Yup. I wish he'd give his old neighbour a lesson in public dignity.
Oik is done with politics. He clearly doesn't care. However, those seeking to engage him elsewhere, might think twice having seen his recent childish behaviour.
The interesting part of the agreement is that the DUP will support the government over Brexit. Together with the 13 Scons maybe we are beginning to see a move towards a softer negotiated Brexit
I think that this absolutely had to be in the Agreement. There is simply no point having a deal at all if the one huge, unavoidable issue over the term of this Parliament was brushed under the carpet.
The Conservatives can avoid or water down various bits of legislation arising from their manifesto in order to avoid trouble. They also have more options than the DUP on a case by case basis. For example, they may get a better hearing from Vince Cable (if elected LD leader) than Arlene Foster on some environmental or civil liberties matter. But they can't play Brexit by ear - those DUP votes have to be tied down.
Even then, it may not be enough. Too soft to satisfy Scots Tories and DUPs, and they lose headbanger Brexiteers. They may also lose their tiny buffer to by-elections or defections. I suspect this will still need a deal beyond that with the DUP.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
Had more people voted Labour, Britain would now have a stronger government.
The reason the election was called was because Theresa May and the rest of the cabinet made a major misjudgement of the way that millions of voters think, including in relation to Brexit. The UKIP vote collapsed and they didn't receive it all as they had expected. They also made little headway with their media which was literally conveying the message that Jeremy Corbyn is bad because like many jihadists he wears a beard, and because he was pals with figures in Sinn Fein 30 years ago. Senior Tories totally messed up, and not just in their manifesto package. Their crap judgement, rubbish leadership and lack of understanding of ordinary people are their own fault.
The interesting part of the agreement is that the DUP will support the government over Brexit. Together with the 13 Scons maybe we are beginning to see a move towards a softer negotiated Brexit
The interesting part of the agreement is that the DUP will support the government over Brexit. Together with the 13 Scons maybe we are beginning to see a move towards a softer negotiated Brexit
Thank God she didn't get her 100+ majority.
There is an argument that the collective good sense of the UK voting public has engineered the soft Brexit they want and not the hard core, bonkers version.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
I think the idea that this election was a rejection of Brexit is one of the biggest myths in circulation.
It was rejection of arrogance, hubris and an outpouring of huge frustration over austerity.
Did Brexit swing a few seats?
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
Yup. I wish he'd give his old neighbour a lesson in public dignity.
Oik is done with politics. He clearly doesn't care. However, those seeking to engage him elsewhere, might think twice having seen his recent childish behaviour.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
Yep - the government is now in a weaker position than it was before May called the totally unnecessary election.
I agree that each voter is responsible for his or her vote.
Maybe the electorate will consider that a lesson well-learnt?
The voters certainly did not ask for the Tories to shack up with a bunch of reactionary homophobic sectarian religious zealots. And I have said time and again, you have a majority in GB WITHOUT these twats. Digging your own grave.
But, it is the hand the voters have dealt.
In the same way, if the result in 2015 had been Conservative 318, UKIP 10, the Conservatives would have struck a supply and confidence deal with the latter, despite the left shrieking about it.
No it is not. You have a majority in GB without this. As a hypothetical, would you have shacked up with the BNP if they had won 10 seats?
If, hypothetically speaking, we lived in a country where the BNP won 10 seats, and members of the BNP were Privy Councillors, and Peers, then plainly the BNP would be pretty mainstream politically, and one would not rule out a deal with them.
There we go then. That is clear. So any deal with any party (including BNP or Sinn Fein) is fair game. So now we know.
It was for Gordon Brown........
If Gordon Brown is now the standard against which the government are measuring themselves, then there is even less hope for them than I thought.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
I think the idea that this election was a rejection of Brexit is one of the biggest myths in circulation.
It was rejection of arrogance, hubris and an outpouring of huge frustration over austerity.
Did Brexit swing a few seats?
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
And yet more young people voted in their first chance since the referendum - and the result was not what was expected.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
I think the idea that this election was a rejection of Brexit is one of the biggest myths in circulation.
It was rejection of arrogance, hubris and an outpouring of huge frustration over austerity.
Did Brexit swing a few seats?
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
I really dont get why people think that we are in an Austerity time.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
I'm not a Tory, or indeed from Sussex, but otherwise we are in complete agreement.
