Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on the travails of Theresa

13

Comments

  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    edited June 2017
    JackW said:

    Would Damian Green fancy a shot at PM? He's got a TV background, has always seemed fairly competent and reasonable. I doubt Corbyn could beat him. Rudd is the other obvious one but her business background could still cause problems.

    Rudd's problem is her majority.

    There's no way a PM can deal with a majority that small whilst campaigning during a general election.

    Would be like Chris Patten in 1992 all over again.

    Green is an intriguing option, he has no enemies in the party.

    As as noted before, you often win the Tory leadership by not being someone else
    Rudd's majority is not a practical impediment to her becoming PM. A safe seat could easily be found prior to the next general election. In 1963 the Conservatives magically found Lord Home a safe seat at Kinross and West Perthshire.
    Given the parliamentary arithmetic, would it not be reckless to deliberately create a by-election in a Tory seat?
    And where might this "safe" seat be - Kensington just went Labour..
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345
    PaulM said:

    JackW said:

    Would Damian Green fancy a shot at PM? He's got a TV background, has always seemed fairly competent and reasonable. I doubt Corbyn could beat him. Rudd is the other obvious one but her business background could still cause problems.

    Rudd's problem is her majority.

    There's no way a PM can deal with a majority that small whilst campaigning during a general election.

    Would be like Chris Patten in 1992 all over again.

    Green is an intriguing option, he has no enemies in the party.

    As as noted before, you often win the Tory leadership by not being someone else
    Rudd's majority is not a practical impediment to her becoming PM. A safe seat could easily be found prior to the next general election. In 1963 the Conservatives magically found Lord Home a safe seat at Kinross and West Perthshire.
    Given the parliamentary arithmetic, would it not be reckless to deliberately create a by-election in a Tory seat?
    And where might this "safe" seat be - Kensington just went Labour..
    Any of the Scottish seats.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,124

    Labour contemplated a deal with the DUP in 2010 and 2015. It's a well-scraped barrel.

    We did? Thats news. Assuming other parties will vote against the Tories is one thing. Dispatching your chief whip to Belfast to negotiate a coalition, then announce a C&S deal, then unannounce it, then delay the QS whilst trying to do one - yeah, thats pretty much how 2010 went. Very creative of the BBC to substitute Ian Paisley Jr for Nick Clegg in the dramatisation of it.

  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019

    JonathanD said:

    I wonder if Stewart will start posting on PB again now that Theresa May has ensured he's got a lot of free time on his hands now

    https://twitter.com/Stewart4Pboro/status/874295448923779072

    I doubt Osborne was that upset about that seat loss.
    He was, Cameron phoned up Stewart Jackson to commiserate, well before Theresa May did.
    Do you not think May might have other things to deal with in the immediate aftermath? You and Osborne are two of a kind, vicious and ungentlemanly.

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,497

    The Beeb's headline says this:

    'May tells MPs: I got us into this mess and I will get us out.'

    She presumably means The Conservative Party when she says 'Us'. What about the rest of us?

    In fairness, this was in the context of a party meeting. It's reasonable for her to be talking about the Conservative party in such a meeting.
    Yes, but at some point doesn't she have to acknowledge the harm she has done the country? Doesn't the Party?

    I don't see any way back for either until they do.

    What do you identify as the harm that Theresa May has done the country? Giving it the opportunity to choose a new Parliament doesn't seem to me to qualify. "Sorry for letting you have a vote" is an odd thing to be apologising for.
    Unnecessary election. It cost money, time and effort. It was a distraction, not least from the important business of negotiating Brexit. A political crisis has been created in what was already a difficult political situation, and a dire economic one. All this for the prospect of Party advantage.

    That do?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726

    A few points about the absurd spectacle that is ZombieMay's Tory Party:

    1. The convention is that a defeated government can try and get its programme through a Queens Speech. That May can't even write a QS acceptable to her new "friends" is not acceptable - she needs to go to the Commons and it will pass or fail. We need a government and can't wait for her to faff around with her homophobic misogynist terrorist friends.

    2. This DUP deal is the shoddiest arrangement since Joachim von Ribbentrop got on the phone to Vyacheslav Molotov and proposed a coalition deal. Set aside the Good Friday Agreement which dictates that UK and ROI governments stand by impartially to guarantee the peace. Set aside the lack of a Northern Irish Assembly which failed because Arlene 'Red Hand' Foster got herself stuck into a cash for ash scheme. Set aside the anger that English voters have towards "foreign" parties having undue influence over their government.

    And look at the reprehensible disgusting creatures that May and the Conservative Party think are suitable partners for government. Aside from being a party directly linked to terrorism - and we know how association with terrorism makes someone unfit to be PM - they have some offensively backwards views towards women, the gay community, minority religious groups and to modern society as a whole. I have many friends who possess a vagina, a rosary, 21st century morality, an interest in their own sex and many possess a combination of all four.

    I myself am a bisexual man, my eldest son is gay, two close friends have finally had the confidence to get engaged and I look forward to my first gay wedding next year. It took me 15 years to publicly come out having lived in fear of how society would see me. I am not having my 16 year old son live in fear as I did because it becomes ok again to abuse anyone who isn't straight - the DUP represent all that we have left behind in GB and love Norn Iron as I do this is one area in which they are 20 years out of date.

    A deal with the DUP is a deal too far. Is there no barrel that this PM won't scrape to cling to power?

    Labour contemplated a deal with the DUP in 2010 and 2015. It's a well-scraped barrel.
    That is no excuse for the Tories to follow suit.
    Northern Irish MP's sit on Commons select committees, receive knighthoods and peerages, caucus and socialise with MP's from other parties. It's a bit late in the day to suddenly decide that they're pariahs.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    DanSmith said:

    I wonder if Stewart will start posting on PB again now that Theresa May has ensured he's got a lot of free time on his hands now

    https://twitter.com/Stewart4Pboro/status/874295448923779072

    he's still got the charm...

    https://twitter.com/Stewart4Pboro/status/874304374998265856
    It is a mystery why he lost his seat.
    A nice mystery.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345

    Labour contemplated a deal with the DUP in 2010 and 2015. It's a well-scraped barrel.

    We did? Thats news. Assuming other parties will vote against the Tories is one thing. Dispatching your chief whip to Belfast to negotiate a coalition, then announce a C&S deal, then unannounce it, then delay the QS whilst trying to do one - yeah, thats pretty much how 2010 went. Very creative of the BBC to substitute Ian Paisley Jr for Nick Clegg in the dramatisation of it.

    Here you go

    https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/873800793517850624
    https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/873802386292297728
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,682
    Cabinet dividing between Cabinet 'sensibles' such as Damian Green, Philip Hammond and Ruth Davidson who are prepared to compromise for an agreement with the EU and 'creationists' such as Liam Fox, Priti Patel and Chris Grayling who would willingly quit without any arrangement
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/exclusive-cabinet-sensibles-plot-soft-brexit-a3563036.html?amp
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,718
    perdix said:

    No wonder few people buy Marf's stuff.

    How Tory, still sucking lemons I see.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    Roger said:

    Just watched the first Tory Cabinet. I can hardly believe just two short weeks ago I would have been OK with a Theresa May government.

    I must have been sozzled and forgotten ....grammar schools..... fox hunting ....Andrea Leadsom ....Liam Fox ....'Brexit Means Brexit' ......'Strong and Stable Government' ....Boris Johnson..... Michael Gove.... PARTICULARLY Michael Gove..... the Sun ....the Mail ...the Express...... Michael Gove and Sarah Vine.....

    Come on Jezza! Time to step up.

    Here is Corbyn's fatal flaw. He was in his absolute element on the stump, feeding grievances and rabble rousing, pandering to teenagers. That's all he has ever done.

    In the grown up world, the minutiae of politics and Parliamentary process does not suit him, demonstrably so. He simply does not have the maturity or the brains to be a PM. That's obvious to anyone.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Labour contemplated a deal with the DUP in 2010 and 2015. It's a well-scraped barrel.

    We did? Thats news. Assuming other parties will vote against the Tories is one thing. Dispatching your chief whip to Belfast to negotiate a coalition, then announce a C&S deal, then unannounce it, then delay the QS whilst trying to do one - yeah, thats pretty much how 2010 went. Very creative of the BBC to substitute Ian Paisley Jr for Nick Clegg in the dramatisation of it.

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/11/labour-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup-last-time-there-was-a-hung-parliament-6701733/
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726

    A few points about the absurd spectacle that is ZombieMay's Tory Party:

    1. The convention is that a defeated government can try and get its programme through a Queens Speech. That May can't even write a QS acceptable to her new "friends" is not acceptable - she needs to go to the Commons and it will pass or fail. We need a government and can't wait for her to faff around with her homophobic misogynist terrorist friends.

