I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
I can't see any way that Johnson could command a majority in the House of Commons. Too many MPs hate him, no?
I think now yes. His best hope is to let Rishi and Hunt lose the next general election, let them take the blame, hope to hold Uxbridge or find a safer seat, then take over as Leader of the Opposition. A shellshocked Tories would take him back in that scenario and he could then have fun as Leader of the Opposition with no responsibility while PM Starmer then has to deal with the economy and strikes
The idea that Johnson could become PM again, the fourth in a year, is a fantasy by his cult followers, and frankly if it came about the voters would deliver a terminal blow to the party at the GE, and deservedly so
Would the Tories poll less than today's YouGov 22% under Johnson? No, I don't think so.
Whilst Boris is marmite, those who like him really are willing to come out and vote for him. Rishi's problem is that whilst he doesn't scare the horses, no-one really wants a dull technocrat leading, and Hunt's is that they don't want their taxes to be put up by a technocrat who always seems to be smirking. And if they want high tax centrism, why not go the whole hog and vote Starmer?
Well, Yougov on the return of Johnson doesn't really support that he would do better than Sunak:
In particular it shows that Johnsons supposed "Red Wall" popularity is not supported by polling evidence.
There you go again, making the mistake that everyone who dislikes Johnson mates. You understimate the enthusiasm he attracts.
Very happy and Happy total 20%. Add the neither happy nor unhappy and you're at a whacking 38%.....
Amongst over 65s, you're at over 50%.....
Yes, but that is still well down on 2019, and not all those "Happy" voters would vote for Johnson. Some might be SNP in need of a distraction, and a laugh!
I don't fear the return of Johnson as the final act in this farce of a clapped out government.
I suggested he'd do better than Sunak. You said the polling doesn't support that.
You're now changing the goalposts to the huge majority of 2019??!
42% of Con voters being either fairly or very unhappy at his return would suggest that his polling would be no better than Sunaks, and quite likely worse.
That poll literally shows more Con voters would be happy than unhappy. You're cherry picking.
I want to declare an interest here, too. I don't want Johnson to return. But I also don't want Declinist-Sunakism
I, personally, think you are underestimating the latent support for Sunak. We see it on here with Big G and Casino and (sometimes) Max.
These are long term Tory voters who recognise I think that the experiments of the last several years have been disastrous but can’t and won’t make the step toward Labour (or Lib Dem).
Also, TimS posted a very interesting analysis of polling a day or so ago which basically said we should absolutely expect a narrowing in due course such that Rishi can scrape a respectable rather than humiliating loss.
However, what is very useful about your post is the clear existence of animosity toward Rishi from a sizeable chunk of Tory support.
I will vote lib dem if Johnson comes back as will my wife
He is detested in our household and along with Truss has 'ratnered the brand'
I will not, under any circumstances, vote for a Johnson led Tory party. He was unfit for office before he assumed it and comprehensively demonstrated that to be the case while in office.
This is one of the most interesting mini-debates PB has had in…a long time.
I agree. I'm really surprised how the lack of positivity towards Rishi amongst the Tory party membership isn't cutting through as a good proxy for the country. This is the membership who selected the most successful Tory leader for decades. They're dismissed as a group, by the media-westminster complex who do not get them, but their last choice to face an election actually won, and won big.....
My opinion is to some extent irrelevant as I’m not a Tory voter.
However, the quality of commentary is very poor; it’s quite painful. Although Liz Truss was mad, she outlined something that was potentially quite exciting. I think the membership were faced with quite a difficult choice.
She really did “surprise on the upside” in the second debate at least (was there a third?). I said this at the time and stick by it.
The more politically asute of my left wing friends (most of them) were staggered how quickly the parliamentary party turned against Truss.
The comment I heard quite frequently was to the effect of 'hang on, isn't this the low tax pro biz model you guys represent'
This is one of the most interesting mini-debates PB has had in…a long time.
I agree. I'm really surprised how the lack of positivity towards Rishi amongst the Tory party membership isn't cutting through as a good proxy for the country. This is the membership who selected the most successful Tory leader for decades. They're dismissed as a group, by the media-westminster complex who do not get them, but their last choice to face an election actually won, and won big.....
My opinion is to some extent irrelevant as I’m not a Tory voter.
However, the quality of commentary is very poor; it’s quite painful. Although Liz Truss was mad, she outlined something that was potentially quite exciting. I think the membership were faced with quite a difficult choice.
She really did “surprise on the upside” in the second debate at least (was there a third?). I said this at the time and stick by it.
Truss being bounced into the energy support package is underplayed as a factor in her implosion of her premiership. Without it, the market reaction to her budget wouldn't have been so extreme and she might have been given chance to try implementing some of her supply-side reform programme.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
I can't see any way that Johnson could command a majority in the House of Commons. Too many MPs hate him, no?
I think now yes. His best hope is to let Rishi and Hunt lose the next general election, let them take the blame, hope to hold Uxbridge or find a safer seat, then take over as Leader of the Opposition. A shellshocked Tories would take him back in that scenario and he could then have fun as Leader of the Opposition with no responsibility while PM Starmer then has to deal with the economy and strikes
The idea that Johnson could become PM again, the fourth in a year, is a fantasy by his cult followers, and frankly if it came about the voters would deliver a terminal blow to the party at the GE, and deservedly so
Would the Tories poll less than today's YouGov 22% under Johnson? No, I don't think so.
Whilst Boris is marmite, those who like him really are willing to come out and vote for him. Rishi's problem is that whilst he doesn't scare the horses, no-one really wants a dull technocrat leading, and Hunt's is that they don't want their taxes to be put up by a technocrat who always seems to be smirking. And if they want high tax centrism, why not go the whole hog and vote Starmer?
Well, Yougov on the return of Johnson doesn't really support that he would do better than Sunak:
In particular it shows that Johnsons supposed "Red Wall" popularity is not supported by polling evidence.
There you go again, making the mistake that everyone who dislikes Johnson mates. You understimate the enthusiasm he attracts.
Very happy and Happy total 20%. Add the neither happy nor unhappy and you're at a whacking 38%.....
Amongst over 65s, you're at over 50%.....
Yes, but that is still well down on 2019, and not all those "Happy" voters would vote for Johnson. Some might be SNP in need of a distraction, and a laugh!
I don't fear the return of Johnson as the final act in this farce of a clapped out government.
I suggested he'd do better than Sunak. You said the polling doesn't support that.
You're now changing the goalposts to the huge majority of 2019??!
42% of Con voters being either fairly or very unhappy at his return would suggest that his polling would be no better than Sunaks, and quite likely worse.
That poll literally shows more Con voters would be happy than unhappy. You're cherry picking.
I want to declare an interest here, too. I don't want Johnson to return. But I also don't want Declinist-Sunakism
I, personally, think you are underestimating the latent support for Sunak. We see it on here with Big G and Casino and (sometimes) Max.
These are long term Tory voters who recognise I think that the experiments of the last several years have been disastrous but can’t and won’t make the step toward Labour (or Lib Dem).
