Howdy, Stranger!

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

Whoever wins it is going to be difficult for CON to stay in power – politicalbetting.com

2456710

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,049
    edited July 2022

    The biggest difference is that if the new PM holds on until after the boundary changes go through next year, Scotland will shed 2 seats, Wales will shed 10 seats and the Tories will start with roughly an additional +30 advantage! I wanted Mordaunt after Hunt was knocked out but Starmer bores the working class and in a general election they will not vote for him.

    Even that may not be enough.

    The latest Yougov has the Tories and Labour tied amongst working class C2DEs on 35% each.

    However Labour has a big 43% to 26% lead with middle class ABC1s.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/15/voting-intention-con-29-lab-40-13-14-july

    Now Sunak and Truss might have more appeal to middle class voters than Boris but then they also likely have less appeal to working class voters than Boris too
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,524
    Mr. HYUFD, be interesting to compare how they stack up against Starmer in that regard.

    I wonder if we'll see a decline in working class turnout next time.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481
    HYUFD said:

    The biggest difference is that if the new PM holds on until after the boundary changes go through next year, Scotland will shed 2 seats, Wales will shed 10 seats and the Tories will start with roughly an additional +30 advantage! I wanted Mordaunt after Hunt was knocked out but Starmer bores the working class and in a general election they will not vote for him.

    Even that may not be enough.

    The latest Yougov has the Tories and Labour tied amongst working class C2DEs on 35% each.

    However Labour has a big 43% to 26% lead with middle class ABC1s.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/15/voting-intention-con-29-lab-40-13-14-july

    Now Sunak and Truss might have more appeal to middle class voters than Boris but then they also likely have less appeal to working class voters than Boris too
    It's definitely the case Bozo reaches voters other politicians can't reach.

    It's probably not all doom and gloom for the Tories though as I suspect a lot of those voters only ever voted in the Brexit Referendum and then in 2019. If they vote in future I suspect they won't be Tory -> Labour switches but Tory -> no vote or Tory -> whatever Farage is leading....
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,362
    eek said:

    It's definitely the case Bozo reaches voters other politicians can't reach.

    "This is so awkward... Where is Boris Johnson? We hate him."

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1550236525622951939/video/1
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    It's July - the French will have gone on holiday to coast in the South of France...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,109

    Mr. HYUFD, be interesting to compare how they stack up against Starmer in that regard.

    I wonder if we'll see a decline in working class turnout next time.

    Keep an eye on the photo ID requirement in the new Elections Act.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,650

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,362
    2016 Liz Truss's predictions about Brexit have mostly been proved right.

    So why does 2022 Liz Truss say she was wrong then and right now?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-six-years-on-do-this-recovering-remainers-prophecies-hold-up-zpm68v0q7
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 5,907
    I’d think Truss might do a bit better in Red Wall seats than Sunak but he would do better in southern seats which are Lib Dem targets .

    2019 was a unique election with Brexit still over shadowing things . A perfect storm of that and Corbyn helped deliver that large Tory majority .

    It’s very hard to see the Tories winning a majority but being the biggest party is I think not far fetched .
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481
    edited July 2022

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
    Not what we could have done - it's what we should have done.

    However Bozo and co didn't grasp the issue because no one went in with a colouring book that explained it in simple enough terms that they grasped the issue.,

    Also it's probably likely that the French regard themselves as having enough staff because for day to day business they have enough staff.

    And it probably isn't practical for them to increase staff numbers for the few peak periods during a year...
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,704
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    If Labour get most votes and most seats, as the Tories did in 2010, then you are of course right.

    But if the Tories get most votes and most seats, are the Lib Dems really going to prefer a minority Truss or Sunak government and a further election in a year's time over a coalition where they can get some of their policies enacted?
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481
    Driver said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    If Labour get most votes and most seats, as the Tories did in 2010, then you are of course right.

    But if the Tories get most votes and most seats, are the Lib Dems really going to prefer a minority Truss or Sunak government and a further election in a year's time over a coalition where they can get some of their policies enacted?
    The Lib Dems were destroyed by being in a coalition between 2010 and 2015 - in large part due to the tactics of their coalition partner.

    Corporate memory isn't permanent but there is zero chance the Lib Dems will support any Tory Government in 2025.

    Equally unless the tories got more votes than Labour + other coalition partners combine you argument doesn't hold up on the numbers front.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,567
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
    Not what we could have done - it's what we should have done.

    However Bozo and co didn't grasp the issue because no one went in with a colouring book that explained it in simple enough terms that they grasped the issue.

    Also it's probably likely that the French regard themselves as having enough staff because for day to day business they have enough staff.

    And it probably isn't practical for them to increase staff numbers for the few peak periods during a year...
    People did, but the colouring book got scribbled on and ripped up, and the people bringing the colouring book were sent away with a flea in their ear.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,080
    HYUFD said:

    The biggest difference is that if the new PM holds on until after the boundary changes go through next year, Scotland will shed 2 seats, Wales will shed 10 seats and the Tories will start with roughly an additional +30 advantage! I wanted Mordaunt after Hunt was knocked out but Starmer bores the working class and in a general election they will not vote for him.

    Even that may not be enough.

    The latest Yougov has the Tories and Labour tied amongst working class C2DEs on 35% each.

    However Labour has a big 43% to 26% lead with middle class ABC1s.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/15/voting-intention-con-29-lab-40-13-14-july

    Now Sunak and Truss might have more appeal to middle class voters than Boris but then they also likely have less appeal to working class voters than Boris too
    There is slightly more to this than meets the eye. On that polling both Bootle and Arundel should be a little closer as contests than they appear to be.

    Whatever the polls say the overwhelming impression is that Labour is stronger in poorer seats and Tories stronger in wealthier one.

  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,847
    edited July 2022
    nico679 said:

    I’d think Truss might do a bit better in Red Wall seats than Sunak but he would do better in southern seats which are Lib Dem targets .

    2019 was a unique election with Brexit still over shadowing things . A perfect storm of that and Corbyn helped deliver that large Tory majority .

    It’s very hard to see the Tories winning a majority but being the biggest party is I think not far fetched .

    Truss will do incredibly poorly in Southern Blue seats, I think.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,688

    Mr. HYUFD, be interesting to compare how they stack up against Starmer in that regard.

    I wonder if we'll see a decline in working class turnout next time.

    Keep an eye on the photo ID requirement in the new Elections Act.
    Hmm. Quite a few elderly people don't drive and don't have passports.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544
    Scott_xP said:

    eek said:

    It's definitely the case Bozo reaches voters other politicians can't reach.

    "This is so awkward... Where is Boris Johnson? We hate him."