    2. This DUP deal is the shoddiest arrangement since Joachim von Ribbentrop got on the phone to Vyacheslav Molotov and proposed a coalition deal. Set aside the Good Friday Agreement which dictates that UK and ROI governments stand by impartially to guarantee the peace. Set aside the lack of a Northern Irish Assembly which failed because Arlene 'Red Hand' Foster got herself stuck into a cash for ash scheme. Set aside the anger that English voters have towards "foreign" parties having undue influence over their government.

    And look at the reprehensible disgusting creatures that May and the Conservative Party think are suitable partners for government. Aside from being a party directly linked to terrorism - and we know how association with terrorism makes someone unfit to be PM - they have some offensively backwards views towards women, the gay community, minority religious groups and to modern society as a whole. I have many friends who possess a vagina, a rosary, 21st century morality, an interest in their own sex and many possess a combination of all four.

    I myself am a bisexual man, my eldest son is gay, two close friends have finally had the confidence to get engaged and I look forward to my first gay wedding next year. It took me 15 years to publicly come out having lived in fear of how society would see me. I am not having my 16 year old son live in fear as I did because it becomes ok again to abuse anyone who isn't straight - the DUP represent all that we have left behind in GB and love Norn Iron as I do this is one area in which they are 20 years out of date.

    A deal with the DUP is a deal too far. Is there no barrel that this PM won't scrape to cling to power?

    But, if they were negotiating with Labour, that would be statesmanship.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,682
    Andrew Adonis on how to make a deal on the single market and get back some control over immigration
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/there-are-two-crucial-things-we-need-to-make-this-a-sane-brexit-a3562946.html?amp
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613

    PaulM said:

    JackW said:

    Would Damian Green fancy a shot at PM? He's got a TV background, has always seemed fairly competent and reasonable. I doubt Corbyn could beat him. Rudd is the other obvious one but her business background could still cause problems.

    Rudd's problem is her majority.

    There's no way a PM can deal with a majority that small whilst campaigning during a general election.

    Would be like Chris Patten in 1992 all over again.

    Green is an intriguing option, he has no enemies in the party.

    As as noted before, you often win the Tory leadership by not being someone else
    Rudd's majority is not a practical impediment to her becoming PM. A safe seat could easily be found prior to the next general election. In 1963 the Conservatives magically found Lord Home a safe seat at Kinross and West Perthshire.
    Given the parliamentary arithmetic, would it not be reckless to deliberately create a by-election in a Tory seat?
    And where might this "safe" seat be - Kensington just went Labour..
    Any of the Scottish seats.
    If there was a chance it would make a Tory government fall, wouldn't the opposition parties put up a combined candidate ? There isn't a seat in Scotland that is over 50% Tory.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345
    Tories sent their Chief Whip, well Labour....

    LABOUR sought support from the DUP in a bid to form a government following the Westminster election in 2010.

    Newly released emails to Hillary Clinton when she was US secretary of state show the Labour Party tried to win support from the Democratic Unionists.

    In a previously confidential briefing paper, US officials said then Labour leader Gordon Brown "is doing whatever he can to hold on to power".

    They said Northern Ireland secretary Shaun Woodward was involved in attempts to build support for Labour following the election.

    The email read: "Shaun, for his part, is working on an economic package for Northern Ireland to win support from the DUP and other parties for Labour – a package to be proposed in the Queen's Speech.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    Mortimer said:

    FPT

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    @TSE - should we ban trade in all products because some idiots misuse them?

    The inland ivory trade ban was a stupid idea promoted by those who don't understand culture, history, or the antiques trade.

    This is a very reasonable point. But the problem is few people see into this world, and so the idea of anything made of ivory - even a hundred years ago - has passed beyond the realm of social acceptability for large parts of the population.

    Yup - absolutely fine, I understand that. No-one is being forced to buy ivory at the moment.

    But the quasi-puritanical lust amongst antis to grind existing works of art into dust is literally philistinism. It should not have been pandered to in the first place.

    I really do sympathise with you on this one. Sorry if that was not clear from my post.
    Thanks. I've never actually had a piece of ivory, given I'm in the book trade rather than the antiques trade proper, but the precedent setting of destroying art because of what it contains scares me enormously.
    There are books bound with skin, for example, that one can imagine reaching the firing line someday.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,124

    Labour contemplated a deal with the DUP in 2010 and 2015. It's a well-scraped barrel.

    We did? Thats news. Assuming other parties will vote against the Tories is one thing. Dispatching your chief whip to Belfast to negotiate a coalition, then announce a C&S deal, then unannounce it, then delay the QS whilst trying to do one - yeah, thats pretty much how 2010 went. Very creative of the BBC to substitute Ian Paisley Jr for Nick Clegg in the dramatisation of it.

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/11/labour-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup-last-time-there-was-a-hung-parliament-6701733/
    Then lets have Gordon Brown out of Number 10 as May needs to be.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    DanSmith said:

    I wonder if Stewart will start posting on PB again now that Theresa May has ensured he's got a lot of free time on his hands now

    https://twitter.com/Stewart4Pboro/status/874295448923779072

    he's still got the charm...

    https://twitter.com/Stewart4Pboro/status/874304374998265856
    It is a mystery why he lost his seat.
    Apparently Peterborough voters were repelled by Stewart Jackson's overbearing charm that made David Niven look like Kim Jong-un.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Sounds like the 22 went well.

    Sadly, even if the Tories behave, I fear May will come aground in the autumn of 2018, when the House of Lords refuses to pass the Great Repeal Bill and Labour call for another election for her to win a mandate for the deal.

    Which is why May will need to work WITH Labour and the Lords. The landscape has changed. She and her MPs haven't acknowledged it yet.
    The inverse of no deal is better than a bad deal is that any deal is better than no deal.

    Unless Labour and the Lords are prepared to walk away with no deal then Article 50 means they must accept whatever the government and the EU negotiate. Otherwise the clock ticks until we have no deal and Labour and the Lords have said that they won't accept that as an option.
    Mrs May telling Labour and the Lords where to stuff it won't work any more. That's pre 8 June thinking. She needs to be nice to them. (it would also help if she were nice to the EU partners as well). Her job is to act as the middleman between Labour and the EU, because between them they call the shots but she and the Conservatives will get the blame if anything goes wrong. If she doesn't like it, she shouldn't have triggered Article 50 and then an election.
    She doesn't need to tell them to stuff it, she just needs to sign a deal that can be agreed by the EU Commission, the EU-27 and the European Parliament.

    Once that is done then Barnier, Juncker, Macron etc can tell Labour to stuff it. Nobody will be happy to re-open negotiations once they're completed.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    The Beeb's headline says this:

    'May tells MPs: I got us into this mess and I will get us out.'

    She presumably means The Conservative Party when she says 'Us'. What about the rest of us?

    In fairness, this was in the context of a party meeting. It's reasonable for her to be talking about the Conservative party in such a meeting.
    Yes, but at some point doesn't she have to acknowledge the harm she has done the country? Doesn't the Party?

    I don't see any way back for either until they do.

    What do you identify as the harm that Theresa May has done the country? Giving it the opportunity to choose a new Parliament doesn't seem to me to qualify. "Sorry for letting you have a vote" is an odd thing to be apologising for.
    Unnecessary election. It cost money, time and effort. It was a distraction, not least from the important business of negotiating Brexit. A political crisis has been created in what was already a difficult political situation, and a dire economic one. All this for the prospect of Party advantage.

    That do?
    I don't see there's ever anything to apologise for about giving the public the chance to have their say. The political problems are mostly internal to the Conservative party. You can't conceive how sad I am for them.

    I'm very happy with the outcome, which is pretty much my dream result. Brexit terms have become by necessity something that's no longer the sole province of the Conservative party. The chances of something sane materialising that offered Britain good prospects post-Brexit were low but at least the discussion is going to be less Britannia-meets-Wonderwoman and a more realistic discussion about what suits the nation as a whole.

    The chances of rebuilding after the pretty-well-inevitable car crash have improved a little, I think.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    JonathanD said:

    FF43 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Sounds like the 22 went well.

    Sadly, even if the Tories behave, I fear May will come aground in the autumn of 2018, when the House of Lords refuses to pass the Great Repeal Bill and Labour call for another election for her to win a mandate for the deal.

    Which is why May will need to work WITH Labour and the Lords. The landscape has changed. She and her MPs haven't acknowledged it yet.
    The inverse of no deal is better than a bad deal is that any deal is better than no deal.

    Unless Labour and the Lords are prepared to walk away with no deal then Article 50 means they must accept whatever the government and the EU negotiate. Otherwise the clock ticks until we have no deal and Labour and the Lords have said that they won't accept that as an option.
    I imagine that if they decide to vote against the governments plans they will say that it is the responsibility of the government to get an Article 50 extension rather than allowing the UK to crash out.
    That takes unanimity. And if any of the EU-27 say that "enough is enough" it is this agreed deal or no deal, then what does Labour do?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited June 2017
    It now looks as though Theresa May has survived the immediate crisis. If she can square off the DUP, she's got (just) enough parliamentary support to run a government, doing very little except for Brexit. Of course, Brexit is quite enough to be going along with.