Also, TimS posted a very interesting analysis of polling a day or so ago which basically said we should absolutely expect a narrowing in due course such that Rishi can scrape a respectable rather than humiliating loss.
However, what is very useful about your post is the clear existence of animosity toward Rishi from a sizeable chunk of Tory support.
I will vote lib dem if Johnson comes back as will my wife
He is detested in our household and along with Truss has 'ratnered the brand'
I will not, under any circumstances, vote for a Johnson led Tory party. He was unfit for office before he assumed it and comprehensively demonstrated that to be the case while in office.
Just as I will not be voting for a Rishi led Tory party, at least not one with Hunt as chancellor, because declinism. They both fail to grasp that the govern is to choose, not to keep putting off decisions.
Anyone who doesn't think a Johnson return would boost the Tory vote needs to remember all the vox-pops from the public - he has name recognition that Starmer or Sunak would die for. He's a politician who people relate to.
'Keith' and 'Richey' don't even seem to get people to manage to get their first names right in my experience.
Strategy to replace someone with net favourability of minus 30% with his fired predecessor with a 45% deficit?
I think they need to wait a bit to allow people to forget just how disastrous Johnson was.
This is one of the most interesting mini-debates PB has had in…a long time.
I agree. I'm really surprised how the lack of positivity towards Rishi amongst the Tory party membership isn't cutting through as a good proxy for the country. This is the membership who selected the most successful Tory leader for decades. They're dismissed as a group, by the media-westminster complex who do not get them, but their last choice to face an election actually won, and won big.....
My opinion is to some extent irrelevant as I’m not a Tory voter.
However, the quality of commentary is very poor; it’s quite painful. Although Liz Truss was mad, she outlined something that was potentially quite exciting. I think the membership were faced with quite a difficult choice.
She really did “surprise on the upside” in the second debate at least (was there a third?). I said this at the time and stick by it.
Truss being bounced into the energy support package is underplayed as a factor in her implosion of her premiership. Without it, the market reaction to her budget wouldn't have been so extreme and she might have been given chance to try implementing some of her supply-side reform programme.
That combined with awful timing of announcing her reforms alongside the [much less noticed by the media] Bank of England beginning active Quantitative Tightening, that they rapidly then put a halt to.
The Chancellor doesn't get a hall pass for that though, he should have known what the Bank was announcing and the timescale for it and chose to go ahead anyway.
Reading all the commentary on here and elsewhere, I get the sense that Scottish independence is the furthest away it's been since I've been interested in politics.
I'd guess it doesn't happen now till after another Labour government at Holyrood. I think the SNP have finally lost their magic.
It's been a fun PB meme of forever predicting an SNP collapse, but this all feels quite anti-climactic, almost sad. Whatever your view on independence, it was quite exciting having that option on the table.
You could be right, unfortunately. A combination of poor governance under Sturgeon, an unedifying leadership campaign and some SNP voters seeing a vote for Labour as the best way of kicking the Tories out. If Yousaf is selected as the next SNP leader, independence supporters may see no short term prospect of Independence, and vote Labour instead.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
Anyone who doesn't think a Johnson return would boost the Tory vote needs to remember all the vox-pops from the public - he has name recognition that Starmer or Sunak would die for. He's a politician who people relate to.
'Keith' and 'Richey' don't even seem to get people to manage to get their first names right in my experience.
Strategy to replace someone with net favourability of minus 30% with his fired predecessor with a 45% deficit?
I think they need to wait a bit to allow people to forget just how disastrous Johnson was.
My feeling is that they have. Not least because they've seen the alternatives. And realised they're worse....
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
I think a Rishi led Tory party sees Labour win 350 seats.
The unfortunate off-duty police officer who was shot in Omagh was a high profile individual in the Omagh area so was a very visible target. The immediate area is potentially friendly territory for those behind the attack, but Its likely that some of those who planned and probably executed this attack will have their home base at least 20 to 30 miles away.
This is one of the most interesting mini-debates PB has had in…a long time.
I agree. I'm really surprised how the lack of positivity towards Rishi amongst the Tory party membership isn't cutting through as a good proxy for the country. This is the membership who selected the most successful Tory leader for decades. They're dismissed as a group, by the media-westminster complex who do not get them, but their last choice to face an election actually won, and won big.....
My opinion is to some extent irrelevant as I’m not a Tory voter.
However, the quality of commentary is very poor; it’s quite painful. Although Liz Truss was mad, she outlined something that was potentially quite exciting. I think the membership were faced with quite a difficult choice.
She really did “surprise on the upside” in the second debate at least (was there a third?). I said this at the time and stick by it.
Truss being bounced into the energy support package is underplayed as a factor in her implosion of her premiership. Without it, the market reaction to her budget wouldn't have been so extreme and she might have been given chance to try implementing some of her supply-side reform programme.
Who bounced her? It was all her own work. That was the issue!
I think she outlined a potentially appealing vision, and as soon as she was in office she made a series of catastrophic blunders.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
I think a Rishi led Tory party sees Labour win 350 seats.
I think Labour wins 350 seats under any Tory leader now. Rishi, Johnson, May, AN Other. The Party is too divided to unite, and the public have had enough either way.
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
I can't see any way that Johnson could command a majority in the House of Commons. Too many MPs hate him, no?
I think now yes. His best hope is to let Rishi and Hunt lose the next general election, let them take the blame, hope to hold Uxbridge or find a safer seat, then take over as Leader of the Opposition. A shellshocked Tories would take him back in that scenario and he could then have fun as Leader of the Opposition with no responsibility while PM Starmer then has to deal with the economy and strikes
The idea that Johnson could become PM again, the fourth in a year, is a fantasy by his cult followers, and frankly if it came about the voters would deliver a terminal blow to the party at the GE, and deservedly so
Would the Tories poll less than today's YouGov 22% under Johnson? No, I don't think so.
Whilst Boris is marmite, those who like him really are willing to come out and vote for him. Rishi's problem is that whilst he doesn't scare the horses, no-one really wants a dull technocrat leading, and Hunt's is that they don't want their taxes to be put up by a technocrat who always seems to be smirking. And if they want high tax centrism, why not go the whole hog and vote Starmer?
Well, Yougov on the return of Johnson doesn't really support that he would do better than Sunak:
In particular it shows that Johnsons supposed "Red Wall" popularity is not supported by polling evidence.
There you go again, making the mistake that everyone who dislikes Johnson mates. You understimate the enthusiasm he attracts.
Very happy and Happy total 20%. Add the neither happy nor unhappy and you're at a whacking 38%.....
Amongst over 65s, you're at over 50%.....
Yes, but that is still well down on 2019, and not all those "Happy" voters would vote for Johnson. Some might be SNP in need of a distraction, and a laugh!
I don't fear the return of Johnson as the final act in this farce of a clapped out government.
I suggested he'd do better than Sunak. You said the polling doesn't support that.
You're now changing the goalposts to the huge majority of 2019??!
