or choosing Sheridan Smith. In Bond terms it’s choosing Timothy Dalton to take over from Roger Moore or choosing to continue with the light humour bond.

    Time and timing is all. When Boris was appointed we had had a combination of dullness and (slightly unfair but that's politics) incompetence from Mrs T May. To be a combination of charisma, excitement and getting Brexit over the line made Boris the man of the hour.

    Boris still has charisma, but Brexit is over the line (though decades still to go really) he is not exciting politically, because Covid isn't exciting (unfair but that's politics) and plainly he isn't competent in general terms (outside getting Brexit over the line) and his reputation for probity is now nil.

    ATM no-one in his inner ring looks a safe choice because they are almost certain to be open to the sorts of allegations that have arisen and will arise once Boris's government ceases to have the protection of controlling the agenda (not very well)

    All of which makes Hunt look a better prospect than the betting suggests.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    There is a bit more point to it than usual, it's to rebut johnson's case of lab "playing politics". Wes Streeting very clear on this both at pmq and javid statement.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,649
    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    He's useless. Another of those that believes COVID will go away if we just locked down a bit more for a bit longer.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Because most people are in favour of them. I have no strong view but as a politician would do the same.

    The work from home is not an order, but a request, if possible. The covid passport is importantly, a vax or test passport not a vax passport.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,355
    Scott_xP said:

    "There is an overpowering fin-de-regime stench emanating from Downing Street that can no longer be ignored" | Writes @allisterheath

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/08/boris-johnson-may-not-recover-double-covid-catastrophe/

    Isn't this precisely the characteristics Remainers are always accused of having?

    And now the Brexiteer government is behaving in the same way?

    How can this possibly be?
  • TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Remember when people on here were criticising @contrarian and me and others for being anti-lockdown.

    This is how it ends. The government being able to restrict freedoms at will for any number of reasons including but not limited to doggies in Afghan, booze ups in No.10 and oh yes, a virus that has to date infected 0.000016% of the population.

    And just wait until Lab gets in. They have supported and wanted further restrictions all along the way.

    And we the British public have tolerated and encouraged it.

    I disagree with you about the need for lockdowns when we had them - hateful as they were.

    However, you make a very good point about yesterday's announcements. Remember that earlier this week we were told that they do not have sufficient Omicron data to make any decisions, and it would be at least next week before they could do so.

    Then Boris's Bunga Bunga Party became public knowledge. And suddenly "cripes, news conference this afternoon". Where they miraculously DO have the data, we have to do this, following the science etc.

    It was noted on here how glum Whitty looked. That he said "this was a decision of the cabinet". THAT is the key point. They are not following the science - they are using it as a political shield for Liar again.
    And, just like Walter Wolfgang, it is a fantasy to think that governments won't use the tools available and provided by the electorate to do so.

    It was always ever the principle of lockdowns (do they work well of course they do) that I despised because lo and behold at some point instead of doing something that "I" agree with they will do something that I disagree with.

    Plenty here on PB mocked me and @contrarian right up until the point their own red lines were breached at which point they said - ridiculous: no more lockdowns. But by that time they had ceded the ground to the government because right from the beginning they allowed them to do this.

    And lo here we are.
    Either we had lockdowns, or we didn't and death rates soared and the government fell and we had a new government and we had lockdowns. It's like the law of gravity, incredibly dangerous and expensive in many ways but not much point protesting about it
    As @rcs1000 constantly reminded us people would have locked down on their own. So where does that leave furlough without a mandated lockdown. Well the government would have had to make "pandemic payments" to businesses which replicated the furlough.

    Those who were worried would have stayed at home and those not worried would have gone out to party. WFH would have been available to those that wanted.

    None of it needed to be enshrined in law. Oh but we must protect the NHS. Indeed we must. And with enough education and nudging it could have been protected. And then the relationship between the NHS and the people (the former to support the latter not the other way round) could have been firmly reiterated.
    Yes, this is my view. We could have had sternly-worded government health advice. We could have had appeals to our better nature, and to be part of a collective effort - and the vast majority of the public would have responded.