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1550236525622951939/video/1
    The kids are alright.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,550
    edited July 2022
    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    No, the reason the deal was never a runner was because a Lib-Lab deal in 2010 wouldn't have had a majority in Parliament, and certainly not a working one.
    Yes it would, but John Reid et al vetoed talking with the SNP.
    No, a Lib-Lab deal would have got them to 315 and you need 326 for a majority. Even then SNP only got them to 321. That isn't enough for a majority, let alone a working one, which realistically needs 340-350.
    IIRC they could have scraped a bare majority with SNP+SDLP+Plaid+Green (and assuming Sinn Fein weren't going to suddenly show up and vote with the Tories). Countries do get governed with bare majorities like that, it's not impossible. It wouldn't have been comfortable though.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,704
    eek said:

    Driver said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    If Labour get most votes and most seats, as the Tories did in 2010, then you are of course right.

    But if the Tories get most votes and most seats, are the Lib Dems really going to prefer a minority Truss or Sunak government and a further election in a year's time over a coalition where they can get some of their policies enacted?
    The Lib Dems were destroyed by being in a coalition between 2010 and 2015 - in large part due to the tactics of their coalition partner.

    Corporate memory isn't permanent but there is zero chance the Lib Dems will support any Tory Government in 2025.

    Equally unless the tories got more votes than Labour + other coalition partners combine you argument doesn't hold up on the numbers front.
    You don't think "the tactics of their coalition partner" had anything to do with this?

    Ms. Moonshine, I'd say the Lib Dem problem with coalition (ironic given they're in love with the concept) is that they kept trying to portray themselves as some sort of internal opposition (culminating in the bizarre yellow box Budget).

    It's hard to take credit for government policy when acting that way.

  • eekeek Posts: 27,481

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
    Not what we could have done - it's what we should have done.

    However Bozo and co didn't grasp the issue because no one went in with a colouring book that explained it in simple enough terms that they grasped the issue.

    Also it's probably likely that the French regard themselves as having enough staff because for day to day business they have enough staff.

    And it probably isn't practical for them to increase staff numbers for the few peak periods during a year...
    People did, but the colouring book got scribbled on and ripped up, and the people bringing the colouring book were sent away with a flea in their ear.
    That requires malice and not everyone is focussed on malice.

    If JRM is involved you can bet it was malice, Nadine Dorries - it's lack of knowledge and an inability to understand (which is why in her department everything is now triple checked to make it simple enough that she may understand it).

    We know Bozo is lazy but because of that it's very hard to work out on which side of malice or stupid he falls into.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,049
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The biggest difference is that if the new PM holds on until after the boundary changes go through next year, Scotland will shed 2 seats, Wales will shed 10 seats and the Tories will start with roughly an additional +30 advantage! I wanted Mordaunt after Hunt was knocked out but Starmer bores the working class and in a general election they will not vote for him.

    Even that may not be enough.

    The latest Yougov has the Tories and Labour tied amongst working class C2DEs on 35% each.

    However Labour has a big 43% to 26% lead with middle class ABC1s.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/15/voting-intention-con-29-lab-40-13-14-july

    Now Sunak and Truss might have more appeal to middle class voters than Boris but then they also likely have less appeal to working class voters than Boris too
    There is slightly more to this than meets the eye. On that polling both Bootle and Arundel should be a little closer as contests than they appear to be.

    Whatever the polls say the overwhelming impression is that Labour is stronger in poorer seats and Tories stronger in wealthier one.

    Labour has just won Westminster and Wandsworth councils under Starmer and Boris won Stoke and Burnley in 2019

    The Labour vote under Starmer will likely be the poshest it has ever been, now the Tory vote might get a little more posh again and a little less working class, especially if Sunak won the leadership but working class Leave voters who liked Boris are more likely to go to Farage and RefUK than Starmer Labour
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,109
    Commission established to shape UK commemoration for COVID-19

    The Government has set out the membership and terms of reference for the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/commission-established-to-shape-uk-commemoration-for-covid-19
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481
    edited July 2022
    Chris said:

    Mr. HYUFD, be interesting to compare how they stack up against Starmer in that regard.

    I wonder if we'll see a decline in working class turnout next time.

    Keep an eye on the photo ID requirement in the new Elections Act.
    Hmm. Quite a few elderly people don't drive and don't have passports.
    Which is why their bus pass is an acceptable form of ID

    It's actually going to be another issue come October because remote ID checks are being formalised and they will require a UK passport.

    Guess what a lot of poorly paid young people don't have...
    Guess the type of firms that are insisting on remote checks because they can't trust their local management..
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,480
    eek said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
    Not what we could have done - it's what we should have done.

    However Bozo and co didn't grasp the issue because no one went in with a colouring book that explained it in simple enough terms that they grasped the issue.

    Also it's probably likely that the French regard themselves as having enough staff because for day to day business they have enough staff.

    And it probably isn't practical for them to increase staff numbers for the few peak periods during a year...
    People did, but the colouring book got scribbled on and ripped up, and the people bringing the colouring book were sent away with a flea in their ear.
    That requires malice and not everyone is focussed on malice.

    If JRM is involved you can bet it was malice, Nadine Dorries - it's lack of knowledge and an inability to understand (which is why in her department everything is now triple checked to make it simple enough that she may understand it).

    We know Bozo is lazy but because of that it's very hard to work out on which side of malice or stupid he falls into.
    Two more years of this before the whole bloody clown show is thrown out of office hopefully and we can start to repair the damage.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,018
    So he prefers Bay-de-noc.
  • Scott_xP said:

    eek said:

    It's definitely the case Bozo reaches voters other politicians can't reach.

    "This is so awkward... Where is Boris Johnson? We hate him."

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1550236525622951939/video/1
    The kids are alright.
    They're adequate parrots
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,781
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    So someone I know has got Colorectal cancer and because he has money pays for Avastin privately (last I heard he was doing well but this reminds me to go and check).

    For a short time it was available on the NHS but being under patent it was eventually deemed uneconomic. Now it's no longer under patent (and the price has been reduced) there was a Government petition to ask for NICE to rerun the economic model based on the lower pricing.

    I've just received the response to the petition that says it was rejected due to cost - which means they've spent a few hours writing a response that misses the single point of the petition - costs have been reduced, could you get NICE to rerun the analysis...

    🤦‍♂️

    How much has the price reduced ?
    It's an antibody treatment, so generic competition doesn't reduce the cost in the same way as chemical therapies.

    From what I recall it's not particularly effective, so it's quite likely rerunning the calculations wouldn't change the outcome.