42% of Con voters being either fairly or very unhappy at his return would suggest that his polling would be no better than Sunaks, and quite likely worse.
That poll literally shows more Con voters would be happy than unhappy. You're cherry picking.
I want to declare an interest here, too. I don't want Johnson to return. But I also don't want Declinist-Sunakism
I, personally, think you are underestimating the latent support for Sunak. We see it on here with Big G and Casino and (sometimes) Max.
These are long term Tory voters who recognise I think that the experiments of the last several years have been disastrous but can’t and won’t make the step toward Labour (or Lib Dem).
Also, TimS posted a very interesting analysis of polling a day or so ago which basically said we should absolutely expect a narrowing in due course such that Rishi can scrape a respectable rather than humiliating loss.
However, what is very useful about your post is the clear existence of animosity toward Rishi from a sizeable chunk of Tory support.
I will vote lib dem if Johnson comes back as will my wife
He is detested in our household and along with Truss has 'ratnered the brand'
I will not, under any circumstances, vote for a Johnson led Tory party. He was unfit for office before he assumed it and comprehensively demonstrated that to be the case while in office.
Just as I will not be voting for a Rishi led Tory party, at least not one with Hunt as chancellor, because declinism. They both fail to grasp that the govern is to choose, not to keep putting off decisions.
Surprised at your animus toward Hunt. I think he made some half decent points during his five minute leadership campaign.
I’m happier weirdly with him as Chancellor than with Rishi as leader. I think Hunt can chancel, but I don’t think Rishi can lead. Not on economic policy, anyway.
This is one of the most interesting mini-debates PB has had in…a long time.
I agree. I'm really surprised how the lack of positivity towards Rishi amongst the Tory party membership isn't cutting through as a good proxy for the country. This is the membership who selected the most successful Tory leader for decades. They're dismissed as a group, by the media-westminster complex who do not get them, but their last choice to face an election actually won, and won big.....
My opinion is to some extent irrelevant as I’m not a Tory voter.
However, the quality of commentary is very poor; it’s quite painful. Although Liz Truss was mad, she outlined something that was potentially quite exciting. I think the membership were faced with quite a difficult choice.
She really did “surprise on the upside” in the second debate at least (was there a third?). I said this at the time and stick by it.
Truss being bounced into the energy support package is underplayed as a factor in her implosion of her premiership. Without it, the market reaction to her budget wouldn't have been so extreme and she might have been given chance to try implementing some of her supply-side reform programme.
Who bounced her? It was all her own work. That was the issue!
I think she outlined a potentially appealing vision, and as soon as she was in office she made a series of catastrophic blunders.
We never did get to see what the growth plan was.
I think the media bounced it, to be fair.
There is just a single ounce of positivity I take from Sunak's boring declinism. It has reset the media hyperbole machine to almost zero.
But that doesn't exactly motivate me to vote for someone who is going to cost me a fortune in raised taxes next year....
I am thinking and hoping that the economy turns a corner in the summer.
Some theories that we are actually heading for deflation which means BoE rates might already have topped out and/or should be reversing come the end of the year.
A deal in Northern Ireland, and continued efforts in that vein, might improve foreign investment sentiment.
If true, some (but certainly not enough) voters will return to the devil they think they know.
Curveballs include a return for Boris, which is not at all a negligible risk given current polling.
I think you're probably right on all counts.
I suspect, following a failure to cut taxes in March, Rishi blames the terrible May locals performance on his Chancellor. Tries to replace him, falls himself, and is replaced by Boris coming through the middle of a Hunt vs Gove slugfest.
Even on current polling the Tories are only a fraction below the 28% May got in the 2019 locals. So the fall in Tory voteshare won't likely be that much.
Boris may now have about 100 Conservative MPs behind him but he needs about 185 Tory MPs behind him to actually oust Rishi in a VONC
I can't see any way that Johnson could command a majority in the House of Commons. Too many MPs hate him, no?
I think now yes. His best hope is to let Rishi and Hunt lose the next general election, let them take the blame, hope to hold Uxbridge or find a safer seat, then take over as Leader of the Opposition. A shellshocked Tories would take him back in that scenario and he could then have fun as Leader of the Opposition with no responsibility while PM Starmer then has to deal with the economy and strikes
The idea that Johnson could become PM again, the fourth in a year, is a fantasy by his cult followers, and frankly if it came about the voters would deliver a terminal blow to the party at the GE, and deservedly so
Would the Tories poll less than today's YouGov 22% under Johnson? No, I don't think so.
Whilst Boris is marmite, those who like him really are willing to come out and vote for him. Rishi's problem is that whilst he doesn't scare the horses, no-one really wants a dull technocrat leading, and Hunt's is that they don't want their taxes to be put up by a technocrat who always seems to be smirking. And if they want high tax centrism, why not go the whole hog and vote Starmer?
Well, Yougov on the return of Johnson doesn't really support that he would do better than Sunak:
In particular it shows that Johnsons supposed "Red Wall" popularity is not supported by polling evidence.
There you go again, making the mistake that everyone who dislikes Johnson mates. You understimate the enthusiasm he attracts.
Very happy and Happy total 20%. Add the neither happy nor unhappy and you're at a whacking 38%.....
Amongst over 65s, you're at over 50%.....
Yes, but that is still well down on 2019, and not all those "Happy" voters would vote for Johnson. Some might be SNP in need of a distraction, and a laugh!
I don't fear the return of Johnson as the final act in this farce of a clapped out government.
I suggested he'd do better than Sunak. You said the polling doesn't support that.
You're now changing the goalposts to the huge majority of 2019??!
42% of Con voters being either fairly or very unhappy at his return would suggest that his polling would be no better than Sunaks, and quite likely worse.
That poll literally shows more Con voters would be happy than unhappy. You're cherry picking.
I want to declare an interest here, too. I don't want Johnson to return. But I also don't want Declinist-Sunakism
I, personally, think you are underestimating the latent support for Sunak. We see it on here with Big G and Casino and (sometimes) Max.
These are long term Tory voters who recognise I think that the experiments of the last several years have been disastrous but can’t and won’t make the step toward Labour (or Lib Dem).
Also, TimS posted a very interesting analysis of polling a day or so ago which basically said we should absolutely expect a narrowing in due course such that Rishi can scrape a respectable rather than humiliating loss.
However, what is very useful about your post is the clear existence of animosity toward Rishi from a sizeable chunk of Tory support.
I will vote lib dem if Johnson comes back as will my wife
He is detested in our household and along with Truss has 'ratnered the brand'
I will not, under any circumstances, vote for a Johnson led Tory party. He was unfit for office before he assumed it and comprehensively demonstrated that to be the case while in office.
Just as I will not be voting for a Rishi led Tory party, at least not one with Hunt as chancellor, because declinism. They both fail to grasp that the govern is to choose, not to keep putting off decisions.
Surprised at your animus toward Hunt. I think he made some half decent points during his five minute leadership campaign.
