Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s now a net 24 points behind Corbyn in Ipsos MORI leaders
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s now a net 24 points behind Corbyn in Ipsos MORI leadership satisfaction ratings
Seven weeks on from the General Election Ipsos MORI’s new Political Monitor finds that the negative shift in TMay’s personal ratings continues. Her ratings are the worst from the pollser for a Prime Minister in the month after an election. The firm has been polling in the UK since the mid-1970s
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
IMO that's not that bad a rating.
https://twitter.com/thequentinletts/status/887981298853314560
Essex’s Westley is set to earn his first cap with selectors confirming he will bat at number three in the 100th Test at the Oval.
Middlesex batsman Malan is also included in the squad for the first time and could feature if England decide on selecting an extra batsmen when they confirm their starting line-up next week.
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/440466
Grayling sparks fury by scrapping rail electrification plans
Government accused of ‘years of broken promises’ after dropping schemes to make network faster and greener
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/grayling-sparks-fury-by-scrapping-rail-electrification-plans
Trevor Bayliss has apparently not personally seen him bat which seems a poor reason for the omission of such an in-form talent. Good luck to Westley though who was also very worthy to be selected.
Drop Dawson and Wood, play Westley, Malan and Roland-Jones .... three debutants!
What could possibly go wrong?
That's why I've never really understood u-turns. You just piss off both sides of the argument.
That means that if you're going to get picked for the England side during the English summer solely based on red ball cricket you'll have to impress in May and June, so if you have a shocker at the start of the season like Haseeb Hameed then you're buggered.
Looking back:
Cameron resigned due to the result of the referendum. I suppose you could argue that he was stabbed by Boris and Gove in the referendum, but that would be a stretch. In reality - no knife-wielder, no data point.
Howard resigned off his own recognisance. No knife-wielder, no data point.
IDS was brought down by widespread dissatisfaction. I don't know if anyone in particular was seen as marshalling it behind the scenes? Any data point here?
Hague resigned after the 2001 general election. No knife-wielder, no data point.
Major resigned after the 1997 general election. No knife-wielder, no data point.
(To be fair, there was an attempted stalking-horse bring-down in 1995 with John Redwood, who fell well short, but I don't think he was ever seen as a likely candidate to pull it off)
Thatcher resigned after the Heseltine challenge and, indeed, Heseltine did not wear the crown. (One supportive data point).
Thatcher challenged Heath and pulled him down and took the crown. (One contradictory data point).
Heath won when Douglas-Home stood down - I don't believe Douglas-Home was stabbed?
Prior to that, you had the Magic Circle. Macmillan stood down in ill-health; No knife-wielder, no data point.
Macmillan took over as one of two candidates to Eden, who stood down on ill-health. Arguably, Macmillan might have been seen to stab Eden as it was his switch from pro-Suez to anti-Suez after being a leading cheerleader of Suez intervention that made a key difference.
And, of course, Eden pressured Churchill to stand down in his favour for a long time. So these last two are weak contradictory evidence against the thesis.
It does look like he who wields the knife takes the crown more often than not when it comes to Tory leadership.
So there.
The 'the assassin never wins the crown' meme is well-established but wrong. There are numerous examples across the years and across the parties of assassins winning the crown. They're rarely absolutely clean cut instances but people who were at least complicit in the ousting of their predecessor include Eden, Macmillan, Brown and Campbell. And Thatcher.
This is the supreme irony of those who bring up the 1990 election. Thatcher herself wielded the knife and prospered immensely. Unlike Heseltine, who was if not the heir apparent then at least the accepted alternative, Thatcher was someone who came out of the pack and was considered by commentators a medium weight stalking horse to take down Heath, before the likes of Whitelaw entered in the second round.
In any case, there's insufficient weight given to the roads not taken and excessive determinism in the saying. Heseltine could and would have won had Thatcher not withdrawn. She was losing backbenchers rapidly after the first round vote, when it was clear that her position was untenable. Heseltine not winning the crown was far from predetermined.
