politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It was a big CON to LAB Remain voter swing that cost the Torie

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It was a big CON to LAB Remain voter swing that cost the Tories their majority

top psephologists Curtice & Ford confirm net GE17 traffic for Conservatives vs Lab re Brexit: no net Leave gain, significant net Remain loss pic.twitter.com/fLbesjBHrz

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

TheScreamingEagles

But never doubt Professor Curtice is usually a good mantra in wider politics and political betting.

tpfkar

You'd have thought that Remain Tories who didn't like Corbyn would have gone for the Lib Dems - but it didn't happen in anything like the numbers the Lib Dems expected.

Isn't the wider point how nothing about the Government's approach to Brexit is winning the confidence, respect or acceptance of Remain voters? For all the heat on her backbenches about the role of ECJ in a transition period, the Tories still have half the country opposed to them on this, hard to see how they can sell an EU deal, let alone lack of a deal. Brexit will remain in doubt until they can find a way to do this.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/918084844088954880

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

The thread header has a strong smell of hindsight about it. Sure, you could postulate someone other than Corbyn (though who ??) - but you could equally well theorise about a less shit Tory campaign...

TheScreamingEagles

tpfkar said:

You'd have thought that Remain Tories who didn't like Corbyn would have gone for the Lib Dems - but it didn't happen in anything like the numbers the Lib Dems expected.

Isn't the wider point how nothing about the Government's approach to Brexit is winning the confidence, respect or acceptance of Remain voters? For all the heat on her backbenches about the role of ECJ in a transition period, the Tories still have half the country opposed to them on this, hard to see how they can sell an EU deal, let alone lack of a deal. Brexit will remain in doubt until they can find a way to do this.

I switched to the Lib Dems, but it wasn't anything to do with Remain or Leave, it was to stop Labour winning the seat, sadly it didn't work.

Philip_Thompson

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

Maybe - goven Corbyn is not for Remain either the switch is to some extent irrational at least given significant numbers, and apparently a woolly approach works best.

williamglenn

tpfkar said:

For all the heat on her backbenches about the role of ECJ in a transition period, the Tories still have half the country opposed to them on this, hard to see how they can sell an EU deal, let alone lack of a deal. Brexit will remain in doubt until they can find a way to do this.

They can't. The only way out is to find a way out of delivering Brexit, whether through a second referendum or some other means. Otherwise they are doomed.

TheScreamingEagles

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

The thread header has a strong smell of hindsight about it. Sure, you could postulate someone other than Corbyn (though who ??) - but you could equally well theorise about a less shit Tory campaign...

I have spoken to a few people, across the political spectrum, who think had the voters known the actual result beforehand, we'd have had a small Tory majority.

I think we might just have to acknowledge the Tories have a long term problem

1) Only one majority won in the last quarter of a century

2) 30 years since the Tories last won a working majority.

The chap who won their last majority is often called a Lib Dem in Tory clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

kle4

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Morris_Dancer said:

So, the new Blade Runner film is Marmite, then?

Not as far as I can see. Reviews from both the critics and the public are overwhelmingly positive, generally ravingly so. That includes amongst those who did not see the original. Box office wise it suffers from being long (committing around 3 1/2 hours to a film including trailers and ads is a lot for many people these days) and also from the claim made before the weekend that it will take $50 million in its opening weekend in the US - which came from a couple of newspapers not from the studio. In the end it has done very well and is number 1 on the charts and made about $35 million in the US which is still good numbers.

Not for a movie which cost as much as it did. It's not a flop like valerian, lone ranger or John Carter, but it was still below modest predictions.

Though I've seen an argument that's good. It will probably break even with international markets giving it a profit even with what must be a large marketing budget, but if it made oodles of money there'd probably be quick sequels, loads planned, which is rarely good for quality.

As it is it is good, it will be well received, and they'll not rush sequels.

Perfect result really. I was one of those who really, really didn't want this sequel and now we have it can't imagine ever not having it because it is a damn near perfect film.

But that doesn't mean I want another sequel.

Honestly I felt like it needs one. But no need to do so quickly.

kle4

williamglenn said:

tpfkar said:

For all the heat on her backbenches about the role of ECJ in a transition period, the Tories still have half the country opposed to them on this, hard to see how they can sell an EU deal, let alone lack of a deal. Brexit will remain in doubt until they can find a way to do this.

They can't. The only way out is to find a way out of delivering Brexit, whether through a second referendum or some other means. Otherwise they are doomed.

That would doom them too and you know it

Slackbladder

A bit of a 'shoulda woulda coulda' article. There's frankly too many variables in play here over and beyond Brexit. Corbyn being a very different leader from the ones before would have attracted new voters and repelled others. May being crap had nothing to do with Brexit. The lackluster Tory campaign had nothing to do with Brexit.

TheScreamingEagles

williamglenn said:

tpfkar said:

For all the heat on her backbenches about the role of ECJ in a transition period, the Tories still have half the country opposed to them on this, hard to see how they can sell an EU deal, let alone lack of a deal. Brexit will remain in doubt until they can find a way to do this.

They can't. The only way out is to find a way out of delivering Brexit, whether through a second referendum or some other means. Otherwise they are doomed.

They might consider a Kadima option, but I can't see it happening.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

I agree with this as far as the 2017 election goes. Corbyn managed to find the perfect balance between deference to the referendum result and keeping the importance of going through with it in perspective.

However things are now coming to a head, and at the same time the importance of the radioactive referendum result is decaying with a fast half-life. The time for an explicitly pro-Remain leader to break through is approaching.

rottenborough

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Dadge

Ha. a lot of Tories (and others) were put off voting Labour by Mr Corbyn.

HYUFD

The whole premise of this thread is wrong. Almost all the UKIP 2015 to Tory switchers, over 50% of UKIP 2015 voters, went before the campaign. As even Ford says almost double the Remain voters Labour gained over the campaign came from non Tories not Remain Tories. 8/10 of the top 10 Labour Tory target seats next time voted Leave.