I’m happier weirdly with him as Chancellor than with Rishi as leader. I think Hunt can chancel, but I don’t think Rishi can lead. Not on economic policy, anyway.
I've spent my entire adult life building up a business, and will likely have my most profitable ever year taxed at 30% more than it would be otherwise....
Edit to add - and he suggested cutting Corp tax in his own leadership bid....
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
I think a Rishi led Tory party sees Labour win 350 seats.
Which is rather better than the 550+ seats Labour were heading for under Truss and actually less than the 418 seats Blair won in 1997
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
I think a Rishi led Tory party sees Labour win 350 seats.
Which is rather better than the 550+ seats Labour were heading for under Truss and actually less than the 400+seats Blair won in 1997
You're 3-1 down at 80 minutes in a cup match, after being 1-1 at half time.
You have an inspirational striker on the bench. He has a past. He has some injuries, but he'll enthuse the crowd, and some of the players whose heads are down since you subbed him off, and you just might end up taking it to extra time (hung parliament), or penalties (tiny majority)....
Or you could just continue to do nothing and lose 3-1.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
This is one of the most interesting mini-debates PB has had in…a long time.
I agree. I'm really surprised how the lack of positivity towards Rishi amongst the Tory party membership isn't cutting through as a good proxy for the country. This is the membership who selected the most successful Tory leader for decades. They're dismissed as a group, by the media-westminster complex who do not get them, but their last choice to face an election actually won, and won big.....
My opinion is to some extent irrelevant as I’m not a Tory voter.
However, the quality of commentary is very poor; it’s quite painful. Although Liz Truss was mad, she outlined something that was potentially quite exciting. I think the membership were faced with quite a difficult choice.
She really did “surprise on the upside” in the second debate at least (was there a third?). I said this at the time and stick by it.
Truss being bounced into the energy support package is underplayed as a factor in her implosion of her premiership. Without it, the market reaction to her budget wouldn't have been so extreme and she might have been given chance to try implementing some of her supply-side reform programme.
Who bounced her? It was all her own work. That was the issue!
I think she outlined a potentially appealing vision, and as soon as she was in office she made a series of catastrophic blunders.
We never did get to see what the growth plan was.
In any event, who wants a PM who can be so easily bounced?
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
😂
1997-2007 Labour free wheeled off the coat-tails of the good governance that had come before it.
Then the bills from the awful governance of Labour started coming home to roost.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
I think a Rishi led Tory party sees Labour win 350 seats.
Which is rather better than the 550+ seats Labour were heading for under Truss and actually less than the 400+seats Blair won in 1997
You're 3-1 down at 80 minutes in a cup match, after being 1-1 at half time.
You have an inspirational striker on the bench. He has a past. He has some injuries, but he'll enthuse the crowd, and some of the players whose heads are down since you subbed him off, and you just might end up taking it to extra time (hung parliament), or penalties (tiny majority)....
Or you could just continue to do nothing and lose 3-1.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
I think a Rishi led Tory party sees Labour win 350 seats.
Which is rather better than the 550+ seats Labour were heading for under Truss and actually less than the 400+seats Blair won in 1997
You're 3-1 down at 80 minutes in a cup match, after being 1-1 at half time.
You have an inspirational striker on the bench. He has a past. He has some injuries, but he'll enthuse the crowd, and some of the players whose heads are down since you subbed him off, and you just might end up taking it to extra time (hung parliament), or penalties (tiny majority)....
Or you could just continue to do nothing and lose 3-1.
He'll also go in studs up on his team mates.
Ah, but only the ones who don't believe the team can actually win.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
I think a Rishi led Tory party sees Labour win 350 seats.
Which is rather better than the 550+ seats Labour were heading for under Truss and actually less than the 400+seats Blair won in 1997
You're 3-1 down at 80 minutes in a cup match, after being 1-1 at half time.
You have an inspirational striker on the bench. He has a past. He has some injuries, but he'll enthuse the crowd, and some of the players whose heads are down since you subbed him off, and you just might end up taking it to extra time (hung parliament), or penalties (tiny majority)....
Or you could just continue to do nothing and lose 3-1.
Sure, the Tories are 3-1 down.
But those are three own goals. And they were scored by 'inspirational' Boris.
Put him back on the pitch, and he is as likely to blast another 2 into his own net.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
They got almost 10 million votes even in 1997 (whilst turnout was higher than its been since, it was not far off the turnout of 2017). It's the solid floor vote of a big two party that has not yet entirely self destructed, though they seem to be working on that.
I'm more interested though in what turnout will be like. I'm expecting as mentioned before plenty of Tories to stay at home. Turnout dropped quite a lot in 1997 and went down massively in 2001 (I was too young to have developed into a political wonk, but it must have been a boring election), then went up 4 elections in a row, almost reaching the once normal 70% range, before dropping back a few % in 2019.
If it is the case that Keir is not massively enthusing people, and Borisite Tories and centrist Toriues are in a strop and want to punish them, then even with the push to get the Tories out do we think it will be like 1997 in turnout terms, down another 6-7%. Or could it shoot straight to 2001 and be down another 10 or more?
If there were likes for headers, I would give this header one. Well argued ajd coherent. What I think Truss did right in my view is prioritisinh growth. But her plan for achieving it was, er, unconvincing.
Yes, Truss had the goal right but the strategy was muddled and the tactics were disastrous.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
I think a Rishi led Tory party sees Labour win 350 seats.
Which is rather better than the 550+ seats Labour were heading for under Truss and actually less than the 400+seats Blair won in 1997
You're 3-1 down at 80 minutes in a cup match, after being 1-1 at half time.
You have an inspirational striker on the bench. He has a past. He has some injuries, but he'll enthuse the crowd, and some of the players whose heads are down since you subbed him off, and you just might end up taking it to extra time (hung parliament), or penalties (tiny majority)....
Or you could just continue to do nothing and lose 3-1.
He'll also go in studs up on his team mates.
If we're going for a football analogy can I propose Luis Suarez.
Great striker who can score goals, but with a serious discipline problem, who had to go after biting other players three times. Fans of other teams were eager to say he should go after biting just the once was enough, but he kept doing it anyway.
Still though, despite the discipline problems, one of the most successful players of his generation. Even if other team's fans hated him with a passion.
Revolutionary ideas of reaching out across 1) The SNP, 2) The Yes movement, and (as she puts it) controvserially 3) People who are not yet Yes voters, and to be competent and build an economic case.
In fairness politicians rarely seem to get the basic messaging and goals right, so you really do need to get back to first principles.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Re the bit I bolded - genuinely amazed to see anyone* state that.
It would be interesting to see some polling on the level of support for that idea.
(*Except Tory party MPs and campaign teams, I guess.)
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
Interesting front pages. The Telegraph loves the governments economic migrant amnesty plan, where Sunak and Braverman will make over ninety thousand claimants vanish off the backlog. The Express loves this too - two thirds of the backlog slashed before end of this year is going to be some triumph for Tories at PMQs we all can agree can’t we? The Express also loves the latest inflation prediction of only 2%.
