Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour hubris equals Tory hope

SystemSystem Posts: 11,688
edited June 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour hubris equals Tory hope

Socialism is on the march and about to seize power in the UK, so many on the Labour left believe. This, argues Joff Wild, should give the Tories hope

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    Corbyn is not known for competence or pragmatism ofcourse.

    The issue of High rises failing safety tests is a slow burn......
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    At some point Labour will hit another bump in the road (all parties do). Jeremy Corbyn has made no attempt to install shock absorbers. The jolt will be disproportionately large as a result.

    For all that, Labour are well-placed. The Conservatives own Brexit. As Morgan Freeman says halfway through Se7en, this isn't going to have a happy ending. That should be enough to ensure that Labour win the next election by default.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    Third!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    We're getting dangerously close to "Tories will never win another majority" territory.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    And thanks, SO! A good read.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    At some point Labour will hit another bump in the road (all parties do). Jeremy Corbyn has made no attempt to install shock absorbers. The jolt will be disproportionately large as a result.

    Interesting analogy. Not sure I get it. What does it mean in practice? What is a shock absorber here?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Good article by Joff.

    As for how things will play out, I haven't a clue. From here, any outcome from a comfortable Tory majority to a Labour majority looks plausible.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    Reputation is like virginity - one cock up and it's gone forever.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Jonathan said:

    At some point Labour will hit another bump in the road (all parties do). Jeremy Corbyn has made no attempt to install shock absorbers. The jolt will be disproportionately large as a result.

    Interesting analogy. Not sure I get it. What does it mean in practice? What is a shock absorber here?
    Labour MP's who have been in government and know what they are doing. He should reshuffle his front bench.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Jonathan said:

    At some point Labour will hit another bump in the road (all parties do). Jeremy Corbyn has made no attempt to install shock absorbers. The jolt will be disproportionately large as a result.

    Interesting analogy. Not sure I get it. What does it mean in practice? What is a shock absorber here?
    Bringing back a few of the moderates.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,203
    Great to hear the Magic Money Tree has been found, healthy and in full flower, in the Stormont arboretum.

    Together with mini Arlene in Theresa's pocket we have two memes neutralised with one stone.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    They've just bought 10 votes from 'ace negotiators' DUP. For a bargain basement price.
  • Options
    blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    What a load of rubbish - if we'd filled our manifesto with impossible spending commitments a la Labour, the landslide would probably have come good. The voters don't give a damn about competence or pragmatism, just "how much are you going to give me?"
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2017

    Great to hear the Magic Money Tree has been found, healthy and in full flower, in the Stormont arboretum.

    Together with mini Arlene in Theresa's pocket we have two memes neutralised with one stone.

    Why neutralised? Other way round, surely - voters have been reminded of the dangers, and will be well aware that buying off the SNP would be an altogether more expensive and fraught operation..

    Having said that, I don't expect anyone will be too fussed about this particular very uncontroversial agreement with the DUP.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    We're getting dangerously close to "Tories will never win another majority" territory.
    Once in 25 years is a pretty accurate hit rate.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    edited June 2017

    Great to hear the Magic Money Tree has been found, healthy and in full flower, in the Stormont arboretum.

    Together with mini Arlene in Theresa's pocket we have two memes neutralised with one stone.

    Having said that, I don't expect anyone will be too fussed about this particular very uncontroversial agreement with the DUP.
    They will. It will be controversial every cut will be met with "but Nother Ireland"!

    Were you one of the tories who said the Social care policy won't cost them any seats?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    Alistair said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    We're getting dangerously close to "Tories will never win another majority" territory.
    Once in 25 years is a pretty accurate hit rate.
    A big difference from never though :p
  • Options
    Good article. Have to say that the next Tory leadership election will be crucial. But Corbyn seems to be making a mistake in not bringing back some of the bigger and experienced names.

    Having said that, the Cabinet hardly looks stellar right now.
  • Options
    The one good thing about the DUP deal is never having to deal with a hideous campaign like the 'coalition of chaos' rubbish from May.

    Assuming the deal lasts longer than it takes a goatskin to dry.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Alistair said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    We're getting dangerously close to "Tories will never win another majority" territory.
    Once in 25 years is a pretty accurate hit rate.
    Winning when you are not playing well seems to be a Conservaticve attribute.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    I would have preferred for Corbyn to bring one or two big names into the cabinet, EdM and Cooper to start with.