    We did not need to use the force of law, and thereby cast the public in the role of children, needing to be told what to do, and having a subordinate role, rather than an equal one.
    force of badly drafted, badly worded, rushed law.

    On a separate point, this starts another loop. "do these measures go far enough", back of the fag packet estimates that rarely seem to come true. Hell, we've still got the 'it's so CONFEWSIN' phase on the other side.

    Oh well, March is a solid month, I guess?

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    algarkirk said:

    boulay said:

    In the small hours of this morning, as I have no life, I was mulling potential next leader for the Tories.

    For a while I’ve always believed/hoped Rishi would be a shoe-in. I have now come to the conclusion that if a change were to happen in next two months he won’t get it.

    Firstly I think he is in danger of being viewed as part of the problem now and too close to Boris. He’s been his COE and maybe some of the party will see him as complicit in all that’s going wrong on policy areas (obviously not wallpaper/parties/lies etc) and this will act against him - he could fight against Plan B, he’s possibly behind broken dreams of huge spending up north etc. I think if the storm passed and things were stable in six months and there was a change he would be back in the lead of the hunt but not now.

    Also against him is a potential perception that he is lightweight. He’s clearly very clever and slick but after Boris the party might be more inclined to a more sober and traditional leader. People like Wallace or even outsiders like tugendhat might have more gravitas and seem less tainted. Another factor in their favour is that if it does kick off in Ukraine then people will look at Rishi and wonder if he is the man for serious times when he would be better concentrating on his calculator.

    Truss could benefit as not having been in a senior post for long and being a bit different to the rest but again I’m not sure she has the gravitas that might be required where the party feels the need for a “reaction” to the clown show.

    Hunt could sneak in as detached from this govt (like a footballer who gets better the longer he doesn’t play when injured and you forget he wasn’t Messi when he did…) and has more weight to him although PMQs with him and Starker would be like watching a live action version of the woodentops.

    In Dr Who terms it’s picking Kenneth Branagh to replace Jodie Whittaker or choosing Sheridan Smith. In Bond terms it’s choosing Timothy Dalton to take over from Roger Moore or choosing to continue with the light humour bond.

    Time and timing is all. When Boris was appointed we had had a combination of dullness and (slightly unfair but that's politics) incompetence from Mrs T May. To be a combination of charisma, excitement and getting Brexit over the line made Boris the man of the hour.

    Boris still has charisma, but Brexit is over the line (though decades still to go really) he is not exciting politically, because Covid isn't exciting (unfair but that's politics) and plainly he isn't competent in general terms (outside getting Brexit over the line) and his reputation for probity is now nil.

    ATM no-one in his inner ring looks a safe choice because they are almost certain to be open to the sorts of allegations that have arisen and will arise once Boris's government ceases to have the protection of controlling the agenda (not very well)

    All of which makes Hunt look a better prospect than the betting suggests.
    Didn't look too charismatic any time yesterday.
  • FF43 said:

    Noteworthy the severe reaction to Plan B in England. It is a slightly watered down version of what is already in place in Scotland. This is neither particularly onerous nor massively effective. If the aim is to avoid lockdown, you need to be somewhat more rigorous.

    People on here describing it as a "lockdown".

    It really isn't.
  • eek said:

    Good morning

    In the light of a new day we wake up to a topsy-turvy political scene with Boris in the centre of a pincer movement and in real difficulty

    He will get his increased covid regulations through because labour will support them, and it is undeniable that the public are in favour of them in contrast to a considerable number of conservative mps who are incandescent over the issue

    For Boris to lose office it has either to be proved he lied to the HOC or for his mps to take him down

    I am not convinced either will happen, and I think he is safe for the time being even if he loses North Shropshire which seems inevitable

    However, I really hope his mps collectively decide to act in the early part of next year as his magic has been much diminished by the Paterson and partying controversies

    Boris has lied to the HoC multiple times - but given that it's impossible to prove that it won't work

    The only way Boris goes is if he resigns or his MPs get fed up with him - and following the attempt to get rid of May I suspect that won't happen until everyone is sure if a VoC was called, Boris couldn't win it.
    I agree
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,459
    edited December 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    If that happens, it would somewhat remind me of him voting for the Brexit deal wholesale, rather than abstaining. He can produce some sort of alternative strategy, rather than go the whole hog. That way the Tory rebellion is assisted, but he also partly insulates himself from any potential future fallout.

