Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the day Chilcot was published the latest PB/Polling Matt

SystemSystem Posts: 11,724
edited July 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the day Chilcot was published the latest PB/Polling Matters podcast looks at the legacy of Iraq & asks whether Theresa May is now unstoppable

On this week’s PB/Polling Matters podcast Keiran and Rob discuss the legacy of Iraq on British politics and the latest on the Tory leadership contest. This episode includes a detailed discussion on recent YouGov polling that shows Theresa May in a commanding position and Keiran argues that the Tories should consider crowning the Home Secretary as Prime Minister early.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,702
    edited July 2016
    Primus inter pares
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,221
    Second like Murray.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Third circle of Hell, like Gove.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,702

    Meanwhile, the team discuss whether a Labour MP that supported the Iraq War can really hope to lead the Labour Party

    Nope, the next Labour leader has to be someone who didn't vote for the Iraq War, and has to be a heavyweight, that someone is Ed Miliband.

    *This post is sponsored by my 200/1 betslip on Ed Miliband as next Labour leader*
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,221

    Meanwhile, the team discuss whether a Labour MP that supported the Iraq War can really hope to lead the Labour Party

    Nope, the next Labour leader has to be someone who didn't vote for the Iraq War, and has to be a heavyweight, that someone is Ed Miliband.

    *This post is sponsored by my 200/1 betslip on Ed Miliband as next Labour leader*
    For once, I agree with you. How much did you put on it? I have a fiver.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,702
    tlg86 said:

    Meanwhile, the team discuss whether a Labour MP that supported the Iraq War can really hope to lead the Labour Party

    Nope, the next Labour leader has to be someone who didn't vote for the Iraq War, and has to be a heavyweight, that someone is Ed Miliband.

    *This post is sponsored by my 200/1 betslip on Ed Miliband as next Labour leader*
    For once, I agree with you. How much did you put on it? I have a fiver.
    I think SkyBet let me have about £4
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    50p on that footballing god Andy King for a brace at 100/1.

    Portugal are not marking him well.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    Only on at 100-1 for Ed (For about a £), but he would resolve my various betfair lays and produce a nice profit so all for it.
  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    If Corbyn could have found some new skill at speaking, he might have made more of today. Not enough to turn the corner, but enough for him not to look small.

    In the end, he was passable at best. He fluffed too many of his pre-prepared lines. And his 'apology' had nothing to do with Labour and everything to do with his overwhelming need to virtue-signal and say 'I told you so'

    He doesn't understand enough about international law to know that what he is seeking is not possible. And he clearly doesn't understand the report properly to be taking the lines he is.

    A wasted day from a waste of space.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,221

    tlg86 said:

    Meanwhile, the team discuss whether a Labour MP that supported the Iraq War can really hope to lead the Labour Party

    Nope, the next Labour leader has to be someone who didn't vote for the Iraq War, and has to be a heavyweight, that someone is Ed Miliband.

    *This post is sponsored by my 200/1 betslip on Ed Miliband as next Labour leader*
    For once, I agree with you. How much did you put on it? I have a fiver.
    I think SkyBet let me have about £4
    My dad has just tipped Barry Gardiner to be the next leader of the Labour Party on the basis that he's been on the TV a lot this week. Can't see any bookies quoting odds on him, though.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,771

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    The Number 10 cat ?
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,960

    Meanwhile, the team discuss whether a Labour MP that supported the Iraq War can really hope to lead the Labour Party

    Nope, the next Labour leader has to be someone who didn't vote for the Iraq War, and has to be a heavyweight, that someone is Ed Miliband.

    *This post is sponsored by my 200/1 betslip on Ed Miliband as next Labour leader*
    I tend to agree with you. But the idea that Ed Miliband is considered a heavyweight shows just how far the Blair/Brown years impacted the Labour party...
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    Javid. But we're all Keynsians now, comrade.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,283
    In light of the conversation between Clarke and Rifkind, could we see much tactical voting for Leadsom in order to make sure Gove is not on the ballot, cancelling out the tactical voting against her. The net effect could just be to suppress May's total.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,283

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    A swan song from Ken Clarke?
  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    John_M said:

    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
    It is tricky. May needs the legitimacy of a vote. The country needs the certainty of a new PM.