    And perhaps he will in due course. Perhaps he won't. But he didn't have to at the moment of the May emergency reshuffle.



  • Options
    stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    At last a common sense argument.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    nunu said:

    Great to hear the Magic Money Tree has been found, healthy and in full flower, in the Stormont arboretum.

    Together with mini Arlene in Theresa's pocket we have two memes neutralised with one stone.

    Having said that, I don't expect anyone will be too fussed about this particular very uncontroversial agreement with the DUP.
    They will. It will be controversial every cut will be met with "but Nother Ireland"!

    Were you one of the tories who said the Social care policy won't cost them any seats?
    What cuts? Deficit reduction is going to go into sharp reverse in this parliament, unfortunately.

    You are right of course that the vested interests will cite Northern Ireland to support their bids. I'm not sure that matters much, TBH - they can always find some spurious comparison. It will make a pleasant change from 'helping their rich mates' as the default moan.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,319
    edited June 2017
    Casino_Royale said:
    » show previous quotes
    I've barely been able to get any work done or sleep since 10pm. That changed today. Thank goodness.




    Better day today with Theresa May receiving praise from a Polish mother on her EU citizens status, DUP offering to publish all the correspondence with labour in 2010 and 2015 and their correspondence with the SNP in 2015 and Sajid Javid strong statement on Grenfell.

    But the story of the day for me is the 1,000 fire doors needed to replace missing ones in Camden blocks. Where are the originals and how can any Council allow that to happen. Council resignations must be on the way
  • Options
    kurtjesterkurtjester Posts: 121
    edited June 2017
    Jonathan said:

    I would have preferred for Corbyn to bring one or two big names into the cabinet, EdM and Cooper to start with.

    And perhaps he will in due course. Perhaps he won't. But he didn't have to at the moment of the May emergency reshuffle.



    Cabin Boy George would have been a perfect fit too, had he not walked away from Parliament.

    Perhaps Corbyn could ennoble him for services to London marginals?
  • Options
    blueblueblueblue Posts: 875

    The one good thing about the DUP deal is never having to deal with a hideous campaign like the 'coalition of chaos' rubbish from May.

    Assuming the deal lasts longer than it takes a goatskin to dry.

    Hold on a minute - 318 needing a small top-up from one party to gain a majority is completely different from 262 needing 4+ parties and still being in a minority. The latter is obviously far more chaotic than the former.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,079
    FPT
    RoyalBlue said:

    For the first time since 1972, a government is operating with the support of MPs in all the Home Nations. A good day for unionism.

    But is it 'strong and stable' unionism, or does that fact that even the main unionist party is only propping up the UK government thanks to pork-barrel politics show that the union is hanging by a thread?
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,864
    Evening all :)

    Interesting piece, SO, though if I'm being honest I detect more than a whiff of sour grapes. It would have been so much easier if Corbyn had been humiliated and Labour humbled. A Conservative landslide would have empowered the surviving moderates perhaps enough to sweep Corbyn and his kind from power.

    No need to "fight, fight and fight again" as someone (a Labour leader I believe) once said. The voters and the Conservative Party would have done the heavy lifting - the Party would be yours again.

    The same kind of hubris you claim exists now existed even after the 1992 defeat. By the following year, the likes of John Smith and Margaret Beckett were claiming "one last heave" after the Council elections that year would sweep Labour back to office.

    We will never know whether, had John Smith survived until 1997, he would have beaten John Major. We do know that by choosing Tony Blair Labour was able to portray itself as a non-socialist party of the centre-left and persuade millions of former Conservative voters to support it.

    Yet how much of this was Conservative self-destruction ? Was September 1992 it for the Major Government ? It is possible Corbyn needs to do very little and allow the Government to dig its own grave and lie down in it.

    Strangely, the strongest voice I heard in the election campaign just gone was the other successful Labour leader of the post-WW2 period, Harold Wilson. May's policies contained more than a hint of Wilsonian technocracy - the return of the Board of Trade, workers on boards, large scale State interventionism and on the other side you had Corbyn who channelled the avuncular Wilson, man of the people, friend to the working man.