    Even so just rerun the calculation - it's not exactly difficult, as the petition wasn't asking them to change their analysis just run the finance side of things which is value of extra year of live relative to cost of treatment - would probably taker less time than the response took to write.
    The reply to the petition includes this:
    ...NICE maintains surveillance of new evidence that may affect its published guidance, including cost considerations, and will consult on proposed changes with a wide range of stakeholders if any significant new evidence were to emerge. If patients or clinicians believe there is significant new evidence, they should contact NICE...

    It also notes that there are a number of targeted therapies which are approved:
    ...NICE has been able to recommend a number of medicines for the treatment of colorectal cancer that are now routinely available to NHS patients, including through the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). Some of these medicines include nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab, encorafenib, cetuximab and panitumumab...

    FWIW, I think the decision has as much if not more to do with its relative lack of effectiveness in this indication as it does with cost.
  • StarryStarry Posts: 108
    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,049
    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,567
    eek said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
    Not what we could have done - it's what we should have done.

    However Bozo and co didn't grasp the issue because no one went in with a colouring book that explained it in simple enough terms that they grasped the issue.

    Also it's probably likely that the French regard themselves as having enough staff because for day to day business they have enough staff.

    And it probably isn't practical for them to increase staff numbers for the few peak periods during a year...
    People did, but the colouring book got scribbled on and ripped up, and the people bringing the colouring book were sent away with a flea in their ear.
    That requires malice and not everyone is focussed on malice.

    If JRM is involved you can bet it was malice, Nadine Dorries - it's lack of knowledge and an inability to understand (which is why in her department everything is now triple checked to make it simple enough that she may understand it).

    We know Bozo is lazy but because of that it's very hard to work out on which side of malice or stupid he falls into.
    Malice or mulish stupidity?

    There was tittle-tattle, ages ago, that Boris would start humming Land of Hope and Glory whenever anyone tried to tell him bad news about his Brexit plans. Because the plans were delicate wee things that couldn't stand much contact with reality before they would wither and die.

    Now a government that decides to ignore inconvenient data is not one I want governing me, but I'm not sure malice is quite the word for it. Culpably incompetent, perhaps.
  • HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758

    nico679 said:

    I’d think Truss might do a bit better in Red Wall seats than Sunak but he would do better in southern seats which are Lib Dem targets .

    2019 was a unique election with Brexit still over shadowing things . A perfect storm of that and Corbyn helped deliver that large Tory majority .

    It’s very hard to see the Tories winning a majority but being the biggest party is I think not far fetched .

    Truss will do incredibly poorly in Southern Blue seats, I think.
    That at least partly depends on the Labour manifesto.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,507

    Scott_xP said:

    eek said:

    It's definitely the case Bozo reaches voters other politicians can't reach.

    "This is so awkward... Where is Boris Johnson? We hate him."

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1550236525622951939/video/1
    The kids are alright.
    The kids are all right.
  • IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
    No, we should be treated as a third country, as we are a third country.

    Countries around the entire frigging planet operate successfully as third countries from their neighbours.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,528

    geoffw said:

    Wife's cousin's daughter hosts a couple of refugees from Luhansk on her small farm here in Finland. We met them yesterday. The refuge was set up and organised by local private enterprise charity Facebook groups. This is the first time I have a positive view of fb.

    Can you speak Finnish? If so, we have an “exciting” wee task for you! Kiitos!
    Kyllä, mutta luen parempi kuin puhun. Vaikka ymmärän helposti.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,332

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    In fairness to the French they are being asked to handle more freight than ever before: https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/uk-exports-to-eu-defy-brexit-challenges-hitting-highest-level-ever/
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544

    Scott_xP said:

    eek said:

    It's definitely the case Bozo reaches voters other politicians can't reach.

    "This is so awkward... Where is Boris Johnson? We hate him."

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1550236525622951939/video/1
    The kids are alright.
    The kids are all right.
    But not right wing, thankfully.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,287
    Because, Brexit


    “Eurozone business activity has gone into reverse for the first time since February 2021, after companies were hit by rising costs and falling orders, according to a closely watched survey of purchasing managers.

    “The worse than expected result from S&P Global’s flash eurozone composite purchasing managers’ index is the latest gloomy indicator for the bloc, and supports economists’ expectations that it is likely to slide into recession.”

    FT (£)
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,455

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    No, the reason the deal was never a runner was because a Lib-Lab deal in 2010 wouldn't have had a majority in Parliament, and certainly not a working one.
    Yes it would, but John Reid et al vetoed talking with the SNP.
    No, a Lib-Lab deal would have got them to 315 and you need 326 for a majority. Even then SNP only got them to 321. That isn't enough for a majority, let alone a working one, which realistically needs 340-350.
    IIRC they could have scraped a bare majority with SNP+SDLP+Plaid+Green (and assuming Sinn Fein weren't going to suddenly show up and vote with the Tories). Countries do get governed with bare majorities like that, it's not impossible. It wouldn't have been comfortable though.
    There was a group of Labour MPs who scuppered it by saying they wouldn't support it. Only took a couple in the circumstances.

    I expect they had a mistaken idea that they could watch the Tories struggle for a few years and then waltz back into power, just as some Tories are beginning to think now.
  • IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.

    Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.

    If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Scott_xP said:

    eek said:

    It's definitely the case Bozo reaches voters other politicians can't reach.

    "This is so awkward... Where is Boris Johnson? We hate him."

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1550236525622951939/video/1
    The kids are alright.
    The kids are all right.
    But not right wing, thankfully.
    Until they get to (actual, not legal) voting age.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,428

    moonshine said:

    Fishing said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    No, the reason the deal was never a runner was because a Lib-Lab deal in 2010 wouldn't have had a majority in Parliament, and certainly not a working one.
    Indeed. First rule of politics: learn how to count.

    Its not so much that the Tories are uncoalitionable, but as things stand without a massive change Parliament is uncoalitionable.

    The SNP will never enter a coalition with anyone.
    The LDs are too small to make a viable coalition partner (per 2010) anymore.
    So too are the DUP and assorted extras.

    If there were to be a viable coalition in a Hung Parliament then the secondary party really ought to be the SNP quite probably - but they'll never do it.

    The most we're going to have is supply on a case by case basis realistically - and if there's no formal coalitions and just supply on case by case bases then there's no reason why that can't be a Conservative Prime Minister doing that as per
    May in 2017.
    The Lib Dems messed it up in 2010. They should have taken full policy and personnel control over 2-3 ministries and not got involved in other policy except confidence and supply.