    Given that, and the huge difficulty of changing leaders whilst the Article 50 clock ticks, it seems to me that there won't be any appetite in the Conservative Party for a change of leader until 2019, ready for an election soon afterwards. They will be calculating that this will give time for Corbyn's transient popularity, which based on nothing very much other than absurdities, to die back, and the splits within Labour to re-emerge.

    Of course, all this will collapse if rebellions and by-elections make governing impossible. However, for now I'm pencilling in 2019 as the year of her resignation.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,468
    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    So the Tory party has consigned itself to electoral oblivion. Clinging onto power like a desperate Plantagenet as Europe eyes the prize and moves in for the kill. They are utterly clueless and Strategically inept.

    What are they supposed to do? Promise to abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
    It should be patently obvious that the electorate have thrown a hospital pass. A party with a modicum of strategic nouse would see that you don't want to be the one holding the ball.
    They should have let Corbyn form a government and vote him out on a whim once he has sacrificed all the gain he made in the 7 week campaign.
    That is of course also entirely in their self interest, but has the added advantage of being the sensible approach to avoiding catastrophe next time.
    Nonsense.

    What's nonsense about it? they'll be crying into their champers in October when they go sub 200 seats again after screwing Brexit, the Northern Irish and themselves.
    Why would they want an election in October? And would they even be allowed one?
    Can you not see Corbyn et al are busy trolling Mrs May?

    The numbers just don't work for a rainbow coalition. It really is one of the following: Tory/DUP majority, Tory minority or another election!

    If I am wrong, Corbyn is even more stupid than I suspected 7 weeks ago!
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    @FrankBooth - I'm glad I'm not the only one on here who realises just how toxic Amber Rudd's business background is. For me, the Hastings and Rye result was the worst moment of the lot on election night. I was delighted that Stewart Jackson, Amanda Solloway and David Mowat all lost though.
  • atia2atia2 Posts: 207


    I don't see there's ever anything to apologise for about giving the public the chance to have their say. .

    Let's do it every week then. I wouldn't need to work.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    PaulM said:

    JackW said:

    Would Damian Green fancy a shot at PM? He's got a TV background, has always seemed fairly competent and reasonable. I doubt Corbyn could beat him. Rudd is the other obvious one but her business background could still cause problems.

    Rudd's problem is her majority.

    There's no way a PM can deal with a majority that small whilst campaigning during a general election.

    Would be like Chris Patten in 1992 all over again.

    Green is an intriguing option, he has no enemies in the party.

    As as noted before, you often win the Tory leadership by not being someone else
    Rudd's majority is not a practical impediment to her becoming PM. A safe seat could easily be found prior to the next general election. In 1963 the Conservatives magically found Lord Home a safe seat at Kinross and West Perthshire.
    Given the parliamentary arithmetic, would it not be reckless to deliberately create a by-election in a Tory seat?
    And where might this "safe" seat be - Kensington just went Labour..
    No by-election is necessary. Rudd could inherit a safe seat as an MP retires.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Did I miss @RochdalePioneer's grovelling apology?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,718
    PaulM said:

    PaulM said:

    JackW said:

    Would Damian Green fancy a shot at PM? He's got a TV background, has always seemed fairly competent and reasonable. I doubt Corbyn could beat him. Rudd is the other obvious one but her business background could still cause problems.

    Rudd's problem is her majority.

    There's no way a PM can deal with a majority that small whilst campaigning during a general election.

    Would be like Chris Patten in 1992 all over again.

    Green is an intriguing option, he has no enemies in the party.

    As as noted before, you often win the Tory leadership by not being someone else
    Rudd's majority is not a practical impediment to her becoming PM. A safe seat could easily be found prior to the next general election. In 1963 the Conservatives magically found Lord Home a safe seat at Kinross and West Perthshire.
    Given the parliamentary arithmetic, would it not be reckless to deliberately create a by-election in a Tory seat?
    And where might this "safe" seat be - Kensington just went Labour..
    Any of the Scottish seats.
    If there was a chance it would make a Tory government fall, wouldn't the opposition parties put up a combined candidate ? There isn't a seat in Scotland that is over 50% Tory.
    TSE is not right in the head after the Tory pummelling. He has switched his wet dreams to Ruthie now so fantasises about her doing well in Scotland. The dummies will be back to Labour next time and she will be toast. Was fun to see her actually run away from an interview yesterday when asked a real question, she may be short and stout but can run fast.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158

    Mortimer said:

    FPT

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    @TSE - should we ban trade in all products because some idiots misuse them?

    The inland ivory trade ban was a stupid idea promoted by those who don't understand culture, history, or the antiques trade.

    This is a very reasonable point. But the problem is few people see into this world, and so the idea of anything made of ivory - even a hundred years ago - has passed beyond the realm of social acceptability for large parts of the population.

    Yup - absolutely fine, I understand that. No-one is being forced to buy ivory at the moment.

    But the quasi-puritanical lust amongst antis to grind existing works of art into dust is literally philistinism. It should not have been pandered to in the first place.

    I really do sympathise with you on this one. Sorry if that was not clear from my post.
    Thanks. I've never actually had a piece of ivory, given I'm in the book trade rather than the antiques trade proper, but the precedent setting of destroying art because of what it contains scares me enormously.
    There are books bound with skin, for example, that one can imagine reaching the firing line someday.
    Definitely a worry for me. About 95% of mine are bound in calf, sheep, goat or pig....

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Is it likely Corbyn will refuse parliamentary tradition like pairing? Pack the house until they can get a no confidence vote through?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    So the Tory party has consigned itself to electoral oblivion. Clinging onto power like a desperate Plantagenet as Europe eyes the prize and moves in for the kill. They are utterly clueless and Strategically inept.

    What are they supposed to do? Promise to abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
    It should be patently obvious that the electorate have thrown a hospital pass. A party with a modicum of strategic nouse would see that you don't want to be the one holding the ball.
    They should have let Corbyn form a government and vote him out on a whim once he has sacrificed all the gain he made in the 7 week campaign.
    That is of course also entirely in their self interest, but has the added advantage of being the sensible approach to avoiding catastrophe next time.
    Nonsense.

    What's nonsense about it? they'll be crying into their champers in October when they go sub 200 seats again after screwing Brexit, the Northern Irish and themselves.
    Why would they want an election in October? And would they even be allowed one?
    Can you not see Corbyn et al are busy trolling Mrs May?

    The numbers just don't work for a rainbow coalition. It really is one of the following: Tory/DUP majority, Tory minority or another election!

    If I am wrong, Corbyn is even more stupid than I suspected 7 weeks ago!
    If the QS is defeated, then Corbyn gets the chance to form a minority government. I could see that government being frequently defeated, but it gives him the chance to establish Prime Ministerial credentials.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Starmer floundering on Brexit even with Snow the interviewer....

    Why is he rated so highly?
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    Keir Starmer is the male version of Theresa May.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    It now looks as though Theresa May has survived the immediate crisis. If she can square off the DUP, she's got (just) enough parliamentary support to run a government, doing very little except for Brexit. Of course, Brexit is quite enough to be going along with.

    Given that, and the huge difficulty of changing leaders whilst the Article 50 clock ticks, it seems to me that there won't be any appetite in the Conservative Party for a change of leader until 2019, ready for an election soon afterwards. They will be calculating that this will give time for Corbyn's transient popularity, which based on nothing very much other than absurdities, to die back, and the splits within Labour to re-emerge.

    Of course, all this will collapse if rebellions and by-elections make governing impossible. However, for now I'm pencilling in 2019 as the year of her resignation.

    I think you'll be proved right. May can hopefully take some of the Brexit anger with her when she leaves office.

    Unfortunately, I expect that means Tory councillors will take a real beating next year, particularly in London.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345
    Mortimer said:

    Starmer floundering on Brexit even with Snow the interviewer....

    Why is he rated so highly?

    You don't get to become DPP if you're not very good.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Have to say, I'm also getting a bit concerned that the Labour bigwigs are getting a bit carried away.

    They have a big opportunity ahead of them for sure - but as of now it's still only an opportunity, a lot of work is still needed to switch the necessary Tory voters over.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    I am not sure I understand the GFA "British and Irish governments must be neutral with respect to NI parties" thing in full.

    The way people are talking about it now sounds as if it bans people in NI from having a part electing the government, or parties active in NI from taking part in the government of either country.

    But this can't be right, or can't be the interpretation that everyone sticks to at any rate. The Tories have post-GFA stood joint candidates in NI elections. And Sinn Fein are active in the North and still seek to govern in the South.