The “i” flags up how Sunak is cleverly dividing and ruling over health strikers, by personally ringing up from Downing Street and settling with nurses himself.
The Metro has the sad World gone mad story of a business dependent on cucumber to make health drinks banned from an order of just 100 of them. Let’s hope those cucumbers end up properly used and not wasted.
The only word the country wants to hear from the Tories is ‘sorry’ before they disappear for a long time. We are a poorer, weaker and more divided nation for their efforts.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Re the bit I bolded - genuinely amazed to see anyone* state that.
It would be interesting to see some polling on the level of support for that idea.
(*Except Tory party MPs and campaign teams, I guess.)
I only liked that comment for the second para. Though not without problems I do think 2010-2016 was alright. And that's not an instinctive stab at Leave, I voted Leave at the time, but even expecting chaos from that it has been even worse than predicted (though economically it has not been as bad as predicted - people may disagree on that, but it was essentially stated we'd collapse the day after).
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Personally, I don't think the Tory party survives a Hunt chancellorship that lasts more than this year.
The Labour Party survived two terms led by Jeremy Corbyn, the Tory Party survived being led by Iain Duncan Smith. The Tories will survive a Hunt Chancellorship.
They'll lose after it, but the Party will be there to be rebuilt in Opposition.
My yardstick is my father; a life long Tory voter. He won't vote Tory at the next election with declinists in charge.
He once drove 3 hours home to vote in a PCC election.
If my father is lost, the party is done for.
Define "done for".
If you mean will lose the election and go onto the Opposition benches, from where they will one day return to Government but it may take about 15 years to do so, then I agree.
If you mean will disintegrate and not even be the Official Opposition, then I don't.
Your father and I may not vote Tory, but enough others will to keep them the Official Opposition.
'97 was almost an ELE. Fewer than 125 MPs and I think the party disintegrates. Local and Indy parties start to succeed at council level. Fewer strong candidates think its worth standing as a Tory MP.
Not unless Starmer abolishes First Past the Post.
If he does, all bets are off.
The Tories might actually win more seats under PR than FPTP on the worst polls for them now.
RefUK would also win seats under PR as would a Corbynite Party (albeit Corbyn might hold Islington North as an Independent even under FPTP)
Irrelevant. FPTP means that parties suffer when they do badly, which isn't a bad thing, but the tide will turn and they will come back again.
In Canada the Conservative Party got reduced to literally just 2 seats in 1993. Within 13 years Canada had a Conservative PM again in the form of Steven Harper.
The disparate Conservative parties united to recreate a Conservative Party that could win an election, within third years of virtually total annihilation.
Agreed. FPTP needs a Party of the Right and a Party of the Left.
So, it is never the case that annihilation happens .... though some lunatick alway pops up predicting annihilation of the Tories or (about 2 years ago) the Labour Party. It never happens.
In fact, we must be reaching Peak Starmer.
Go on I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer It's worth it for the bragging rights. Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded. Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
I think a Rishi led Tory party sees Labour win 350 seats.
Which is rather better than the 550+ seats Labour were heading for under Truss and actually less than the 400+seats Blair won in 1997
You're 3-1 down at 80 minutes in a cup match, after being 1-1 at half time.
You have an inspirational striker on the bench. He has a past. He has some injuries, but he'll enthuse the crowd, and some of the players whose heads are down since you subbed him off, and you just might end up taking it to extra time (hung parliament), or penalties (tiny majority)....
Or you could just continue to do nothing and lose 3-1.
He'll also go in studs up on his team mates.
If we're going for a football analogy can I propose Luis Suarez.
Great striker who can score goals, but with a serious discipline problem, who had to go after biting other players three times. Fans of other teams were eager to say he should go after biting just the once was enough, but he kept doing it anyway.
Still though, despite the discipline problems, one of the most successful players of his generation. Even if other team's fans hated him with a passion.
The only word the country wants to hear from the Tories is ‘sorry’ before they disappear for a long time. We are a poorer, weaker and more divided nation for their efforts.
Unemployment is half the level Labour left in 2010
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
WATCHDOGS have delivered a damning verdict on SNP leadership frontrunner Humza Yousaf’s attempted turnaround of the ailing NHS.
Audit Scotland revealed a worrying lack of progress and set out how services have got significantly worse since the Health Secretary’s pandemic “Recovery Plan” was launched 18 months ago.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
The case for the prosecution:
Exhibit A: Note reading 'there is no money left'.
The prosecution rests.
The case for the defence:
That's a case for the prosecution.
Again, until 2007 the Government was free wheeling off the success of its predecessor Government and then piling on borrowing on top. Easy to boost wages when you're doing that.
You can't free wheel forever though. When they ran out of road in 2007/08, their problems were revealed in all their ugly detail.
This is one of the most interesting mini-debates PB has had in…a long time.
I agree. I'm really surprised how the lack of positivity towards Rishi amongst the Tory party membership isn't cutting through as a good proxy for the country. This is the membership who selected the most successful Tory leader for decades. They're dismissed as a group, by the media-westminster complex who do not get them, but their last choice to face an election actually won, and won big.....
My opinion is to some extent irrelevant as I’m not a Tory voter.
However, the quality of commentary is very poor; it’s quite painful. Although Liz Truss was mad, she outlined something that was potentially quite exciting. I think the membership were faced with quite a difficult choice.
She really did “surprise on the upside” in the second debate at least (was there a third?). I said this at the time and stick by it.
Truss being bounced into the energy support package is underplayed as a factor in her implosion of her premiership. Without it, the market reaction to her budget wouldn't have been so extreme and she might have been given chance to try implementing some of her supply-side reform programme.
That combined with awful timing of announcing her reforms alongside the [much less noticed by the media] Bank of England beginning active Quantitative Tightening, that they rapidly then put a halt to.
The Chancellor doesn't get a hall pass for that though, he should have known what the Bank was announcing and the timescale for it and chose to go ahead anyway.
Kwasi's way of proceding was very damaging. Truss held him (and still does) in extremely high esteem, so I think she didn't scrutinise his proposals enough.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Yup.
Going back to that YouGov poll, "very happy" through to "meh" adds up to 39 percent, but that's exceeded by "very unhappy" alone on 43 percent. And that's before an general election campaign consisting of all of those resignation letters from early July 2022.
It would be a rerun of 2019, except this time Boris would be playing the Corbyn role.
At present, Rishi, who is seemingly adored by the 'centrist Dads of PB', can only dream of an MRP that puts him on Labour 2019 levels....
Which "Centrist Dads of PB" are these?
Is there anyone here who supports and likes Sunak (apart from @HYUFD, who is always loyal to the leader, until they are replaced).
I support and like Sunak, while finding him insufficiently bold and imaginative.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
I am afraid I completely disagree
So do I
Well done Bart - you’ve United the warring factions of Labour 🤦♀️
1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content. Not furious.
Thanks to the good governance of the Government that preceded 1997.