Similarly, in 1995, it's entirely possible that had Portillo rather than Redwood challenged Major, he would have become PM. He would surely have won the extra 3 MPs that would have prompted Major to resign, given the amateur nature of Redwood's effort, and while Clarke, Heseltine and perhaps others might have entered the race in a second round, they would not necessarily have won. All were flawed candidates (which is ultimately why Major survived - there was no consensus alternative), but Portillo would likely have received Thatcher's tacit or even open endorsement in the second round, which could easily have been decisive.
As for today, the beauty of the Tory process is that no-one need wield the knife these days; it's all done in secret. No candidate is compromised or elevated by being the one to challenge: the leader survives or falls on their own. Only if they fall do the alternatives have to openly declare (though obviously the extent to which potential replacements campaign for the leader in the VoNC is always telling).
As in 1995, today's Tory field of potential replacements is similarly flawed which is why May, like Major, is likely to survive by default for a good while yet.
Gove wielded the dagger against Boris and failed to become leader
Redwood wielded the dagger against John Major and failed to become leader, twice.
Heseltine wielded the dagger against Margaret Thatcher and failed to become leader.
Thatcher wielded the dagger against Heath and did become leader.
There is a school of thought that says Enoch Powell did so badly in the 1965 contest was that he was a complication between two clear choices of modernisation and he was one hankering for the good old days.
I don't eat walkers crisps, nothing to do with annoying jug ears, they simply taste like shit.
Thatcher got to low 20s among general population... so presumably she dipped below 66% for conservative supporters. Similarly, Major in 1995 apparently dropped as low as 14% approval.
This link shows party leader ratings among general population... May is low but suggests both Thatcher and Major went lower at various points.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/do-party-leader-approval-ratings-predict-election-outcomes/
But I think Portillo losing in 2001 was more to do with him falling out of love with Thatcherism was the more fundamental problem and given he was the poster boy for Thatcherism in the 90s and it showed in the campaign.
For example the month after Cameron failed to win a majority in 2010 his approval rating with Tories was 87% satisfied and 6% disapprove.
After the 2015 general election, Dave's rating amongst Tories was 90% approval and 6% disapprove
Obviously, when you lose by so tight a margin, any number of things could have been 'the one' that tipped the result and perhaps there was an MP who was so upset with Portillo's behaviour re Hague that he (or she) switched vote in the subsequent election. But as TSE said, there were bigger issues at play. Portillo by 2001 was neither the Thatcherite he had been, nor a convincing moderniser. As such, he was distrusted by all sides and perhaps only got as many votes as he did because neither Clarke nor IDS was an acceptable leader either.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jul/18/uk.conservatives7
The amount being blown on HS2 surely has to factor in to the overall spending picture.
In the 60s Mrs Thatcher was one of those who supported Leo Abse's bill to decriminalise homosexuality, one of her early acts as PM was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and she employed a lot of open homosexuals, but she also introduced the shameful Section 28.
Both Cameron and Theresa May voted against gay rights/equality legislation, something they both regret immensely today, but a testament to the journey they went on, they introduced same sex marriage,
(Puts hand to brow and faints)
But agreed, there was a large section of the party who were unreconstructed homophobes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40669869
"Routes between Cardiff and Swansea, and between Kettering, Nottingham and Sheffield, and between Windermere and Oxenholme will be affected."
Network Rail have royally mucked this up.
I can recommend the Worcester Sauce flavoured Walkers crisps.
Was the same individual behind labour's student debt plans?
GWEP and the IEP has, quite frankly, been a disaster. It might have to take some time but they need to finish it otherwise they'll end up with some serious problems with the trains which aren't designed to run on diesel for long distances.
As for the MML, I wouldn't bother electrifying it as there's no money to buy new electric trains. They could cascade the 91s and mark 4 coaches from the ECML but they don't accelerate quickly enough.