    They have even too small to hold any balance of power ever since but who knows, if Liz does an Amber Heard then they may gain a couple of dozen seats and be in a position to demand what I’ve described from Starmer.
    I don't agree, if they'd done that then they'd have little to show from those 2-3 ministries as the Chancellor and PM would just have ultimate control as always.

    The LDs actually did really well with the Quad system that was developed. The Quad gave the LDs outsized influence over all policies for five years.

    The big mistake the LDs made was to act abashed and ashamed of their time in office.
    The big problem the LibDems had was the nature of the collection of voters they had. A chunk were ex-Labour voters (often over Iraq) who were looking to go home - especially after the Coalition. The university fees provided an excuse for a lot of people to switch back to Labour.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,847
    edited July 2022

    nico679 said:

    I’d think Truss might do a bit better in Red Wall seats than Sunak but he would do better in southern seats which are Lib Dem targets .

    2019 was a unique election with Brexit still over shadowing things . A perfect storm of that and Corbyn helped deliver that large Tory majority .

    It’s very hard to see the Tories winning a majority but being the biggest party is I think not far fetched .

    Truss will do incredibly poorly in Southern Blue seats, I think.
    That at least partly depends on the Labour manifesto.
    I wouldn't be sure about that.

    I might be biased in finding Truss particularly objectionable, but if she goes into the next election on a proud Brexit platform, supplemented by constant battle-cries on the culture war front in the Boris style, the Lib Dem southern gains will be strong.

    Truss strikes me as someone who needs to re-evaluate her entire approach to other people to be even near to the job of Prime Ministerial material. Very close to Johnson, in fact, and the kind of re-self evaluation he wasn't able to do before becoming Prime Minister.

    Look where that ended up.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,428
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    In fairness to the French they are being asked to handle more freight than ever before: https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/uk-exports-to-eu-defy-brexit-challenges-hitting-highest-level-ever/
    They are also, I understand, being hit by the same problems in finding people to do the low end jobs that we are seeing around the developed world.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,639

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.

    Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.

    If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
    But you lot were claiming the car makers would give UK membership à la carte, like single market with no migration. Now you are saying any deal proves it.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    The Italian election will be much more important than the Tory contest.

    In the latest polls, Fratelli d'Italia + Lega + Forza Italia + ItalExit would be around 47-48%, which I guess would be enoughfor a majority. Could lead to some explosive battles with Brussels if the right wins.

    Somewhat surprising that 5 Star didn't support Draghi when they look set to be pummeled.

    Depends what battles you mean.

    My (primitive) read on Italian politics is that an needless churn of populist parties (from left and right) win power running against the technocrats and then spend their time in power realising that no way in hell do the electorate actually want to lose the Euro because it means the destruction of wealth and savings.

    Like the UK, it’s stuck in a gerontocratic-populist death loop.
    Liz Truss could be the PM you've been waiting for.

    https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/975822789759389698

    Every generation wants their own version of #freedom- freedom to shape their own lives. This is about #choice #destiny

    This generation are #Uber-riding #Airbnb-ing #Deliveroo-eating #freedomfighters
    That's definitely going to win the hearts and minds of the under 40s, isn't it?
    She's bonkers.
    It's certainly a departure from the home-owning dream. The Tory dream nowadays appears to be live with your parents and eat deliveroo pizza?
    FPT Surely eat meat and 2 veg while waiting for them to die? HYUFD is so insistent on the importance of inheritance to set yourself up in life, and I can't see that he is wrong about the emphasis on parental death in Tory policy when one looks at the tax structure and allowances.
    I wonder what Laffer Curve Liz thinks about inheritance tax?
    Obviously if you reduce the rate of inheritance tax you incentivise people to bump off their parents to inherit, increasing the tax take from inheritance tax, and reducing the pensions and NHS costs.

    All we need now is for the police to say that their resources are so stretched that they're not able to investigate suspicious deaths of the over-70s.
    You have a very wicked mind! Liz’ll love it.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,639

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    No, the reason the deal was never a runner was because a Lib-Lab deal in 2010 wouldn't have had a majority in Parliament, and certainly not a working one.
    Yes it would, but John Reid et al vetoed talking with the SNP.
    No, a Lib-Lab deal would have got them to 315 and you need 326 for a majority. Even then SNP only got them to 321. That isn't enough for a majority, let alone a working one, which realistically needs 340-350.
    IIRC they could have scraped a bare majority with SNP+SDLP+Plaid+Green (and assuming Sinn Fein weren't going to suddenly show up and vote with the Tories). Countries do get governed with bare majorities like that, it's not impossible. It wouldn't have been comfortable though.
    There was a group of Labour MPs who scuppered it by saying they wouldn't support it. Only took a couple in the circumstances.

    I expect they had a mistaken idea that they could watch the Tories struggle for a few years and then waltz back into power, just as some Tories are beginning to think now.
    Faced with such a government Hoey would have gone into Enoch mode and formed a pan British Freedom Front Plus.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,480
    John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    [Truss] tax cuts are like £350m on the side of the bus: the more economists say they make no sense, the stronger the message to Tory members


    At Society of Professional Economists reception at
    @KingsCollegeLon last night I couldn’t find a single one who thought her plan OK

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1550395723526639616
  • As someone who shops regularly on Amazon its incredibly obvious and easy to spot and avoid these Chinese trolls.

    Having the filter button checked to only show results for Prime Next Day delivery will eliminate most of this useless tat since fake crap coming from China normally takes a few days and can't be here next day.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,227

    moonshine said:

    Fishing said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    No, the reason the deal was never a runner was because a Lib-Lab deal in 2010 wouldn't have had a majority in Parliament, and certainly not a working one.
    Indeed. First rule of politics: learn how to count.

    Its not so much that the Tories are uncoalitionable, but as things stand without a massive change Parliament is uncoalitionable.

    The SNP will never enter a coalition with anyone.
    The LDs are too small to make a viable coalition partner (per 2010) anymore.
    So too are the DUP and assorted extras.

    If there were to be a viable coalition in a Hung Parliament then the secondary party really ought to be the SNP quite probably - but they'll never do it.

    The most we're going to have is supply on a case by case basis realistically - and if there's no formal coalitions and just supply on case by case bases then there's no reason why that can't be a Conservative Prime Minister doing that as per
    May in 2017.
    The Lib Dems messed it up in 2010. They should have taken full policy and personnel control over 2-3 ministries and not got involved in other policy except confidence and supply.

    They have even too small to hold any balance of power ever since but who knows, if Liz does an Amber Heard then they may gain a couple of dozen seats and be in a position to demand what I’ve described from Starmer.
    I don't agree, if they'd done that then they'd have little to show from those 2-3 ministries as the Chancellor and PM would just have ultimate control as always.

