When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?
On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
It is commonplace to argue that Theresa May did Boris up like a kipper by appointing him Foreign Secretary to expose his incompetence, but the corollary of this is that Theresa May deliberately endangered the country by appointing someone she knew to be incompetent.
I don't think shesought to do him up, more likely she was just buying his loyalty by the appointment and underestimated how little he would do.
I have just been reading the first review of the county season. Unfortunately it is by the Hefferlump and therefore a bit rubbish, but he did have one interesting idea. He suggested that any Test hosting county that signs a player from a non-Test hosting county should be docked 10 points for the following season.
He mentioned Nottinghamshire, who have signed Ben Duckett (Northants) Ben Slater (Derbyshire) and Joe Clarke (Worcestershire). Nottinghamshire are an especially interesting case because although they boast about how many of their squad play for England, only one player actually developed by Notts (Samit Patel) has played for England in the last 30 years (discounting Paul Franks who played only one match). Given their size and wealth, that's an appalling record. And it's largely because instead of producing their own players they snap up tried and tested players from smaller counties (or countries, in the case of Brendan Taylor) so there is no path for local talent.
Warwickshire have a somewhat better record - no county that produced Woakes and Bell could be considered a failure - but even they are snapping up other players (in this case, two bowlers from Gloucestershire, one of them illegally tapped up while under contract - guess what penalty was imposed for this)? And this has wrecked Gloucestershire's chances of promotion next season. If they lose Bracey too, they lose the spine of their batting lineup.
I'm not sure that points deductions are the way to go, but clearly this is both inequitable and damaging. While it may fit the mindset of Colin Graves to have ten first class counties and damn the rest, that merely confirms that he's an idiot. If we had first class teams in the same ratio to population as Australia, we would have 25 of them. We should be looking to expand the size of the pool, not diminish it (although the dumb decision to take cricket off free-to-air is also responsible for that).
Would there perhaps be mileage in saying any Test county who signs a player from a non-Test county should pay a transfer fee of one year's salary to the club that developed the player, or two years if that player was still under contract? Think what that would do to even up the contest between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire...
Ydoethur, when does the rounders start
Not for too damn long. Nigelb and I will have nothing to swap awesome cricketing puns about. We'll be stumped for interesting topics, and forced to fall back on Brexit and Sturgeon...
Let’s put a positive spin on it. We’ve had a pretty good innings, mining a deep seam.
There is a season for everything.
Are those Ali the puns you can make? If so we're going to struggle to Cook up any good threads.
Labour wonder why their policies seem popular and they are not gaining on the conservatives
Take rail nationalisation. The public quite like the idea until you say
Do you trust Corbyn/McDonnell/McCluskey to run our railways and there is a resounding Noooooooo
Totally agree with you this morning G, if after that oxygen of publicity there is no bounce, that is the electorate no longer listening to Corbyns Labour. If after launching all that policy they go backwards, that’s putting revolution on the airwaves and actually spooking Voters. It’s looking like a disaster Labour conference if the pols are doing that. What does this mean? It means unions keep burning an awful lot of money without getting Labour governments. Let’s all laugh at the leaders of British trader unions, for not actually representing the British working man and woman, just their own narrow political views.
Interesting that TM had a love in with Ruth Davidson yesterday giving Ruth baby presents
I have little doubt they were talking of decapitating Boris and I would be very surprised if Ruth doesn't launch a full on broadside against Boris in her conference speech. He disgusts her
When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
It was worth appointing Boris FS. It proved to all and sundry what may of us knew from a long acquaintance with the man: that he is utterly unfit to hold high office
The Great Offices of State should be positions of prestige, not some sort of fools’ theatre used to expose the negligent, irresponsible and incompetent.
Mr. Song, he was an idiot to support the polygraph's use (it isn't a lie detector. A lie detector is a fictional box of magic).
Mr. B, true, but given the polygraph is practically worthless it's alarming that some actually care what it would say. It misses deceit and 'spots' false positives all the time. It's barely better than tossing a coin.
It is interesting that a judge who believed in their accuracy, sufficiently to affirm in law their admissibility as evidence, refuses to take one.