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
So let me get this right, the period of strong economic performance 1997-2010 was all due to the party that had been ejected in 1997... and the period of economic stagnation since 2010 has all been down to the party not in power during that period?
If so, the Tories can best serve the country by going into opposition and delivering a strong economy from there again.
Boris would, I think, lift Tory numbers in the short term and into a GE.
However he and the Tories would be trounced, absolutely, and it’s possible the Tories would never come back from it.
Although he motivates some, he repulses to an astonishing degree. I don’t think the Tory Party would survive him, I really don’t.
Yup.
Going back to that YouGov poll, "very happy" through to "meh" adds up to 39 percent, but that's exceeded by "very unhappy" alone on 43 percent. And that's before an general election campaign consisting of all of those resignation letters from early July 2022.
It would be a rerun of 2019, except this time Boris would be playing the Corbyn role.
At present, Rishi, who is seemingly adored by the 'centrist Dads of PB', can only dream of an MRP that puts him on Labour 2019 levels....
Which "Centrist Dads of PB" are these?
Is there anyone here who supports and likes Sunak (apart from @HYUFD, who is always loyal to the leader, until they are replaced).
I support and like Sunak, while finding him insufficiently bold and imaginative.
I think that's a fair analysis.
It's might be a fair analysis but it's a strange conclusion to draw.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
I am afraid I completely disagree
So do I
Well done Bart - you’ve United the warring factions of Labour 🤦♀️
Because I touched a nerve.
Labour's last Government was truly destructive for the country and most of all for the young. They spent and spent their golden legacy they inherited and borrowed when they ran out of room to spend. They introduced Tuition Fees, designed as a 9% income tax to be paid by the young but not the old, and oversaw the explosion in house prices. In fact everything @CorrectHorseBattery3 rails against happened under Labour.
Truly the last Labour Government was utterly atrocious. I just have to hope that Starmer's will be better.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
I am afraid I completely disagree
So do I
Well done Bart - you’ve United the warring factions of Labour 🤦♀️
Because I touched a nerve.
Labour's last Government was truly destructive for the country and most of all for the young. They spent and spent their golden legacy they inherited and borrowed when they ran out of room to spend. They introduced Tuition Fees, designed as a 9% income tax to be paid by the young but not the old, and oversaw the explosion in house prices. In fact everything @CorrectHorseBattery3 rails against happened under Labour.
Truly the last Labour Government was utterly atrocious. I just have to hope that Starmer's will be better.
Utterly atrocious is the perfect description for the Tory government since 2015.
1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content. Not furious.
Thanks to the good governance of the Government that preceded 1997.
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
You're not still one of those fools who blames our economic woes on the loose fiscal policy in the years immediately before 2008 are you? You honestly think that explains 15 years of relative stagnation? I await the expert analysis you are able to bring to this, as opposed to your own personal theorising in the morning. Goodnight.
1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content. Not furious.
Thanks to the good governance of the Government that preceded 1997.
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
So let me get this right, the period of strong economic performance 1997-2010 was all due to the party that had been ejected in 1997... and the period of economic stagnation since 2010 has all been down to the party not in power during that period?
If so, the Tories can best serve the country by going into opposition and delivering a strong economy from there again.
What period of strong economic performance until 2010? And what period of economic stagnation since 2010? Can you not read the chart?
Yes the misleadingly strong performance from 1997-2007 was because Labour inherited a golden economic legacy which coasted them until 2002, and then from 2002 was funded by ever more borrowing until even that wasn't enough when 2007 came around. It was never paid for by economic growth and a balanced budget.
The period of stagnant wages since 2007 was due to the fact that we had to pay for the economic hangover off one Gordon Brown who borrowed from the future to fund his splurges in the past.
How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
Because the last 13 years the country has been much better managed than the 13 before it.
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
Bart do you honestly think since 2016 we’ve been well managed or governed?
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
2017-19 was not good, no, but was still far better than 1997-2010.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2010 was a veritable Nirvana of good governance.
The case for the prosecution:
Exhibit A: Note reading 'there is no money left'.
The prosecution rests.
The case for the defence:
That's a case for the prosecution.
Again, until 2007 the Government was free wheeling off the success of its predecessor Government and then piling on borrowing on top. Easy to boost wages when you're doing that.
You can't free wheel forever though. When they ran out of road in 2007/08, their problems were revealed in all their ugly detail.
Your approach of giving the government before the current one the credit/opprobrium for economic performance reminds me of this classic:
1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content. Not furious.
Thanks to the good governance of the Government that preceded 1997.
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
You're not still one of those fools who blames our economic woes on the loose fiscal policy in the years immediately before 2008 are you? You honestly think that explains 15 years of relative stagnation? I await the expert analysis you are able to bring to this, as opposed to your own personal theorising in the morning. Goodnight.
Barty Bobbins is GPT4 to HYUFD’s GPT3. Both totally unreliable and prone to going utter batshit.
1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content. Not furious.
Thanks to the good governance of the Government that preceded 1997.
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
So let me get this right, the period of strong economic performance 1997-2010 was all due to the party that had been ejected in 1997... and the period of economic stagnation since 2010 has all been down to the party not in power during that period?
If so, the Tories can best serve the country by going into opposition and delivering a strong economy from there again.
What period of strong economic performance until 2010? And what period of economic stagnation since 2010? Can you not read the chart?
Yes the misleadingly strong performance from 1997-2007 was because Labour inherited a golden economic legacy which coasted them until 2002, and then from 2002 was funded by ever more borrowing until even that wasn't enough when 2007 came around. It was never paid for by economic growth and a balanced budget.
The period of stagnant wages since 2007 was due to the fact that we had to pay for the economic hangover off one Gordon Brown who borrowed from the future to fund his splurges in the past.
I can read the chart. As can you it seems. We attribute the causes differently, clearly.
Question for you: How many years should it / would it take the Tories to fix 'the economic hangover' you perceive. Clearly 13 years has not been long enough. 20 years? 30? 50?
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content. Not furious.
Thanks to the good governance of the Government that preceded 1997.
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
So let me get this right, the period of strong economic performance 1997-2010 was all due to the party that had been ejected in 1997... and the period of economic stagnation since 2010 has all been down to the party not in power during that period?
If so, the Tories can best serve the country by going into opposition and delivering a strong economy from there again.
What period of strong economic performance until 2010? And what period of economic stagnation since 2010? Can you not read the chart?
Yes the misleadingly strong performance from 1997-2007 was because Labour inherited a golden economic legacy which coasted them until 2002, and then from 2002 was funded by ever more borrowing until even that wasn't enough when 2007 came around. It was never paid for by economic growth and a balanced budget.
The period of stagnant wages since 2007 was due to the fact that we had to pay for the economic hangover off one Gordon Brown who borrowed from the future to fund his splurges in the past.
I can read the chart. As can you it seems. We attribute the causes differently, clearly.
Question for you: How many years should it / would it take the Tories to fix 'the economic hangover' you perceive. Clearly 13 years has not been long enough. 20 years? 30? 50?