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

Andy_Cooke

Any Remainers who switched from Tories to Labour due to Brexit were self-deluded.

If this is a correlation issue - that is, that people from demographics that were more likely to have voted Remain were those who swung to Labour for reasons related to their demographic profile rather than Brexit, it would be more understandable.

Slackbladder

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Again on the other hand they would lose the far-left supporters which probably make up to 5% on the labour figure. But you could be right (and would be in my opinion), I would see myself being comfortable with a labour government run by those people whereas Corbyn scares me and no doubt many others.

Slackbladder

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

I agree with this as far as the 2017 election goes. Corbyn managed to find the perfect balance between deference to the referendum result and keeping the importance of going through with it in perspective.

However things are now coming to a head, and at the same time the importance of the radioactive referendum result is decaying with a fast half-life. The time for an explicitly pro-Remain leader to break through is approaching.

No chance. Corbyn has the job for as long as he wants it (until the next election)

rkrkrk

FPT

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

Universal Credit affects one third of the working age population. Almost 8m households.
Write off the political impact at your peril.

Most of whom will be better off longer term from UC

Your faith in the ability of this government to implement a multi-billion pound IT project which deals with some of the most vulnerable in society is impressive.

Personally the warnings worry me a lot. Maybe it will all work out well - but at the moment the signs suggest that it really won't.

Andy_Cooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

The thread header has a strong smell of hindsight about it. Sure, you could postulate someone other than Corbyn (though who ??) - but you could equally well theorise about a less shit Tory campaign...

I have spoken to a few people, across the political spectrum, who think had the voters known the actual result beforehand, we'd have had a small Tory majority.

I think we might just have to acknowledge the Tories have a long term problem

1) Only one majority won in the last quarter of a century

2) 30 years since the Tories last won a working majority.

The chap who won their last majority is often called a Lib Dem in Tory clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

Haven't Labour had a similar issue?
Up until 1997, they'd won only a single working majority in the previous 50 years.
The chap who broke that string and won three consecutive working majorities is often called a Tory in Labour clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

Slackbladder

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

And May being crap.

rkrkrk

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Perhaps... but the Labour manifesto definitely helped them in 2017, and I don't think any of those would have gone for something so bold.

Tissue_Price

Losing referendums narrowly fires that side up, for a while, and Labour benefited from that. They were helped as TSE says by the perception that Mrs May would win, so it seemed to be more a question of clipping her wings than sabotaging her engine.

I don't think it follows that an unequivocal Remainer - presumably with a manifesto commitment to undo the referendum? - would have done better.

On top of all the Remain/Leave angles the age cleavage (and turnout effects) is vital for our understanding of the result. Rob Ford's full timeline is required reading.

TheScreamingEagles

Andy_Cooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

The thread header has a strong smell of hindsight about it. Sure, you could postulate someone other than Corbyn (though who ??) - but you could equally well theorise about a less shit Tory campaign...

I have spoken to a few people, across the political spectrum, who think had the voters known the actual result beforehand, we'd have had a small Tory majority.

I think we might just have to acknowledge the Tories have a long term problem

1) Only one majority won in the last quarter of a century

2) 30 years since the Tories last won a working majority.

The chap who won their last majority is often called a Lib Dem in Tory clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

Haven't Labour had a similar issue?
Up until 1997, they'd won only a single working majority in the previous 50 years.
The chap who broke that string and won three consecutive working majorities is often called a Tory in Labour clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

They do.

Come 2022, the last Labour leader, other than Blair to have won any majority will have been 48 years ago and 56 years since Labour won a working majority.

HYUFD

rkrkrk said:

FPT

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

Universal Credit affects one third of the working age population. Almost 8m households.
Write off the political impact at your peril.

Most of whom will be better off longer term from UC

Your faith in the ability of this government to implement a multi-billion pound IT project which deals with some of the most vulnerable in society is impressive.

Personally the warnings worry me a lot. Maybe it will all work out well - but at the moment the signs suggest that it really won't.

We certainly can't afford the current benefits system which disincentives taking on more hours work and earning more wages, as Gauke said benefits delays with UC are now falling significantly

rottenborough

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

I agree with this as far as the 2017 election goes. Corbyn managed to find the perfect balance between deference to the referendum result and keeping the importance of going through with it in perspective.

However things are now coming to a head, and at the same time the importance of the radioactive referendum result is decaying with a fast half-life. The time for an explicitly pro-Remain leader to break through is approaching.

No chance. Corbyn has the job for as long as he wants it (until the next election)

Yep. Unless there is a Black Swan event, Jezza will be the leader at next GE.

My guess at the moment is we will end up with a Labour minority government, or a Lib-Lab-SNP pact of some description. Very much a guess as, really, who the hell knows what will happen with Brexit*

* the Cabinet certainly doesn't.

Tissue_Price

Andy_Cooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

The thread header has a strong smell of hindsight about it. Sure, you could postulate someone other than Corbyn (though who ??) - but you could equally well theorise about a less shit Tory campaign...

I have spoken to a few people, across the political spectrum, who think had the voters known the actual result beforehand, we'd have had a small Tory majority.

I think we might just have to acknowledge the Tories have a long term problem

1) Only one majority won in the last quarter of a century

2) 30 years since the Tories last won a working majority.

The chap who won their last majority is often called a Lib Dem in Tory clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

Haven't Labour had a similar issue?
Up until 1997, they'd won only a single working majority in the previous 50 years.
The chap who broke that string and won three consecutive working majorities is often called a Tory in Labour clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

Something something elections something something centre ground.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

HYUFD

Slackbladder said:

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

And May being crap.

