The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
It is when the Tories were still ahead of Labour.
Not really, what was the Tory lead over Labour in 2015, and what was it in 2017? Was it smaller or larger?
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
IDS and Howard are pretty crap for sure. Hague was leader too early and was pretty crap then (although it was more Blair's pre-Iraq godlike status that did it for Hague) but I think could do a much better job now. He's always been a good media performer, charismatic, and now seems much more thoughtful and measured.
To be fair to Howard he did gain over 30 seats which was rather better than the 1 seat Hague gained. I like Hague and he is a great speaker but his general election record, 1 landslide loss, is the worst for the Tories since Balfour in 1906
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
It is when the Tories were still ahead of Labour.
Not really, what was the Tory lead over Labour in 2015, and what was it in 2017? Was it smaller or larger?
I never said May was better than Cameron, I confirmed Cameron was the only Tory leader to get a majority of seats amongst the last 5 leaders but nonetheless only Cameron and May of the last 5 have had a lead over Labour
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
It is when the Tories were still ahead of Labour.
Not really, what was the Tory lead over Labour in 2015, and what was it in 2017? Was it smaller or larger?
The bottom line is that May for all here manifold faults managed to secure the votes of more people in 2017 than Cameron did in 2015.
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
It is when the Tories were still ahead of Labour.
Not really, what was the Tory lead over Labour in 2015, and what was it in 2017? Was it smaller or larger?
The bottom line is that May for all here manifold faults managed to secure the votes of more people in 2017 than Cameron did in 2015.
Politics is judged on seats and majorities. That's the bottom line.
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
It is when the Tories were still ahead of Labour.
Not really, what was the Tory lead over Labour in 2015, and what was it in 2017? Was it smaller or larger?
Tories should be controlling Labour's vote share (we believe in a positive vision of the future).
May achieved a higher share of the vote than Cameron.
As Bob Worcester says: look at the share, not the lead...
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
IDS and Howard are pretty crap for sure. Hague was leader too early and was pretty crap then (although it was more Blair's pre-Iraq godlike status that did it for Hague) but I think could do a much better job now. He's always been a good media performer, charismatic, and now seems much more thoughtful and measured.
To be fair to Howard he did gain over 30 seats which was rather better than the 1 seat Hague gained. I like Hague and he is a great speaker but his general election record, 1 landslide loss, is the worst for the Tories since Balfour in 1906
Always liked Hague, but he took on the top job a few years too early, opposing someone who'd just won a landslide. He'd have probably been a better leader had he taken over in 2001 rather than 1997. He's still only 55, would be good to see him around politics for a little longer.
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
It is when the Tories were still ahead of Labour.
Not really, what was the Tory lead over Labour in 2015, and what was it in 2017? Was it smaller or larger?
Tories should be controlling Labour's vote share (we believe in a positive vision of the future).
May achieved a higher share of the vote than Cameron.
As Bob Worcester says: look at the share, not the lead...
Sir Bob was talking about opinion polls, when it comes to actual votes, he says look at the number of seats won, and the lead of the winning party over the second party.
Edit - He also says look at the swing from Lab to Con.
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
IDS and Howard are pretty crap for sure. Hague was leader too early and was pretty crap then (although it was more Blair's pre-Iraq godlike status that did it for Hague) but I think could do a much better job now. He's always been a good media performer, charismatic, and now seems much more thoughtful and measured.
To be fair to Howard he did gain over 30 seats which was rather better than the 1 seat Hague gained. I like Hague and he is a great speaker but his general election record, 1 landslide loss, is the worst for the Tories since Balfour in 1906
Always liked Hague, but he took on the top job a few years too early, opposing someone who'd just won a landslide. He'd have probably been a better leader had he taken over in 2001 rather than 1997. He's still only 55, would be good to see him around politics for a little longer.
It probably would have been better had Howard been Tory leader in 2001 and Hague in 2005
Two months after May hastily triggered Article 50, it is becoming ever clearer that the imperative of "sovereignty" cannot be reconciled with that of prosperity. In a speech this morning, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier delivered a series of hard truths to the Brexiteers. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits - that is not possible," he said. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve 'frictionless trade' - that is not possible." After backing down on the Brexit timetable, the UK will soon have to pay a sizeable divorce bill if it wishes to make further progress. The promised £350m a week for the NHS will gave way to c.€100bn for the EU.
Strangely, quite a lot of nations do seem able to reconcile sovereignty with prosperity.
Quite. Basically every advanced economy outside the EEA.
We should attempt a Swiss style bilateral arrangements albeit without Schengen but with a customs arrangement.