    If Leadsom and Gove both fall, then perhaps it should be May v RON....
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024

    Meanwhile, the team discuss whether a Labour MP that supported the Iraq War can really hope to lead the Labour Party

    Nope, the next Labour leader has to be someone who didn't vote for the Iraq War, and has to be a heavyweight, that someone is Ed Miliband.

    *This post is sponsored by my 200/1 betslip on Ed Miliband as next Labour leader*
    The only thing heavyweight about Ed Miliband was the eight foot high tombstone inscribed with empty platitudes, that he was standing next to the week before the last election.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    The Number 10 cat ?
    Don't think Lary counts, Mr. Brooke. That said what are the Conservative candidates attitude to cats? Blair (or his ghastly wife) got rid of Humphrey, what will happen to Larry if May, Leadsome, Gove get in. I think we should be told.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited July 2016

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    A swan song from Ken Clarke?
    Ken is not far off 80.. Do be serious ...
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,771

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    The Number 10 cat ?
    Don't think Lary counts, Mr. Brooke. That said what are the Conservative candidates attitude to cats? Blair (or his ghastly wife) got rid of Humphrey, what will happen to Larry if May, Leadsome, Gove get in. I think we should be told.
    Mrs may might skin it and turn it in to kitten heels
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited July 2016

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    The Number 10 cat ?
    The FO kitty Palmerston has wittier repartee.

    Larry is a bit of a Leftfie.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    Not all the seats are in (And I stil think LND forms a majority) but looks like the equivalent of a CON-UKIP deal is forming in Oz.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,702

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    The Number 10 cat ?
    Don't think Lary counts, Mr. Brooke. That said what are the Conservative candidates attitude to cats? Blair (or his ghastly wife) got rid of Humphrey, what will happen to Larry if May, Leadsome, Gove get in. I think we should be told.
    Mrs May has gotten into trouble because of cats.

    Home Secretary Theresa May has been criticised for claiming that an illegal immigrant avoided deportation because of his pet cat.

    She told the Conservative conference the ruling illustrated the problem with human rights laws, but England's top judges said she had got it wrong.

    Her Cabinet colleague Ken Clarke said he had been "surprised" by the claim and could not believe it was true.

    And human rights campaigners said Mrs May should get "her facts straight".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15160326
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024
    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    In light of the conversation between Clarke and Rifkind, could we see much tactical voting for Leadsom in order to make sure Gove is not on the ballot, cancelling out the tactical voting against her. The net effect could just be to suppress May's total.

    It will be May/Gove the next vote. Fox's handful will move to Gove. After the pasting she received in the last couple of days some of Leadsom's supports will quietly shift to Gove. More importantly MPs are going to wake up and decide they are rather less concerned about the assassination of Boris than they thought, and may even consider that a certain amount of ruthlessness is an advantage in a leader.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    A swan song from Ken Clarke?
    I'd vote for that.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,771
    PlatoSaid said:

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    The Number 10 cat ?
    The FO kitty Palmerston has wittier repartee.

    Larry is a bit of a Leftfie.
    Rees Moggy for the FO
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    John_M said:

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    Javid. But we're all Keynsians now, comrade.
    Him too i'm afraid.

    "With negative long-term real UK gilt yields, borrowing has never been cheaper, so we should create a Growing Britain Fund worth up to £100 billion to fund business-friendly infrastructure programmes alongside the private sector. That would not mean backing white elephants: each project would require a rigorous cost-benefit analysis from the independent National Infrastructure Commission."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/my-economic-plan-for-britain-after-brexit/
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    The Number 10 cat ?
    Don't think Lary counts, Mr. Brooke. That said what are the Conservative candidates attitude to cats? Blair (or his ghastly wife) got rid of Humphrey, what will happen to Larry if May, Leadsome, Gove get in. I think we should be told.
    Mrs may might skin it and turn it in to kitten heels
    That is my next vote for the party most likely to beat a May led government sorted then, always knew she wasn't sound.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024

    John_M said:

    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
    It is tricky. May needs the legitimacy of a vote. The country needs the certainty of a new PM.