Surely if you don’t think they are entirely random then You should admit in evidence and place the appropriate weight on the results?
When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done?
On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
It is commonplace to argue that Theresa May did Boris up like a kipper by appointing him Foreign Secretary to expose his incompetence, but the corollary of this is that Theresa May deliberately endangered the country by appointing someone she knew to be incompetent.
Disagree. These days the FS only has as much authority and ability to act as the PM chooses. There were poor calls with dreadful consequences (like that lady in Iran) but none that “endangered the country”
Unless you think that the country’s general reputation with opinion formers abroad doesn’t matter too much.
Anyway, however much rope May gave him, he resigned, he wasn’t sacked.
Labour wonder why their policies seem popular and they are not gaining on the conservatives
Take rail nationalisation. The public quite like the idea until you say
Do you trust Corbyn/McDonnell/McCluskey to run our railways and there is a resounding Noooooooo
Totally agree with you this morning G, if after that oxygen of publicity there is no bounce, that is the electorate no longer listening to Corbyns Labour. If after launching all that policy they go backwards, that’s putting revolution on the airwaves and actually spooking Voters. It’s looking like a disaster Labour conference if the pols are doing that. What does this mean? It means unions keep burning an awful lot of money without getting Labour governments. Let’s all laugh at the leaders of British trader unions, for not actually representing the British working man and woman, just their own narrow political views.
Are you saying that Labour is Micking the unions' Cash for no return?
I will get my coat as I need to inflate my mighty eight foot horn and fiddle with full swell.
Winning seats will win us power. Also as I mentioned to ydoethur if we are using the past prediction method then the Tories will lose seats on the basis of being in government for a while and already starting on a seat losing trajectory.
Fundamentally there has been a swing (Lab/Con) against the party in power for every GE since 1979 (With the exception of 1983). Given the extent of Labour's landslide in 1997 and the whole LD squeeze in 2015 perhaps it is 1987, 2005 and 2017 that are the indicators in this light, all with swings against the governing party. As you say based on history this favours Labour in 2022.
Interesting that TM had a love in with Ruth Davidson yesterday giving Ruth baby presents
I have little doubt they were talking of decapitating Boris and I would be very surprised if Ruth doesn't launch a full on broadside against Boris in her conference speech. He disgusts her
Let’s hope they are not relying on a third party contractor for hot towels when she goes up to give that speech. There could be a conference first.
Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?
As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.
Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.
The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.
Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.
To be less popular than this Tory government midterm, you must be mad.
I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election. Especially given Brexit and everything that comes with that as something will have to happen, even if it is a longer transition to more of the same. Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.
I don't think it a rule of nature that they must be x points ahead by now to win the next election, though it would be better for them if they were and I am astonished they are not, but I don't know what you think was proven false at the last election because Labour still lost and there's also no rule that labour will improve their position during a GE campaign next time.
So nothing was proven at the GE although Labour will not feel as rattled by being a little behind (though it means claiming the country is crying out for a change is harder - if we believe the polls the Tories are more popular).
I think you misread my post...
I said 'I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election.' and then later on I referred back to this when I said 'Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.'
We weren't multiple points ahead and we did gain seats at the GE.
Mr. Song, he was an idiot to support the polygraph's use (it isn't a lie detector. A lie detector is a fictional box of magic).
Mr. B, true, but given the polygraph is practically worthless it's alarming that some actually care what it would say. It misses deceit and 'spots' false positives all the time. It's barely better than tossing a coin.
It's so useless that even American crime tv shows which rely on magic technology usually only use it to:
A) show us the hero is smart enough to know how to beat one
b) show a psychopath beating one while clearly being guilty.
Interesting that TM had a love in with Ruth Davidson yesterday giving Ruth baby presents
I have little doubt they were talking of decapitating Boris and I would be very surprised if Ruth doesn't launch a full on broadside against Boris in her conference speech. He disgusts her
Let’s hope they are not relying on a third party contractor for hot towels when she goes up to give that speech. There could be a conference first.