Always liked Hague, but he took on the top job a few years too early, opposing someone who'd just won a landslide.
He's also one of those guys, like the Millibands, who just look _weird_ until they turn 50, and the electorate always sense that. Bit more comfortable in their own skins when they age.
Ha ha, no he won't. Corbyn's not changed his mind on anything in 40 years and can't do half his programme while we remain in the EU.
I think Paristonda has this one right. Corbyn doesn't feel strongly about the EU, as he can see pros and cons and merely feels it's on balance more helpful than harmful. You can't compare it with his deep-seated passions on e.g. multiculturalism. If public opinion shifts substantially, Labour will respond.
Barnier and May of one mind: Brexit means Brexit. No adjective.
It's going to be a choice of a hard Brexit or no Brexit....that choice must be offered again to the British public via a GE or plebiscite... who this time will have had the benefit of hindsight.
What will you do if they still decide to Brexit?
The British people HATE being asked to vote when they've recently made their decision clear - And will punish those that bring them to the polling booths needlessly - Just as Theresa May (and Sir Edward Heath if he was still alive)
Ha ha, no he won't. Corbyn's not changed his mind on anything in 40 years and can't do half his programme while we remain in the EU.
I think Paristonda has this one right. Corbyn doesn't feel strongly about the EU, as he can see pros and cons and merely feels it's on balance more helpful than harmful. You can't compare it with his deep-seated passions on e.g. multiculturalism. If public opinion shifts substantially, Labour will respond.
Thanks for that reply, from someone who probably knows and understands him better than anyone else here. Interesting times ahead.
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
It is when the Tories were still ahead of Labour.
Not really, what was the Tory lead over Labour in 2015, and what was it in 2017? Was it smaller or larger?
Tories should be controlling Labour's vote share (we believe in a positive vision of the future).
May achieved a higher share of the vote than Cameron.
As Bob Worcester says: look at the share, not the lead...
Sir Bob was talking about opinion polls, when it comes to actual votes, he says look at the number of seats won, and the lead of the winning party over the second party.
Edit - He also says look at the swing from Lab to Con.
"Sir Bob" doesn't work - sounds like the former Labour MP Robert Maxwell
Two months after May hastily triggered Article 50, it is becoming ever clearer that the imperative of "sovereignty" cannot be reconciled with that of prosperity. In a speech this morning, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier delivered a series of hard truths to the Brexiteers. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits - that is not possible," he said. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve 'frictionless trade' - that is not possible." After backing down on the Brexit timetable, the UK will soon have to pay a sizeable divorce bill if it wishes to make further progress. The promised £350m a week for the NHS will gave way to c.€100bn for the EU.
Strangely, quite a lot of nations do seem able to reconcile sovereignty with prosperity.
Indeed. I don't see why Remainers still argue against sovereignty.
It is inarguable that we're less sovereign within the Eu. It is inarguable that sovereignty is different to prosperity.
AND
It is inarguable that many of us who value sovereignty think that it will eventually lead to More stable and sustainable prosperity...
It's lose lose arguing about sovereignty....yet people still do.
Two months after May hastily triggered Article 50, it is becoming ever clearer that the imperative of "sovereignty" cannot be reconciled with that of prosperity. In a speech this morning, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier delivered a series of hard truths to the Brexiteers. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits - that is not possible," he said. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve 'frictionless trade' - that is not possible." After backing down on the Brexit timetable, the UK will soon have to pay a sizeable divorce bill if it wishes to make further progress. The promised £350m a week for the NHS will gave way to c.€100bn for the EU.
Strangely, quite a lot of nations do seem able to reconcile sovereignty with prosperity.
Quite. Basically every advanced economy outside the EEA.
We should attempt a Swiss style bilateral arrangements albeit without Schengen but with a customs arrangement.
There is no Soft Brexit. Just hard Brexit or no Brexit. Barnier repeated this yesterday, and it has always been the EU27 position.
Why do our politicians continue to think otherwise, and not make the slightest effort to have a controlled hard Brexit rather than a car crash one?
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
It is when the Tories were still ahead of Labour.
Not really, what was the Tory lead over Labour in 2015, and what was it in 2017? Was it smaller or larger?
Tories should be controlling Labour's vote share (we believe in a positive vision of the future).
May achieved a higher share of the vote than Cameron.
As Bob Worcester says: look at the share, not the lead...
Sir Bob was talking about opinion polls, when it comes to actual votes, he says look at the number of seats won, and the lead of the winning party over the second party.
Edit - He also says look at the swing from Lab to Con.