    If Leadsom and Gove both fall, then perhaps it should be May v RON....
    That's not a bad idea. Still don't see why it's taking eight weeks for the members' vote though, I'm half way around the world and I'm not sure I'll need more than three weeks to get my vote back.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    A swan song from Ken Clarke?
    Ken is not far off 80.. Do be serious ...
    And the 66 England football team is in their 70s. We'd have probably been better off with them in the Euros and Ken at 11 ;)
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Let's not selfishly dwell on our own problems. Pity the young and vibrant Italians. And kick Deutsche Bank in the balls while we're at it.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-06/furious-italian-prime-minister-slams-deutsche-bank-europes-most-insolvent-bank
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Is there one the select committees that looks at value for money?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    Murray faultless in the final set.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
    It is tricky. May needs the legitimacy of a vote. The country needs the certainty of a new PM.

    If Leadsom and Gove both fall, then perhaps it should be May v RON....
    That's not a bad idea. Still don't see why it's taking eight weeks for the members' vote though, I'm half way around the world and I'm not sure I'll need more than three weeks to get my vote back.
    Obviously need time for the clippers to round the Cape. More seriously, I have no idea. Should take three-four weeks maximum.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    PlatoSaid said:

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    The Number 10 cat ?
    The FO kitty Palmerston has wittier repartee.

    Larry is a bit of a Leftfie.
    Rees Moggy for the FO
    :smiley:
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Pulpstar said:

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    A swan song from Ken Clarke?
    Ken is not far off 80.. Do be serious ...
    And the 66 England football team is in their 70s. We'd have probably been better off with them in the Euros and Ken at 11 ;)



    Ken at No 11 too old.. needs a kip now and then...
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,702

    Is there one the select committees that looks at value for money?

    The Public Accounts Committee
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024
    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
    It is tricky. May needs the legitimacy of a vote. The country needs the certainty of a new PM.

    If Leadsom and Gove both fall, then perhaps it should be May v RON....
    That's not a bad idea. Still don't see why it's taking eight weeks for the members' vote though, I'm half way around the world and I'm not sure I'll need more than three weeks to get my vote back.
    Obviously need time for the clippers to round the Cape. More seriously, I have no idea. Should take three-four weeks maximum.
    Quite. The post here might take a week or two, the FedEx back is 48 hours. If they wanted to do it quickly they could use a courier for the outbound ballots too. Can't imagine there's more than a few hundred of us that are abroad, maybe a few on holiday though so a month is fair enough.

    Not two months though, there's too many things for the new PM to do!
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,787
    Pulpstar said:

    Murray faultless in the final set.

    You mean he got every first serve in?
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Is there one the select committees that looks at value for money?

    Treasury Select Committee.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/membership/

    What about Steve Baker as Chancellor?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028

    Pulpstar said:

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    A swan song from Ken Clarke?
    Ken is not far off 80.. Do be serious ...
    And the 66 England football team is in their 70s. We'd have probably been better off with them in the Euros and Ken at 11 ;)



    Ken at No 11 too old.. needs a kip now and then...
    You kip if you want to !

    We May not be for turning
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,283

    Pulpstar said:

    Are there any fiscal conservatives in parliament that could replace Osborne as Chancellor?

    A swan song from Ken Clarke?
    Ken is not far off 80.. Do be serious ...
    And the 66 England football team is in their 70s. We'd have probably been better off with them in the Euros and Ken at 11 ;)
    Ken at No 11 too old.. needs a kip now and then...
    Sorry DFID. Ken was asleep and there was no-one to sign off on your budget.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,787
    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
    It is tricky. May needs the legitimacy of a vote. The country needs the certainty of a new PM.