A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign

Scott_P

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

fixed it for you

williamglenn

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

I agree with this as far as the 2017 election goes. Corbyn managed to find the perfect balance between deference to the referendum result and keeping the importance of going through with it in perspective.

However things are now coming to a head, and at the same time the importance of the radioactive referendum result is decaying with a fast half-life. The time for an explicitly pro-Remain leader to break through is approaching.

No chance. Corbyn has the job for as long as he wants it (until the next election)

I didn't mean in the Labour party, but in UK politics in general. If the Conservatives stood on a pro-EU ticket, expelled UKIP collaborators and deselected people like John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, they would have the beating of Labour.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/fatshez/status/918088760008609792

Richard_Nabavi

Inasmuch as Remainers switched to Labour because of Brexit - which seems have varied according to constituency and demographics - I suspect it was more a protest vote, blaming the Tories for the referendum and for the referendum result rather than an attempt to change what happens in the future. After all, Labour's Brexit policy was identical to Theresa May's in all material respects.

Tissue_Price

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

There's nothing to get through, it's what will happen.

Andy_Cooke

I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The delivery of Brexit should have been almost trivial: The EU created a state that was always intended as a transitionary state between being out of the EU and being in the EU - the state of being in the EEA. As it happens, it suits certain countries down to the ground and they've chosen to remain in it long-term.

It would work just as well on the way out as on the way in.
- The majority of EU legislation doesn't apply
- Members have the opportunity to shape legislation that does apply to them
- The regulatory, agreement, and organisational structures are already in place and tested and work
- There are no deadlines that could expire to end up giving us a no-deal disaster
- We would regain the ability to negotiate our own trade deals but could pick up existing ones as well.
- We could exit after giving 12 months notice if it didn't fit after all, or if and when we'd created all the various deals and structures we'll need.

But no, that would be too easy

Slackbladder

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

I agree with this as far as the 2017 election goes. Corbyn managed to find the perfect balance between deference to the referendum result and keeping the importance of going through with it in perspective.

However things are now coming to a head, and at the same time the importance of the radioactive referendum result is decaying with a fast half-life. The time for an explicitly pro-Remain leader to break through is approaching.

No chance. Corbyn has the job for as long as he wants it (until the next election)

I didn't mean in the Labour party, but in UK politics in general. If the Conservatives stood on a pro-EU ticket, expelled UKIP collaborators and deselected people like John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, they would have the beating of Labour.

They would also lose half their MPs and a good 10-15% of their voter base....sure. (they might get those voters back from other parties)

Generally parties don't split unless forced to. Even then they don't.


Edit: Even so, the canary in ther coal mine here is the Lib Dems, and they're going nowhere. If there was a call for a pro-EU wave of popularity then they would be recovering back, and they aren't.

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Latest polling has Corbyn still seen less favourably than Labour.

If Corbyn loses the next general election I would expect Labour under Chuka or another moderate to win a landslide at the next general election and be in power for a decade. If Corbyn wins next time I expect the Tories to be competitive when Labour sought re election

MikeSmithson

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

And May being crap.

A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign

Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?

Ishmael_Z

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

The thread header has a strong smell of hindsight about it. Sure, you could postulate someone other than Corbyn (though who ??) - but you could equally well theorise about a less shit Tory campaign...

I have spoken to a few people, across the political spectrum, who think had the voters known the actual result beforehand, we'd have had a small Tory majority.

I think we might just have to acknowledge the Tories have a long term problem

1) Only one majority won in the last quarter of a century

2) 30 years since the Tories last won a working majority.

The chap who won their last majority is often called a Lib Dem in Tory clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

Haven't Labour had a similar issue?
Up until 1997, they'd won only a single working majority in the previous 50 years.
The chap who broke that string and won three consecutive working majorities is often called a Tory in Labour clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

They do.

Come 2022, the last Labour leader, other than Blair to have won any majority will have been 48 years ago and 56 years since Labour won a working majority.

Well then the two cancel, presumably. And anyway the validity of these reverse Gambler's Fallacy arguments is really not that high.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

The thread header has a strong smell of hindsight about it. Sure, you could postulate someone other than Corbyn (though who ??) - but you could equally well theorise about a less shit Tory campaign...

I have spoken to a few people, across the political spectrum, who think had the voters known the actual result beforehand, we'd have had a small Tory majority.

I think we might just have to acknowledge the Tories have a long term problem

1) Only one majority won in the last quarter of a century

2) 30 years since the Tories last won a working majority.

The chap who won their last majority is often called a Lib Dem in Tory clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

I rather agree with that.

Only in a situation where the right of the party is effectively marginalised or exiled (for example to UKIP), but have no real option to get their way other than by voting Conservative, are the Tories likely to consistently challenge for the votes of a majority of the electorate.
Once the right come back on board, the voters at the other end of the party tend to leave.

Of course there are still situations where they'll challenge for a majority of seats, if a centre party attracts a big enough number of particular voters without winning too many seats, but that's a pretty precarious existence.

williamglenn

Tissue_Price said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

There's nothing to get through, it's what will happen.

If there is no exit deal approved by parliament, then the UK cannot be said to have decided to leave 'in accordance with its constitutional requirements', and May will be obliged to revoke Article 50.

TheScreamingEagles

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

And May being crap.

A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign

Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?

'Cause he knows so much better than John Curtice?

Slackbladder

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

If it gets to that, the Common's ain't going to have a choice in the matter. They can't make a deal without one existing.

TGOHF

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/fatshez/status/918088760008609792

How thick is this guy ? Neither supported it in the referendum.

williamglenn

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

I agree with this as far as the 2017 election goes. Corbyn managed to find the perfect balance between deference to the referendum result and keeping the importance of going through with it in perspective.

However things are now coming to a head, and at the same time the importance of the radioactive referendum result is decaying with a fast half-life. The time for an explicitly pro-Remain leader to break through is approaching.