"Sir Bob" doesn't work - sounds like the former Labour MP Robert Maxwell
Two months after May hastily triggered Article 50, it is becoming ever clearer that the imperative of "sovereignty" cannot be reconciled with that of prosperity. In a speech this morning, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier delivered a series of hard truths to the Brexiteers. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits - that is not possible," he said. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve 'frictionless trade' - that is not possible." After backing down on the Brexit timetable, the UK will soon have to pay a sizeable divorce bill if it wishes to make further progress. The promised £350m a week for the NHS will gave way to c.€100bn for the EU.
Strangely, quite a lot of nations do seem able to reconcile sovereignty with prosperity.
Indeed. I don't see why Remainers still argue against sovereignty.
It is inarguable that we're less sovereign within the Eu. It is inarguable that sovereignty is different to prosperity.
AND
It is inarguable that many of us who value sovereignty think that it will eventually lead to More stable and sustainable prosperity...
It's lose lose arguing about sovereignty....yet people still do.
Yes it's lose lose. For Brexiters. Because a) DD has already told you that we were always sovereign; and b) the modern world* involves so-called compromises on sovereignty in almost every sphere.
*I appreciate that the concept of "the modern world" does not sit happily with many Brexiters.
That's the first time I've heard anyone describe Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany as democratic States. Fascism and Nazism were deliberately and explicitly anti -democratic. Both governments suppressed rival political parties, prohibited free speech, and imprisoned and killed political opponents.
This is Tyson's fundamental problem. The nation state is a direct contributor to and guarantor of democratic freedom. In opposing the nation state he eventually has to make it clear that he also opposes democracy. The way this is generally done is by reclassifying democracy as 'populism' and attacking that instead. But in the end the only way to support membership of self legislating supranational bodies like the EU is by suppressing democratic freedom.
This poses the choice too starkly IMO. Most people don't feel they have much say on how either Britain or the EU are run, though in both cases they have some input through elections. The US-style checks and balances and multiple decision-making centres of the EU make radical change much slower there, which centrists tend to feel is a good thing and those of radical bent rather the reverse. I'm fairly radical these days, but I do think the EU provides a useful constraint on all of us, so that if, say, Le Pen or Melanchon were elected, they couldn't go overboard as easily as they might wish.
That's the first time I've heard anyone describe Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany as democratic States. Fascism and Nazism were deliberately and explicitly anti -democratic. Both governments suppressed rival political parties, prohibited free speech, and imprisoned and killed political opponents.
This is Tyson's fundamental problem. The nation state is a direct contributor to and guarantor of democratic freedom. In opposing the nation state he eventually has to make it clear that he also opposes democracy. The way this is generally done is by reclassifying democracy as 'populism' and attacking that instead. But in the end the only way to support membership of self legislating supranational bodies like the EU is by suppressing democratic freedom.
This poses the choice too starkly IMO. Most people don't feel they have much say on how either Britain or the EU are run, though in both cases they have some input through elections. The US-style checks and balances and multiple decision-making centres of the EU make radical change much slower there, which centrists tend to feel is a good thing and those of radical bent rather the reverse. I'm fairly radical these days, but I do think the EU provides a useful constraint on all of us, so that if, say, Le Pen or Melanchon were elected, they couldn't go overboard as easily as they might wish.
Control over VAT/local taxation, flexibility on product standards, flexibility on financial services regulation, ability to regulate our own fisheries grounds, ability to design our own agriculture policy, regaining a seat on the WTO to independently push for worldwide services liberalisation, side-stepping regulations like the ports and clinical trials directives, ending rulings on our crime & justice system, and saving on cash contributions, are all practical benefits of Leaving.
Long-term, it's more about removing constraints and giving us the toolkit to be able to flexibly respond to the challenges of the 21st Century, without political union and with direct democratic accountability in our national parliament, which I think is politically healthy.
Thanks, I have always wondered what Leavers think the practical benefits of Brexit to be.
Standardisation of regulation and oversight is a feature, not a bug, of a single market. While you can make certainly make a case against the EU agricultural policy, it's worth pointing out that the UK government is busy reasssuring farmers of continuity of subsidies and quotas and also that all the EFTA countries have even more distorting agricultural policies than the EU. The Common Fisheries Policy is working reasonably well now and much better than the free for all before we joined the EEC, which saw a catastrophic decline in fish stocks. In practice these things may not transpire to a huge degree, whether they count as benefits or not.
Which leaves crime and justice. Possible benefit if you think the quality of EU judgments is worse than the UK ones. However that is mostly a national competence in the EU and we have opt-outs from other aspects of it.
I wouldn't say a unilateral "toolkit" is more effective than a multilateral one - less so in my view. But I guess that's a judgment. Accountability is a win for Leave.