    And it surely can't mean in the purest sense that the governments can't be influenced by NI parties. Both Ireland and the UK have political systems in which members of their respective parliaments, who come from parties active in NI (albeit not directly elected from the North, in the case of the the Dail) have the ability to support or oppose government legislation, and if the parliamentary arithmetic is tight, potentially bring down the government. This clearly means NI parties can hold some sway over the governments.

    Can anyone give a brief explanation of how the whole "neutrality" idea is meant to work?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    edited June 2017
    .

    Is it likely Corbyn will refuse parliamentary tradition like pairing? Pack the house until they can get a no confidence vote through?

    Well, he certainly doesn't believe in the traditional role of the Leader of the Opposition (namely opposing)
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    @TSE - should we ban trade in all products because some idiots misuse them?

    The inland ivory trade ban was a stupid idea promoted by those who don't understand culture, history, or the antiques trade.

    This is a very reasonable point. But the problem is few people see into this world, and so the idea of anything made of ivory - even a hundred years ago - has passed beyond the realm of social acceptability for large parts of the population.

    Yup - absolutely fine, I understand that. No-one is being forced to buy ivory at the moment.

    But the quasi-puritanical lust amongst antis to grind existing works of art into dust is literally philistinism. It should not have been pandered to in the first place.

    I really do sympathise with you on this one. Sorry if that was not clear from my post.
    Thanks. I've never actually had a piece of ivory, given I'm in the book trade rather than the antiques trade proper, but the precedent setting of destroying art because of what it contains scares me enormously.
    There are books bound with skin, for example, that one can imagine reaching the firing line someday.
    Definitely a worry for me. About 95% of mine are bound in calf, sheep, goat or pig....

    The Museum Carnavalet in Paris has copies of the French Constitution bound in the skin of some of those who opposed the new Republic.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    Can anyone give a brief explanation of how the whole "neutrality" idea is meant to work?

    I think it means that the government should side with Sinn Fein.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    JRM a class act. Absolute class.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    So the Tory party has consigned itself to electoral oblivion. Clinging onto power like a desperate Plantagenet as Europe eyes the prize and moves in for the kill. They are utterly clueless and Strategically inept.

    What are they supposed to do? Promise to abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
    It should be patently obvious that the electorate have thrown a hospital pass. A party with a modicum of strategic nouse would see that you don't want to be the one holding the ball.
    They should have let Corbyn form a government and vote him out on a whim once he has sacrificed all the gain he made in the 7 week campaign.
    That is of course also entirely in their self interest, but has the added advantage of being the sensible approach to avoiding catastrophe next time.
    Nonsense.

    What's nonsense about it? they'll be crying into their champers in October when they go sub 200 seats again after screwing Brexit, the Northern Irish and themselves.
    Why would they want an election in October? And would they even be allowed one?
    Can you not see Corbyn et al are busy trolling Mrs May?

    The numbers just don't work for a rainbow coalition. It really is one of the following: Tory/DUP majority, Tory minority or another election!

    If I am wrong, Corbyn is even more stupid than I suspected 7 weeks ago!
    If the QS is defeated, then Corbyn gets the chance to form a minority government. I could see that government being frequently defeated, but it gives him the chance to establish Prime Ministerial credentials.
    Why would the QS be defeated? Why is this even discussed?

    Any Tory who voted against the QS would lose the whip and thus their seat in the immediate upcoming new election. All lefties combined have less seats than the Tories.

    And how would Corbyn pass a Queen's Speech if May couldn't?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    The Beeb's headline says this:

    'May tells MPs: I got us into this mess and I will get us out.'

    She presumably means The Conservative Party when she says 'Us'. What about the rest of us?

    In fairness, this was in the context of a party meeting. It's reasonable for her to be talking about the Conservative party in such a meeting.
    Yes, but at some point doesn't she have to acknowledge the harm she has done the country? Doesn't the Party?

    I don't see any way back for either until they do.

    What do you identify as the harm that Theresa May has done the country? Giving it the opportunity to choose a new Parliament doesn't seem to me to qualify. "Sorry for letting you have a vote" is an odd thing to be apologising for.
    Unnecessary election. It cost money, time and effort. It was a distraction, not least from the important business of negotiating Brexit. A political crisis has been created in what was already a difficult political situation, and a dire economic one. All this for the prospect of Party advantage.

    That do?
    Well the Tories have given us the responsibility to make a decision on the EU that unfortunatley 99% of the population, including me, were not able to grasp and understand the issues leaving them to make their minds up on gut fealing.
    Holding an unnecessary election for purely party gain
    Willing to sacrifice their socially liberal views to the orange lodge.to try and get a majority. The honest approach would have been "we will present a QS and it is now up to the house to support it or vote it down. I'm afraid JC is now detoxified, the old line will not work in a future election, will they wake up and offer hope to those under 40 and those who want to help their under 40 relatives they are finished.
    The solution is no longer getting the oldies on board but start looking to the future and have some policies which address their issues.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    I am not sure I understand the GFA "British and Irish governments must be neutral with respect to NI parties" thing in full.

    The way people are talking about it now sounds as if it bans people in NI from having a part electing the government, or parties active in NI from taking part in the government of either country.

    But this can't be right, or can't be the interpretation that everyone sticks to at any rate. The Tories have post-GFA stood joint candidates in NI elections. And Sinn Fein are active in the North and still seek to govern in the South.

    And it surely can't mean in the purest sense that the governments can't be influenced by NI parties. Both Ireland and the UK have political systems in which members of their respective parliaments, who come from parties active in NI (albeit not directly elected from the North, in the case of the the Dail) have the ability to support or oppose government legislation, and if the parliamentary arithmetic is tight, potentially bring down the government. This clearly means NI parties can hold some sway over the governments.

    Can anyone give a brief explanation of how the whole "neutrality" idea is meant to work?

    It is a tool for Sinn Fein to bash the British government with. Naturally, it won't apply if they ever seek to form a government in the Republic with Fianna Fáil.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,124

    Did I miss @RochdalePioneer's grovelling apology?

    For what? Being repulsed by the DUP? For being repulsed by Tory social policies?
  • franklynfranklyn Posts: 323
    Between 2006 and 2009, the Save Bedford Hospital party was registered with the Electoral Commission with a view to running a Richard Taylor style campaign in Bedford. The party was wound up before the 2010 election, having received personal reassurances from the then Labour health secretary, the Chief Executive of the NHS, and the local Tory candidate Richard Fuller. It was a shame really because their fine words have buttered no parsnips, and we had extraordinary local support.

    Richard Fuller was defeated on Thursday, and I append a letter (with a few private bits redacted) which has been sent to his agent

    "Dear ….Although I actually live in NE Bedfordshire rather that Bedford, perhaps I could put to you my observations.
    Richard could not have worked harder locally in the last seven years; he is an thoughtful politician and a man who I like very much.
    The national campaign was a disgrace and an insult to the electorate. May can across as detached and dismissive of the general public, giving the impression that she thought that we were too stupid to understand the issues. I voted Conservative with a hard heart and because I couldn't think of an alternative. In NE Bedfordshire, our household of five voters didn't get a single leaflet or letter, no knock on the door email or phone call. I didn't see a single poster of hear of Alistair Burt doing a meeting. It reinforced the impression that we were taken for granted.
    Now I, and everyone I talk to, is utterly appalled, as we are to have government kept in power by the DUP, a party that has been grossly incompetent in power in NI (check out the energy scandal), is grounded in religious bigotry of a type which we would not tolerate from Muslims, campaigns to ban the teaching of evolution, doesn't allow gay rights or abortion, and are strongly connected to the criminal gangs in Belfast. (For the avoidance of doubt, I was in Belfast last month). If this really happens, the Conservatives are going to be slaughtered at the polls next time, and especially if we have yet another unelected PM when May is given her P45.
    It seems more likely than not that there will be another election in less than five years. If that were to happen I think it quite likely that the Save Bedford Hospital party would be reformed, and run high profile candidates in both constituencies. With the combination of the continuing and unresolved chaos in health planning locally (£8.5 million already wasted on the now abandoned local STP) and general dissatisfaction with the Conservatives, both constituencies would be highly winnable (as in Wyre Forest).
    I urge you, most strenuously, to ensure that the party locally (and nationally) wakes up to the realities and sorts itself out; alternatively I would be happy for you to act as an election agent for the SBH party!
    With all good wishes"
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Danny565 said:

    Have to say, I'm also getting a bit concerned that the Labour bigwigs are getting a bit carried away.

    They have a big opportunity ahead of them for sure - but as of now it's still only an opportunity, a lot of work is still needed to switch the necessary Tory voters over.