No chance. Corbyn has the job for as long as he wants it (until the next election)

I didn't mean in the Labour party, but in UK politics in general. If the Conservatives stood on a pro-EU ticket, expelled UKIP collaborators and deselected people like John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, they would have the beating of Labour.

They would also lose half their MPs and a good 10-15% of their voter base....sure. (they might get those voters back from other parties)

Generally parties don't split unless forced to. Even then they don't.


Edit: Even so, the canary in ther coal mine here is the Lib Dems, and they're going nowhere. If there was a call for a pro-EU wave of popularity then they would be recovering back, and they aren't.

The Lib Dems had a terrible campaign and were starting from too low to be plausible as a party of government. I don't think their failure holds many lessons for the politics of the Tory-Labour fight.

Nigelb

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Morris_Dancer said:

So, the new Blade Runner film is Marmite, then?

Not as far as I can see. Reviews from both the critics and the public are overwhelmingly positive, generally ravingly so. That includes amongst those who did not see the original. Box office wise it suffers from being long (committing around 3 1/2 hours to a film including trailers and ads is a lot for many people these days) and also from the claim made before the weekend that it will take $50 million in its opening weekend in the US - which came from a couple of newspapers not from the studio. In the end it has done very well and is number 1 on the charts and made about $35 million in the US which is still good numbers.

Not for a movie which cost as much as it did. It's not a flop like valerian, lone ranger or John Carter, but it was still below modest predictions.

Though I've seen an argument that's good. It will probably break even with international markets giving it a profit even with what must be a large marketing budget, but if it made oodles of money there'd probably be quick sequels, loads planned, which is rarely good for quality.

As it is it is good, it will be well received, and they'll not rush sequels.

Perfect result really. I was one of those who really, really didn't want this sequel and now we have it can't imagine ever not having it because it is a damn near perfect film.

But that doesn't mean I want another sequel.

Honestly I felt like it needs one. But no need to do so quickly.

Another 35 years ?

NorthofStoke

Slackbladder said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

If it gets to that, the Common's ain't going to have a choice in the matter. They can't make a deal without one existing.

King Canute needed?

Winstanley

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Did you pay attention to Yvette's leadership campaign in 2015? She was rubbish. Chukka ducked out because he couldn't handle it. Johnson (Alan Johnson?) proved ineffective in all of his roles since 2010.

If any of these people led the Labour Party it wouldn't be worth paying attention to. They have no answers to anything. Corbyn's the only thing that's made it interesting. You have to be quite insensitive to the prevailing mood to think a reheated Blairism is a winning ticket.

Slackbladder

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

I agree with this as far as the 2017 election goes. Corbyn managed to find the perfect balance between deference to the referendum result and keeping the importance of going through with it in perspective.

However things are now coming to a head, and at the same time the importance of the radioactive referendum result is decaying with a fast half-life. The time for an explicitly pro-Remain leader to break through is approaching.

No chance. Corbyn has the job for as long as he wants it (until the next election)

I didn't mean in the Labour party, but in UK politics in general. If the Conservatives stood on a pro-EU ticket, expelled UKIP collaborators and deselected people like John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, they would have the beating of Labour.

They would also lose half their MPs and a good 10-15% of their voter base....sure. (they might get those voters back from other parties)

Generally parties don't split unless forced to. Even then they don't.


Edit: Even so, the canary in ther coal mine here is the Lib Dems, and they're going nowhere. If there was a call for a pro-EU wave of popularity then they would be recovering back, and they aren't.

The Lib Dems had a terrible campaign and were starting from too low to be plausible as a party of government. I don't think their failure holds many lessons for the politics of the Tory-Labour fight.

Oh come on. they're still in single figures at best. Even if they recovered to 15% in the polls you would have an arguement, but they're nowhere as the most pro-eu party around.

Richard_Nabavi

Slackbladder said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

If it gets to that, the Common's ain't going to have a choice in the matter. They can't make a deal without one existing.

Yes, it's a completely irrational position. If we do get to that point, what on earth will they propose as an alternative? Sending in the SAS to grab Michael Barnier and waterboarding him until he signs a deal?

Scott_P

@PaulBrandITV: Labour confirms it would vote against a No Deal Brexit. Which would make it v difficult to pass. Could this become a path to staying in?

@PaulBrandITV: Think this is the first time you can see a concrete route to Brexit collapsing. Labour would insist on more negotiations at first.

kle4

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Terminator 2 was better than the original.

Aliens; Godfather PII; Toy Story 2...
Not all sequels are rubbish.

Bad Boys 2 and Lethal Weapon 2 are better than the first movies.

And of course the fast and furious series didn't get good until number 5, which has to be some kind of record.

Tissue_Price

williamglenn said:

Tissue_Price said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

There's nothing to get through, it's what will happen.

If there is no exit deal approved by parliament, then the UK cannot be said to have decided to leave 'in accordance with its constitutional requirements', and May will be obliged to revoke Article 50.

Good luck with that.

Beverley_C

Mike said: "We’ll never know this, of course, but I wonder how many Remain backing Tories were put off from switching by Mr. Corbyn."

I can help with that in as much as I know of one Remainer who was put off by Corbyn - me.

I have voted for all parties in the past but I voted Tory in 2015 and 2010. This time around there was no way I was voting for the Anti-EU Raving Loony Party Tories, but Corbyn? I seriously considered not voting for the first time in my life or perhaps following Alastair Meeks's advice and spoiling my ballot paper. In the end I decided I had to vote and went Lib Dem even though I was sure that it was a wasted vote.

Would I have voted Labour if Corbyn did not lead them? Maybe. It would depend who did lead them and what their policies where because a lack of Corbyn implies a lack of "Momentum" and some of their more left-wing policies. Certainly no McDonnell.

A moderate Labour leader, less Marxism and a leader committed to killing off Brexit? Yes - I would have voted Labour.