    The LDs actually did really well with the Quad system that was developed. The Quad gave the LDs outsized influence over all policies for five years.

    The big mistake the LDs made was to act abashed and ashamed of their time in office.
    The big problem the LibDems had was the nature of the collection of voters they had. A chunk were ex-Labour voters (often over Iraq) who were looking to go home - especially after the Coalition. The university fees provided an excuse for a lot of people to switch back to Labour.
    Not an excuse but rather a justifiable reason.

    The LibDems betrayal of students means that millions of young people will be significantly poorer throughout their lives.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,704
    Wow. Sounds like my policy of only buying on Amazon, eBay etc. from UK sellers(*) is quite wise.

    (*) Except Wilhelmina mints. They have to come from a seller in Germany.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,332

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    In fairness to the French they are being asked to handle more freight than ever before: https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/uk-exports-to-eu-defy-brexit-challenges-hitting-highest-level-ever/
    They are also, I understand, being hit by the same problems in finding people to do the low end jobs that we are seeing around the developed world.
    Tourism is a major export industry for France. You wouldn't think it from their response to this. Maybe it will be quieter next year.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,480
    edited July 2022
    EPG said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.

    Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.

    If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
    But you lot were claiming the car makers would give UK membership à la carte, like single market with no migration. Now you are saying any deal proves it.
    We do have a la carte. We got what we were asking for.

    We have an unprecedented zero tariff, zero quota free trade agreement where we are the third country we wanted to be, not bound by EU rules or the EU court just as we wanted, can have our own standards rather than being obliged to follow CE standards just as we wanted, and we don't have membership fees or movement etc just as the nation wanted.

    We picked the cherries we wanted and said no to the rest. The problem for people like @RochdalePioneers is he objects to the fact we didn't want something he does want.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,369
    edited July 2022

    As someone who shops regularly on Amazon its incredibly obvious and easy to spot and avoid these Chinese trolls.

    Having the filter button checked to only show results for Prime Next Day delivery will eliminate most of this useless tat since fake crap coming from China normally takes a few days and can't be here next day.
    In the UK, Amazon sellers have to provide a bit more info than US. You might that its a UK seller, because Prime / Uk address, but that isn't necessarily the case. Very easy to setup up a UK company with dodgy details at companies house and having some non-descript lock-up using a UK based individual....and then they close down and reset.

    You need to first go digging around on Companies House / Google / Google maps about any company selling on Amazon.

    The dodgy Chinese "brands" with no vowels, where you see the identical product being sold by 5 different ones, are still everywhere on Amazon UK.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481

    EPG said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.

    Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.

    If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
    But you lot were claiming the car makers would give UK membership à la carte, like single market with no migration. Now you are saying any deal proves it.
    We do have a la carte. We got what we were asking for.

    We have an unprecedented zero tariff, zero quota free trade agreement where we are the third country we wanted to be, not bound by EU rules or the EU court just as we wanted, and we don't have membership fees or movement etc just as the nation wanted.

    We picked the cherries we wanted and said no to the rest. The problem for people like @RochdalePioneers is he objects to the fact we didn't want something he does want.
    No he's picking up the fact that today's problems in Dover were created by decisions Bozo and others demanded and then claimed to be surprised about the consequences - even though anyone and everyone in any industry that does any exports knew what the issues were going to be.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,227

    John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    [Truss] tax cuts are like £350m on the side of the bus: the more economists say they make no sense, the stronger the message to Tory members


    At Society of Professional Economists reception at
    @KingsCollegeLon last night I couldn’t find a single one who thought her plan OK

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1550395723526639616

    Actually tax cuts on work do make sense.

    But so do tax rises on higher end consumption and property.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,428
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    In fairness to the French they are being asked to handle more freight than ever before: https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/uk-exports-to-eu-defy-brexit-challenges-hitting-highest-level-ever/
    They are also, I understand, being hit by the same problems in finding people to do the low end jobs that we are seeing around the developed world.
    Tourism is a major export industry for France. You wouldn't think it from their response to this. Maybe it will be quieter next year.
    The problem is - from talking to French friends - a function of the French approach to employment. "Proper" employees are expensive to hire, difficult to fire etc. Various schemes have been created for more casual labour in certain areas - but the terms and conditions there are especially shit.

    So it is very hard to "just take on more staff".
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,639

    moonshine said:

    Fishing said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    No, the reason the deal was never a runner was because a Lib-Lab deal in 2010 wouldn't have had a majority in Parliament, and certainly not a working one.
    Indeed. First rule of politics: learn how to count.

    Its not so much that the Tories are uncoalitionable, but as things stand without a massive change Parliament is uncoalitionable.

    The SNP will never enter a coalition with anyone.
    The LDs are too small to make a viable coalition partner (per 2010) anymore.
    So too are the DUP and assorted extras.

    If there were to be a viable coalition in a Hung Parliament then the secondary party really ought to be the SNP quite probably - but they'll never do it.

    The most we're going to have is supply on a case by case basis realistically - and if there's no formal coalitions and just supply on case by case bases then there's no reason why that can't be a Conservative Prime Minister doing that as per
    May in 2017.
    The Lib Dems messed it up in 2010. They should have taken full policy and personnel control over 2-3 ministries and not got involved in other policy except confidence and supply.

    They have even too small to hold any balance of power ever since but who knows, if Liz does an Amber Heard then they may gain a couple of dozen seats and be in a position to demand what I’ve described from Starmer.
    I don't agree, if they'd done that then they'd have little to show from those 2-3 ministries as the Chancellor and PM would just have ultimate control as always.

    The LDs actually did really well with the Quad system that was developed. The Quad gave the LDs outsized influence over all policies for five years.

    The big mistake the LDs made was to act abashed and ashamed of their time in office.
    The big problem the LibDems had was the nature of the collection of voters they had. A chunk were ex-Labour voters (often over Iraq) who were looking to go home - especially after the Coalition. The university fees provided an excuse for a lot of people to switch back to Labour.
    Not an excuse but rather a justifiable reason.

    The LibDems betrayal of students means that millions of young people will be significantly poorer throughout their lives.
    The ones who earn enough income to pay the fees back, that is.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,524
    Just an aside that when buying a reading light there were two I liked. One US, one Chinese. I opted for the American one, but it turned out to be made in China (works perfectly well, mind).
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481

    John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    [Truss] tax cuts are like £350m on the side of the bus: the more economists say they make no sense, the stronger the message to Tory members


    At Society of Professional Economists reception at
    @KingsCollegeLon last night I couldn’t find a single one who thought her plan OK

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1550395723526639616

    But, but but Patrick Minford loves the plans..