The fact is that never since we became a democracy in 1918 has a government lost its majority in an election and stayed in power. The closest to the present situation is the 1923 election when the Tories lost their majority, but in that case the government lost a vote of confidence in 1924 and the second party (Labour) formed a minority government. This is the first time since 1910 (before polls) that a government has lost its majority but kept power. Corbyn's lead is also caused by the unprecedented media attack on May since the election.Never before has the party leader winning the election been subjected to such a hostile media attack immediately afterwards.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
I think the idea that this election was a rejection of Brexit is one of the biggest myths in circulation.
It was rejection of arrogance, hubris and an outpouring of huge frustration over austerity.
Did Brexit swing a few seats?
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
And yet more young people voted in their first chance since the referendum - and the result was not what was expected.
The turnout was lower than the referendum.
But, I agree young people are very frustrated by student loans, low wage growth, the difficulty of getting onto the housing ladder, support for young families, and keen on social liberalism and international opportunities.
Theresa May asked for a majority. Voters saw fit to deny that request. Entirely up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich to complain that the result is that the only viable government requires the support of 'reactionary homophobic sectarian religious zealots' as you call them, or the democratically-elected representatives from Northern Ireland, as others might call them.
They don't get to pick whether it's a majority or a minority or whatever, that depends on what all the other voters do, which is unknowable.
If you want to be able to blame them for that you need a better system. For example, instead of having all the elections on one day, spread them equally over the parliament, or have two or three at random every week. That way they'll know what the arithmetic is going in, and they'll be able to vote to make the government stronger or weaker.
The economic benefit of a stable Government during the years 2020-2022 (still TBC, of course) might be worth it, as might be the kicking of SindyRef2 into the long grass.
I'm of the view that a Corbyn government is a certainty. I am not sure how it can be avoided.
Unfortunately those with memories of socialism in practice are passing away and we do not have enough students of history to compensate. This means that we have to go through a whole load of pain so the young can learn the reality of socialism. It should then protect us from another does for another 30 years or so but it may take that long to recover!
The only remotely socialist government we have had - other than the wartime coalition - was the Attlee Government of 1945 -51 which on the whole is quite fondly remebered. The Blair Government post 1997 was effectively a Tory Government operating on the basis of watered-down Thatcherite policies and was far to the right of the Tory Governments of 1951 -64 and the Heath Government.
The economic benefit of a stable Government during the years 2020-2022 (still TBC, of course) might be worth it, as might be the kicking of SindyRef2 into the long grass.
The Government has an overall majority of 6. Effectively, it's 14 without Sinn Fein.
That will definitely last for 2 years, and see the bills in this current Queen's Speech through, together with the Budgets.
They will all pass at 2nd reading, there will be a few nail-biters at 3rd reading, and the main risks will be at report/committee stage, where they may be amended, and what the Lords tries to slice and dice into them.
I expect these to be non-clear cut and offer plenty of scope for legal challenge post-Brexit, sadly.
The real risks to stability run in the years 2019-2022, when I expect the DUP to up their price, and the Government may have faced a handful of by-election defeats.
The skilful thing to do would be to strike deals with the LDs post-Brexit (as well) to keep going over the last few years, but I don't think they'll dance.
The Government either get lucky and last the term, or they don't.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
I think the idea that this election was a rejection of Brexit is one of the biggest myths in circulation.
It was rejection of arrogance, hubris and an outpouring of huge frustration over austerity.
Did Brexit swing a few seats?
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
I really dont get why people think that we are in an Austerity time.
Because thier wages have fallen in real terms since 2008. *They* are in austerity even if the government is not.
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
85% of the votes were for pro Brexit parties, so I don't think it made much difference other than in a few marginals deep in Remainer territory.
The biggest Tory outperformance of the expected swing due to leave-remain in a true red/blue marginal was Finchley & Golders Green. Labour's biggest outperformance was Hartlepool, which should have been alot closer than it was (See Rother Valley for a similiar UKIP heavy deep traditional Labour leave target).
The interesting part of the agreement is that the DUP will support the government over Brexit. Together with the 13 Scons maybe we are beginning to see a move towards a softer negotiated Brexit
Thank God she didn't get her 100+ majority.
There is an argument that the collective good sense of the UK voting public has engineered the soft Brexit they want and not the hard core, bonkers version.