    "Corbyn did far better than expected in the election, of course, securing a few more seats and a big rise in national vote share. The pressure of mainstream scrutiny helped him refine his arguments and polish his lines. But he still failed to overturn a small Tory majority despite the catastrophic Tory campaign. It is characteristic of the North London Left tradition from which he springs that his defeat is being hailed as a “victory for hope” and the case being made for “one more heave”. His old time religion might be good enough for him and his supporters but hasn’t yet proved good enough to win power, even though Labour candidates across the capital did brilliantly."

    http://www.onlondon.co.uk/neither-mays-brexit-vision-nor-corbyns-old-time-religion-meet-londons-needs/
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    So the Tory party has consigned itself to electoral oblivion. Clinging onto power like a desperate Plantagenet as Europe eyes the prize and moves in for the kill. They are utterly clueless and Strategically inept.

    What are they supposed to do? Promise to abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
    It should be patently obvious that the electorate have thrown a hospital pass. A party with a modicum of strategic nouse would see that you don't want to be the one holding the ball.
    They should have let Corbyn form a government and vote him out on a whim once he has sacrificed all the gain he made in the 7 week campaign.
    That is of course also entirely in their self interest, but has the added advantage of being the sensible approach to avoiding catastrophe next time.
    Nonsense.

    What's nonsense about it? they'll be crying into their champers in October when they go sub 200 seats again after screwing Brexit, the Northern Irish and themselves.
    Why would they want an election in October? And would they even be allowed one?
    Can you not see Corbyn et al are busy trolling Mrs May?

    The numbers just don't work for a rainbow coalition. It really is one of the following: Tory/DUP majority, Tory minority or another election!

    If I am wrong, Corbyn is even more stupid than I suspected 7 weeks ago!
    If the QS is defeated, then Corbyn gets the chance to form a minority government. I could see that government being frequently defeated, but it gives him the chance to establish Prime Ministerial credentials.
    Why would the QS be defeated? Why is this even discussed?

    Any Tory who voted against the QS would lose the whip and thus their seat in the immediate upcoming new election. All lefties combined have less seats than the Tories.

    And how would Corbyn pass a Queen's Speech if May couldn't?
    Tories would abstain to avoid election.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507

    It now looks as though Theresa May has survived the immediate crisis. If she can square off the DUP, she's got (just) enough parliamentary support to run a government, doing very little except for Brexit. Of course, Brexit is quite enough to be going along with.

    Given that, and the huge difficulty of changing leaders whilst the Article 50 clock ticks, it seems to me that there won't be any appetite in the Conservative Party for a change of leader until 2019, ready for an election soon afterwards. They will be calculating that this will give time for Corbyn's transient popularity, which based on nothing very much other than absurdities, to die back, and the splits within Labour to re-emerge.

    Of course, all this will collapse if rebellions and by-elections make governing impossible. However, for now I'm pencilling in 2019 as the year of her resignation.

    2019 is 12/1 with Corals for the year TM is replaced as PM. Until you put your max £2 on and then it'll be half that :)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062

    Mortimer said:

    Starmer floundering on Brexit even with Snow the interviewer....

    Why is he rated so highly?

    You don't get to become DPP if you're not very good.
    ...and he wasn't floundering at all. Suspect Tory judgement yet again
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    calum said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    So the Tory party has consigned itself to electoral oblivion. Clinging onto power like a desperate Plantagenet as Europe eyes the prize and moves in for the kill. They are utterly clueless and Strategically inept.

    What are they supposed to do? Promise to abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
    It should be patently obvious that the electorate have thrown a hospital pass. A party with a modicum of strategic nouse would see that you don't want to be the one holding the ball.
    They should have let Corbyn form a government and vote him out on a whim once he has sacrificed all the gain he made in the 7 week campaign.
    That is of course also entirely in their self interest, but has the added advantage of being the sensible approach to avoiding catastrophe next time.
    Nonsense.

    What's nonsense about it? they'll be crying into their champers in October when they go sub 200 seats again after screwing Brexit, the Northern Irish and themselves.
    Why would they want an election in October? And would they even be allowed one?
    Can you not see Corbyn et al are busy trolling Mrs May?

    The numbers just don't work for a rainbow coalition. It really is one of the following: Tory/DUP majority, Tory minority or another election!

    If I am wrong, Corbyn is even more stupid than I suspected 7 weeks ago!
    If the QS is defeated, then Corbyn gets the chance to form a minority government. I could see that government being frequently defeated, but it gives him the chance to establish Prime Ministerial credentials.
    Why would the QS be defeated? Why is this even discussed?

    Any Tory who voted against the QS would lose the whip and thus their seat in the immediate upcoming new election. All lefties combined have less seats than the Tories.

    And how would Corbyn pass a Queen's Speech if May couldn't?
    Tories would abstain to avoid election.
    Because reasons, presumably?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    While Labour certainly has a long way to go to even be the largest party in a hung parliament, I think many PB Tories are being incredibly complacent and have not learned anything from June 8th.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726

    I am not sure I understand the GFA "British and Irish governments must be neutral with respect to NI parties" thing in full.

    The way people are talking about it now sounds as if it bans people in NI from having a part electing the government, or parties active in NI from taking part in the government of either country.

    But this can't be right, or can't be the interpretation that everyone sticks to at any rate. The Tories have post-GFA stood joint candidates in NI elections. And Sinn Fein are active in the North and still seek to govern in the South.

    And it surely can't mean in the purest sense that the governments can't be influenced by NI parties. Both Ireland and the UK have political systems in which members of their respective parliaments, who come from parties active in NI (albeit not directly elected from the North, in the case of the the Dail) have the ability to support or oppose government legislation, and if the parliamentary arithmetic is tight, potentially bring down the government. This clearly means NI parties can hold some sway over the governments.

    Can anyone give a brief explanation of how the whole "neutrality" idea is meant to work?

    The Irish government is committed to Irish unity by consent, so it's not neutral. But that doesn't prevent them from having reasonable relations with Unionists.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    calum said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    So the Tory party has consigned itself to electoral oblivion. Clinging onto power like a desperate Plantagenet as Europe eyes the prize and moves in for the kill. They are utterly clueless and Strategically inept.

    What are they supposed to do? Promise to abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
    It should be patently obvious that the electorate have thrown a hospital pass. A party with a modicum of strategic nouse would see that you don't want to be the one holding the ball.
    They should have let Corbyn form a government and vote him out on a whim once he has sacrificed all the gain he made in the 7 week campaign.
    That is of course also entirely in their self interest, but has the added advantage of being the sensible approach to avoiding catastrophe next time.
    Nonsense.

    What's nonsense about it? they'll be crying into their champers in October when they go sub 200 seats again after screwing Brexit, the Northern Irish and themselves.
    Why would they want an election in October? And would they even be allowed one?
    Can you not see Corbyn et al are busy trolling Mrs May?

    The numbers just don't work for a rainbow coalition. It really is one of the following: Tory/DUP majority, Tory minority or another election!

    If I am wrong, Corbyn is even more stupid than I suspected 7 weeks ago!
    If the QS is defeated, then Corbyn gets the chance to form a minority government. I could see that government being frequently defeated, but it gives him the chance to establish Prime Ministerial credentials.
    Why would the QS be defeated? Why is this even discussed?

    Any Tory who voted against the QS would lose the whip and thus their seat in the immediate upcoming new election. All lefties combined have less seats than the Tories.

    And how would Corbyn pass a Queen's Speech if May couldn't?
    Tories would abstain to avoid election.
    Unlikely, though you've still not answered the first question - how would a Tory QS fail in the first place?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726
    RoyalBlue said:

    I am not sure I understand the GFA "British and Irish governments must be neutral with respect to NI parties" thing in full.

    The way people are talking about it now sounds as if it bans people in NI from having a part electing the government, or parties active in NI from taking part in the government of either country.

    But this can't be right, or can't be the interpretation that everyone sticks to at any rate. The Tories have post-GFA stood joint candidates in NI elections. And Sinn Fein are active in the North and still seek to govern in the South.

    And it surely can't mean in the purest sense that the governments can't be influenced by NI parties. Both Ireland and the UK have political systems in which members of their respective parliaments, who come from parties active in NI (albeit not directly elected from the North, in the case of the the Dail) have the ability to support or oppose government legislation, and if the parliamentary arithmetic is tight, potentially bring down the government. This clearly means NI parties can hold some sway over the governments.

    Can anyone give a brief explanation of how the whole "neutrality" idea is meant to work?

    It is a tool for Sinn Fein to bash the British government with. Naturally, it won't apply if they ever seek to form a government in the Republic with Fianna Fáil.
    And Fianna Fail might field candidates in the North.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Mortimer said:

    calum said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    So the Tory party has consigned itself to electoral oblivion. Clinging onto power like a desperate Plantagenet as Europe eyes the prize and moves in for the kill. They are utterly clueless and Strategically inept.

