Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Truss: Stabbed In The Back? Or Tripped Over Her Feet? – politicalbetting.com

1246789

Comments

  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043

    Mortimer said:

    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'
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    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:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/02/21/15a1a/1

    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.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,372
    ..
    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,508
    Eabhal said:

    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.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043
    FF43 said:

    ..

    Mortimer said:

    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....
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,247
    As it's now quite on-topic, I'll re-share this Politico podcast of https://play.acast.com/s/61a78e3272f02e001289a16b/63ee9fba3e5b2200110a5407

    "49 days of Liz Truss: The inside story" - lots of gossipy interviews with 'in the bunker' SPAD's etc.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    YokesYokes Posts: 1,262
    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.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    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:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/02/21/15a1a/1

    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.
  • Options
    How can anyone look at the last 13 years and vote Tory again.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043

    Mortimer said:

    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....
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043
    edited February 2023

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    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:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/02/21/15a1a/1

    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....
  • Options

    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.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    edited February 2023
    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965
    I reckon Labour on 350 seats would be an outcome both major Parties would be delighted with.
  • Options

    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
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    I reckon Labour on 350 seats would be an outcome both major Parties would be delighted with.

    I think it will be upwards of 400 if it’s going in that direction. Scotland will vote Labour.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043
    HYUFD said:


    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options

    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.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,602
    Well, Labour are on the agenda in 30 Scottish seats that didn't seem relevant two weeks ago. That changes things, doesn't it?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965

    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.
  • Options

    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
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915

    Mortimer said:

    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?
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043
    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:


    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043
    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:


    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.

    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.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:


    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460

    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?
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,621
    Cookie said:

    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.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    Yokes said:

    Liz just wasnt very good. That is all.

    Well, it's a short Header offering but people have complained about length before.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,965
    edited February 2023
    1997-2010 the nation was generally happy and content.
    Not furious.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited February 2023
    This is how @_KateForbes says she intends to deliver independence.VIDEO

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1628444565463080967?s=20
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
    Worth bookmarking ;-)
  • Options
    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.
    Liz Truss tanked the Pound.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043
    dixiedean said:

    1997-2010 the nation was happy and content.
    Not furious.


    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.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,043

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.
    Liz Truss tanked the Pound.
    Hey! Some of us are exporters.....
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,247
    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.
    And loses the case out of complacency.

    AAA Labour
    AA- Tories
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:


    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    edited February 2023

    This is how @_KateForbes says she intends to deliver independence.VIDEO

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1628444565463080967?s=20

    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.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915

    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.)
  • Options
    Yokes said:

    Liz just wasnt very good. That is all.

    Liz Truss is a planet-sized mass of overconfidence and ambition teetering upon a pinhead of a political brain.

    Matthew Parris
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,437

    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
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    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.

    Not a Kate or Brexit Deal in sight tonight 🙂
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,247
    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.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460

    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).
  • Options
    Just over week ago, Sturgeon showed no signs of going anywhere and Kate Forbes was on mat leave, a rising star tipped as FM post 2026

    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
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,246
    O/T

    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/
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    edited February 2023

    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:


    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
    Football analogy? This wins

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwLswJwyYqM
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    Jonathan said:

    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
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,621
    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    Scott_xP said:

    FF43 said:

    I thought we were a better country than that.

    We were

    Then we voted for the swivel eyed loons and here we are
    Actually Corbyn lost.
    That was just a different species of swivel eyed loon.
    People who call everybody who disagrees with them a swivel eyed loon are probably the ones with the problem.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    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:

    image
  • Options



    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/
  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    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:

    image
    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.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308
    WillG said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202

    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 🤦‍♀️
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915

    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    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.
  • Options

    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.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733

    This is how @_KateForbes says she intends to deliver independence.VIDEO

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1628444565463080967?s=20

    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.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915

    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.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,363

    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options

    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    edited February 2023

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    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:

    image
    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0C59pI_ypQ
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109

    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915

    dixiedean said:

    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?
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202

    Just over week ago, Sturgeon showed no signs of going anywhere and Kate Forbes was on mat leave, a rising star tipped as FM post 2026

    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

    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.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    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.
  • Options

    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202

    dixiedean said:

    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?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    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.
  • Options

    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.

    If the model is broken, then chucking it over a cliff might be appropriate surely?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109

    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.

    If the model is broken, then chucking it over a cliff might be appropriate surely?
    Maybe. But the Tories think that sliding into an abyss is actually the right direction.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    edited February 2023

    dixiedean said:

    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
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,602
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    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/

    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.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    EPG said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    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/

    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.
    Indeed!
    It was kind of a drag.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498

    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.

    No we won't, unemployment is less than Brown left in 2010, the deficit is now more under control, growth is still better than it was then.

    Inflation is up more but that is mainly down to Ukraine
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498

    Just over week ago, Sturgeon showed no signs of going anywhere and Kate Forbes was on mat leave, a rising star tipped as FM post 2026

    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

    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
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,798
    Rishi's pretty good at PMQs. No one watches, or gives a toss these days, so it won't help. But still.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    That podcast claims that Liz personally made the stupidest decisions.

    The universal energy subsidy.
    Circumventing the OBR.
    The 45p rate (with Kwasi, this one)
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,602

    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?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774
    edited February 2023

    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.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109

    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.
  • Options

    This is how @_KateForbes says she intends to deliver independence.VIDEO

    https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1628444565463080967?s=20

    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?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774

    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.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    edited February 2023

    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.
  • Options
    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.
  • Options

    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.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    edited February 2023

    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.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109

    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.
This discussion has been closed.