    Was Wilson a socialist - was his 1964-70 Government socialist ? It was socially revolutionary but economically struggled (devaluation anyone ?). Callaghan and Jenkins struggled with the economic balancing of the social and industrial policies. I suspect McDonnell, for all his rhetoric, would be quite a hard Chancellor and frustrate some of the more ambitious spending plans.

    Part of the dance of Government is when rhetoric meets reality and that occurs wherever you are on the political spectrum.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited June 2017
    blueblue said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    What a load of rubbish - if we'd filled our manifesto with impossible spending commitments a la Labour, the landslide would probably have come good. The voters don't give a damn about competence or pragmatism, just "how much are you going to give me?"
    Which rather begs the question why didn't the Tories have the competence to realize your notion and write a winning manifesto ?
  • Options
    blueblueblueblue Posts: 875

    FPT

    RoyalBlue said:

    For the first time since 1972, a government is operating with the support of MPs in all the Home Nations. A good day for unionism.

    But is it 'strong and stable' unionism, or does that fact that even the main unionist party is only propping up the UK government thanks to pork-barrel politics show that the union is hanging by a thread?
    Exactly how incompetent would a minor party have to be not to demand financial concessions for its voters from its larger partner? What would the SNP demand from Labour for their support?
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,730

    At some point Labour will hit another bump in the road (all parties do). Jeremy Corbyn has made no attempt to install shock absorbers. The jolt will be disproportionately large as a result.

    For all that, Labour are well-placed. The Conservatives own Brexit. As Morgan Freeman says halfway through Se7en, this isn't going to have a happy ending. That should be enough to ensure that Labour win the next election by default.

    Whoever has to clear up the Brexit mess will be blamed, rather than those who caused it in the first place, It's in Labour's partisan interest to keep the Tory government going and not take over until blame is firmly pinned.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,079
    blueblue said:

    FPT

    RoyalBlue said:

    For the first time since 1972, a government is operating with the support of MPs in all the Home Nations. A good day for unionism.

    But is it 'strong and stable' unionism, or does that fact that even the main unionist party is only propping up the UK government thanks to pork-barrel politics show that the union is hanging by a thread?
    Exactly how incompetent would a minor party have to be not to demand financial concessions for its voters from its larger partner? What would the SNP demand from Labour for their support?
    Taken to its logical extreme the UK would just become a patchwork of local parties fighting over the big pot of money in the middle. That's not a stable basis on which to build a union.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Resistible force meets movable object.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    blueblue said:

    FPT

    RoyalBlue said:

    For the first time since 1972, a government is operating with the support of MPs in all the Home Nations. A good day for unionism.

    But is it 'strong and stable' unionism, or does that fact that even the main unionist party is only propping up the UK government thanks to pork-barrel politics show that the union is hanging by a thread?
    Exactly how incompetent would a minor party have to be not to demand financial concessions for its voters from its larger partner? What would the SNP demand from Labour for their support?
    Taken to its logical extreme the UK would just become a patchwork of local parties fighting over the big pot of money in the middle. That's not a stable basis on which to build a union.
    Check out the US :p
  • Options
    blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    JackW said:

    blueblue said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tories have broken their reputation for competence and pragmatism. Once gone they're near impossible to recover.

    What a load of rubbish - if we'd filled our manifesto with impossible spending commitments a la Labour, the landslide would probably have come good. The voters don't give a damn about competence or pragmatism, just "how much are you going to give me?"
    Which rather begs the question why didn't the Tories have the competence to realize your notion and write a winning manifesto ?
    Answer: they're shit (above all Nick + Fiona + May for approving the manifesto).

    Sadly, I no longer vote Tory in the hope of them providing high quality government, but of avoiding apocalyptic government under Labour.
  • Options
    blueblueblueblue Posts: 875

    blueblue said:

    FPT

    RoyalBlue said:

    For the first time since 1972, a government is operating with the support of MPs in all the Home Nations. A good day for unionism.

    But is it 'strong and stable' unionism, or does that fact that even the main unionist party is only propping up the UK government thanks to pork-barrel politics show that the union is hanging by a thread?
    Exactly how incompetent would a minor party have to be not to demand financial concessions for its voters from its larger partner? What would the SNP demand from Labour for their support?
    Taken to its logical extreme the UK would just become a patchwork of local parties fighting over the big pot of money in the middle. That's not a stable basis on which to build a union.
    "a patchwork of local parties fighting over the big pot of money in the middle"

    = the US = the EU = the UK = every political union ever. Welcome to realpolitik!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    blueblue said:

    blueblue said:

    FPT

    RoyalBlue said:

    For the first time since 1972, a government is operating with the support of MPs in all the Home Nations. A good day for unionism.