    What are they supposed to do? Promise to abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
    It should be patently obvious that the electorate have thrown a hospital pass. A party with a modicum of strategic nouse would see that you don't want to be the one holding the ball.
    They should have let Corbyn form a government and vote him out on a whim once he has sacrificed all the gain he made in the 7 week campaign.
    That is of course also entirely in their self interest, but has the added advantage of being the sensible approach to avoiding catastrophe next time.
    Nonsense.

    What's nonsense about it? they'll be crying into their champers in October when they go sub 200 seats again after screwing Brexit, the Northern Irish and themselves.
    Why would they want an election in October? And would they even be allowed one?
    Can you not see Corbyn et al are busy trolling Mrs May?

    The numbers just don't work for a rainbow coalition. It really is one of the following: Tory/DUP majority, Tory minority or another election!

    If I am wrong, Corbyn is even more stupid than I suspected 7 weeks ago!
    If the QS is defeated, then Corbyn gets the chance to form a minority government. I could see that government being frequently defeated, but it gives him the chance to establish Prime Ministerial credentials.
    Why would the QS be defeated? Why is this even discussed?

    Any Tory who voted against the QS would lose the whip and thus their seat in the immediate upcoming new election. All lefties combined have less seats than the Tories.

    And how would Corbyn pass a Queen's Speech if May couldn't?
    Tories would abstain to avoid election.
    Because reasons, presumably?
    Avoid a Corbyn Tsunami !
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    RochdalePioneers has been more on the money re this GE than most on this site. While many of us thought Conservative majority was certain and at the very least likely, he/she knew about the discontent that many in this country had regarding the status quo and how that could impact the GE result.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651

    Mortimer said:

    Starmer floundering on Brexit even with Snow the interviewer....

    Why is he rated so highly?

    You don't get to become DPP if you're not very good.
    Indeed! The question shouldn't be "why is he rated so highly" but "why is someone so sharp struggling to answer" - is Labour policy on this issue still clear or is he having to tread carefully to avoid contradicting others? (Apologies for Guido link but he seems to have collated the relevant material better than anywhere else I could find it.)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,039
    FPT
    isam said:

    Patrick said:

    Blimey. Over £8m bet on the next PM market on Betfair.

    £3 of that is mine, backing the awesome Priti
    Interesting choice. The replacement for May needs to be :
    1. Young enough
    2. Engaging and articulate
    3. Sensible
    4. Likeable
    5. A Tory not a TINO or Miliband channeler
    6. Reasonable looking in this TV age
    7. Different, interesting, new.
    I think they could do alot worse than Priti Patel.
    Sounds sensible. Kwasi Kwarteng should be a runner too. A non white Conservative leader would stop a lot of ammo being thrown from the left.

    I didn't want Theresa May to be the leader, but could accept she might be a safe and steady pair of hands. But in this day and age, she is not media friendly enough to win an election
    It'd be nice to see some new faces in ministerial posts. I really would like to see Rees-Mogg (I know it sounds mad), but also younger MPs like Alex Chalk from Cheltenham - I don't know much about him, but he seems quite capable.

    I don't really feel that any of the obvious candidates is the right successor to May.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    I am not sure I understand the GFA "British and Irish governments must be neutral with respect to NI parties" thing in full.

    The way people are talking about it now sounds as if it bans people in NI from having a part electing the government, or parties active in NI from taking part in the government of either country.

    But this can't be right, or can't be the interpretation that everyone sticks to at any rate. The Tories have post-GFA stood joint candidates in NI elections. And Sinn Fein are active in the North and still seek to govern in the South.

    And it surely can't mean in the purest sense that the governments can't be influenced by NI parties. Both Ireland and the UK have political systems in which members of their respective parliaments, who come from parties active in NI (albeit not directly elected from the North, in the case of the the Dail) have the ability to support or oppose government legislation, and if the parliamentary arithmetic is tight, potentially bring down the government. This clearly means NI parties can hold some sway over the governments.

    Can anyone give a brief explanation of how the whole "neutrality" idea is meant to work?

    It is a tool for Sinn Fein to bash the British government with. Naturally, it won't apply if they ever seek to form a government in the Republic with Fianna Fáil.
    And Fianna Fail might field candidates in the North.
    'in the North'? You are the last person I would expect to use such Nationalist language :wink:

    Let's hope the PM prioritises a meeting with Varadkar in the next few weeks.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821

    It now looks as though Theresa May has survived the immediate crisis. If she can square off the DUP, she's got (just) enough parliamentary support to run a government, doing very little except for Brexit. Of course, Brexit is quite enough to be going along with.

    Given that, and the huge difficulty of changing leaders whilst the Article 50 clock ticks, it seems to me that there won't be any appetite in the Conservative Party for a change of leader until 2019, ready for an election soon afterwards. They will be calculating that this will give time for Corbyn's transient popularity, which based on nothing very much other than absurdities, to die back, and the splits within Labour to re-emerge.

    Of course, all this will collapse if rebellions and by-elections make governing impossible. However, for now I'm pencilling in 2019 as the year of her resignation.

    I hope this comes to pass. The right time for a change in Tory leadership is mid to late 2019 post Brexit, in time for the next GE on the first Thursday in May 2020, as previously scheduled. I never understood why we had this recent unnecessary GE.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    I am not sure I understand the GFA "British and Irish governments must be neutral with respect to NI parties" thing in full.

    The way people are talking about it now sounds as if it bans people in NI from having a part electing the government, or parties active in NI from taking part in the government of either country.

    But this can't be right, or can't be the interpretation that everyone sticks to at any rate. The Tories have post-GFA stood joint candidates in NI elections. And Sinn Fein are active in the North and still seek to govern in the South.

    And it surely can't mean in the purest sense that the governments can't be influenced by NI parties. Both Ireland and the UK have political systems in which members of their respective parliaments, who come from parties active in NI (albeit not directly elected from the North, in the case of the the Dail) have the ability to support or oppose government legislation, and if the parliamentary arithmetic is tight, potentially bring down the government. This clearly means NI parties can hold some sway over the governments.

    Can anyone give a brief explanation of how the whole "neutrality" idea is meant to work?

    It is a tool for Sinn Fein to bash the British government with. Naturally, it won't apply if they ever seek to form a government in the Republic with Fianna Fáil.
    And Fianna Fail might field candidates in the North.
    They seem to have been promising that for aaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggggeeeeeeeeeeees,

    I seem to recall they have actually organised themselves up there - do they stand candidates in even local elections, yet?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    So the Tory party has consigned itself to electoral oblivion. Clinging onto power like a desperate Plantagenet as Europe eyes the prize and moves in for the kill. They are utterly clueless and Strategically inept.

    What are they supposed to do? Promise to abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
    It should be patently obvious that the electorate have thrown a hospital pass. A party with a modicum of strategic nouse would see that you don't want to be the one holding the ball.
    They should have let Corbyn form a government and vote him out on a whim once he has sacrificed all the gain he made in the 7 week campaign.
    That is of course also entirely in their self interest, but has the added advantage of being the sensible approach to avoiding catastrophe next time.
    Nonsense.

    What's nonsense about it? they'll be crying into their champers in October when they go sub 200 seats again after screwing Brexit, the Northern Irish and themselves.
    Why would they want an election in October? And would they even be allowed one?
    Can you not see Corbyn et al are busy trolling Mrs May?

    The numbers just don't work for a rainbow coalition. It really is one of the following: Tory/DUP majority, Tory minority or another election!

    If I am wrong, Corbyn is even more stupid than I suspected 7 weeks ago!
    If the QS is defeated, then Corbyn gets the chance to form a minority government. I could see that government being frequently defeated, but it gives him the chance to establish Prime Ministerial credentials.
    Why would the QS be defeated? Why is this even discussed?

    Any Tory who voted against the QS would lose the whip and thus their seat in the immediate upcoming new election. All lefties combined have less seats than the Tories.

    And how would Corbyn pass a Queen's Speech if May couldn't?
    I don't think the QS will be defeated, unless Sinn Fein decide to take their seats, and the DUP abstain.

    I don't think the Conservatives (if they had lost the QS) would vote down a Corbyn QS, because they don't want an immediate election. That wouldn't stop them voting down individual bills.

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited June 2017
    A possible danger for the government is if direct rule has to be reestablished over N Ireland if these talks fail. Then it's a matter of time until legislation affecting NI that the DUP cannot stomach but the Tories have to support comes through after which a vengeful DUP support no confidence and the cards topple.
  • Mortimer said:

    Starmer floundering on Brexit even with Snow the interviewer....

    Why is he rated so highly?

    You don't get to become DPP if you're not very good.
    What about the Paul Chambers case then? Not very good that time methinks.
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/29/paul-chambers-twitter-joke-airport
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,672
    Mortimer said:

    Starmer floundering on Brexit even with Snow the interviewer....

    Why is he rated so highly?