    His commons performances and general presentation are improving in leaps and bounds, but he still has a lot of strategic nous to pick up, both with these votes, I think, and at various times in how manage his party.

    He may carry on learning quickly, though, judging from how well he's doing recently.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,076
    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    There is a bit more point to it than usual, it's to rebut johnson's case of lab "playing politics". Wes Streeting very clear on this both at pmq and javid statement.
    But Johnson is playing politics there - were Labour to vote against, I suspect enough Tory MPs would follow to result in a Government defeat or something very close to one.

    By ensuring Labour vote for the measure (Because it's not about politics) the Tory MPs will just tag along because rebelling does nothing at all.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,355

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Because most people are in favour of them. I have no strong view but as a politician would do the same.

    The work from home is not an order, but a request, if possible. The covid passport is importantly, a vax or test passport not a vax passport.
    Labour was in favour of Maastricht. Didn't stop them tactically voting against to make as much trouble for the Tories as possible.

    Also it is wrong to harm businesses but not then help them. And believe me these proposals will harm businesses.

    A pro-business party, as Labour now claims to be, would see this.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,076
    algarkirk said:

    boulay said:

    In the small hours of this morning, as I have no life, I was mulling potential next leader for the Tories.

    For a while I’ve always believed/hoped Rishi would be a shoe-in. I have now come to the conclusion that if a change were to happen in next two months he won’t get it.

    Firstly I think he is in danger of being viewed as part of the problem now and too close to Boris. He’s been his COE and maybe some of the party will see him as complicit in all that’s going wrong on policy areas (obviously not wallpaper/parties/lies etc) and this will act against him - he could fight against Plan B, he’s possibly behind broken dreams of huge spending up north etc. I think if the storm passed and things were stable in six months and there was a change he would be back in the lead of the hunt but not now.

    Also against him is a potential perception that he is lightweight. He’s clearly very clever and slick but after Boris the party might be more inclined to a more sober and traditional leader. People like Wallace or even outsiders like tugendhat might have more gravitas and seem less tainted. Another factor in their favour is that if it does kick off in Ukraine then people will look at Rishi and wonder if he is the man for serious times when he would be better concentrating on his calculator.

    Truss could benefit as not having been in a senior post for long and being a bit different to the rest but again I’m not sure she has the gravitas that might be required where the party feels the need for a “reaction” to the clown show.

    Hunt could sneak in as detached from this govt (like a footballer who gets better the longer he doesn’t play when injured and you forget he wasn’t Messi when he did…) and has more weight to him although PMQs with him and Starker would be like watching a live action version of the woodentops.

    In Dr Who terms it’s picking Kenneth Branagh to replace Jodie Whittaker or choosing Sheridan Smith. In Bond terms it’s choosing Timothy Dalton to take over from Roger Moore or choosing to continue with the light humour bond.

    Time and timing is all. When Boris was appointed we had had a combination of dullness and (slightly unfair but that's politics) incompetence from Mrs T May. To be a combination of charisma, excitement and getting Brexit over the line made Boris the man of the hour.

    Boris still has charisma, but Brexit is over the line (though decades still to go really) he is not exciting politically, because Covid isn't exciting (unfair but that's politics) and plainly he isn't competent in general terms (outside getting Brexit over the line) and his reputation for probity is now nil.

    ATM no-one in his inner ring looks a safe choice because they are almost certain to be open to the sorts of allegations that have arisen and will arise once Boris's government ceases to have the protection of controlling the agenda (not very well)

    All of which makes Hunt look a better prospect than the betting suggests.
    Against all that - your average Tory MP isn't bright enough to think that far and will go for the obvious options.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,355
    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    There is a bit more point to it than usual, it's to rebut johnson's case of lab "playing politics". Wes Streeting very clear on this both at pmq and javid statement.
    Yes I see that. But I also see a party that I fear will be just as authoritarian as the Tories now are if marginally more competent. That is not an improvement.
  • tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    The scientists could do for him before even the Tory Party - they're furious.