We will see how events pan out.
The public got what they want. They didn't want May to have a free hand over Brexit but certainly didn't want Corbyn as PM. I think most of us would have agreed before the election that was the mood in the country IF we ignored the polls.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
I think the idea that this election was a rejection of Brexit is one of the biggest myths in circulation.
It was rejection of arrogance, hubris and an outpouring of huge frustration over austerity.
Did Brexit swing a few seats?
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
I'd imagine middle class 2015 Tory voters who went for Remain in the referendum weren't thrilled about the social care stuff in the manifesto. Unless you were a super enthusiastic Brexiteer the only reason to vote Tory was Corbyn. Which doesn't bode overly well for the future.
Lets see whats in the EU Migrants paper today.....
Maybe not a disaster economically, but it is going to be hard to play the Tories are prudent with public money card for a few elections. "It was only a small bribe..."
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
85% of the votes were for pro Brexit parties, so I don't think it made much difference other than in a few marginals deep in Remainer territory.
The biggest Tory outperformance of the expected swing due to leave-remain in a true red/blue marginal was Finchley & Golders Green. Labour's biggest outperformance was Hartlepool, which should have been alot closer than it was (See Rother Valley for a similiar UKIP heavy deep traditional Labour leave target).
Don't think the residents of Golders Green were quite as forgiving of Jezzas past dalliances as other parts of London?
Extraordinary how so many people on here are saying Corbyn as next PM is inevitable.
I'd like somebody to explain the rational process behind it, because its not going to happen.
1. Historically, in the UK, govts lose elections rather than oppositions winning them.
2. The current govt is not winning voters over and seems to be losing ground
3. We only have one opposition party big enough to form a govt.
4. The leader of the winning party usually gets to be PM
1 and 2 above implies that the current govt would lose an election. If they lose then 3 implies that Labour will win and then 4 implies that JC will be PM
The assumption is that there will be an election, I see no reason why that will occur
Because no govt has a mandate to govern for more than five years. That is our law. There WILL be an election no later than June 2022.
Under the FTPA the next election is due on 5th May 2022!
A lot of the money seems to be frontloaded - over the next 2 years.
2019 election?
"The agreement will remain in place for the length of the parliament......"
And aren't you just so excited about it?
This disgusting bunch will retoxify what's left of the addled Tory 'brand' and you will reap what you sow. @TSE is absolutely right.
Still sore that you 'won'?
I would expect a more nuanced point of view from you.
You are not exactly strong on nuance yourself:
May + DUP = Evil Brown + DUP = 'Nothing to see here'
I have said several times that if Brown (or anyone) tried anything similar they would deserve censure. Yet you seem perfectly willing to justify it. Telling.
Having read the deal, no doubt what do you specifically object to?
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
85% of the votes were for pro Brexit parties, so I don't think it made much difference other than in a few marginals deep in Remainer territory.
The biggest Tory outperformance of the expected swing due to leave-remain in a true red/blue marginal was Finchley & Golders Green. Labour's biggest outperformance was Hartlepool, which should have been alot closer than it was (See Rother Valley for a similiar UKIP heavy deep traditional Labour leave target).
Don't think the residents of Golders Green were quite as forgiving of Jezzas past dalliances as other parts of London?
and Hendon. Britain is one of the few western countries where the Jewish population votes for the right wing party I believe.
A lot of the money seems to be frontloaded - over the next 2 years.
2019 election?
"The agreement will remain in place for the length of the parliament......"
And aren't you just so excited about it?
This disgusting bunch will retoxify what's left of the addled Tory 'brand' and you will reap what you sow. @TSE is absolutely right.
Still sore that you 'won'?
I would expect a more nuanced point of view from you.
You are not exactly strong on nuance yourself:
May + DUP = Evil Brown + DUP = 'Nothing to see here'
I have said several times that if Brown (or anyone) tried anything similar they would deserve censure. Yet you seem perfectly willing to justify it. Telling.
Having read the deal, no doubt what do you specifically object to?
I'm of the view that a Corbyn government is a certainty. I am not sure how it can be avoided.
Unfortunately those with memories of socialism in practice are passing away and we do not have enough students of history to compensate. This means that we have to go through a whole load of pain so the young can learn the reality of socialism. It should then protect us from another does for another 30 years or so but it may take that long to recover!