    PB Tories calling it right about useless Labour pols like Corbyn and Abbott again?
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613

    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    I am not sure I understand the GFA "British and Irish governments must be neutral with respect to NI parties" thing in full.

    The way people are talking about it now sounds as if it bans people in NI from having a part electing the government, or parties active in NI from taking part in the government of either country.

    But this can't be right, or can't be the interpretation that everyone sticks to at any rate. The Tories have post-GFA stood joint candidates in NI elections. And Sinn Fein are active in the North and still seek to govern in the South.

    And it surely can't mean in the purest sense that the governments can't be influenced by NI parties. Both Ireland and the UK have political systems in which members of their respective parliaments, who come from parties active in NI (albeit not directly elected from the North, in the case of the the Dail) have the ability to support or oppose government legislation, and if the parliamentary arithmetic is tight, potentially bring down the government. This clearly means NI parties can hold some sway over the governments.

    Can anyone give a brief explanation of how the whole "neutrality" idea is meant to work?

    It is a tool for Sinn Fein to bash the British government with. Naturally, it won't apply if they ever seek to form a government in the Republic with Fianna Fáil.
    And Fianna Fail might field candidates in the North.
    They seem to have been promising that for aaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggggeeeeeeeeeeees,

    I seem to recall they have actually organised themselves up there - do they stand candidates in even local elections, yet?
    No - I think the question was whether they should compete with or merge with the SDLP. Which now the SDLP has lost all its Westminster representation might become easier ?
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    One assumes that boundary changes and the 600 member Parliament is now off the agenda.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    Omnium said:

    FPT

    isam said:

    Patrick said:

    Blimey. Over £8m bet on the next PM market on Betfair.

    £3 of that is mine, backing the awesome Priti
    Interesting choice. The replacement for May needs to be :
    1. Young enough
    2. Engaging and articulate
    3. Sensible
    4. Likeable
    5. A Tory not a TINO or Miliband channeler
    6. Reasonable looking in this TV age
    7. Different, interesting, new.
    I think they could do alot worse than Priti Patel.
    Sounds sensible. Kwasi Kwarteng should be a runner too. A non white Conservative leader would stop a lot of ammo being thrown from the left.

    I didn't want Theresa May to be the leader, but could accept she might be a safe and steady pair of hands. But in this day and age, she is not media friendly enough to win an election
    It'd be nice to see some new faces in ministerial posts. I really would like to see Rees-Mogg (I know it sounds mad), but also younger MPs like Alex Chalk from Cheltenham - I don't know much about him, but he seems quite capable.

    I don't really feel that any of the obvious candidates is the right successor to May.
    Does anyone know why Kwasi's career has stalled? There was a lot of hype when he was elected - not just because of the colour of his skin, but because he was obviously very, very capable in his previous endeavours, both finance and history. (I seem to recall RCS has come across him professionally and been impressed.)

    In fact there's still been hype since! Yet all these years later and he's never moved off the back benches when some really unspectacular folk have been given a go. Is this a clique thing? Not sucking up to the right people? (Wonder if he ticked off Mr Osborne at some point!) A fear of promoting Old Etonians? Other people know he's not so good as we all think? Is he scuppered by his relationship with Amber Rudd? I don't get it. I don't get Tory talent management full stop really - how come Liz Truss has risen so far, while their back benches seem stuffed with people with serious brains or successful past careers.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345

    Mortimer said:

    Starmer floundering on Brexit even with Snow the interviewer....

    Why is he rated so highly?

    You don't get to become DPP if you're not very good.
    What about the Paul Chambers case then? Not very good that time methinks.
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/29/paul-chambers-twitter-joke-airport
    A CPS spokesperson denied Starmer was a decision-maker in the case and insisted he did not overrule his subordinates. The spokesperson said that conceding the appeal had been a consideration at one stage but this was not possible because only the high court could overturn a crown court finding.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    The Tories still making the same mistake putting up boring old farts who are in a different universe to most of us rather than someone with vision who can connect outside the Tory shires. The more they do it the more they appear to be "for the few not the many" can you imagine hoe she appeared to large parts of the electorate in twin set and pearls! We're in a different world and those younger than me want some hope for the future not the same old shit year after year
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726
    PaulM said:

    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    I am not sure I understand the GFA "British and Irish governments must be neutral with respect to NI parties" thing in full.

    The way people are talking about it now sounds as if it bans people in NI from having a part electing the government, or parties active in NI from taking part in the government of either country.

    But this can't be right, or can't be the interpretation that everyone sticks to at any rate. The Tories have post-GFA stood joint candidates in NI elections. And Sinn Fein are active in the North and still seek to govern in the South.

    And it surely can't mean in the purest sense that the governments can't be influenced by NI parties. Both Ireland and the UK have political systems in which members of their respective parliaments, who come from parties active in NI (albeit not directly elected from the North, in the case of the the Dail) have the ability to support or oppose government legislation, and if the parliamentary arithmetic is tight, potentially bring down the government. This clearly means NI parties can hold some sway over the governments.

    Can anyone give a brief explanation of how the whole "neutrality" idea is meant to work?

    It is a tool for Sinn Fein to bash the British government with. Naturally, it won't apply if they ever seek to form a government in the Republic with Fianna Fáil.
    And Fianna Fail might field candidates in the North.
    They seem to have been promising that for aaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggggeeeeeeeeeeees,

    I seem to recall they have actually organised themselves up there - do they stand candidates in even local elections, yet?
    No - I think the question was whether they should compete with or merge with the SDLP. Which now the SDLP has lost all its Westminster representation might become easier ?
    I think Fine Gael is a better fit for SDLP.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,367
    Mr Sam,

    " A non white Conservative leader would stop a lot of ammo being thrown from the left."

    Oh, no, he wouldn't, he'd get more.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited June 2017
    Here's an idea;

    Conservative donors pay back the taxman for the cost of this election.

    It would be the decent thing to do.

    Hammond is going to have to make yet more cuts to balance the books. That's not fair.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,468
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    So the Tory party has consigned itself to electoral oblivion. Clinging onto power like a desperate Plantagenet as Europe eyes the prize and moves in for the kill. They are utterly clueless and Strategically inept.

    What are they supposed to do? Promise to abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech?
    It should be patently obvious that the electorate have thrown a hospital pass. A party with a modicum of strategic nouse would see that you don't want to be the one holding the ball.
    They should have let Corbyn form a government and vote him out on a whim once he has sacrificed all the gain he made in the 7 week campaign.
    That is of course also entirely in their self interest, but has the added advantage of being the sensible approach to avoiding catastrophe next time.
    Nonsense.

    What's nonsense about it? they'll be crying into their champers in October when they go sub 200 seats again after screwing Brexit, the Northern Irish and themselves.
    Why would they want an election in October? And would they even be allowed one?
    Can you not see Corbyn et al are busy trolling Mrs May?

    The numbers just don't work for a rainbow coalition. It really is one of the following: Tory/DUP majority, Tory minority or another election!

    If I am wrong, Corbyn is even more stupid than I suspected 7 weeks ago!
    If the QS is defeated, then Corbyn gets the chance to form a minority government. I could see that government being frequently defeated, but it gives him the chance to establish Prime Ministerial credentials.
    That would be insanity on steroids, even for an idiot like Corbyn. One wouldn't look particularly Prime Ministerial if their government got voted down every 5 minutes.

    Anyhow, how can the Conservative Party possibly be defeated on the QS if the DUP are on board?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,924
    A further thought about student tuition fees.

    Am I right in thinking that graduates are unable to pay them off with lump sums ?

    Meaning that graduates are permanently locked into a debt which compounds at RPI+3% per year.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,288

    Omnium said:

    FPT

    isam said:

    Patrick said:

    Blimey. Over £8m bet on the next PM market on Betfair.

    £3 of that is mine, backing the awesome Priti
    Interesting choice. The replacement for May needs to be :
    1. Young enough
    2. Engaging and articulate
    3. Sensible
    4. Likeable
    5. A Tory not a TINO or Miliband channeler
    6. Reasonable looking in this TV age
    7. Different, interesting, new.
    I think they could do alot worse than Priti Patel.
    Sounds sensible. Kwasi Kwarteng should be a runner too. A non white Conservative leader would stop a lot of ammo being thrown from the left.

    I didn't want Theresa May to be the leader, but could accept she might be a safe and steady pair of hands. But in this day and age, she is not media friendly enough to win an election
    It'd be nice to see some new faces in ministerial posts. I really would like to see Rees-Mogg (I know it sounds mad), but also younger MPs like Alex Chalk from Cheltenham - I don't know much about him, but he seems quite capable.

    I don't really feel that any of the obvious candidates is the right successor to May.
    Does anyone know why Kwasi's career has stalled? There was a lot of hype when he was elected - not just because of the colour of his skin, but because he was obviously very, very capable in his previous endeavours, both finance and history. (I seem to recall RCS has come across him professionally and been impressed.)