    Granted that most economists regarding Patrick as the equivalent of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard - read what he says to ensure you do the exact opposite
  • eek said:

    John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    [Truss] tax cuts are like £350m on the side of the bus: the more economists say they make no sense, the stronger the message to Tory members


    At Society of Professional Economists reception at
    @KingsCollegeLon last night I couldn’t find a single one who thought her plan OK

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1550395723526639616

    But, but but Patrick Minford loves the plans..

    Granted that most economists regarding Patrick as the equivalent of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard - read what he says to ensure you do the exact opposite
    364 economists can't be wrong.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,639

    EPG said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.

    Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.

    If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
    But you lot were claiming the car makers would give UK membership à la carte, like single market with no migration. Now you are saying any deal proves it.
    We do have a la carte. We got what we were asking for.

    We have an unprecedented zero tariff, zero quota free trade agreement where we are the third country we wanted to be, not bound by EU rules or the EU court just as we wanted, can have our own standards rather than being obliged to follow CE standards just as we wanted, and we don't have membership fees or movement etc just as the nation wanted.

    We picked the cherries we wanted and said no to the rest. The problem for people like @RochdalePioneers is he objects to the fact we didn't want something he does want.
    You are talking about goods where there are plenty of EU free trade precedents, when Frost and pals wanted full access for deregulated services like finance, which will never happen outside the bloc. It's fine to just call it a tradeoff because you like Brexit; you don't have to die on this hill of argument!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,428
    Driver said:

    Wow. Sounds like my policy of only buying on Amazon, eBay etc. from UK sellers(*) is quite wise.

    (*) Except Wilhelmina mints. They have to come from a seller in Germany.
    A major problem is/was "binning" on Amazon provided stuff, where Amazon does the warehousing/distribution on behalf of the company. Binning means that they put products which are supposed to be the same, but from different sellers, in the same bin. So fakes end up piled in with the real stuff.

    So you could shop with the excellent, legit company you've used for years. Buy the same carefully researched product..... and get toxic fake garbage made by slaves in China.
  • EPG said:

    EPG said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.

    Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.

    If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
    But you lot were claiming the car makers would give UK membership à la carte, like single market with no migration. Now you are saying any deal proves it.
    We do have a la carte. We got what we were asking for.

    We have an unprecedented zero tariff, zero quota free trade agreement where we are the third country we wanted to be, not bound by EU rules or the EU court just as we wanted, can have our own standards rather than being obliged to follow CE standards just as we wanted, and we don't have membership fees or movement etc just as the nation wanted.

    We picked the cherries we wanted and said no to the rest. The problem for people like @RochdalePioneers is he objects to the fact we didn't want something he does want.
    You are talking about goods where there are plenty of EU free trade precedents, when Frost and pals wanted full access for deregulated services like finance, which will never happen outside the bloc. It's fine to just call it a tradeoff because you like Brexit; you don't have to die on this hill of argument!
    Did they want full access for deregulated services like finance?

    I thought they didn't, because they thought being a third party was superior and that UK finance would find a way to thrive with third party status. Which is what's happening.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,049

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
    If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.

    Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.

    However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,369
    edited July 2022

    Just an aside that when buying a reading light there were two I liked. One US, one Chinese. I opted for the American one, but it turned out to be made in China (works perfectly well, mind).

    There is another phenomena going on at the moment. Venture capitalists are pumping money into these companies who are "brand aggratoters", who search for small niche, often one man band, e-commerce sellers with very good online reputations. They then buy that legit company based in US/UK/EU.

    Now for some this is about trying to build a massive network of sustainable online brands for the future and using economies of scale, that have already been turbo charged by a one-man band who has got tonnes of great reviews.

    However, there is also a lot going on where they take that good will / good product, and replace it will a much cheaper Chinese knock-off, but everybody going to Amazon will see 1000s of reviews from customers saying this is amazing US made product.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,511
    eek said:

    EPG said:

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.

    First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.

    Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
    The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.

    Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.

    If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
    But you lot were claiming the car makers would give UK membership à la carte, like single market with no migration. Now you are saying any deal proves it.
    We do have a la carte. We got what we were asking for.

    We have an unprecedented zero tariff, zero quota free trade agreement where we are the third country we wanted to be, not bound by EU rules or the EU court just as we wanted, and we don't have membership fees or movement etc just as the nation wanted.

    We picked the cherries we wanted and said no to the rest. The problem for people like @RochdalePioneers is he objects to the fact we didn't want something he does want.

    No he's picking up the fact that today's problems
    in Dover were created by decisions Bozo and
    others demanded and then claimed to be
    surprised about the consequences - even though anyone and everyone in any industry that does
    any exports knew what the issues were going to be.
    Cracks spreads aren’t going to be as high and hence jet fuel isn’t always going to be as expensive as it today. UK airports will presumably have solved their covid induced staffing issues by next summer. And the continual waves of private investment in the Uk tourist and hospitality industries continues unabated, making it ever more attractive for Brits to holiday at home, especially given the warming climate!

    This story is classic Macronism. Stupid short term political point scoring to the detriment of the long term economic interest of his citizens.

    More bemusing are those Brits that cheer Macron’s self defeating behaviour. Not because it will likely prove a net benefit to our current account but because they like to imagine stupid people who vote differently to them being stuck in traffic for hours. Sad.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,227
    EPG said:

    moonshine said:

    Fishing said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
    It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
    Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.

    No, the reason the deal was never a runner was because a Lib-Lab deal in 2010 wouldn't have had a majority in Parliament, and certainly not a working one.
    Indeed. First rule of politics: learn how to count.

    Its not so much that the Tories are uncoalitionable, but as things stand without a massive change Parliament is uncoalitionable.

    The SNP will never enter a coalition with anyone.
    The LDs are too small to make a viable coalition partner (per 2010) anymore.
    So too are the DUP and assorted extras.

    If there were to be a viable coalition in a Hung Parliament then the secondary party really ought to be the SNP quite probably - but they'll never do it.

    The most we're going to have is supply on a case by case basis realistically - and if there's no formal coalitions and just supply on case by case bases then there's no reason why that can't be a Conservative Prime Minister doing that as per
    May in 2017.
    The Lib Dems messed it up in 2010. They should have taken full policy and personnel control over 2-3 ministries and not got involved in other policy except confidence and supply.

    They have even too small to hold any balance of power ever since but who knows, if Liz does an Amber Heard then they may gain a couple of dozen seats and be in a position to demand what I’ve described from Starmer.
    I don't agree, if they'd done that then they'd have little to show from those 2-3 ministries as the Chancellor and PM would just have ultimate control as always.