    No Tory leader will be re elected locking down again, the Tory press are clear on that. Vaxports are the only viable alternative on that, the right-wing press may not like them either but they are better than another lockdown and popular with the public
    It's not just lockdown or extreme measures. The scientists are furious that their whole message, any public health message, has been invalidated.
    Yep, Boris has zero authority to give any sort of public health/lockdown measures now.
    I don't think it's needed, but you simply can't have a govt in this position in a developing pandemic now.
    Utter bollocks. The Barnard Castle thing was worse than this party stuff. Yet people still did what was asked of them last winter.

    Vaccines are far more of a problem when it comes to getting the public to obey the rules now.
    Was Barnard Castle worse? You can certainly conclude that the choices made were wrong, but the context of worrying about children's care and panicking about it were at least plausible. Many parents may have sympathy for it. But the parties, if that is indeed what happened, were active choices to flout the rules 'because they had been working hard'. Well tough shit, I bet it wasn't much fun on the covid wards as 500 people died every day.

    You are correct on the point of how the public respond though. Huge anger, and almost a sense of well we ARE going to obey the rules, even if you don't
    The original trip up north, with the kid, was completely legal under the rules at the time.
    The first Barnard castle 'visit' was very much not.
    Any additional visits were made up.

    It's a study in just how shit our journalists are.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,908
    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    I would imagine he has to as he boxed himself into a corner by demanding restrictions earlier in the summer when they weren’t needed so if he now says he disagrees with restrictions when everyone is in panic about Omicron then it’s going to look all a bit “Boris” and an intellectual mess isn’t it?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    If that happens it would somewhat remind me of him voting for the Brexit deal wholesale, rather than abstaining. He can produce some sort of alternative strategy, rather than go the whole hog. That way the Tory rebellion is assisted, but he also partly insulates himself from any potential future fallout.

    His commons performances and general presentation are improving in leaps and bounds, but he sill has a lot of strategic nous to pick up, both with these votes and at some times with how to manage the party.

    He may carry on learning quickly, though.
    He needs to find a reason to vote against it, no matter how spurious - but the Unions are all in favour of the restrictions, and the only comments from Labour during the whole pandemic, have been that the restrictions are not more severe.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    edited December 2021

    As I predicted, the Swedish Greens have been punished by resigning from the coalition government: now on 3.7%, under the 4% threshold (along with the Liberals).

    Magdalena Andersson (S), our first woman PM, gives her party a big boost, to 29% (+4).

    All other changes in VI too small to be statistically reliable.

    Government (S) and C&S parties:
    Social Democrats (S) 29% (+4)
    Left Party 10% (-1)
    Centre Party 8% (-1)
    Greens 4% (-1)

    Opposition:
    Moderates 21% (-2)
    Sweden Democrats 19% (nc)
    Christian Democrats 5% (+1)
    Liberals 3% (nc)

    Novus/SVT today

    How does that translate into seats overall though? Losing her coalition partner's seats as they drop out might make forming a Government all the more difficult.
    Government and C&S parties: 178 legislators
    Socialdemokraterna 111 mandat Social Democrat government
    Vänsterpartiet 38 mandat Left Party C&S
    Centerpartiet 29 mandat Centre Party C&S

    Opposition: 171 legislators
    Moderaterna 81 mandat Moderates
    Sverigedemokraterna 72 mandat Sweden Democrats
    Kristdemokraterna 18 mandat Christian Democrats

    (Greens and Liberals both fail to return to parliament.)

    https://www.svt.se/special/valjarbarometern/

    As you can see, the next election (next September) is totally up for grabs.
    What is the current view of the Sweden Democrats as potential allies (at least in Confidence and Supply) among the Moderates and Christian Democrats?
    Both Ulf Kristersson (M) and Ebba Busch (KD) are super positive to the Sweden Democrats, especially Ebba Busch.

    I think they even had a common Budget last week (I would have to check that), which won the Riksdag vote!! So an S government is now stuck with a M/KD/SD budget!