Heads should roll at the (nationalised) Network Rail over this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40662737
Come back at 5 past for aftertiming how much we've all won. ;-)
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/20/trump-goes-off-script-fumes-about-sessions-russia-240743
AIUI there'll be problems on the electrified GWML with the dual-mode IEPs. As they cannot accelerate as fast as the electric-only trains they were supposed to have (or, I think, as fast as the diesel trains they are replacing), then the services may get worse.
The IEP project is promising to be another disaster.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/grayling-sparks-fury-by-scrapping-rail-electrification-plans
Too busy shoveling pork to their clients.
Redwood was never a credible alternative.
Heseltine was credible, and if Thatcher had not been persuaded to withdraw, he could easily have won.
For the assassin to become the leader, the assassin must be a credible alternative and not carry it out incompetently, which is a basic level that needs to be met.
Downthread, @williamglenn describes IDS wielding the dagger against Portillo in a way compatible with the expanded definition, and IDS ended up winning.
Also downthread, @david_herdson expands a similar point to mine in more detail - and even points out that no explicit knifing is even needed.
I presume they've admitted that the new schemes won't be able to be done for the prices they said, either. I also presume that the rest of the northern electrification schemes (which are already in progress) will be going ahead.
The IEPs will cost between 6 and 12 minutes to Bristol without the electrification through Bath. It hasn't really had much attention, but if performance dips considerably - and the last two months have not been good - then it could become a big story.
I also think you overestimate the cost savings that would be made if they went for a lower speed such as 300 km/hr.
But as it happens, I believe it's one of the stronger arguments against HS2 as it stands. The other being Euston ...
Chris mason on £60k a year must be thinking f##k me the bbc have been taking the piss out of me.
It does appear the bbc pay scale for factual programmes is the more male and more of an ignorant pillock you are the higher your pay.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/887996769371652097
Now where's that video clip ... hmmm it's here somewhere ... sure I left it around ... ah yes, here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsR4Nx-ELgc
Doubt it - there's no real way around the aerodynamic inefficiency and noise. And on lines as relatively short as HS2 there's simply no point to it.
Donors are angry that they were asked to pay for a general election – several wealthy individuals contributed amounts that were well into six figures – that they didn’t expect, don't believe was necessary, and turned out disastrously for the party.
“They’re pissed off,” said a source close to 10 Downing Street. “They weren’t expecting to have to stump up for this election. Then, having done so, they realise they’ve got to do it again some time soon.”
“Some of these people stumped up two years’ worth of donations and they didn’t get any return on their investment,” said a senior Conservative MP.
The Conservatives tapped dozens of wealthy backers in the business and financial worlds for contributions in the run-up to the general election in June, raising £12.7 million in six weeks compared to Labour’s £4.5 million.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/the-tories-big-money-backers-are-furious-and-want-a-new?utm_term=.yfWaVYrbEB#.vjqMb20RLn
Barnier has promised the EU27 that he will get a massive settlement from the UK. As the UK refuse to acknowledge any liability at all, I am not surprised he is getting anxious. Davis is saying a settlement is possible, but I doubt he has much intention of going much further unless the EU start showing signs of compromise. It is not up to the UK to make an offer to settle a bill for which there is no basis; it is reasonable to settle the issue in return for something we want. Davis needs to keep it light and jovial - it is certainly unsettling Barnier.
F1: interesting that all the top halo comments are derogatory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/40663158
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449671/louise-mensch-donald-trump-russia-conspiracy-theories
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/business/business-park-could-see-10000-220140?service=responsive#ICID=nsm
If HS2 is such a wonderful project why isn't the line being funded by the private sector?
Still, I only have a limited number of English routes of the National Rail network left to do:
Up in the NW:
Barrow - Carlisle
Heysham/Morecambe to Lancaster/Carnforth
Clitheroe to Hellifield (Sunday only!)