    If Leadsom and Gove both fall, then perhaps it should be May v RON....
    That's not a bad idea. Still don't see why it's taking eight weeks for the members' vote though, I'm half way around the world and I'm not sure I'll need more than three weeks to get my vote back.
    Obviously need time for the clippers to round the Cape. More seriously, I have no idea. Should take three-four weeks maximum.
    Quite. The post here might take a week or two, the FedEx back is 48 hours. If they wanted to do it quickly they could use a courier for the outbound ballots too. Can't imagine there's more than a few hundred of us that are abroad, maybe a few on holiday though so a month is fair enough.

    Not two months though, there's too many things for the new PM to do!
    Surely the Tories can organise online voting, same as Labour?
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016
    In re the Nick Boles tweet. I think he used some very unfortunate wording. Typical Remainer :).

    "Are we really confident that the membership won't vote for a fresh face who shares their attitudes about modern life?"

  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193
    Seems I didn't miss much in the first half of Wales v Portugal....

    Typical ITV game.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
    It is tricky. May needs the legitimacy of a vote. The country needs the certainty of a new PM.

    If Leadsom and Gove both fall, then perhaps it should be May v RON....
    That's not a bad idea. Still don't see why it's taking eight weeks for the members' vote though, I'm half way around the world and I'm not sure I'll need more than three weeks to get my vote back.
    Obviously need time for the clippers to round the Cape. More seriously, I have no idea. Should take three-four weeks maximum.
    Quite. The post here might take a week or two, the FedEx back is 48 hours. If they wanted to do it quickly they could use a courier for the outbound ballots too. Can't imagine there's more than a few hundred of us that are abroad, maybe a few on holiday though so a month is fair enough.

    Not two months though, there's too many things for the new PM to do!
    Surely the Tories can organise online voting, same as Labour?
    Despite people's misgivings that bit of the Labour election worked very well !

    Got a receipt and everything.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    edited July 2016
    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It's an inconvienient fact for us remainers, but I think young people that didn't vote would have broke more to "leave" than those that did exercise their right to vote.

    We must just conclude there is ~ 20% of the population that won't vote, ever, on anything.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-italy-banks-renzi-idUKKCN0ZM1YL

    And we think we've got problems.

    Renzi starting to lose his cool over Italian banks.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,702
    edited July 2016
    I think Cameron did the same

    @paulwaugh: Lab source: Leader's office is "from now on going to appoint the shad cabinet's political advisers to ensure they're Corbyn loyalists"
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
    It is tricky. May needs the legitimacy of a vote. The country needs the certainty of a new PM.

    If Leadsom and Gove both fall, then perhaps it should be May v RON....
    That's not a bad idea. Still don't see why it's taking eight weeks for the members' vote though, I'm half way around the world and I'm not sure I'll need more than three weeks to get my vote back.
    Obviously need time for the clippers to round the Cape. More seriously, I have no idea. Should take three-four weeks maximum.
    Quite. The post here might take a week or two, the FedEx back is 48 hours. If they wanted to do it quickly they could use a courier for the outbound ballots too. Can't imagine there's more than a few hundred of us that are abroad, maybe a few on holiday though so a month is fair enough.

    Not two months though, there's too many things for the new PM to do!
    Surely the Tories can organise online voting, same as Labour?
    Despite people's misgivings that bit of the Labour election worked very well !

    Got a receipt and everything.
    I joined really early in the process - and had a very patchy response. Had post blurb from Jezza and Watson only, and emails from their teams plus my CLP.

    Nothing from the rest.
  • Options
    John_N4John_N4 Posts: 553

    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave.

    That isn't true. I know a few people who haven't voted in general and local elections for exactly that reason, but who voted Remain because they thought the issue of EU membership was important, they were well informed about the issue, and they believed that their vote could make an appreciable difference.

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024
    edited July 2016

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
    It is tricky. May needs the legitimacy of a vote. The country needs the certainty of a new PM.