If you can read the chart correctly, then why would you claim 2010 as the turning point and not 2007? Political spin?
13 years was long enough, indeed from 2018 onwards the trend was going up again only this time with a relatively balanced budget that was improving annually not getting worse like just over a decade prior.
Now though we've got the economic hangover from Covid to deal with instead of the economic hangover of Gordon Brown. We've basically gone from one hangover to another, and so the next Labour government are going to inherit a Covid hangover rather than a golden economic legacy to squander.
1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content. Not furious.
Thanks to the good governance of the Government that preceded 1997.
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
You're not still one of those fools who blames our economic woes on the loose fiscal policy in the years immediately before 2008 are you? You honestly think that explains 15 years of relative stagnation? I await the expert analysis you are able to bring to this, as opposed to your own personal theorising in the morning. Goodnight.
Barty Bobbins is GPT4 to HYUFD’s GPT3. Both totally unreliable and prone to going utter batshit.
Is HY here? Is HY in the room?
You do accept HY, if the NI protocol deal comes in with no vote in the House of Commons, the following Yougov will be reform 22% Tory’s 6%?
1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content. Not furious.
Thanks to the good governance of the Government that preceded 1997.
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
You're not still one of those fools who blames our economic woes on the loose fiscal policy in the years immediately before 2008 are you? You honestly think that explains 15 years of relative stagnation? I await the expert analysis you are able to bring to this, as opposed to your own personal theorising in the morning. Goodnight.
Barty Bobbins is GPT4 to HYUFD’s GPT3. Both totally unreliable and prone to going utter batshit.
Is HY here? Is HY in the room?
You do accept HY, if the NI protocol deal comes in with no vote in the House of Commons, the following Yougov will be reform 22% Tory’s 6%?
Then why no commitment to putting it to the vote?
No as the average GB Leave voter couldn't give a shit about NI and the precise nature of regulations there, as long as they still don't get free movement restored in GB and retain the sovereignty they voted for in GB that is all they care about.
They might have a vague preference to keep NI in the UK than not (as long as there is no return to terrorism) but other than that they don't give it a moment's thought
I clicked randomly and heard the nonsensical "fact" that Lindsey Buckingham was from Chicago and in The Buckinghams. To think that once upon a time we didn't have The Internet (TM) to substantiate DJ patter.
I clicked randomly and heard the nonsensical "fact" that Lindsey Buckingham was from Chicago and in The Buckinghams. To think that once upon a time we didn't have The Internet (TM) to substantiate DJ patter.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
She represents most evangelical Christians and indeed traditionalist Catholics
Happy banter against the last stand of Neoliberalist tosh tonight, but it's late and I have to get some sleep.
In 10 years time we'll look back in amazement that anyone was arguing that the 2010-2024 Tory government was anything other than an utter disgrace.
The alternative was a man with an anti-immigration monolith and a sub-gamma grade thinker who wanted proper Marxism. How on earth did those ten years of self-harm happen to an innocent opposition party?
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
It's quite funny how she's the stand out candidate, the one most likely to get separation over the line, and they're going to destroy her. Tee hee.
I know your judgment in this area is rock solid, but would that be the same level of likelihood as Truss kickstarting UK growth and reviving the fortunes of the Tory party?
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
If I can take issue with something in the forum post:
"Her policies were not Thatcher or Howe-like, they were a return to the earlier 1970s of Wilson. Callaghan and Heath."
Callaghan stood in front of a Labour party conference of 1976 to announce the end of Keynesian economics, and Healy's spending cuts were some of the harshest in post war history.
Certainly the 'Barber Boom' would be a decent comparison, but lumping in truss with the Callaghan administration is lazy and wrong.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Britain’s economic model collapsed in 07/08. Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
The economic model based on large scale immigration and lower/suppressed productivity only really got going when Blair came to office. I don't think it's accurate to characterise New Labour as Thatcher's heirs in that respect. In contrast Cameron and Osborne really were the heirs to Blair and Brown.
It’s a pernicious fallacy that large scale immigration suppressed productivity, but I accept it is about the only vaguely plausible argument many posters have left.
That link is debatable but what isn't is that the change from net migration of effectively zero over the long term to never falling below 100k per year was very significant and the inflection point was in 1997.
Can’t disagree with that.
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
It worked best for those with a property portfolio that saw their wealth grow to unforeseen levels.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
Absolutely, and that moment was probably something like 2005 or earlier.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
If I can take issue with something in the forum post:
"Her policies were not Thatcher or Howe-like, they were a return to the earlier 1970s of Wilson. Callaghan and Heath."
Callaghan stood in front of a Labour party conference of 1976 to announce the end of Keynesian economics, and Healy's spending cuts were some of the harshest in post war history.
Certainly the 'Barber Boom' would be a decent comparison, but lumping in truss with the Callaghan administration is lazy and wrong.
I’m not sure, if we’re honest, that there is any reasonable predecessor for Truss.
“Barberism”, surely a phrase already invented, comes closest.
Comments
The comment I heard quite frequently was to the effect of 'hang on, isn't this the low tax pro biz model you guys represent'
Strategy to replace someone with net favourability of minus 30% with his fired predecessor with a 45% deficit?
I think they need to wait a bit to allow people to forget just how disastrous Johnson was.
The Chancellor doesn't get a hall pass for that though, he should have known what the Bank was announcing and the timescale for it and chose to go ahead anyway.
I'll call we've reached Peak Starmer
It's worth it for the bragging rights.
Plus. If anyone thinks he'll win 500. Or 400. Or even 350 Seats, they're deluded.
Still reckon he's the PM after an election, mind.
"49 days of Liz Truss: The inside story" - lots of gossipy interviews with 'in the bunker' SPAD's etc.
It was all her own work. That was the issue!
I think she outlined a potentially appealing vision, and as soon as she was in office she made a series of catastrophic blunders.
We never did get to see what the growth plan was.
I think he made some half decent points during his five minute leadership campaign.
I’m happier weirdly with him as Chancellor than with Rishi as leader. I think Hunt can chancel, but I don’t think Rishi can lead. Not on economic policy, anyway.
There is just a single ounce of positivity I take from Sunak's boring declinism. It has reset the media hyperbole machine to almost zero.
But that doesn't exactly motivate me to vote for someone who is going to cost me a fortune in raised taxes next year....
Edit to add - and he suggested cutting Corp tax in his own leadership bid....
But the Tories aren't capable of governing any longer. 13 years is time enough it seems, time for them to get to the Opposition benches and sort their shit out away from Downing Street. Once they have, would be happy to vote Tory again, but not before that.
I think Cameron was a good PM despite disagreeing with mostly everything he did. But everyone since has got worse
You have an inspirational striker on the bench. He has a past. He has some injuries, but he'll enthuse the crowd, and some of the players whose heads are down since you subbed him off, and you just might end up taking it to extra time (hung parliament), or penalties (tiny majority)....