HYUFD

Winstanley said:

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Did you pay attention to Yvette's leadership campaign in 2015? She was rubbish. Chukka ducked out because he couldn't handle it. Johnson (Alan Johnson?) proved ineffective in all of his roles since 2010.

If any of these people led the Labour Party it wouldn't be worth paying attention to. They have no answers to anything. Corbyn's the only thing that's made it interesting. You have to be quite insensitive to the prevailing mood to think a reheated Blairism is a winning ticket.

Corbyn offers hard Brexit and socialism, Umunna offers soft Brexit and economic moderation in a decade the mood for the latter may have come round again

TGOHF

Slackbladder said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

If it gets to that, the Common's ain't going to have a choice in the matter. They can't make a deal without one existing.

The Commons could veto a deal that doesn't exist - a fitting end to membership of the EU.

Nigelb

FPT, it's kind of cheating, but is there any 'Part 3' as good as Kieslowski's Three Colours: Red ?

Slackbladder

Scott_P said:

@PaulBrandITV: Labour confirms it would vote against a No Deal Brexit. Which would make it v difficult to pass. Could this become a path to staying in?

@PaulBrandITV: Think this is the first time you can see a concrete route to Brexit collapsing. Labour would insist on more negotiations at first.

Those the same type of negotiations which labour think can solve all overseas conflicts?

MikeSmithson

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

I agree with this as far as the 2017 election goes. Corbyn managed to find the perfect balance between deference to the referendum result and keeping the importance of going through with it in perspective.

However things are now coming to a head, and at the same time the importance of the radioactive referendum result is decaying with a fast half-life. The time for an explicitly pro-Remain leader to break through is approaching.

No chance. Corbyn has the job for as long as he wants it (until the next election)

I didn't mean in the Labour party, but in UK politics in general. If the Conservatives stood on a pro-EU ticket, expelled UKIP collaborators and deselected people like John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, they would have the beating of Labour.

They would also lose half their MPs and a good 10-15% of their voter base....sure. (they might get those voters back from other parties)

Generally parties don't split unless forced to. Even then they don't.


Edit: Even so, the canary in ther coal mine here is the Lib Dems, and they're going nowhere. If there was a call for a pro-EU wave of popularity then they would be recovering back, and they aren't.

The Lib Dems had a terrible campaign and were starting from too low to be plausible as a party of government. I don't think their failure holds many lessons for the politics of the Tory-Labour fight.

Oh come on. they're still in single figures at best. Even if they recovered to 15% in the polls you would have an arguement, but they're nowhere as the most pro-eu party around.

The LDs increased their MP total by 50% on GE2015

Nigelb

kle4 said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Terminator 2 was better than the original.

Aliens; Godfather PII; Toy Story 2...
Not all sequels are rubbish.

Bad Boys 2 and Lethal Weapon 2 are better than the first movies.

And of course the fast and furious series didn't get good until number 5, which has to be some kind of record.

I commented 'low bar' in the previous thread, but you are exploring the outer limits of the term...

Slackbladder

Labour: Hi, EU, can we talk some more about leaving please?

EU: F-OFF you're out

Labour:............

HYUFD

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

And May being crap.

A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign

Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?

There wasn't a huge Tory to Labour swing amongst Remainers that wasn't largely countered by the Labour to Tory swing amongst working class Leavers and the Tories gaining over half the 2015 UKIP vote.

Indeed Ford's own figures show a majority of the Remain swing to Labour in the campaign came from non Tories.

As I said the main net loss of the Tories in 2017 was over the dementia tax and not Brexit

Slackbladder

MikeSmithson said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think Mike is making the same mistake as those on the "Tory right" who long argued they could win big by becoming more Eurosceptic and so absorbing UKIP. You can't just look at what you might gain by being different without also looking at what you might lose.

Labour successfully got a balance of being all things to all people, meaning they could win Eurosceptic ex-UKIP voters who dislike the Tories, while simultaneously winning Remain voters.

Had Labour had an unequivocal Remainer as head then Labour were already getting the lions share of the Remain swing but could have lost a lot of Leavers.

There is every chance that the Tories could have won the landslide they were expecting if Labour had an unequivocal Remainer.

I agree with this as far as the 2017 election goes. Corbyn managed to find the perfect balance between deference to the referendum result and keeping the importance of going through with it in perspective.

However things are now coming to a head, and at the same time the importance of the radioactive referendum result is decaying with a fast half-life. The time for an explicitly pro-Remain leader to break through is approaching.

No chance. Corbyn has the job for as long as he wants it (until the next election)

I didn't mean in the Labour party, but in UK politics in general. If the Conservatives stood on a pro-EU ticket, expelled UKIP collaborators and deselected people like John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, they would have the beating of Labour.

They would also lose half their MPs and a good 10-15% of their voter base....sure. (they might get those voters back from other parties)

Generally parties don't split unless forced to. Even then they don't.


Edit: Even so, the canary in ther coal mine here is the Lib Dems, and they're going nowhere. If there was a call for a pro-EU wave of popularity then they would be recovering back, and they aren't.

The Lib Dems had a terrible campaign and were starting from too low to be plausible as a party of government. I don't think their failure holds many lessons for the politics of the Tory-Labour fight.

Oh come on. they're still in single figures at best. Even if they recovered to 15% in the polls you would have an arguement, but they're nowhere as the most pro-eu party around.

The LDs increased their MP total by 50% on GE2015

An upgrade from a Taxi to a minicoach. Woopie doo.

What happened to the UK wide vote share? (I already know the answer, so no need to say anything)

Beverley_C

Andy_Cooke said:

I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.

The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.

Nigelb

williamglenn said:

Tissue_Price said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

There's nothing to get through, it's what will happen.

If there is no exit deal approved by parliament, then the UK cannot be said to have decided to leave 'in accordance with its constitutional requirements', and May will be obliged to revoke Article 50.