The only remotely socialist government we have had - other than the wartime coalition - was the Attlee Government of 1945 -51 which on the whole is quite fondly remebered. The Blair Government post 1997 was effectively a Tory Government operating on the basis of watered-down Thatcherite policies and was far to the right of the Tory Governments of 1951 -64 and the Heath Government.
You are forgetting the Wilson government of 1964-70.
Corbyn had to considerably moderate his manifesto in 2017. It was offering only watered down socialism. A Corbyn government based on that manifesto would be well to the right of the Attlee government.It would be hamstrung by its promise not to raise taxes for 85% of people. And in any case another hung parliament with Labour as the largest party would mean that Corbyn would have to compromise to get some kind of programme through. The Liberals would probably not vote for nationalisation or for abolition of tuition fees. I dont think a Corbyn government is inevitable -they were saying that a May landslide was inevitable just a few weeks ago. But in any case he would need to win double the number of seats Labour won in 2017 to get a majority of one. Given the nature of Corbyn, I doubt he will achieve that.
There is no grown-up human being called "the electorate".
True, but there were 12,877,869 grown-up human beings who voted for a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell. Fortunately we are all shielded, for the moment at least, from the full consequences of those 12,877,869 decisions; so far we've got off lightly with a little bit of pork-barrelling on the side, but the most dangerous potential consequence in the short-term is that the government will be too weak to negotiate a decent Brexit deal. We'll have to see how it turns out.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
I think the idea that this election was a rejection of Brexit is one of the biggest myths in circulation.
It was rejection of arrogance, hubris and an outpouring of huge frustration over austerity.
Did Brexit swing a few seats?
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
I really dont get why people think that we are in an Austerity time.
I take it you haven't been subject to a 1% pay cap for the last few years ?
Lets see whats in the EU Migrants paper today.....
Maybe not a disaster economically, but it is going to be hard to play the Tories are prudent with public money card for a few elections. "It was only a small bribe..."
The "we're all in this together" justification for austerity has gone up in smoke.
Of course - it was always bollocks - but just about credible enough for the cons to get into power, then clear a majority.
A lot of the money seems to be frontloaded - over the next 2 years.
2019 election?
"The agreement will remain in place for the length of the parliament......"
And aren't you just so excited about it?
This disgusting bunch will retoxify what's left of the addled Tory 'brand' and you will reap what you sow. @TSE is absolutely right.
Still sore that you 'won'?
I would expect a more nuanced point of view from you.
You are not exactly strong on nuance yourself:
May + DUP = Evil Brown + DUP = 'Nothing to see here'
I have said several times that if Brown (or anyone) tried anything similar they would deserve censure. Yet you seem perfectly willing to justify it. Telling.
Having read the deal, no doubt what do you specifically object to?
It keeps the Tories in government, duh.
Well, I did wonder why democratically elected MPs from one part of the UK should be excluded from supporting the government.....I didn't realise 'moral outrage' was an adequate condition....
A lot of the money seems to be frontloaded - over the next 2 years.
2019 election?
"The agreement will remain in place for the length of the parliament......"
And aren't you just so excited about it?
This disgusting bunch will retoxify what's left of the addled Tory 'brand' and you will reap what you sow. @TSE is absolutely right.
Still sore that you 'won'?
I would expect a more nuanced point of view from you.
You are not exactly strong on nuance yourself:
May + DUP = Evil Brown + DUP = 'Nothing to see here'
I have said several times that if Brown (or anyone) tried anything similar they would deserve censure. Yet you seem perfectly willing to justify it. Telling.
Having read the deal, no doubt what do you specifically object to?
It keeps the Tories in government, duh.
Well, I did wonder why democratically elected MPs from one part of the UK should be excluded from supporting the government.....I didn't realise 'moral outrage' was an adequate condition....
Perhaps they should have stood for election as Conservatives but of course then they would not have been elected .
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
In general, I agree that one should never blame the voters. I make an exception just this once, however - partly because of the potentially catastrophic impact of a weak government on the Brexit talks, but mainly because Labour under Corbyn is the most unviable oppositon to put itself forward in a GE in this country since at least WWII. This isn't even a particularly party-political point: most serious Labour figures agree, many of them in public.
The Government has an overall majority of 6. Effectively, it's 14 without Sinn Fein.