    The LDs actually did really well with the Quad system that was developed. The Quad gave the LDs outsized influence over all policies for five years.

    The big mistake the LDs made was to act abashed and ashamed of their time in office.
    The big problem the LibDems had was the nature of the collection of voters they had. A chunk were ex-Labour voters (often over Iraq) who were looking to go home - especially after the Coalition. The university fees provided an excuse for a lot of people to switch back to Labour.
    Not an excuse but rather a justifiable reason.

    The LibDems betrayal of students means that millions of young people will be significantly poorer throughout their lives.
    The ones who earn enough income to pay the fees back, that is.
    I'm not sure that "Don't worry about your tuition fees because you'll be getting crap pay for 50 years and so wont have to pay it off" is the sort of thing teenagers want to hear.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
    If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.

    Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.

    However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
    If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.

    Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,650

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
    No, we should be treated as a third country, as we are a third country.

    Countries around the entire frigging planet operate successfully as third countries from their neighbours.
    When bilateral trade and traffic grows to a fraction of our levels with the EU, they do a deal to make access easier. Uniquely we have done the reverse.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,524
    Mr. Urquhart, reminds me of restaurant reviews on Googlemaps, where an establishment has great reviews but filtering by time shows they've fallen off a cliff due to new management.
  • IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
    No, we should be treated as a third country, as we are a third country.

    Countries around the entire frigging planet operate successfully as third countries from their neighbours.
    When bilateral trade and traffic grows to a fraction of our levels with the EU, they do a deal to make access easier. Uniquely we have done the reverse.
    We do have a deal to make access easier [than WTO terms].

    The reverse is only coming from the starting point of EU membership being the default, it isn't, the global default is WTO.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,511
    HYUFD said:
    Intriguing. How would that likely play out given the transferable voting system?

    Corbyn gets enough first preferences to make the final two but not many second preferences at all? Which means there’s space for another candidate to steal in on second preferences? Or would those other first and second preference votes be so hopelessly split that Corbyn wins anyway?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,287

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
    If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.

    Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.

    However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
    If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.

    Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
    Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?

    You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,478
    My relationship with Brexit is like a long tennis rally. Before the 2016 referendum I was pi**ed off with the EU, and critical of it. But I didn't believe leave had any coherent plan, so reluctantly voted remain. Since then, events have had me going over the net from one side to the other: the EUs stupidity over vaccines or intransigence over NI, or Germany's attitude towards Ukraine, see me going towards leave. Then all the other sh*t going on with Brexit on our side sees me going back to remain.

    But it's all academic, as I would not support another referendum. We have made our bed; we need adults to remove the soiled sheets and tidy the room.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,886
    edited July 2022

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    If the French want to lose visitors from their largest tourism source county (when I last checked) by making travel difficult, then many of those visitors will go elsewhere. Time for the Zeebrugge route to reopen?

    Spain has shown it is quite possible to make borders more efficient when necessary.

    On this occasion it really is the "bloody French", to borrow the avoid-a-conversation rhetoric above.

    Mons. Macron and many in his Government announced that they thought the UK needed to be 'punished', including unlawful measures - to the extent that he had to be slapped down like a yapping puppy by Brussels at least twice.

    At present the French are importing 5+% of their electricity from the UK much of the time. Perhaps we should borrow from the French playbook and threaten to cut them off at the point of maximum potential pain, just like the .. er .. bloody French.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,369
    edited July 2022

    Mr. Urquhart, reminds me of restaurant reviews on Googlemaps, where an establishment has great reviews but filtering by time shows they've fallen off a cliff due to new management.

    The new model for the Uber-Eats / Deliveroo world is now for a single physical restaurant to have multiple "virtual" brands (not talking about the dark kitchens here).

    Now again the legit people are simply trying to offer a range of different foods, others are just creating loads of burnable "brands", doesn't matter if the food has goes to dogshit, they just reboot Ying's Palace, next month with Wong's Palace.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,910

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
    If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.

    Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.

    However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
    If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.

    Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
    The alternative view on this is that Labour could call the SNP's bluff - "SNP block Labour and put Truss in for 5 years"

    The SNP hit the "Scotland didn't vote for the Tories" button all the time, so I think that could be quite powerful.

    A dilemma for Sturgeon, but as we have seen recently she can wriggle out of tight spot when needed. Punting Indyref2 direct to the Supreme Court was smart.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,480
    edited July 2022
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
    If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.

    Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.

    However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
    If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.

    Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
    Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?

    You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
    What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.

    The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.

    In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.

    The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    edited July 2022
    Morning all, this weeks Techne out and no change in lead, remains 9 points. Tory vote share recovery to the position just before defenestration continues, labour holding firmly in the lead
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 32% (+1)
    LDM: 12% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (=)
    SNP: 4% (=)

    Via @techneUK, 20-21 Jul.
    Changes w/ 14 Jul.
    https://t.co/C3wNlLl8YG
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,650
    HYUFD said:
    Mayor of Tehran?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,511

    Mr. Urquhart, reminds me of restaurant reviews on Googlemaps, where an establishment has great reviews but filtering by time shows they've fallen off a cliff due to new management.

    The new model for the Uber-Eats / Deliveroo world is now for a single restaurant to have multiple "virtual" brands. Now again the legit people are simply trying to offer a range of different foods, others are just creating loads of burnable "brands", doesn't matter if the food has gone to dogshit, they just reboot next month with a slightly different version.
    No Uber or Deliveroo in my parts. I want a takeaway, I drive a few minutes to the affable Italian in his mobile pizza van, to one of several local curry houses or country pubs, to the nice Cantonese lady who always throws in extra prawn crackers etc… Reliable quality and a sufficient pain in the arse that it’s reserved as a treat rather than habitual. Sometimes the old ways are the best.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,650

    My relationship with Brexit is like a long tennis rally. Before the 2016 referendum I was pi**ed off with the EU, and critical of it. But I didn't believe leave had any coherent plan, so reluctantly voted remain. Since then, events have had me going over the net from one side to the other: the EUs stupidity over vaccines or intransigence over NI, or Germany's attitude towards Ukraine, see me going towards leave. Then all the other sh*t going on with Brexit on our side sees me going back to remain.

    But it's all academic, as I would not support another referendum. We have made our bed; we need adults to remove the soiled sheets and tidy the room.

    Exactly. And the starter for 10 is accepting that the sheets have been shreddied and need changing. Yet BR keeps saying "we got an amazing soil-free deal" despite Frost et al saying "we never expected shit covered sheets"
  • Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
    If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.

    Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.

    However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
    If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.

    Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
    The alternative view on this is that Labour could call the SNP's bluff - "SNP block Labour and put Truss in for 5 years"

    The SNP hit the "Scotland didn't vote for the Tories" button all the time, so I think that could be quite powerful.

    A dilemma for Sturgeon, but as we have seen recently she can wriggle out of tight spot when needed. Punting Indyref2 direct to the Supreme Court was smart.
    In this scenario Labour can't call the SNP's bluff, since the SNP just have to abstain and they have their cherished IndyRef2.

    "SNP keeps Truss in power" isn't a potent argument when the SNP are saying "we didn't vote for Truss, vote for independence" every day. All they have to do is absent themselves from Westminster, let the Tories use what will effectively be a majority (if the SNP are abstaining) while seeking independence. Labour will just be impotently screaming from the sidelines while the SNP gets what they want (a second vote) and the Tory PM gets what she wants (upto five more years as Prime Minister).
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,455
    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:
    Intriguing. How would that likely play out given the transferable voting system?

    Corbyn gets enough first preferences to make the final two but not many second preferences at all? Which means there’s space for another candidate to steal in on second preferences? Or would those other first and second preference votes be so hopelessly split that Corbyn wins anyway?
    Have the Tories changed the voting system to FPTP? I believe they said they wanted to.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,369
    edited July 2022
    moonshine said:

    Mr. Urquhart, reminds me of restaurant reviews on Googlemaps, where an establishment has great reviews but filtering by time shows they've fallen off a cliff due to new management.

    The new model for the Uber-Eats / Deliveroo world is now for a single restaurant to have multiple "virtual" brands. Now again the legit people are simply trying to offer a range of different foods, others are just creating loads of burnable "brands", doesn't matter if the food has gone to dogshit, they just reboot next month with a slightly different version.
    No Uber or Deliveroo in my parts. I want a takeaway, I drive a few minutes to the affable Italian in his mobile pizza van, to one of several local curry houses or country pubs, to the nice Cantonese lady who always throws in extra prawn crackers etc… Reliable quality and a sufficient pain in the arse that it’s reserved as a treat rather than habitual. Sometimes the old ways are the best.

    Personally, I never use those services because the delivery charges are insane. But da yuff especially thinking nothing of tap tap order for a single sandwich...

    What Food Delivery Is Like In 2022
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zd4GrA7fpc
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,277
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
    If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.

    Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.

    However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
    The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,886
    edited July 2022

    IanB2 said:

    Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border

    A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.

    Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
    Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
    Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.

    This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.

    What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
    No, we should be treated as a third country, as we are a third country.

    Countries around the entire frigging planet operate successfully as third countries from their neighbours.
    When bilateral trade and traffic grows to a fraction of our levels with the EU, they do a deal to make access easier. Uniquely we have done the reverse.
    So EU relations with third countries need to evolve to take this into account.

    I really don't see what is so difficult apart from the politics.

    Eventually it will dawn even on the walled-garden EU.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,544

    My relationship with Brexit is like a long tennis rally. Before the 2016 referendum I was pi**ed off with the EU, and critical of it. But I didn't believe leave had any coherent plan, so reluctantly voted remain. Since then, events have had me going over the net from one side to the other: the EUs stupidity over vaccines or intransigence over NI, or Germany's attitude towards Ukraine, see me going towards leave. Then all the other sh*t going on with Brexit on our side sees me going back to remain.

    But it's all academic, as I would not support another referendum. We have made our bed; we need adults to remove the soiled sheets and tidy the room.

    That is what Labour seem to be offering. Personally I think Brexit will never "work" but I am certainly happy for Labour to give it a go and perhaps prove me wrong. What we don't need is more fantasy stuff.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481
    moonshine said:

    Mr. Urquhart, reminds me of restaurant reviews on Googlemaps, where an establishment has great reviews but filtering by time shows they've fallen off a cliff due to new management.

    The new model for the Uber-Eats / Deliveroo world is now for a single restaurant to have multiple "virtual" brands. Now again the legit people are simply trying to offer a range of different foods, others are just creating loads of burnable "brands", doesn't matter if the food has gone to dogshit, they just reboot next month with a slightly different version.
    No Uber or Deliveroo in my parts. I want a takeaway, I drive a few minutes to the affable Italian in his mobile pizza van, to one of several local curry houses or country pubs, to the nice Cantonese lady who always throws in extra prawn crackers etc… Reliable quality and a sufficient pain in the arse that it’s reserved as a treat rather than habitual. Sometimes the old ways are the best.

    The local Turkish we visit does their own delivery but I will visit and have a drink and chat.

    The best Pizza place does delivery but if I collect I get a free beer while chatting and waiting.

    The best Chinese is turn up and wait your turn - when the delivery firms arrived they chucked them out the door before they reached their second sales pitch.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,271
    So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.

    I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,049
    edited July 2022

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
    If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.

    Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.

    However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
    If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.

    Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
    The alternative view on this is that Labour could call the SNP's bluff - "SNP block Labour and put Truss in for 5 years"

    The SNP hit the "Scotland didn't vote for the Tories" button all the time, so I think that could be quite powerful.

    A dilemma for Sturgeon, but as we have seen recently she can wriggle out of tight spot when needed. Punting Indyref2 direct to the Supreme Court was smart.
    In this scenario Labour can't call the SNP's bluff, since the SNP just have to abstain and they have their cherished IndyRef2.

    "SNP keeps Truss in power" isn't a potent argument when the SNP are saying "we didn't vote for Truss, vote for independence" every day. All they have to do is absent themselves from Westminster, let the Tories use what will effectively be a majority (if the SNP are abstaining) while seeking independence. Labour will just be impotently screaming from the sidelines while the SNP gets what they want (a second vote) and the Tory PM gets what she wants (upto five more years as Prime Minister).
    No Tory PM will survive giving an indyref2 before a generation is up.

    It would be open civil war in the party and they would lose a VONC.

    As I said in any case provided the Tories have more seats than Labour and LDs combined they can ignore the SNP in a hung parliament
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,049
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.

    Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.

    The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
    I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.

    If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.

    All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
    If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.

    Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.

    However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
    The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
    No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,271

    Morning all, this weeks Techne out and no change in lead, remains 9 points. Tory vote share recovery to the position just before defenestration continues, labour holding firmly in the lead
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 32% (+1)
    LDM: 12% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (=)
    SNP: 4% (=)

    Via @techneUK, 20-21 Jul.
    Changes w/ 14 Jul.
    https://t.co/C3wNlLl8YG

    There's really not much sign of a "thank God Boris is gone" surge for the Tories, is there? Piddling shifts in most recent polls.
This discussion has been closed.