Up in the NE:
Northallerton to Sunderland
Bishop Auckland to Saltburn
Middlesbrough to Whitby
Stockton to Thornaby
(Grosmont to Pickering, officially North Yorks Moors track, also appears on the National Rail map).
Lincs:
Barton to Habrough
Retford to Barnetby via Gainsborough (Saturday only!)
Manc:
Stockport to Guide Bridge (Friday only!)
West Yorks:
Hebden Bridge to Burnley curve (ie. near Todmorden)
Wakefield Westgate to Kirkgate curve
Sandal & Abrigg to Wakefield Kirkgate curve
Bristol:
Patchway to Filton Abbey
Southwest:
Yeovil to Weymouth
Newton Abbot to Penzance
Newton Abbot to Paignton
Exeter to Barnstaple
Exeter to Exmouth
Okehampton to Crediton
Keyham (Plymouth) to Gunnislake
Liskeard to Looe
Par to Newquay
Truro to Falmouth
St Erth to St Ives
Now this is not, in itself, a stupid idea. While I personally would like a simple "no tariff" system, revamping tariffs so they match Britain's - rather than French farmers or German carmakers - needs is probably a good idea.
But circulating a paper about possible changing tariffs systems (without actually having a specific proposal for tariffs) 20 months from leaving the EU is bonkers.
Let's imagine you are considering building a factory. You now don't know what the tariffs will be - assuming no FTA - on components you need to import. That's unnecessary additional uncertainty.
Now imagine that you are the Australian government: you care about British tariffs on agricultural and other commodities. Before you enter into FTA negotiations, you want to know British tariffs levels, because that will help you understand the cost/benefit trade-offs.
Longer-term, would it be sensible for Britain to have its own tariff schedule? Yes. Is this a sensible thing to insert into the middle of a discussions with putative trade partners? No. In fact it's utterly insane, and reduces the chances that the British government will successfully conclude trade agreements with other countries in the next 18 months.
The sensible thing to do is to commit to - say - three years using the EU tariff schedule. Alternatively, come out with a new tariff schedule now, today. The worst thing of all is to have a situation where the 21st Century British tariff schedule is announced to be coming, but no one knows exactly what it will contain, or when it will come into force.
Would this be a Fox nonsense?
- shouting at the Americans about NATO, and now threatening a trade war with them
- shouting at the UK over medical isotopes which have never been restricted before, and now having to explain why they shouldn't have their own recycling back though this is the natural consequence of blocking any agreement by us with Euratom
- shouting at the Russians over the Ukraine, but undercutting the Ukraine with the new gas pipeline which will leave the EU even more dependent on Russian gas
- shouting at the Chinese over their shareholding in DB, but wanting a free trade agreement with them.
(Note - I don't recommend this solution, which has the odd drawback of its own, but it is a way round the two challenges you mention).
I just hope that all the overpaid leftie beeboids are paying their full whack of income tax. Wouldn't like to think of them using 'interesting' avoidance schemes.
*sighs*
Middlesbrough to Whitby is quite nice - very rural and there's an interesting T-shaped station. It drives in and reverses out.
Par - Newquay - eh, surprisingly grim
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0707-slattery-alexander-macedonia-20150707-story,amp.html
https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/888041992101535744
As for Slavs, you might say that about the Greeks of today themselves!
Aristotle was a Greek, but the notion that makes Alexander the Great a Greek is like me claiming to be African because my final year tutor for my dissertation was.
Geographically, most of ancient Macedon is within the current boundaries of Greece. But so what? Was Richard the Lionheart French? Was Canute an Anglo-Saxon? You can't impose modern cartography on the ancient world, unless you're mad.
Suppose Greece conquers all Europe. Would that make Bismarck Greek? Wellington? Napoleon? Charlemagne?
I can understand the desire to claim Alexander as one of your own (indeed, Yorkshire claims God), but that doesn't make it true.