    This is one reason I did not renew my membership of the Moderates at the end of the last mandate period.
  • On topic I think it's easy to see how Boris recovers from this. He does nothing much, there are some bad headlines, maybe he loses a by-election or maybe he doesn't. Then he waits for another issue where the Tory press are back on his side, and the Tory press are back on his side.
  • It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Oh I don't think he has any realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate.

    He has a chance of being selected as one followed by rapid removal as a few posters on here inform the constituency of his posts on here. His views that abortion should be a political rather than personal moral decision would I suspect be enough for his removal - I can see about 80% of the (female) population voting instantly for anyone else once that was known.
    I think HYUFD is brave, polite and honest, and I'm not inclined to criticise him for posting here or for seeking to interfere with his career. I don't think we should get to a point where people are afraid to say what they think on PB because someone might try to use it against them. We need a range of views, and should accept that some of them will be ones we strongly disagree with.
    But he is morally insane. I don't say that lightly or goadingly but because he reads across from christianity to toryism. In both cases the underlying thought is the same - having a rational basis for one's belief is not just superfluous, it is heretical. You gotta have faith, and nothing but faith, and rigorously rule out the possibility of Mother Church sometimes being dead wrong about things.

    But I agree that it is pointless trying to put him right.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    His decided strategy is to treat it like a war situation and not give fuel to any suggestion that he isn't supporting the government in 'fighting' the virus.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2021

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    Why were you recommending people bet on a "totally discredited figure" at 1.5 then? Or as I think you wrote it then 0.5-1

    Why was the other "totally discredited figure" polling 10% poll leads and @TheScreamingEagles was adamant Boris's election meant that he would become PM?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,053
    Good morning all.

    Several days ago I predicted that we would find ourselves in a position where you can't meet your colleagues in the office but you can meet them in the pub.

    And lo and behold, that's where we'll be next week.

    The Telegraph helpfully points this absurdity out in its front page headline.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,649
    edited December 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Because most people are in favour of them. I have no strong view but as a politician would do the same.

    The work from home is not an order, but a request, if possible. The covid passport is importantly, a vax or test passport not a vax passport.
    Labour was in favour of Maastricht. Didn't stop them tactically voting against to make as much trouble for the Tories as possible.

    Also it is wrong to harm businesses but not then help them. And believe me these proposals will harm businesses.

    A pro-business party, as Labour now claims to be, would see this.
    I saw your post from last night about your daughter giving up the lease on her pub, it's sad but ultimately the right decision given everything that's happening! Has she considered a career in product management for a tech startup? The amount of crossover between running a business and managing a product is actually pretty big. The work environment is usually great too and most now offer full remote working if she doesn't want to move to London.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    There is a bit more point to it than usual, it's to rebut johnson's case of lab "playing politics". Wes Streeting very clear on this both at pmq and javid statement.
    But Johnson is playing politics there - were Labour to vote against, I suspect enough Tory MPs would follow to result in a Government defeat or something very close to one.

    By ensuring Labour vote for the measure (Because it's not about politics) the Tory MPs will just tag along because rebelling does nothing at all.
    I expect a rebellion nonetheless.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Because most people are in favour of them. I have no strong view but as a politician would do the same.

    The work from home is not an order, but a request, if possible. The covid passport is importantly, a vax or test passport not a vax passport.
    Labour was in favour of Maastricht. Didn't stop them tactically voting against to make as much trouble for the Tories as possible.

    Also it is wrong to harm businesses but not then help them. And believe me these proposals will harm businesses.

    A pro-business party, as Labour now claims to be, would see this.
    Sure, Labour could support something on business rates or VAT for impacted businesses, and it would probably be wise for them to do so. Voting against the restrictions would play badly for them though.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,604

    On topic I think it's easy to see how Boris recovers from this. He does nothing much, there are some bad headlines, maybe he loses a by-election or maybe he doesn't. Then he waits for another issue where the Tory press are back on his side, and the Tory press are back on his side.

    He has a trifecta to keep on side, the public, the Tory Press and his MPs. I think his hold on all three has gone and, in the case of the latter, it’s not coming back.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,649

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
This discussion has been closed.