Are you proposing to fund the various court cases ... ?

MikeSmithson

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

And May being crap.

A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign

Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?

There wasn't a huge Tory to Labour swing amongst Remainers that wasn't largely countered by the Labour to Tory swing amongst working class Leavers and the Tories gaining over half the 2015 UKIP vote.

Indeed Ford's own figures show a majority of the Remain swing to Labour in the campaign came from non Tories.

As I said the main net loss of the Tories in 2017 was over the dementia tax and not Brexit

Straw clutching.

kle4

williamglenn said:

Tissue_Price said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

There's nothing to get through, it's what will happen.

If there is no exit deal approved by parliament, then the UK cannot be said to have decided to leave 'in accordance with its constitutional requirements', and May will be obliged to revoke Article 50.

Is that true? Invoking article 50 required parliamentary approval but was approving an exit deal or not covered in the Supreme Court case? Invoking article 50 was accepted in that case by both sides to be irrevocable (though they might be wrong ), therefore surely they expected once declared we would be out, no way of stopping it regardless of a deal or not?

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/918077568737251328

NorthofStoke

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Latest polling has Corbyn still seen less favourably than Labour.

If Corbyn loses the next general election I would expect Labour under Chuka or another moderate to win a landslide at the next general election and be in power for a decade. If Corbyn wins next time I expect the Tories to be competitive when Labour sought re election

More than competitive under those circumstances! Mind you, I think there is a reasonable chance of a split in the Labour party giving us SDP #2. I also think a new pragmatic centrist party could win a lot of seats at the next election.

williamglenn

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

The thread header has a strong smell of hindsight about it. Sure, you could postulate someone other than Corbyn (though who ??) - but you could equally well theorise about a less shit Tory campaign...

I have spoken to a few people, across the political spectrum, who think had the voters known the actual result beforehand, we'd have had a small Tory majority.

I think we might just have to acknowledge the Tories have a long term problem

1) Only one majority won in the last quarter of a century

2) 30 years since the Tories last won a working majority.

The chap who won their last majority is often called a Lib Dem in Tory clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

I rather agree with that.

Only in a situation where the right of the party is effectively marginalised or exiled (for example to UKIP), but have no real option to get their way other than by voting Conservative, are the Tories likely to consistently challenge for the votes of a majority of the electorate.
Once the right come back on board, the voters at the other end of the party tend to leave.

Of course there are still situations where they'll challenge for a majority of seats, if a centre party attracts a big enough number of particular voters without winning too many seats, but that's a pretty precarious existence.

They'll never have a better opportunity to put clear blue water between the mainstream centre right, and the extremists who see separation from Europe as more important than anything else in the world.

Winstanley

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Did you pay attention to Yvette's leadership campaign in 2015? She was rubbish. Chukka ducked out because he couldn't handle it. Johnson (Alan Johnson?) proved ineffective in all of his roles since 2010.

If any of these people led the Labour Party it wouldn't be worth paying attention to. They have no answers to anything. Corbyn's the only thing that's made it interesting. You have to be quite insensitive to the prevailing mood to think a reheated Blairism is a winning ticket.

Corbyn offers hard Brexit and socialism, Umunna offers soft Brexit and economic moderation in a decade the mood for the latter may have come round again

Yes, of the kind of 'moderate' who involved us in a terrible war and blindly marched into a world economic crisis which they, following the thinking of all the other economic 'moderates', thought was no longer even possible. Moderate, moderate, moderate. A few more 'moderate' governments of the New Labour stripe and we will be facing social collapse.

foxinsoxuk

Beverley_C said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.

The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.

Displacement activity, like tidying your cupboards when an essay is due.

Or disputing the bar bill as the ship hits the iceberg.

Pulpstar

Richard_Nabavi said:

Slackbladder said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

If it gets to that, the Common's ain't going to have a choice in the matter. They can't make a deal without one existing.

Yes, it's a completely irrational position. If we do get to that point, what on earth will they propose as an alternative? Sending in the SAS to grab Michael Barnier and waterboarding him until he signs a deal?

Continuity Remain MPs seem to think they have far more power than they actually do.

williamglenn

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

Tissue_Price said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

There's nothing to get through, it's what will happen.

If there is no exit deal approved by parliament, then the UK cannot be said to have decided to leave 'in accordance with its constitutional requirements', and May will be obliged to revoke Article 50.

Is that true? Invoking article 50 required parliamentary approval but was approving an exit deal or not covered in the Supreme Court case? Invoking article 50 was accepted in that case by both sides to be irrevocable (though they might be wrong ), therefore surely they expected once declared we would be out, no way of stopping it regardless of a deal or not?

Well it's supposition on my part, but clearly in those circumstances there would be legal arguments about whether an 'intention' to leave is the same as a 'decision' to leave, and as the politics would be chaotic, anything is possible.

kle4

NorthofStoke said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Latest polling has Corbyn still seen less favourably than Labour.

If Corbyn loses the next general election I would expect Labour under Chuka or another moderate to win a landslide at the next general election and be in power for a decade. If Corbyn wins next time I expect the Tories to be competitive when Labour sought re election

More than competitive under those circumstances! Mind you, I think there is a reasonable chance of a split in the Labour party giving us SDP #2. I also think a new pragmatic centrist party could win a lot of seats at the next election.

A labour split!? They had no guts to do that when many of them themselves thought they would get hammered, no way it happens moving forward even if Corbyn wins next election and hashes things up.

A new party often seems like it should do well, but here we are, same old parties.

Richard_Tyndall

"The big expectation throughout the campaign was that the Tories would benefit from Leave supporters and the collapse of UKIP. As it turned out that proved to be insignificant"

So what you are saying is that there was no real UKIP boost for the Conservatives but at the same time they lost large numbers of Remain voters to Labour.