That will definitely last for 2 years, and see the bills in this current Queen's Speech through, together with the Budgets.
They will all pass at 2nd reading, there will be a few nail-biters at 3rd reading, and the main risks will be at report/committee stage, where they may be amended, and what the Lords tries to slice and dice into them.
I expect these to be non-clear cut and offer plenty of scope for legal challenge post-Brexit, sadly.
The real risks to stability run in the years 2019-2022, when I expect the DUP to up their price, and the Government may have faced a handful of by-election defeats.
The skilful thing to do would be to strike deals with the LDs post-Brexit (as well) to keep going over the last few years, but I don't think they'll dance.
The Government either get lucky and last the term, or they don't.
I hear today that the government's approach will be to keep all legislation other than as set out in the QS to an absolute minimum, and that any that is required (including secondary legislation and statutory regulations) must be cleared with the Labour front bench before it is put to parliament.
Clearly the Tories don't want to risk any parliamentary defeats, however minor.
It will also give the Labour front bench an effective veto over many of the more day to day decisions normally made by government.
Mr. Corleone, had more people voted Conservative, the UK would have a stronger government.
Had more people voted for Corbyn's Labour, the UK would have a more dangerous government.
Edited extra bit: sorry to cut and ran, but I must be off.
If stronger government would have meant taking lunches away from school kiddies, reintroducing fox hunting, ignoring the concerns of business and many people about Brexit, and sundry other politically motivated decisions, I will take the weaker version, thanks....
The Government has an overall majority of 6. Effectively, it's 14 without Sinn Fein.
That will definitely last for 2 years, and see the bills in this current Queen's Speech through, together with the Budgets.
They will all pass at 2nd reading, there will be a few nail-biters at 3rd reading, and the main risks will be at report/committee stage, where they may be amended, and what the Lords tries to slice and dice into them.
I expect these to be non-clear cut and offer plenty of scope for legal challenge post-Brexit, sadly.
The real risks to stability run in the years 2019-2022, when I expect the DUP to up their price, and the Government may have faced a handful of by-election defeats.
The skilful thing to do would be to strike deals with the LDs post-Brexit (as well) to keep going over the last few years, but I don't think they'll dance.
The Government either get lucky and last the term, or they don't.
I hear today that the government's approach will be to keep all legislation other than as set out in the QS to an absolute minimum, and that any that is required (including secondary legislation and statutory regulations) must be cleared with the Labour front bench before it is put to parliament.
Clearly the Tories don't want to risk any parliamentary defeats, however minor.
It will also give the Labour front bench an effective veto over many of the more day to day decisions normally made by government.
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
In general, I agree that one should never blame the voters. I make an exception just this once, however - partly because of the potentially catastrophic impact of a weak government on the Brexit talks, but mainly because Labour under Corbyn is the most unviable oppositon to put itself forward in a GE in this country since at least WWII. This isn't even a particularly party-political point: most serious Labour figures agree, many of them in public.
No. In that case you should blame the Leave voters that got us into this mess. No Brexit, no early election and no hung parliament. Many experts also agreed on the unviability of Brexit yet the country went ahead and voted for it. But I don't think the are any circumstances where you can really blame the voters, including this election.
It's not the duty of the country to vote tory. The party and May were found wanting and the public correctly acted accordingly.
Saw the new carrier when coming over the Forth Road Bridge this morning. It is a serious looking piece of metal.
It's a bit of a toy compared to a Nimitz or a Ford (or even an America) but they'll do. Of course, the RN does not have the ships or people to constitute anything approaching a full CVGB so quite what we're going to do with them I don't know.
I make an exception just this once, however - partly because of the potentially catastrophic impact of a weak government on the Brexit talks, but mainly because Labour under Corbyn is the most unviable oppositon to put itself forward in a GE in this country since at least WWII. This isn't even a particularly party-political point: most serious Labour figures agree, many of them in public.
Well yes, but why have such a far reaching manifesto. 2022 was the correct election for the controversial stuff where the effect of weakening the government should be far less as there are no Brexit talks scheduled for then. The manifesto overreached badly, it should have been pretty much no change + Brexit (As the QS turned out). Why bother to put stuff like fox hunting in there ?!