When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
It was worth appointing Boris FS. It proved to all and sundry what may of us knew from a long acquaintance with the man: that he is utterly unfit to hold high office
The Great Offices of State should be positions of prestige, not some sort of fools’ theatre used to expose the negligent, irresponsible and incompetent.
Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?
As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.
Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.
The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.
Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.
To be less popular than this Tory government midterm, you must be mad.
I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election. Especially given Brexit and everything that comes with that as something will have to happen, even if it is a longer transition to more of the same. Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.
Gaining seats is not the goal. Winning is the goal. Last time we lost.
Historically to win from opposition, you need to be multiple points ahead midterm, so you end up still ahead on polling day.
What about someone winning a decade and more into office? Pretty rare as well.
Brexit remains the only issue in town. Both parties are riven over the issue, both parties remain relatively popular but with the potential to lose swathes of voters by playing Brexit wrong. So at this stage I'm generally disinterested in polls as everything will change anyway.
Having seen the enormous queues to both get into Spain and then get into the UK for non EEA passports this summer (and the additional screening area just for UK that had been built at Alicante airport) we're not booking a holiday for next Summer. Yet.
So lets see how events roll out. Whether we crash out or not its clear that we will suffer some of the effects anyway. The £500m a week (and growing!!!) retraction in the economy will bite hard, we have had major manufacturing announcing they are moving their annual shutdown to April (so bang goes your summer holiday) and they won't be the last.
Will ANY political party be rewarded for the grotesque chaos to come? Is the right bet for political leaders to be leading the charge into this abyss as the will of the people, or warning of it and trying to avoid it to save people from themselves...?
Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?
As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.
Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.
The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.
Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.
To be less popular than this Tory government midterm, you must be mad.
I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election. Especially given Brexit and everything that comes with that as something will have to happen, even if it is a longer transition to more of the same. Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.
Gaining seats is not the goal. Winning is the goal. Last time we lost.
Historically to win from opposition, you need to be multiple points ahead midterm, so you end up still ahead on polling day.
What about someone winning a decade and more into office? Pretty rare as well.
Yes the Tories won in 2010 and Labour lost in 1992. Fundamentally though there was a swing against the Gov't both times..
Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.
The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.
Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.
Well, they should be. The polls have been wrong about the lead in the last four elections. The Tories led at the start of the campaign in 2005, and in 2010 and 2017 had enough for overall majorities six weeks out. In 2015, the worst case scenario the polls painted for Labour was 290 Tory MPs, more than forty out from the result.
Ìf we want to play the past predicts the future game then my understanding is that a party in the Tories position, in government for a while and have begun losing seats have not managed to reverse that for quite some time.
If the Tories lead was what it is now at the start of the last election then they would have lost badly from the resulting movement. Obviously that isn't going to happen again (or very very unlikely anyway) but that is because Labour will be starting the campaign with a lot more support to begin with, it is a completely different ball game.
'05 '10 and '15 all took place when the Labour trajectory (from the last election) had been downwards and the Conservative trajectory upwards. That isn't the case next time.
Not that I think that will decide the election either. These things can be useful indicators but the mass of voters who ultimately decide matters do not make their decisions based on these things. If they did then 2017 would have gone the way all the indicators before the campaign showed it would. It didn't.
The most dangerous words in predicting the future are “This time it’s different”. But this time I think it is
Seats won by a government in the election are a function of {perceived competence, people they have pissed off, strength of the election campaign, strength of the opposition, luck}
The reason why governments usually lose seats is that most of those move within a tight band with the exception of “people they have pissed off” which moves against them
In this case the election campaign for the Tories was so weak (and I think they were unlucky with some events) that they are probably going to be better next time. Hence you can’t rely on the historical trends based analysis
Interesting that TM had a love in with Ruth Davidson yesterday giving Ruth baby presents
I have little doubt they were talking of decapitating Boris and I would be very surprised if Ruth doesn't launch a full on broadside against Boris in her conference speech. He disgusts her
You have to concede though Big G, that Boris is right on the central point of the rift, are those red lines more in self intertest or national interest? If someone came up with different red lines, could those actually be more in national interest?