    If Leadsom and Gove both fall, then perhaps it should be May v RON....
    That's not a bad idea. Still don't see why it's taking eight weeks for the members' vote though, I'm half way around the world and I'm not sure I'll need more than three weeks to get my vote back.
    Obviously need time for the clippers to round the Cape. More seriously, I have no idea. Should take three-four weeks maximum.
    Quite. The post here might take a week or two, the FedEx back is 48 hours. If they wanted to do it quickly they could use a courier for the outbound ballots too. Can't imagine there's more than a few hundred of us that are abroad, maybe a few on holiday though so a month is fair enough.

    Not two months though, there's too many things for the new PM to do!
    Surely the Tories can organise online voting, same as Labour?
    Maybe, but it would have to be optional rather than compulsory as Labour did with ERS last year - which worked well.

    There will probably only be a few thousand that would request an e-vote so it's probably cheaper to do it the old fashioned way. Labour had around 750k voters IIRC, the Tories have around 150k and a lot of them wouldn't know how to vote online unless their grandkids explained it to them!
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,787
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    John_M said:

    Indigo said:

    It would be idiotic to have a coronation, with a wafer thin majority and some potentially awkward MPs a May premiership would need all the legitimacy it could get. Clearly she is not going to go to the country, although given the current state of flux within Labour and UKIP that has to be tempting. The very least that she would need would be the approval of the membership. There is also the significant chance that attempting to muscle out Leadsom/Gove for a quick declaration might result in a legal challenge which would further increase the confusion. I can't see any reason why they can't abbreviate the process of consulting the members to a month, but since parliament will be in recess by then nothing will happen until early September anyway.

    At least the recess will give the powers-that-be time to have some informal and substantive talks with Europe.

    Agree with your no coronation point.
    It is tricky. May needs the legitimacy of a vote. The country needs the certainty of a new PM.

    If Leadsom and Gove both fall, then perhaps it should be May v RON....
    That's not a bad idea. Still don't see why it's taking eight weeks for the members' vote though, I'm half way around the world and I'm not sure I'll need more than three weeks to get my vote back.
    Obviously need time for the clippers to round the Cape. More seriously, I have no idea. Should take three-four weeks maximum.
    Quite. The post here might take a week or two, the FedEx back is 48 hours. If they wanted to do it quickly they could use a courier for the outbound ballots too. Can't imagine there's more than a few hundred of us that are abroad, maybe a few on holiday though so a month is fair enough.

    Not two months though, there's too many things for the new PM to do!
    Surely the Tories can organise online voting, same as Labour?
    Despite people's misgivings that bit of the Labour election worked very well !

    Got a receipt and everything.
    As long as you don't vote using a public wifi connection, otherwise MI7 can change your vote.
  • Options
    MontyMonty Posts: 346
    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Seems I didn't miss much in the first half of Wales v Portugal....

    Typical ITV game.

    Both teams in their away kits, which is weird.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    John_N4 said:

    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave.

    That isn't true. I know a few people who haven't voted in general and local elections for exactly that reason, but who voted Remain because they thought the issue of EU membership was important, they were well informed about the issue, and they believed that their vote could make an appreciable difference.

    Yes there are people like that, and I know some myself - but non voters would certainly have broken heavily to "leave".
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024

    Seems I didn't miss much in the first half of Wales v Portugal....

    Typical ITV game.

    Both teams in their away kits, which is weird.
    it is weird, especially so when the refs are in red shirts!
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It's an inconvienient fact for us remainers, but I think young people that didn't vote would have broke more to "leave" than those that did exercise their right to vote.

    We must just conclude there is ~ 20% of the population that won't vote, ever, on anything.
    I asked the sales clerks in my local Ladbrokes how they'd voted on the Referendum. One woman hadn't voted (never votes), and got slightly outraged at the concept of having an opinion on the subject.
  • Options
    TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited July 2016
    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    I actually think it's a good thing that they have been encouraged to vote so much in recent elections and referendums. My lads are now quite politically engaged, and I'm more than happy about that, even though we call the youngest Trotsky as a family nickname.
    Of course, the flip side is that now they are more aware, it's tough shit if they can't be arsed to get out and vote.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Monty said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
    Hear hear. I think the presumption that the pensioners are entirely self-interested is lazy and wrong. Even if the 18-24s don't vote, we should be looking after their interests out of duty.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Monty said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
    What would you do about it?