In general, I agree that one should never blame the voters. I make an exception just this once, however - partly because of the potentially catastrophic impact of a weak government on the Brexit talks, but mainly because Labour under Corbyn is the most unviable oppositon to put itself forward in a GE in this country since at least WWII. This isn't even a particularly party-political point: most serious Labour figures agree, many of them in public.
No they don't. Many serious Labour people feared that the opposition was unelectable. Now, by and large, they don't. I don't think that many people on any side still think so.
Desirability is something on which we might disagree, of course. But unless you plan to appoint a new electorate...?
Sturgeon should maybe have thought of getting a deal done herself.
You snooze, you lose love.
The Puppy Surgeon was fully aware, but May would have realised that any agreement would have meant iRef2, which would have lead to EUref2. Even May is not that stupid.
(Puppy Surgeon is the new nick name for Sturgeon since she agreed with the Tories/SCons to allow docking of puppy's tails to restart)
I think we are politically and geographically similar - moderate pro-Remain Tory voters in Sussex.
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
In general, I agree that one should never blame the voters. I make an exception just this once, however - partly because of the potentially catastrophic impact of a weak government on the Brexit talks, but mainly because Labour under Corbyn is the most unviable oppositon to put itself forward in a GE in this country since at least WWII. This isn't even a particularly party-political point: most serious Labour figures agree, many of them in public.
Hmm. I don't think Lab is particularly unviable; no more so perhaps than the Cons and the bastards. As we have seen, plenty of anti-Jezzaites have fallen in behind the great man since June 8th (sheathing their knives for the moment). The manifesto was very clear, the party would presumably have governed according to it, and it seems a larger number of voters than expected, liked what they saw.
Not sure where the problem is.
Oh, naivety because such spending would send us all to hell in a handcart. But it probably wouldn't for a sovereign, currency-issuing nation operating at the zero lower bound.
Saw the new carrier when coming over the Forth Road Bridge this morning. It is a serious looking piece of metal.
It's a bit of a toy compared to a Nimitz or a Ford (or even an America) but they'll do. Of course, the RN does not have the ships or people to constitute anything approaching a full CVGB so quite what we're going to do with them I don't know.
I make an exception just this once, however - partly because of the potentially catastrophic impact of a weak government on the Brexit talks, but mainly because Labour under Corbyn is the most unviable oppositon to put itself forward in a GE in this country since at least WWII. This isn't even a particularly party-political point: most serious Labour figures agree, many of them in public.
Well yes, but why have such a far reaching manifesto. 2022 was the correct election for the controversial stuff where the effect of weakening the government should be far less as there are no Brexit talks scheduled for then. The manifesto overreached badly, it should have been pretty much no change + Brexit (As the QS turned out). Why bother to put stuff like fox hunting in there ?!
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not absolving Mrs May of political responsibility for the disaster.
Today's maths: Cost of keeping May in power = £1.5bn Cost of retro-fitting sprinklers to 6,000 high rises = £1.2bn
Where is the 1.5 Bn from, I totted the deal up to 1 Bn.
The extra £500m is already committed funds being released earlier so it is a bit dodgy to use £1.5bn rather than £1bn.
However, arguably the cost is much higher on the basis that the Tories had committed to means testing fuel allowance and ending triple lock. Those are the really expensive concessions that have had to be made.
The retro-fitting sprinklers comparison by Beattie is facile, though. The money the DUP has extracted for Northern Ireland isn't going into Arlene's personal bank account. It is going into various infrastructure projects, and support for poorer communities.
Will that be money well spent in that the benefits from these various projects exceed the cost? I don't know. Would £1.2bn on sprinklers be money well spent or are there actually better (and possibly cheaper) ways to secure public safety? I don't know that either. It might be worth doing both; it might be worth doing neither; it might be worth doing one or the other. A tweet giving both numbers and noting they are somewhat similar in scale doesn't actually provide any helpful information.
I'm of the view that a Corbyn government is a certainty. I am not sure how it can be avoided.
Unfortunately those with memories of socialism in practice are passing away and we do not have enough students of history to compensate. This means that we have to go through a whole load of pain so the young can learn the reality of socialism. It should then protect us from another does for another 30 years or so but it may take that long to recover!
The only remotely socialist government we have had - other than the wartime coalition - was the Attlee Government of 1945 -51 which on the whole is quite fondly remebered. The Blair Government post 1997 was effectively a Tory Government operating on the basis of watered-down Thatcherite policies and was far to the right of the Tory Governments of 1951 -64 and the Heath Government.