It's easy to agree with all of that but when you look at the Labour leadership there's something that tells you they aren't anything like competent and that's why I don't believe they can win.
Having a chantable name isn't enough.
I suspect that is correct -- there is a basic lack of arithmetical skills missing, so that the promises of a National Care Service or free University tuition or free childcare are just fanciful.
I do expect a politician who tells me that University tuition should be free or a National Care Service for all can be provided to understand how much it will cost (I am happy for them to be vaguer about the origin of the money).
The order of magnitude sums are not difficult -- but Nick Palmer's PhD in mathematics notwithstanding -- no-one left in the Labour Party seems to be able to add up.
If you are trying to do something ambitious, and the budget is wrong at outset, then the project will likely end in failure.
For me, that is a greater impediment to voting for Corbyn than the claims of antisemitism (which I believe have been guilefully created by his political opponents).
Does it concern you that the government has been less than forthright about the cost of its own flagship policy, Brexit? Depending which Conservatives you believe, whether we crash out or stay in will cost hundreds of billions of pounds. That would pay for a lot of train sets and water boards. Today's papers tell us Brexit is already costing £500 million a week and it's not even happened yet. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
(I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)
I think it is, however, time to lay Sanders (and Biden if you haven’t already done so). Warren and Sanders are the competition for the left vote, and and one of the two is going to be at least a contender. I think the Kavanaugh affair makes it very unlikely to be Sanders.
I think the Kavanaugh affair makes it very unlikely to be Sanders.
Also he'll be 81 at the time of the next election. My father will be 80 this year and, even though he's in good health, it seems ulikely, though not impossible, that someone of that age could be effective as POTUS. The gamut of my dad's capabilities now runs to the Telegraph crossword and inventing cruel nicknames for Philip May.
If he were running against Trump, he’d have my vote... (your dad, that is).
I think the point about Sanders is that, not unlike Corbyn, he’s a symbol whose actual capabilities are barely relevant to the believers. And to answer Charles question, there is no link between Sanders and Kavanaugh, which is exactly the point. Like it or not, the confirmation battle will be a litmus test for candidates going forward (and is why Biden’s history with the Clarence Thomas confirmation will likely count against him).
Sanders has simply become less relevant as a symbol.
Interesting that TM had a love in with Ruth Davidson yesterday giving Ruth baby presents
I have little doubt they were talking of decapitating Boris and I would be very surprised if Ruth doesn't launch a full on broadside against Boris in her conference speech. He disgusts her
Let’s hope they are not relying on a third party contractor for hot towels when she goes up to give that speech. There could be a conference first.
That is very good - really made me laugh
I bet Hammond produces teeny pair of scissors from somewhere to help cut the umbrella cord.
Haven't there been polls showing Labour with a lead as well?
As far I can see it is pretty close to what it has been for a long time, both parties not far off 40, Tories generally slightly ahead.
Given the polling before the last election you could argue that either this isn't anything to worry about and when the campaign starts and neutrality rules kick in is when it matters or that this is a pretty good position to be in considering where we started last time.
The most exciting thing is I am pretty sure we will be fully able to test our hypothesis out when the actual next election takes place as Labour members aren't going to be scared off by one poll showing a few point deficit and another a one point lead.
Personally although I would like Labour in the lead either consistently across the polls or on average over them I am fairly happy with the current position.
To be less popular than this Tory government midterm, you must be mad.
I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election. Especially given Brexit and everything that comes with that as something will have to happen, even if it is a longer transition to more of the same. Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.
I don't think it a rule of nature that they must be x points ahead by now to win the next election, though it would be better for them if they were and I am astonished they are not, but I don't know what you think was proven false at the last election because Labour still lost and there's also no rule that labour will improve their position during a GE campaign next time.
So nothing was proven at the GE although Labour will not feel as rattled by being a little behind (though it means claiming the country is crying out for a change is harder - if we believe the polls the Tories are more popular).
I think you misread my post...
I said 'I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election.' and then later on I referred back to this when I said 'Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.'
We weren't multiple points ahead and we did gain seats at the GE.