    After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.

    The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.

    If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
  • Options
    marke09marke09 Posts: 926
    Andy Burnham Verified account
    @andyburnhammp

    We did it! Commons votes by 245-2 to secure status of EU nationals in the UK. Govt can't now retreat on this. Thanks to everyone who helped.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
    Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.

    They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.

    The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,702
    Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.

    One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/defeated-labour-rebels-admit-its-finished-as-jeremy-corbyn-refus/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
  • Options
    MontyMonty Posts: 346
    PlatoSaid said:

    Monty said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
    What would you do about it?

    After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.

    The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.

    If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
    That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024

    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
    Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.

    They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.

    The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
    Yes, for the first time in ages a lot of non voters in safe seats went to vote, because it was the first time in living memory they had the opportunity to have their vote count - so they used it give the Establishment a bloody nose!
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It's an inconvienient fact for us remainers, but I think young people that didn't vote would have broke more to "leave" than those that did exercise their right to vote.

    We must just conclude there is ~ 20% of the population that won't vote, ever, on anything.
    I asked the sales clerks in my local Ladbrokes how they'd voted on the Referendum. One woman hadn't voted (never votes), and got slightly outraged at the concept of having an opinion on the subject.
    I've had much more interesting conversation re the referendum with random bods than any other election. Usually I casually enquire if they're voting, on the ref - I've asked the same but views were much more forthcoming.

    And there was little tribalism - it's cut across all the old tropes. This really cheers me up. I've a great deal more in common with Brendan Chilcott, my local Brexit Labour man than dozens of Remain Tories.
  • Options

    Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.

    One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/defeated-labour-rebels-admit-its-finished-as-jeremy-corbyn-refus/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Tony Blair really has destroyed Labour.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Portugal 1-0.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,456
    No oooo
  • Options
    HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    AndyJS said:

    Portugal 1-0.

    They are missing Ramsey quite badly, that second player that can move from midfield into attack with pace is not there. Bale cannot do it on his own.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024

    Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.

    One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/defeated-labour-rebels-admit-its-finished-as-jeremy-corbyn-refus/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Okay, are we all allowed to laugh really loudly now? What an unholy mess!
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,221
    Monty said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Monty said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
    What would you do about it?

    After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.

    The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.

    If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
    That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
    As someone just under 30, I have very little time for my left wing Facebook whinging friends who I suspect don't bother to vote.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Things have changed a bit since this encounter between Blair and Farage in 2005 at the European Parliament:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGqsER7kXQ
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    Theresa May had better replace Osborne when she gets in.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,456
    Nooooo again
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Portugal 2-0.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,229
    taffys said:

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-italy-banks-renzi-idUKKCN0ZM1YL

    And we think we've got problems.

    Renzi starting to lose his cool over Italian banks.

    I really feel for Renzi here, because although everyone quotes the "grosss" non-performing loan number, it's relatively small compared to the Germany bad bank (which contains the assets of WestLB and Hypo Real).

    The amount of money required to sort out the Italian banking system is perhaps EUR30bn in total (because provisions have largely already been taken).

    Renzi should just bite the bullet, recapitalise the banks (as we did in the UK). And argue it out with Merkel and the EU later.
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Too easy.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited July 2016
    Pulpstar said:
    My problem with that is Mr Osborne seems to be both very pally with Mr Gove, and has several of his minions associated with Ms May's team.

    I think the only way to get rid of the little perisher is if Leadsom wins.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024
    The Wales dream ends here. :(
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.

    One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/defeated-labour-rebels-admit-its-finished-as-jeremy-corbyn-refus/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Tony Blair really has destroyed Labour.
    I'd rather pin it on the 35 Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn. With a side-salad of blame for Ed Miliband for running away from his defeat.
  • Options
    MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    Labour rebels are in retreat after admitting that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be removed and would "win easily" if a leadership election is triggered.