    But is it 'strong and stable' unionism, or does that fact that even the main unionist party is only propping up the UK government thanks to pork-barrel politics show that the union is hanging by a thread?
    Exactly how incompetent would a minor party have to be not to demand financial concessions for its voters from its larger partner? What would the SNP demand from Labour for their support?
    Taken to its logical extreme the UK would just become a patchwork of local parties fighting over the big pot of money in the middle. That's not a stable basis on which to build a union.
    "a patchwork of local parties fighting over the big pot of money in the middle"

    = the US = the EU = the UK = every political union ever. Welcome to realpolitik!
    Oh yes, how could I have forgotten his beloved EU? :D
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Interesting piece, SO, though if I'm being honest I detect more than a whiff of sour grapes. It would have been so much easier if Corbyn had been humiliated and Labour humbled. A Conservative landslide would have empowered the surviving moderates perhaps enough to sweep Corbyn and his kind from power.

    No need to "fight, fight and fight again" as someone (a Labour leader I believe) once said. The voters and the Conservative Party would have done the heavy lifting - the Party would be yours again.

    The same kind of hubris you claim exists now existed even after the 1992 defeat. By the following year, the likes of John Smith and Margaret Beckett were claiming "one last heave" after the Council elections that year would sweep Labour back to office.

    After the 1992 election, Kinnock admitted that he'd lost it and resigned...
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    262 seats vs 318 and a billion quid.

    How much would it have cost Labour to buy the election :D ?
  • Options
    AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    Pulpstar said:

    262 seats vs 318 and a billion quid.

    How much would it have cost Labour to buy the election :D ?

    Indyref2 and Brexitref2?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    blueblue said:

    Answer: they're shit (above all Nick + Fiona + May for approving the manifesto).

    Sadly, I no longer vote Tory in the hope of them providing high quality government, but of avoiding apocalyptic government under Labour.

    You are the twin of @TSE and I claim a bung of £1bn for a gluttonous spending spree ...
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    Pulpstar said:

    262 seats vs 318 and a billion quid.

    How much would it have cost Labour to buy the election :D ?

    Oh, they tried!
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Pulpstar, every Corbo-ruble will be worth five British pounds:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shxiy7l5b_4
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,730
    edited June 2017
    .
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    After the 1992 election, Kinnock admitted that he'd lost it and resigned...

    After the 2017 election May has lost it, in more than one sense, and has resigned herself to the tender embrace of the DUP.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. 43, disagree.

    Wales won't leave. Scotland will either see our departure from the EU go well, and be fine, or go poorly, and rightly conclude leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with whom they do most of their trade, would be economically harmful.
  • Options
    stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    FF43 said:

    At some point Labour will hit another bump in the road (all parties do). Jeremy Corbyn has made no attempt to install shock absorbers. The jolt will be disproportionately large as a result.

    For all that, Labour are well-placed. The Conservatives own Brexit. As Morgan Freeman says halfway through Se7en, this isn't going to have a happy ending. That should be enough to ensure that Labour win the next election by default.

    Whoever has to clear up the Brexit mess will be blamed, rather than those who caused it in the first place, It's in Labour's partisan interest to keep the Tory government going and not take over until blame is firmly pinned.
    This is the new orthodoxy: Corbyn vindicated, the hero of the hour, the victor in defeat. Brexit will destroy the Tories. Book the red champagne. The trouble with orthodoxies, as we have seen, is that they come unstuck.
  • Options
    ArtistArtist Posts: 1,882
    If Labour really did start the campaign on 25% odd, then that's a sizable number of Labour voters that by extension must have at least considered voting for other parties this time. Some of those will have been remainers tempted by the Lib Dems, but also a number were initially enticed by May's rhetoric, before it fell apart during the campaign.

    It's also difficult to see where Labour can add votes, as Corbyn isn't likely to win over much of the Tories 42%, though standing still may be enough if the government is unpopular.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The salient point about the Tories £1bn election is that it was entirely unnecessary.

    A majority government was there for three more years. But May got greedy.

    This is bad, whatever your hue.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    Jonathan said:

    The salient point about the Tories £1bn election is that it was entirely unnecessary.