And yet the Tory vote went up by 2.3 million.

How do you account for that?

Beverley_C

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Morris_Dancer said:

So, the new Blade Runner film is Marmite, then?

Not as far as I can see. Reviews from both the critics and the public are overwhelmingly positive, generally ravingly so. That includes amongst those who did not see the original. Box office wise it suffers from being long (committing around 3 1/2 hours to a film including trailers and ads is a lot for many people these days) and also from the claim made before the weekend that it will take $50 million in its opening weekend in the US - which came from a couple of newspapers not from the studio. In the end it has done very well and is number 1 on the charts and made about $35 million in the US which is still good numbers.

Not for a movie which cost as much as it did. It's not a flop like valerian, lone ranger or John Carter, but it was still below modest predictions.

Though I've seen an argument that's good. It will probably break even with international markets giving it a profit even with what must be a large marketing budget, but if it made oodles of money there'd probably be quick sequels, loads planned, which is rarely good for quality.

As it is it is good, it will be well received, and they'll not rush sequels.

Perfect result really. I was one of those who really, really didn't want this sequel and now we have it can't imagine ever not having it because it is a damn near perfect film.

But that doesn't mean I want another sequel.

Honestly I felt like it needs one. But no need to do so quickly.

Having watched it, it was rather obviously left open for a concluding film. A lot of loose ends where left dangling.

My verdict? It is a grim movie. Well done, but grim. I was quite happy with the acting until Harrison Ford came along and then all the others seemed wooden in comparison. Ford has gravitas and star quality and it showed.

The sex scene was creepy.

I think for me, it is a two-watch movie before I make up my mind.

HYUFD

NorthofStoke said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Latest polling has Corbyn still seen less favourably than Labour.

If Corbyn loses the next general election I would expect Labour under Chuka or another moderate to win a landslide at the next general election and be in power for a decade. If Corbyn wins next time I expect the Tories to be competitive when Labour sought re election

More than competitive under those circumstances! Mind you, I think there is a reasonable chance of a split in the Labour party giving us SDP #2. I also think a new pragmatic centrist party could win a lot of seats at the next election.

I agree TSE and OGH and Southam Observer and Osborne and Cable and Umunna could all be in the same party. They have more in common with each other than Tory Brexiteers and Corbyn Labour

dr_spyn

Are HMRC also using premium rate help lines?

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/contact/self-assessment

It looks that way to me, but I haven't had to use them.

https://www.gov.uk/call-charges

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Tyndall said:

"The big expectation throughout the campaign was that the Tories would benefit from Leave supporters and the collapse of UKIP. As it turned out that proved to be insignificant"

So what you are saying is that there was no real UKIP boost for the Conservatives but at the same time they lost large numbers of Remain voters to Labour.

And yet the Tory vote went up by 2.3 million.

How do you account for that?

I think it is fair to say there was no net benefit.

HYUFD

Winstanley said:

HYUFD said:

Winstanley said:

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Did you pay attention to Yvette's leadership campaign in 2015? She was rubbish. Chukka ducked out because he couldn't handle it. Johnson (Alan Johnson?) proved ineffective in all of his roles since 2010.

If any of these people led the Labour Party it wouldn't be worth paying attention to. They have no answers to anything. Corbyn's the only thing that's made it interesting. You have to be quite insensitive to the prevailing mood to think a reheated Blairism is a winning ticket.

Corbyn offers hard Brexit and socialism, Umunna offers soft Brexit and economic moderation in a decade the mood for the latter may have come round again

Yes, of the kind of 'moderate' who involved us in a terrible war and blindly marched into a world economic crisis which they, following the thinking of all the other economic 'moderates', thought was no longer even possible. Moderate, moderate, moderate. A few more 'moderate' governments of the New Labour stripe and we will be facing social collapse.

Moderation I suppose all depends on perspective

Tissue_Price

dr_spyn said:

Are HMRC also using premium rate help lines?

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/contact/self-assessment

It looks that way to me, but I haven't had to use them.

https://www.gov.uk/call-charges

0345/0300 is not a "premium rate help line". That said, I can't really see why these lines shouldn't be free.

https://twitter.com/dizzy_thinks/status/918091053818839040

Richard_Tyndall

williamglenn said:

Tissue_Price said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/polhomeeditor/status/918088571176841217

There's nothing to get through, it's what will happen.

If there is no exit deal approved by parliament, then the UK cannot be said to have decided to leave 'in accordance with its constitutional requirements', and May will be obliged to revoke Article 50.

You are ignoring the fact that there is no need for a Parliamentary vote for us to leave. The vote is on the deal. If the deal is not supported then we leave without a deal. There is no need to revoke anything.

Parliament has already approved the activation of Article 50. After that was done leaving became inevitable in one way or another.

Winstanley

kle4 said:

NorthofStoke said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

God knows how far ahead Labour would now be in the polls with a moderate leader like Yvette, Johnson or Chukka.

Latest polling has Corbyn still seen less favourably than Labour.

If Corbyn loses the next general election I would expect Labour under Chuka or another moderate to win a landslide at the next general election and be in power for a decade. If Corbyn wins next time I expect the Tories to be competitive when Labour sought re election

More than competitive under those circumstances! Mind you, I think there is a reasonable chance of a split in the Labour party giving us SDP #2. I also think a new pragmatic centrist party could win a lot of seats at the next election.

A labour split!? They had no guts to do that when many of them themselves thought they would get hammered, no way it happens moving forward even if Corbyn wins next election and hashes things up.

A new party often seems like it should do well, but here we are, same old parties.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: since the still-birth of the 'Moderate Party' at the end of WW1 we've had more 'pragmatic centrist' parties than there have been Trotskyist sects, and they've contributed even less to our political life.

Join Chapman's Democrats. Join the http://whigs.uk/. Join http://centrist-partyuk.webs.com/. Join the Liberal Democrats.