    In fact there's still been hype since! Yet all these years later and he's never moved off the back benches when some really unspectacular folk have been given a go. Is this a clique thing? Not sucking up to the right people? (Wonder if he ticked off Mr Osborne at some point!) A fear of promoting Old Etonians? Other people know he's not so good as we all think? Is he scuppered by his relationship with Amber Rudd? I don't get it. I don't get Tory talent management full stop really - how come Liz Truss has risen so far, while their back benches seem stuffed with people with serious brains or successful past careers.
    In public life (and service) generally, there is an aversion to people in personal relationships working closely together, for all the problems it can cause, not least if the relationship goes wrong. This may be the issue, I don't know?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726
    nichomar said:

    The Tories still making the same mistake putting up boring old farts who are in a different universe to most of us rather than someone with vision who can connect outside the Tory shires. The more they do it the more they appear to be "for the few not the many" can you imagine hoe she appeared to large parts of the electorate in twin set and pearls! We're in a different world and those younger than me want some hope for the future not the same old shit year after year

    For all their mistakes, the Tories still got 13.6 m votes.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,672
    Electorally speaking:
    - assume the 600 seats deal is dead, if nothing else because it's terrible for the DUP
    - the DUP is out of unionists in Belfast N and almost out in Belfast S. S is very vulnerable next time and N is vulnerable if SF/SDLP agree a pact to split the two seats. I would bravely say surely -1 DUP, maybe -2 DUP
    - the longer the deal goes on, the more tail risks emerge, like losing N Antrim
    - on the other side, Foyle would probably eject the abstentionists to elect an MP who would actually oppose the government
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,288
    Fenman said:

    One assumes that boundary changes and the 600 member Parliament is now off the agenda.

    Very probably. See the extended discussion earlier this morning.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited June 2017

    A further thought about student tuition fees.

    Am I right in thinking that graduates are unable to pay them off with lump sums ?

    Meaning that graduates are permanently locked into a debt which compounds at RPI+3% per year.

    AIUI, there is a penalty-free lump sum repayment option.

    Plan 2 tuition fees / student loans are horrific, but they're not quite outright slavery.

    ;)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345

    A further thought about student tuition fees.

    Am I right in thinking that graduates are unable to pay them off with lump sums ?

    Meaning that graduates are permanently locked into a debt which compounds at RPI+3% per year.

    Wrong, you can make any ad hoc/lump sum payments at any time.

    The monthly payment doesn't change though.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,383
    Sean_F said:

    nichomar said:

    The Tories still making the same mistake putting up boring old farts who are in a different universe to most of us rather than someone with vision who can connect outside the Tory shires. The more they do it the more they appear to be "for the few not the many" can you imagine hoe she appeared to large parts of the electorate in twin set and pearls! We're in a different world and those younger than me want some hope for the future not the same old shit year after year

    For all their mistakes, the Tories still got 13.6 m votes.
    We've still got a lot of false consciousness out there.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726
    EPG said:

    Electorally speaking:
    - assume the 600 seats deal is dead, if nothing else because it's terrible for the DUP
    - the DUP is out of unionists in Belfast N and almost out in Belfast S. S is very vulnerable next time and N is vulnerable if SF/SDLP agree a pact to split the two seats. I would bravely say surely -1 DUP, maybe -2 DUP
    - the longer the deal goes on, the more tail risks emerge, like losing N Antrim
    - on the other side, Foyle would probably eject the abstentionists to elect an MP who would actually oppose the government

    I can't North Antrim being at risk.

    I wish that more Unionists had been willing to vote SDLP in both South Down and Foyle.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,439
    I'm thinking Osborne's prediction that she'll go on Wednesday might be bang on... ;)
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,941
    EPG said:

    Electorally speaking:
    - assume the 600 seats deal is dead, if nothing else because it's terrible for the DUP
    - the DUP is out of unionists in Belfast N and almost out in Belfast S. S is very vulnerable next time and N is vulnerable if SF/SDLP agree a pact to split the two seats. I would bravely say surely -1 DUP, maybe -2 DUP
    - the longer the deal goes on, the more tail risks emerge, like losing N Antrim
    - on the other side, Foyle would probably eject the abstentionists to elect an MP who would actually oppose the government

    Will the DUP suffer from supporting the Tories as the LibDems did?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    RochdalePioneers has been more on the money re this GE than most on this site. While many of us thought Conservative majority was certain and at the very least likely, he/she knew about the discontent that many in this country had regarding the status quo and how that could impact the GE result.

    +1.

    For anyone who's forgotten,

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1603674#Comment_1603674

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1595805#Comment_1595805

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1603820#Comment_1603820

    were probably the most astute posts during the campaign.

    And that David Herdson post, obviously. But while that was a ground report, RochdalePioneers pretty much nailed the analysis.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,439
    Sean_F said:

    nichomar said:

    The Tories still making the same mistake putting up boring old farts who are in a different universe to most of us rather than someone with vision who can connect outside the Tory shires. The more they do it the more they appear to be "for the few not the many" can you imagine hoe she appeared to large parts of the electorate in twin set and pearls! We're in a different world and those younger than me want some hope for the future not the same old shit year after year

    For all their mistakes, the Tories still got 13.6 m votes.
    They would probably have beaten John Major's record without WFA and Dementia Tax.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,736
    Is there any word on whether they are trying to get Lady Hermon's support for the confidence / supply deal.

    May seem trivial point but I think it would be well worthwhile.

    With a majority of 13 they can only really afford to lose 3 by-elections which would take it down to a majority of 7. A 4th loss would take it to 5 and I think that's the tipping point where it becomes unsustainable as literally every vote becomes hold your breath.

    So if they want this to last say two years (and possibly longer) then every vote is going to matter. If there is any chance they can get Lady Hermon onside they should make every effort to do so.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    GIN1138 said:

    I'm thinking Osborne's prediction that she'll go on Wednesday might be bang on... ;)
    I think Osborne's behaviour will have reduced his friends in the parliamentary party to single figures. To think he was in the ascendant less than a year ago...

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726

    EPG said:

    Electorally speaking:
    - assume the 600 seats deal is dead, if nothing else because it's terrible for the DUP
    - the DUP is out of unionists in Belfast N and almost out in Belfast S. S is very vulnerable next time and N is vulnerable if SF/SDLP agree a pact to split the two seats. I would bravely say surely -1 DUP, maybe -2 DUP
    - the longer the deal goes on, the more tail risks emerge, like losing N Antrim
    - on the other side, Foyle would probably eject the abstentionists to elect an MP who would actually oppose the government

    Will the DUP suffer from supporting the Tories as the LibDems did?
    Not if they can show benefits for Northern Irish voters.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,726
    MikeL said:

    Is there any word on whether they are trying to get Lady Hermon's support for the confidence / supply deal.

    May seem trivial point but I think it would be well worthwhile.

    With a majority of 13 they can only really afford to lose 3 by-elections which would take it down to a majority of 7. A 4th loss would take it to 5 and I think that's the tipping point where it becomes unsustainable as literally every vote becomes hold your breath.

    So if they want this to last say two years (and possibly longer) then every vote is going to matter. If there is any chance they can get Lady Hermon onside they should make every effort to do so.

    I think they can get Lady Hermon to abstain. In other circumstances, she'd vote with Labour.
  • Bobajob_PBBobajob_PB Posts: 928
    The ideal scenario for Labour is that the Tories put together some sort of grubby deal with the No Surrender bigots and that government limps on for a few months until the inevitable byelection defeats and rebellions from the Tory europhiles and, possibly, the DUP themselves cripple it. There will have to be another general election at some point, how the government crawls on until 2019 I do not know.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Sean_F said:

    nichomar said:

    The Tories still making the same mistake putting up boring old farts who are in a different universe to most of us rather than someone with vision who can connect outside the Tory shires. The more they do it the more they appear to be "for the few not the many" can you imagine hoe she appeared to large parts of the electorate in twin set and pearls! We're in a different world and those younger than me want some hope for the future not the same old shit year after year

    For all their mistakes, the Tories still got 13.6 m votes.
    Against Corbyn, farron and sturgeon I don't think that is a good measure, what is the direction of travel? I don't know but I know that my 30 year old kids will desert dads lib dem views because
    1. One daughter has just had her NHS job privatized under her
    2. The youngest has seen her tab credits disappear and sees little future whilst local newspapers disappear, not a political point but can't see any decent jobss in the future.
    3. One who grew up seeing the brutal approach that Tories take in local government so could never vote for them voting labour for her and her sons future.

    I can't hold the tide back even with people who listen to me, I'll never vote Tory or labour because they both as corrupt as each other but can I suggest you start listening to the younger generation
This discussion has been closed.