    One senior Labour MP said: "It's finished" as it emerged that lengthy talks between union bosses and Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, had failed to find a solution to the deadlock.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/defeated-labour-rebels-admit-its-finished-as-jeremy-corbyn-refus/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Haha. Labour are a joke of a party.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028

    Pulpstar said:
    My problem with that is Mr Osborne seems to be both very pally with Mr Gove, and has several of his minions associated with Ms May's team.

    I think the only way to get rid of the little perisher is if Leadsom wins.
    I don't think he'll stay as chancellor though. Well at least I hope not !
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Monty said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Monty said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
    What would you do about it?

    After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.

    The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.

    If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
    That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
    Twisting my words there. I said that despite being ladled with attention, they didn't bother to engage.

    You didn't answer my question.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,221
    If the coup is over, when will the deselections begin?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024

    Pulpstar said:
    My problem with that is Mr Osborne seems to be both very pally with Mr Gove, and has several of his minions associated with Ms May's team.

    I think the only way to get rid of the little perisher is if Leadsom wins.
    Surely Gove or May would move him even if they wanted him in the Cabinet? After the doom-mongering campaign his position really is untenable.
  • Options
    MontyMonty Posts: 346
    Sandpit said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    An insight into what motivated them to vote en masse would be truly fascinating. I've not seen any attempt to understand this huge group.
    Miss. P., I cannot speak for the majority of this group, but I have asked some questions of some of the denizens Willow Way council estate.

    They live in a constituency that has always and will always elect a Conservative MP. The local council has always been and probably always been conservative controlled. Even the parish council, officially non-political, is run by the well to do types. In short their view doesn't matter and nobody gives a stuff about them.

    The referendum changed that. They had, for many for the first time in their lives, a vote that counted and they, some for the first time in their lives, used it.
    Yes, for the first time in ages a lot of non voters in safe seats went to vote, because it was the first time in living memory they had the opportunity to have their vote count - so they used it give the Establishment a bloody nose!
    Exactly. The current FPTP system where parties ignore all but 80 seats has led to understandable apathy.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    Monty said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Monty said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT, that's a great article from Matt Singh. It also suggests that Isam was quite right (and I was quite wrong) that voters in places like Jaywick would swing this.

    Yes, it was very good analysis. Lots of looking at why the polls were wrong and how a whole group of people who hadn't voted for decades came out to vote Leave.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit
    It was obvious before the vote that if the "I don't vote because they're all the same" section of the electorate turned out, they'd vote Leave. But it was impossible to know if they would.
    Both sides had unreliable allies. Remain needed the young. Leave needed the politically disengaged.
    TBH, I'm quite sick of the pandering to *young voters* as if they're a superior form of life. We've had it again and again, and they still can't be arsed until they grow up, get a job, move out or have kids.

    A historical metric of the younger voting demographic would be fascinating. Have they always been so flaky?

    I was certainly never implored to vote back in the 80s to vote when I was 18.
    It matters because the political parties now tailor their policies to the old voters who turn out in numbers. That's not good for the social cohesion of the country. Continually screwing the young isn't helping bring the country together. And do we ever need to be together. It's short sighted and wrong.
    What would you do about it?

    After oodles of campaigns to get them engaged - they managed a whole 36% - up to 35yrs old IIRC.

    The younger voters are given more attention than any other group by a country mile. I was dead keen to vote when I turned 18. I simply don't get the apathy.

    If you can't be bothered - you exclude yourself.
    That's why it requires attention. You don't just give up on whole sections of society because they aren't engaged. Maybe that's saying something important in of itself about our current political system. The fact that you don't seem to give a monkeys is depressing.
    I don't understand it. The first general election I voted in was 1987, at Exeter University, and I'd guess 60-65% of the students voted.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,024
    tlg86 said:

    If the coup is over, when will the deselections begin?

    As soon as the boundary changes go through. For the first time I'm now thinking that the shadow cabinet will vote for them ;)
This discussion has been closed.