    A majority government was there for three more years. But May got greedy.

    This is bad, whatever your hue.

    Part of it was to give a bit of breathing room between the next election and the conclusion of the EU negotiations. Useful if things slip a bit.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    In regard to Southam's piece - I agree. Not so long ago it was seen that Labour had lost its reputation for competence and pragmatism that it held during most of the New Labour years, and most thought that it wasn't anywhere near to getting it back.

    Unlike in the past, public opinion this time round is far more volatile. This, in effect, means that the fundamentals are not permanently fixed in one party's corner. For all the talk of Brexit now being what delivers Labour a majority, it was the consensus that it would be that very thing that would deliver the Conservatives a majority only a few months ago with a unified right being seen as an unstoppable force.

    OT:

    Interesting day for the SCOTUS. While it's the Travel Ban Case that's taking up the headlines, it's this which I found very interesting: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/06/26/supreme_court_orders_states_to_list_same_sex_couples_on_birth_certificates.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

    Incredibly odd to rule against same-sex parents being on the birth certificate (Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito dissented). Somehow, I don't think either of those three would have an issue with female-male adoptive parents being on the birth certificate.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,730
    edited June 2017
    stevef said:

    FF43 said:

    At some point Labour will hit another bump in the road (all parties do). Jeremy Corbyn has made no attempt to install shock absorbers. The jolt will be disproportionately large as a result.

    For all that, Labour are well-placed. The Conservatives own Brexit. As Morgan Freeman says halfway through Se7en, this isn't going to have a happy ending. That should be enough to ensure that Labour win the next election by default.

    Whoever has to clear up the Brexit mess will be blamed, rather than those who caused it in the first place, It's in Labour's partisan interest to keep the Tory government going and not take over until blame is firmly pinned.
    This is the new orthodoxy: Corbyn vindicated, the hero of the hour, the victor in defeat. Brexit will destroy the Tories. Book the red champagne. The trouble with orthodoxies, as we have seen, is that they come unstuck.
    I was thinking of two admittedly much smaller scale examples. The Independence Party took Iceland over the cliff; their government collapsed; the Social Democrats took over and administered the necessary medecine; were blamed for the austerity; Independence Party won the next election as if none of this had anything to do with them. Fianna Fáil took Ireland over the cliff; they stayed on and administered the necessary medecine; were blamed for the austerity; Fine Gael won the next election.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Artist said:

    If Labour really did start the campaign on 25% odd, then that's a sizable number of Labour voters that by extension must have at least considered voting for other parties this time. Some of those will have been remainers tempted by the Lib Dems, but also a number were initially enticed by May's rhetoric, before it fell apart during the campaign.

    It's also difficult to see where Labour can add votes, as Corbyn isn't likely to win over much of the Tories 42%, though standing still may be enough if the government is unpopular.

    The Labour voters were shy Labour. They said Don't Know to the pollsters at first (thus confounding the headline figure) quietly and in massive numbers turned out for Labour.

    Look at @Pulpstar 's avatar.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    edited June 2017
    Alistair said:

    Artist said:

    If Labour really did start the campaign on 25% odd, then that's a sizable number of Labour voters that by extension must have at least considered voting for other parties this time. Some of those will have been remainers tempted by the Lib Dems, but also a number were initially enticed by May's rhetoric, before it fell apart during the campaign.

    It's also difficult to see where Labour can add votes, as Corbyn isn't likely to win over much of the Tories 42%, though standing still may be enough if the government is unpopular.

    The Labour voters were shy Labour. They said Don't Know to the pollsters at first (thus confounding the headline figure) quietly and in massive numbers turned out for Labour.

    Look at @Pulpstar 's avatar.
    I thought it was made up data? Look at the others curve.

    Edit: Ah, zooming in helped to reveal the legend! It was undecideds, not others. :p My apologies, Pulpstar!
  • Options
    dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,319

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Sky source
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,443

    Casino_Royale said:
    » show previous quotes
    I've barely been able to get any work done or sleep since 10pm. That changed today. Thank goodness.




    Better day today with Theresa May receiving praise from a Polish mother on her EU citizens status, DUP offering to publish all the correspondence with labour in 2010 and 2015 and their correspondence with the SNP in 2015 and Sajid Javid strong statement on Grenfell.