Or you could just continue to do nothing and lose 3-1.
But overall, yes, I do honestly think that the past 13 years have been far superior to the thirteen that came before it.
1997-2007 Labour free wheeled off the coat-tails of the good governance that had come before it.
Then the bills from the awful governance of Labour started coming home to roost.
Exhibit A: Note reading 'there is no money left'.
The prosecution rests.
The is the mindset of the Govt. at the moment.
We can't win, we may as well steady the markets.
And lose 3-1.
But those are three own goals. And they were scored by 'inspirational' Boris.
Put him back on the pitch, and he is as likely to blast another 2 into his own net.
I'm more interested though in what turnout will be like. I'm expecting as mentioned before plenty of Tories to stay at home. Turnout dropped quite a lot in 1997 and went down massively in 2001 (I was too young to have developed into a political wonk, but it must have been a boring election), then went up 4 elections in a row, almost reaching the once normal 70% range, before dropping back a few % in 2019.
If it is the case that Keir is not massively enthusing people, and Borisite Tories and centrist Toriues are in a strop and want to punish them, then even with the push to get the Tories out do we think it will be like 1997 in turnout terms, down another 6-7%. Or could it shoot straight to 2001 and be down another 10 or more?
Not furious.
https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1628444565463080967?s=20
Your nation may not have been furious. Mine was.
The countryside alliance, small government, don't rub our noses in city living shire Tories were furious.
AAA Labour
AA- Tories
Great striker who can score goals, but with a serious discipline problem, who had to go after biting other players three times. Fans of other teams were eager to say he should go after biting just the once was enough, but he kept doing it anyway.
Still though, despite the discipline problems, one of the most successful players of his generation. Even if other team's fans hated him with a passion.
In fairness politicians rarely seem to get the basic messaging and goals right, so you really do need to get back to first principles.
It would be interesting to see some polling on the level of support for that idea.
(*Except Tory party MPs and campaign teams, I guess.)
Matthew Parris
Once the bills of 1997-2007, or more particularly 2002-2007 came to needing to be paid, it was a different matter.
The “i” flags up how Sunak is cleverly dividing and ruling over health strikers, by personally ringing up from Downing Street and settling with nurses himself.
The Metro has the sad World gone mad story of a business dependent on cucumber to make health drinks banned from an order of just 100 of them. Let’s hope those cucumbers end up properly used and not wasted.
Not a Kate or Brexit Deal in sight tonight 🙂
Today, Forbes is in a political deathmatch with Team Sturgeon, & either becomes FM next month or her gov career looks toast
Crazy days
via BBC:
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1628532728814600192?s=20
I Can't Go For That (No Can Do) by Hall & Oates is the first song to be played on this Radio One chart show from Jan '82.
https://www.mixcloud.com/retro-records/radio-one-top-40-tommy-vance-jan-31st-1982-fresh-digital-transfer-from-1st-gen-90-min-tape/listeners/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwLswJwyYqM
WATCHDOGS have delivered a damning verdict on SNP leadership frontrunner Humza Yousaf’s attempted turnaround of the ailing NHS.
Audit Scotland revealed a worrying lack of progress and set out how services have got significantly worse since the Health Secretary’s pandemic “Recovery Plan” was launched 18 months ago.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10264407/humza-yousaf-snp-leadership-bid-huge-blow/
Again, until 2007 the Government was free wheeling off the success of its predecessor Government and then piling on borrowing on top. Easy to boost wages when you're doing that.
You can't free wheel forever though. When they ran out of road in 2007/08, their problems were revealed in all their ugly detail.
If so, the Tories can best serve the country by going into opposition and delivering a strong economy from there again.
Labour's last Government was truly destructive for the country and most of all for the young. They spent and spent their golden legacy they inherited and borrowed when they ran out of room to spend. They introduced Tuition Fees, designed as a 9% income tax to be paid by the young but not the old, and oversaw the explosion in house prices. In fact everything @CorrectHorseBattery3 rails against happened under Labour.
Truly the last Labour Government was utterly atrocious. I just have to hope that Starmer's will be better.
Yes the misleadingly strong performance from 1997-2007 was because Labour inherited a golden economic legacy which coasted them until 2002, and then from 2002 was funded by ever more borrowing until even that wasn't enough when 2007 came around. It was never paid for by economic growth and a balanced budget.
The period of stagnant wages since 2007 was due to the fact that we had to pay for the economic hangover off one Gordon Brown who borrowed from the future to fund his splurges in the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0C59pI_ypQ
Both totally unreliable and prone to going utter batshit.
Question for you: How many years should it / would it take the Tories to fix 'the economic hangover' you perceive. Clearly 13 years has not been long enough. 20 years? 30? 50?
In 10 years time we'll look back in amazement that anyone was arguing that the 2010-2024 Tory government was anything other than an utter disgrace.
13 years was long enough, indeed from 2018 onwards the trend was going up again only this time with a relatively balanced budget that was improving annually not getting worse like just over a decade prior.
Now though we've got the economic hangover from Covid to deal with instead of the economic hangover of Gordon Brown. We've basically gone from one hangover to another, and so the next Labour government are going to inherit a Covid hangover rather than a golden economic legacy to squander.
You do accept HY, if the NI protocol deal comes in with no vote in the House of Commons, the following Yougov will be reform 22% Tory’s 6%?
Then why no commitment to putting it to the vote?
Who is responsible? Blair and Brown, sure. But also Thatcher if one is to be truthful.
Since then the Tories have taken a broken model and proceeded to shit on it.
From 2016 they decided to set fire to it, and chuck it over a cliff.
They might have a vague preference to keep NI in the UK than not (as long as there is no return to terrorism) but other than that they don't give it a moment's thought
It was kind of a drag.
Inflation is up more but that is mainly down to Ukraine
The universal energy subsidy.
Circumventing the OBR.
The 45p rate (with Kwasi, this one)
It was a clear “innovation” delivered by New Labour. Also, increased public spending on public services, and BOE independence.
However I think the very broad model continued apace, and continues to this day.
It worked for most, for a long time, until at some stage it stopped working.
"Her policies were not Thatcher or Howe-like, they were a return to the earlier 1970s of Wilson. Callaghan and Heath."
Callaghan stood in front of a Labour party conference of 1976 to announce the end of Keynesian economics, and Healy's spending cuts were some of the harshest in post war history.
Certainly the 'Barber Boom' would be a decent comparison, but lumping in truss with the Callaghan administration is lazy and wrong.
For young people who entered adulthood having to rent in that market, it hasn't worked so well.
2007/8 was merely the crisis.
I am not precisely Blair/Brown’s number one fan. But I think Brown gets unfair criticism around the GFC whereas the more systemic issue was an economy distorted into financialisation and housing market dysfunction (and commensurate lack of industrial or regional policy). In turn that made Britain more vulnerable to the GFC but I don’t think he created it, and I don’t think it was the deficits specifically that made the UK more vulnerable.
“Barberism”, surely a phrase already invented, comes closest.