Liam Fox must think I'm a traitor, I'm wearing a Hugo Boss tie made in Italy.
I'm wearing a German owned tie made in Italy.
Did a very striking line in military uniforms, Hugo Boss.....gave it up for some reason....
And Horch translated their name from German to Latin post-war to become Audi. Until 1945 as Horch they did a very nice line in Nazi staff cars. Some might say they still do. Looking at convertible Audis I always wonder why there's nobody standing up in the back holding his arm out in front of him.
Liam Fox must think I'm a traitor, I'm wearing a Hugo Boss tie made in Italy.
I'm wearing a German owned tie made in Italy.
Did a very striking line in military uniforms, Hugo Boss.....gave it up for some reason....
And Horch translated their name from German to Latin post-war to become Audi. Until 1945 as Horch they did a very nice line in Nazi staff cars. Some might say they still do. Looking at convertible Audis I always wonder why there's nobody standing up in the back holding his arm out in front of him.
Audis are very popular with the Chinese militia - the police part of the Police State.
Two months after May hastily triggered Article 50, it is becoming ever clearer that the imperative of "sovereignty" cannot be reconciled with that of prosperity. In a speech this morning, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier delivered a series of hard truths to the Brexiteers. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits - that is not possible," he said. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve 'frictionless trade' - that is not possible." After backing down on the Brexit timetable, the UK will soon have to pay a sizeable divorce bill if it wishes to make further progress. The promised £350m a week for the NHS will gave way to c.€100bn for the EU.
Strangely, quite a lot of nations do seem able to reconcile sovereignty with prosperity.
Quite. Basically every advanced economy outside the EEA.
We should attempt a Swiss style bilateral arrangements albeit without Schengen but with a customs arrangement.
Although Canada is - for example - a member of NAFTA, and that is pretty restricting from a sovereignty perspective, almost certainly worse than the relationship Norway has with the EU for example.
there have been 23 Conservative leaders since 1834 of whom it looks to me like 7 or 8 did not make PM or did so without first (or ever) achieving their own majority.
Liam Fox must think I'm a traitor, I'm wearing a Hugo Boss tie made in Italy.
I'm wearing a German owned tie made in Italy.
Did a very striking line in military uniforms, Hugo Boss.....gave it up for some reason....
And Horch translated their name from German to Latin post-war to become Audi. Until 1945 as Horch they did a very nice line in Nazi staff cars. Some might say they still do. Looking at convertible Audis I always wonder why there's nobody standing up in the back holding his arm out in front of him.
Comments
May achieved a higher share of the vote than Cameron.
As Bob Worcester says: look at the share, not the lead...
Edit - He also says look at the swing from Lab to Con.
We should attempt a Swiss style bilateral arrangements albeit without Schengen but with a customs arrangement.
(Goes back to read the thread comments)
Good afternoon, everyone.
The British people HATE being asked to vote when they've recently made their decision clear - And will punish those that bring them to the polling booths needlessly - Just as Theresa May (and Sir Edward Heath if he was still alive)
https://twitter.com/scotlibdems/status/882943611037515777
It is inarguable that we're less sovereign within the Eu.
It is inarguable that sovereignty is different to prosperity.
AND
It is inarguable that many of us who value sovereignty think that it will eventually lead to
More stable and sustainable prosperity...
It's lose lose arguing about sovereignty....yet people still do.
Why do our politicians continue to think otherwise, and not make the slightest effort to have a controlled hard Brexit rather than a car crash one?
*I appreciate that the concept of "the modern world" does not sit happily with many Brexiters.
NEW THREAD
Standardisation of regulation and oversight is a feature, not a bug, of a single market. While you can make certainly make a case against the EU agricultural policy, it's worth pointing out that the UK government is busy reasssuring farmers of continuity of subsidies and quotas and also that all the EFTA countries have even more distorting agricultural policies than the EU. The Common Fisheries Policy is working reasonably well now and much better than the free for all before we joined the EEC, which saw a catastrophic decline in fish stocks. In practice these things may not transpire to a huge degree, whether they count as benefits or not.
Which leaves crime and justice. Possible benefit if you think the quality of EU judgments is worse than the UK ones. However that is mostly a national competence in the EU and we have opt-outs from other aspects of it.
I wouldn't say a unilateral "toolkit" is more effective than a multilateral one - less so in my view. But I guess that's a judgment. Accountability is a win for Leave.
there have been 23 Conservative leaders since 1834 of whom it looks to me like 7 or 8 did not make PM or did so without first (or ever) achieving their own majority.