    But the story of the day for me is the 1,000 fire doors needed to replace missing ones in Camden blocks. Where are the originals and how can any Council allow that to happen. Council resignations must be on the way

    From the last thread.....

    It's one of the things we are supposed to ignore. To put it another way - on the day that such a block is finished/refurbishment is completed, it will have a full set of fire doors. Bet money on that. The inspectors will inspect. All good.

    Then the Evil Tory Fire Leprechauns will steal the doors. Pile rubbish in the common areas etc.

    Prosecuting - or even catching the ETFLs is considered harmful. Answers on a postcard please.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Alistair said:

    Artist said:

    If Labour really did start the campaign on 25% odd, then that's a sizable number of Labour voters that by extension must have at least considered voting for other parties this time. Some of those will have been remainers tempted by the Lib Dems, but also a number were initially enticed by May's rhetoric, before it fell apart during the campaign.

    It's also difficult to see where Labour can add votes, as Corbyn isn't likely to win over much of the Tories 42%, though standing still may be enough if the government is unpopular.

    The Labour voters were shy Labour. They said Don't Know to the pollsters at first (thus confounding the headline figure) quietly and in massive numbers turned out for Labour.

    Look at @Pulpstar 's avatar.
    Shy Labour? I'm not sure about that reading. I simply think there were a lot of undecideds at this GE and in the last few days they decided to break for Labour.

    Although even that explanation doesn't work when you look at polls like Survation, which got the result spot on. They were not making readjustments in terms of adding Don't Knows into the Labour VI column but instead taking people's reported VI at face value. Then there is, as stated before on here the matter of many polls when unadjusted showing leads fairly close to GE result among pollsters who got the GE wrong - which points to 2015 Turnout models being the main source as to why those polls were wrong.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,325
    Cost of membership of calamitous EU = £8.5 billion per year NET :innocent:
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    Plus he had already tried at a previous election. So failing twice in a row is reason enough to go.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Labour leaders have had an easier task facing them than Kinnock did in 1992 in 2010, 2015, and 2017 yet in only one of those GEs the party made gains.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,997
    Tories now opening the flood gates, what happened to all the immigration guff from lame duck Theresa. Tick tock tick tock out go the Tories. Pity we will get similar bunch of turkeys to replace them.
  • Options
    DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,134

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Very difficult to make sense of that. The government said previously that the type of cladding said to have been used on the Grenfell Tower was not compliant with current regulations.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,997

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Sky source
    That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
  • Options
    dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Chris said:

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Very difficult to make sense of that. The government said previously that the type of cladding said to have been used on the Grenfell Tower was not compliant with current regulations.
    It's certainly very confused.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,319
    Chris said:

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Very difficult to make sense of that. The government said previously that the type of cladding said to have been used on the Grenfell Tower was not compliant with current regulations.
    Remember this is Sky reporting
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    I suspect that the Tories are trying to hang on for a few months, and then when the next GE comes, they'll have a manifesto that suits the Old Gits again. Once they avoid kicking them in the unmentionables, they'll probably come out to vote just to stop Jezza.

    The kids may be Jezzarites (Ah, bless), but even if they turn out in the same number, the Oldies won't sit on their hands again. They'll be scared into believing their pensions will either be cut or inflated away to nothing.

    One consolation if Jezza makes it - inflation will mean the Debt becomes manageable. And £1,000 = four Euros means we won't be able to afford holidays in Europe. Venezuela maybe.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/eu-nationals-families-will-not-be-broken-up-after-brexit-theresa-may-says-a3573411.html

    Excuse me ! Why are we even talking about this ?This is Europe in the 21st century, not North Korea that is where such things happen.

    Is this what we have come down to ? Taking credit for not dividing families ? Why was it thought about in the first place ?

    Go, woman, go !
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,319
    malcolmg said:

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Sky source
    That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
    Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,043
    Chris said:

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Very difficult to make sense of that. The government said previously that the type of cladding said to have been used on the Grenfell Tower was not compliant with current regulations.
    I'd guess it might be something to do with grandfather rights, but even that doesn't fit perfectly with that snippet.