You are forgetting the Wilson government of 1964-70.
Corbyn had to considerably moderate his manifesto in 2017. It was offering only watered down socialism. A Corbyn government based on that manifesto would be well to the right of the Attlee government.It would be hamstrung by its promise not to raise taxes for 85% of people. And in any case another hung parliament with Labour as the largest party would mean that Corbyn would have to compromise to get some kind of programme through. The Liberals would probably not vote for nationalisation or for abolition of tuition fees. I dont think a Corbyn government is inevitable -they were saying that a May landslide was inevitable just a few weeks ago. But in any case he would need to win double the number of seats Labour won in 2017 to get a majority of one. Given the nature of Corbyn, I doubt he will achieve that.
I fully expect Labour to win 20 - 25 seats in Scotland alone next time > Admittedly most of them will be at the expense of the SNP - though a few of the recent Tory seats gained could fall to Labour if tactical voting unwinds as a result of Labour being seen to be clearly back in the game there. That alone would put Labour on 285 - 290 seats without any changes at all in England & Wales.Labour would effectively need a further 40 seats beyond their likely recovery in Scotland - that is very feasible!
He's definitely burnt his tory party bridges to the ground. At this point he may as well go all in on trolling may as he has no future in party politics but could well turn out to be a good editor for the standard (he's at least making them more relevant than they were previously).
I wonder if the tune will change once May leaves, and it will become a more overt tory paper.
Comments
The Conservatives can avoid or water down various bits of legislation arising from their manifesto in order to avoid trouble. They also have more options than the DUP on a case by case basis. For example, they may get a better hearing from Vince Cable (if elected LD leader) than Arlene Foster on some environmental or civil liberties matter. But they can't play Brexit by ear - those DUP votes have to be tied down.
Even then, it may not be enough. Too soft to satisfy Scots Tories and DUPs, and they lose headbanger Brexiteers. They may also lose their tiny buffer to by-elections or defections. I suspect this will still need a deal beyond that with the DUP.
We need the votes on the QS and then a long break from politics!
Nevertheless I've been dismayed to read in pretty much all your posts since the election, essentially an argument that the Tories lost their majority because 40% of the electorate were stupid. And I fear your view is quite prevalent at the moment in the Tory party. As a man who knows his history you surely know what usually happens when politicians blame the public being stupid for their defeat. The Tories have only themselves, and their leader, and their arrogance and hubris, and their telling 48% of the electorate (many of whom voted for them) to bugger off, to blame for the situation they find themselves in.
The reason the election was called was because Theresa May and the rest of the cabinet made a major misjudgement of the way that millions of voters think, including in relation to Brexit. The UKIP vote collapsed and they didn't receive it all as they had expected. They also made little headway with their media which was literally conveying the message that Jeremy Corbyn is bad because like many jihadists he wears a beard, and because he was pals with figures in Sinn Fein 30 years ago. Senior Tories totally messed up, and not just in their manifesto package. Their crap judgement, rubbish leadership and lack of understanding of ordinary people are their own fault.
Had more people voted for Corbyn's Labour, the UK would have a more dangerous government.
Edited extra bit: sorry to cut and ran, but I must be off.
We will see how events pan out.
It was rejection of arrogance, hubris and an outpouring of huge frustration over austerity.
Did Brexit swing a few seats?
Yes, probably, but only a cluster in the south-east, south-west and suburban London.
That's why the former was a net vote winner, and the latter was not.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/19/george-osborne-history-will-not-be-kind-to-a-man-whose-flaws-led-to-brexit
The Mirror had him sussed.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne---the-tories-little-199507
Corbyn's lead is also caused by the unprecedented media attack on May since the election.Never before has the party leader winning the election been subjected to such a hostile media attack immediately afterwards.
But, I agree young people are very frustrated by student loans, low wage growth, the difficulty of getting onto the housing ladder, support for young families, and keen on social liberalism and international opportunities.
If you want to be able to blame them for that you need a better system. For example, instead of having all the elections on one day, spread them equally over the parliament, or have two or three at random every week. That way they'll know what the arithmetic is going in, and they'll be able to vote to make the government stronger or weaker.