Beverley_C

foxinsoxuk said:

Beverley_C said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.

The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.

Displacement activity, like tidying your cupboards when an essay is due.

Or disputing the bar bill as the ship hits the iceberg.

That is a kind way of putting it. What is the medical term for a complete denial of reality?

valleyboy

Make no mistake, the Labour vote went up because of Corbyn. I had not seen the enthusiasm for a leader both amongst activists and labour voters since(ironically) 1997. A different Labour leader would have been trounced by TM.

Ishmael_Z

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Terminator 2 was better than the original.

Aliens; Godfather PII; Toy Story 2...
Not all sequels are rubbish.

Bad Boys 2 and Lethal Weapon 2 are better than the first movies.

And of course the fast and furious series didn't get good until number 5, which has to be some kind of record.

I commented 'low bar' in the previous thread, but you are exploring the outer limits of the term...

This "sequel better than original" meme is a stale paradox which needs knocking on the head. Aliens I am not sure about, because aliens is addictively rewatchable whereas alien's strengths are diminished after seeing it once. Toy story 2 was almost as good as the first but not quite. Terminator 2 is just embarrassing because it depends on CGI which was tacky when it came out and hasn't aged well either and because of the tweeness of Arnie's relationship with the ghastly child actor; everything else, for "the sequel is better than the original" read " the original wasn't much good either".

kle4

valleyboy said:

Make no mistake, the Labour vote went up because of Corbyn. I had not seen the enthusiasm for a leader both amongst activists and labour voters since(ironically) 1997. A different Labour leader would have been trounced by TM.

Depressing all around. For labour in that they were dependent on him, others because it worked.

logical_song

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

And May being crap.

A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign

Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?

There wasn't a huge Tory to Labour swing amongst Remainers that wasn't largely countered by the Labour to Tory swing amongst working class Leavers and the Tories gaining over half the 2015 UKIP vote.

Indeed Ford's own figures show a majority of the Remain swing to Labour in the campaign came from non Tories.

As I said the main net loss of the Tories in 2017 was over the dementia tax and not Brexit

The 2017 election was a response to the Tories going for full Brexit and ignoring almost half the country. If Labour had a Remainer as leader they would have done better, but maybe not hugely better since most voters seemed to think that Labour were for Remain anyway.

Pulpstar

valleyboy said:

Make no mistake, the Labour vote went up because of Corbyn. I had not seen the enthusiasm for a leader both amongst activists and labour voters since(ironically) 1997. A different Labour leader would have been trounced by TM.

Do you think Rhodri's passing/Carwyn in Wales had an effect. I note that Labour held Bridgend whereas they lost Mansfield for instance, there was definite outperformance in Wales compared to provincial England.

felix

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

I normally disagree with you but i think on this you are correct. I think theresa is well-meaning but limited when it comes to nuance.

MarqueeMark

Slackbladder said:

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

And May being crap.

And Hammond flouncing off and not skewering Labour on their fantasy "spending without taxing Jo Average" bollocks.

But that was a function of May being less than wonderful at man management.

felix

Andy_Cooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Maybe.

I think it could have been avoided if Mrs May had decided to be more pragmatic on Brexit, she kept on displaying the religious fervour of a convert.

The thread header has a strong smell of hindsight about it. Sure, you could postulate someone other than Corbyn (though who ??) - but you could equally well theorise about a less shit Tory campaign...

I have spoken to a few people, across the political spectrum, who think had the voters known the actual result beforehand, we'd have had a small Tory majority.

I think we might just have to acknowledge the Tories have a long term problem

1) Only one majority won in the last quarter of a century

2) 30 years since the Tories last won a working majority.

The chap who won their last majority is often called a Lib Dem in Tory clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

Haven't Labour had a similar issue?
Up until 1997, they'd won only a single working majority in the previous 50 years.
The chap who broke that string and won three consecutive working majorities is often called a Tory in Labour clothing by a substantial portion of his party.

Spot on. The golden rule being that you pretty well only win comfortably from the centre.

HYUFD

valleyboy said:

Make no mistake, the Labour vote went up because of Corbyn. I had not seen the enthusiasm for a leader both amongst activists and labour voters since(ironically) 1997. A different Labour leader would have been trounced by TM.

Corbyn enthused the Labour base, less so swing voters.

Corbyn won 100 fewer seats than Blair did in 2005 for example

TOPPING

Beverley_C said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Beverley_C said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.

The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.

Displacement activity, like tidying your cupboards when an essay is due.

Or disputing the bar bill as the ship hits the iceberg.

That is a kind way of putting it. What is the medical term for a complete denial of reality?

Homo sapiens.

HYUFD

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

HYUFD said:

It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election

And May being crap.

A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign

Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?

There wasn't a huge Tory to Labour swing amongst Remainers that wasn't largely countered by the Labour to Tory swing amongst working class Leavers and the Tories gaining over half the 2015 UKIP vote.

Indeed Ford's own figures show a majority of the Remain swing to Labour in the campaign came from non Tories.

As I said the main net loss of the Tories in 2017 was over the dementia tax and not Brexit

The 2017 election was a response to the Tories going for full Brexit and ignoring almost half the country. If Labour had a Remainer as leader they would have done better, but maybe not hugely better since most voters seemed to think that Labour were for Remain anyway.

It was not Brexit which Labour lost swing voters on so much as Corbyn's economics

kle4

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Terminator 2 was better than the original.

Aliens; Godfather PII; Toy Story 2...
Not all sequels are rubbish.

Bad Boys 2 and Lethal Weapon 2 are better than the first movies.

And of course the fast and furious series didn't get good until number 5, which has to be some kind of record.

I commented 'low bar' in the previous thread, but you are exploring the outer limits of the term...

Nothing wrong with judging on a scale.

Now comedy sequels on the other almost always suck.