    For one thing, I doubt it's the 'regulators' and 'safety regulators' who safely passed the buildings, but the local inspectors.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,997

    malcolmg said:

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Sky source
    That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
    Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
    Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions.
    One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,997
    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    Surprised you think the Tories will be able to limp along till next year Surbiton
  • Options
    dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Sky source
    That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
    Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
    Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions.
    One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
    The ones that filled their boots will be the ones contracted to fill them again in putting right the original wrong. Twas ever thus
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Mr Surbiton,

    "Why was it thought about in the first place ?"

    By who? No one suggested it as far as I know, unless it was the EU.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,319
    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    This year's queens speech is for two years so no queens speech next year and anyway the DUP will back the government in any confidence vote even if that could be engineered. I am looking forward to the DUP's release of the paperwork in their discussions with labour in 2010 and labour and the SNP in 2015.

    No election before April 2019 no matter how much you think it will happen
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RoyalBlue said:

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
    What will be the DUP's demands next year ? What will Soubry, Clarke, Allen et al be doing now ?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Cost of membership of calamitous EU = £8.5 billion per year NET :innocent:

    Seems cheap ....

    £8,5bn for 751 MEP's = £11.3M
    £1bn for 10 DUP MP's over 2 years = £50M

    Was Diane Abbott advising the Tories of the maths on this ? .. :sunglasses:
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    surbiton said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
    What will be the DUP's demands next year ? What will Soubry, Clarke, Allen et al be doing now ?
    It's renewed each session, so that won't happen for two years.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited June 2017
    malcolmg said:

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    Surprised you think the Tories will be able to limp along till next year Surbiton
    The DUP has smelled money. They will keep the government on life support and milk it. To be honest, in their place, I would do too.

    The problems will come from late this year as wheels come off the Brexit wagon.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    CD13 said:

    I suspect that the Tories are trying to hang on for a few months, and then when the next GE comes, they'll have a manifesto that suits the Old Gits again. Once they avoid kicking them in the unmentionables, they'll probably come out to vote just to stop Jezza.

    The kids may be Jezzarites (Ah, bless), but even if they turn out in the same number, the Oldies won't sit on their hands again. They'll be scared into believing their pensions will either be cut or inflated away to nothing.

    One consolation if Jezza makes it - inflation will mean the Debt becomes manageable. And £1,000 = four Euros means we won't be able to afford holidays in Europe. Venezuela maybe.

    Its the 35-50 year olds that May managed to lose in rapid time, which ultimately screwed her getting a big majority.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,319
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Sky source
    That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
    Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
    Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions.
    One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
    The one time a lesson was learned was in the fatal fire in Woolworths, Manchester in 1979 when fire safety regulation was adopted over fire resistant materials in furniture, but even that took until 1988
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,319
    edited June 2017
    surbiton said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
    What will be the DUP's demands next year ? What will Soubry, Clarke, Allen et al be doing now ?
    This is already a two year + deal - you do not seem to take in facts
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    This year's queens speech is for two years so no queens speech next year and anyway the DUP will back the government in any confidence vote even if that could be engineered. I am looking forward to the DUP's release of the paperwork in their discussions with labour in 2010 and labour and the SNP in 2015.

    No election before April 2019 no matter how much you think it will happen
    Is there any legal obstacle for the DUP not to make additional demands ?
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285

    surbiton said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
    What will be the DUP's demands next year ? What will Soubry, Clarke, Allen et al be doing now ?
    This is already a two year + deal - you do not seem to take in facts
    Well we already knew that.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    really.. who says so apart from you?
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Mr Urquhart,

    "Its the 35-50 year olds that May managed to lose in rapid time, which ultimately screwed her getting a big majority."

    You're probably right. That's probably the generation paying for their kids to go to university. I'm sure the Tories can dole out the sweeties just as well - just give them a few months, so it doesn't seem so hypocritical.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,079

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    This year's queens speech is for two years so no queens speech next year and anyway the DUP will back the government in any confidence vote even if that could be engineered. I am looking forward to the DUP's release of the paperwork in their discussions with labour in 2010 and labour and the SNP in 2015.

    No election before April 2019 no matter how much you think it will happen
    Six months ago we were promised no election before May 2020.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    surbiton said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
    What will be the DUP's demands next year ? What will Soubry, Clarke, Allen et al be doing now ?
    This is already a two year + deal - you do not seem to take in facts
    It's only a bung for C&S on the matters agreed. Every other issue is on the table at any time.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    CD13 said:

    Mr Urquhart,

    "Its the 35-50 year olds that May managed to lose in rapid time, which ultimately screwed her getting a big majority."