The economic benefit of a stable Government during the years 2020-2022 (still TBC, of course) might be worth it, as might be the kicking of SindyRef2 into the long grass.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/massive-fatberg-clogs-up-belfast-drainage-system-35864509.html
That will definitely last for 2 years, and see the bills in this current Queen's Speech through, together with the Budgets.
They will all pass at 2nd reading, there will be a few nail-biters at 3rd reading, and the main risks will be at report/committee stage, where they may be amended, and what the Lords tries to slice and dice into them.
I expect these to be non-clear cut and offer plenty of scope for legal challenge post-Brexit, sadly.
The real risks to stability run in the years 2019-2022, when I expect the DUP to up their price, and the Government may have faced a handful of by-election defeats.
The skilful thing to do would be to strike deals with the LDs post-Brexit (as well) to keep going over the last few years, but I don't think they'll dance.
The Government either get lucky and last the term, or they don't.
Labour's biggest outperformance was Hartlepool, which should have been alot closer than it was (See Rother Valley for a similiar UKIP heavy deep traditional Labour leave target).
Unless you were a super enthusiastic Brexiteer the only reason to vote Tory was Corbyn.
Which doesn't bode overly well for the future.
Nicola has the biggest smile of anyone right now.
Its a while since we've heard that.....
Corbyn had to considerably moderate his manifesto in 2017. It was offering only watered down socialism. A Corbyn government based on that manifesto would be well to the right of the Attlee government.It would be hamstrung by its promise not to raise taxes for 85% of people.
And in any case another hung parliament with Labour as the largest party would mean that Corbyn would have to compromise to get some kind of programme through. The Liberals would probably not vote for nationalisation or for abolition of tuition fees. I dont think a Corbyn government is inevitable -they were saying that a May landslide was inevitable just a few weeks ago. But in any case he would need to win double the number of seats Labour won in 2017 to get a majority of one. Given the nature of Corbyn, I doubt he will achieve that.
Today's maths:
Cost of keeping May in power = £1.5bn
Cost of retro-fitting sprinklers to 6,000 high rises = £1.2bn
@kayaburgess: I feel the phrase "given the circs" in David Cameron's tweet should probably have an extensive footnote of some kind
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/879283624176177152
Of course - it was always bollocks - but just about credible enough for the cons to get into power, then clear a majority.
Now everyone's angry and wants their pork.
No update in 11 days.....
You snooze, you lose love.
https://twitter.com/LiamHalligan/status/879317320903966720
Ed Balls says Labour would have to hike taxes on working people to pay for lavish spending plans
Unlike most of the current Labour party, Ed Balls can do Maths.
That worked well.
Clearly the Tories don't want to risk any parliamentary defeats, however minor.
It will also give the Labour front bench an effective veto over many of the more day to day decisions normally made by government.
It's not the duty of the country to vote tory. The party and May were found wanting and the public correctly acted accordingly.
2022 was the correct election for the controversial stuff where the effect of weakening the government should be far less as there are no Brexit talks scheduled for then.
The manifesto overreached badly, it should have been pretty much no change + Brexit (As the QS turned out).
Why bother to put stuff like fox hunting in there ?!
Desirability is something on which we might disagree, of course. But unless you plan to appoint a new electorate...?
(Puppy Surgeon is the new nick name for Sturgeon since she agreed with the Tories/SCons to allow docking of puppy's tails to restart)
Not sure where the problem is.
Oh, naivety because such spending would send us all to hell in a handcart. But it probably wouldn't for a sovereign, currency-issuing nation operating at the zero lower bound.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40402153
However, arguably the cost is much higher on the basis that the Tories had committed to means testing fuel allowance and ending triple lock. Those are the really expensive concessions that have had to be made.
The retro-fitting sprinklers comparison by Beattie is facile, though. The money the DUP has extracted for Northern Ireland isn't going into Arlene's personal bank account. It is going into various infrastructure projects, and support for poorer communities.
Will that be money well spent in that the benefits from these various projects exceed the cost? I don't know. Would £1.2bn on sprinklers be money well spent or are there actually better (and possibly cheaper) ways to secure public safety? I don't know that either. It might be worth doing both; it might be worth doing neither; it might be worth doing one or the other. A tweet giving both numbers and noting they are somewhat similar in scale doesn't actually provide any helpful information.
I wonder if the tune will change once May leaves, and it will become a more overt tory paper.