    You're probably right. That's probably the generation paying for their kids to go to university. I'm sure the Tories can dole out the sweeties just as well - just give them a few months, so it doesn't seem so hypocritical.

    I was thinking about this the other day. Although parents aren't paying the student fees and a lot of other costs are also covered by loans, a) parents still paying out for the little darlings and b) probably a feeling (and lots of misunderstanding) that they are being saddled with massive debt that will stop them being able to get mortgages etc.

    I am not sure the political establishment realise how totally misunderstood the uni fees / loans system is by the vast majority of parents.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721
    JackW said:

    surbiton said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    No there won't. May will be PM until we leave the EU and the transitional 2-year period begins.
    What will be the DUP's demands next year ? What will Soubry, Clarke, Allen et al be doing now ?
    This is already a two year + deal - you do not seem to take in facts
    It's only a bung for C&S on the matters agreed. Every other issue is on the table at any time.
    Good point. Can the government then be defeated left right and centre on Brexit details and much else but not put out of its misery because they then win a confidence vote?
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,319
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    DeClare said:

    Jonathan said:

    @stodge I don't think the 1992 comparison really works. In order for it to Kinnock would have had to have continued on, with it being him conveying hubrism after Black Wednesday instead of John Smith. As it happens, 1992 perhaps offers lessons on a leader of the opposition who had previously lost an GE being mistakenly hubristic and confident that he had the GE in the bag.

    In 1992, Kinnock was trying to overturn a 100 seat majority. Corbyn has an easier job.
    Corbyn will the 73 years old if the government (not necessarily the current PM) lasts the full 5 years and that has to be a strong possibility.
    We've seen what calling a snap election can lead to.
    There will be an election next year.
    This year's queens speech is for two years so no queens speech next year and anyway the DUP will back the government in any confidence vote even if that could be engineered. I am looking forward to the DUP's release of the paperwork in their discussions with labour in 2010 and labour and the SNP in 2015.

    No election before April 2019 no matter how much you think it will happen
    Is there any legal obstacle for the DUP not to make additional demands ?
    They signed the memorandum in Downing Street today and that is the deal for the five year Parliament
  • Options
    houndtanghoundtang Posts: 450
    2010 Narrative: Tory victory - result: Hung Parliament
    2015 Narrative: Hung Parliament probably with Lab as largest party - result: Tory majority
    2016 Narrative: Remain win, Cameron to hand over in 2019 - result: Leave win, Cameron gone
    2017 Narrative: Tory Landslide - result: Hung Parliament
    New Narrative: Labour nailed on victory - result: who knows? The narrative is consistently wrong.

    Whilst the Tories have screwed up massively I think the author is right that nothing is decided. The one thing the last few years has proved (throw in Trump for another example) is that no one knows anything. Received wisdom and political precedents no longer apply.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,043

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sky news reporting the buildings now failing safety passed a year ago by same regulators and safety regulators and government aware the cladding was flammable but decided regulations were enough.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    Sky source
    That is Tories for you Big_G , anything on the cheap for the peasants, bet they don't have any dodgy cladding or dodgy doors on their own luxury pads.
    Hi Malc. Looks like Camden Labour contolled Council have big questions to face not least 1,000 missing fire doors in their blocks. This story is way beyond just the cladding, complete failure by council inspectors and the fire officers to identify neglect, not only outside but within the buildings
    Typical of the UK, on the cheap and fake the safety stuff, they are all at it National and Local government just filling their boots and squandering Billions.
    One thing is sure , we will hear plenty of "Lessons will be learned", bullshit and they will go back to filling their boots.
    The one time a lesson was learned was in the fatal fire in Woolworths, Manchester in 1979 when fire safety regulation was adopted over fire resistant materials in furniture, but even that took until 1988
    Anecdote alert:

    Back in 1984 my dad built our family house. Being a cheapskate, he fitted cheap interior doors until he could source good quality doors from a demo job. When he found a suitable door, he would take the old one out and burn it in the garden.

    They would always go up like a rocket. It turned out the front and back of the doors were thin panels of wood separated by a honeycomb arrangement of card. Once the flames got past the panels, the interior would just go into a massive conflagration as the card and glue ignited.

    After seeing this one day, my mum forced him to fit 'proper' doors, whatever the cost.
This discussion has been closed.