I must have assumed you were talking about labour winning elections. Not sure aiming for gaining seats by itself is a goal which indicates success, depending on other factors.
Interesting that TM had a love in with Ruth Davidson yesterday giving Ruth baby presents
I have little doubt they were talking of decapitating Boris and I would be very surprised if Ruth doesn't launch a full on broadside against Boris in her conference speech. He disgusts her
You have to concede though Big G, that Boris is right on the central point of the rift, are those red lines more in self intertest or national interest? If someone came up with different red lines, could those actually be more in national interest?
Boris is wanting a deal that sees our manufacturing lost to the EU, he did tell Airbus to FO, and is willing to see an Irish sea border. He is also a complete clown
Mr. Song, he was an idiot to support the polygraph's use (it isn't a lie detector. A lie detector is a fictional box of magic).
Mr. B, true, but given the polygraph is practically worthless it's alarming that some actually care what it would say. It misses deceit and 'spots' false positives all the time. It's barely better than tossing a coin.
It is interesting that a judge who believed in their accuracy, sufficiently to affirm in law their admissibility as evidence, refuses to take one.
Surely if you don’t think they are entirely random then You should admit in evidence and place the appropriate weight on the results?
"What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......
That fit me is the biggest negative. He was clearly unbelievably angry (and I think reasonably) but he let it show and as a judge he should be able to restrain himself from lashing out
For a judge to say that this was a ‘conspiracy’ against him - on significantly less evidence than has been brought against him - is absolutely disqualificatory, angry or not.
He didn’t quite say that - he said it was a political conspiracy
The Democrats have quite clearly played this in a way to maximise the political damage regardless of the truth of the charges. I do not think the term “conspiracy” is helpful but he’s basically complaining about politicians being political
I have just been reading the first review of the county season. Unfortunately it is by the Hefferlump and therefore a bit rubbish, but he did have one interesting idea. He suggested that any Test hosting county that signs a player from a non-Test hosting county should be docked 10 points for the following season.
He mentioned Nottinghamshire, who have signed Ben Duckett (Northants) Ben Slater (Derbyshire) and Joe Clarke (Worcestershire). Nottinghamshire are an especially interesting case because although they boast about how many of their squad play for England, only one player actually developed by Notts (Samit Patel) . And it's largely because instead of producing their own players they snap up tried and tested players from smaller counties (or countries, in the case of Brendan Taylor) so there is no path for local
I'm not sure that points deductions are the way to go, but clearly this is both inequitable and damaging. While it may fit the mindset of Colin Graves to have ten first class counties and damn the rest, that merely confirms that he's an idiot. If we had first class teams in the same ratio to population as Australia, we would have 25 of them. We should be looking to expand the size of the pool, not diminish it (although the dumb decision to take cricket off free-to-air is also responsible for that).
Would there perhaps be mileage in saying any Test county who signs a player from a non-Test county should pay a transfer fee of one year's salary to the club that developed the player, or two years if that player was still under contract? Think what that would do to even up the contest between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire...
Ydoethur, when does the rounders start
Not for too damn long. Nigelb and I will have nothing to swap awesome cricketing puns about. We'll be stumped for interesting topics, and forced to fall back on Brexit and Sturgeon...
Let’s put a positive spin on it. We’ve had a pretty good innings, mining a deep seam.
There is a season for everything.
Are those Ali the puns you can make? If so we're going to struggle to Cook up any good threads.
Just lobbing up a couple of full tosses for you to dispatchto the boundary. Have fun with the organ.
Haven't you forgotten a lot of Socialists are elderly? Look at Corbyn himself!
I think they key point is I expect the Tories to lose votes. But I think Labour is running a high risk of losing more votes. That doesn't have to be through switching. It could be through apathy. Will all those students who voted last time after Corbyn promised them free money vote again now he's admitted he was lying? I don't think that can be taken for granted.
The reason momentum (no pun intended) traditionally goes one way when a party starts losing seats is because they keep losing votes. But both parties have some way to fall next time, and the question is, 'who will fall further?' The one who falls least should win comfortably given the number of tight marginals available.
This is one reason I thought the anti-semitism row all summer long would be hugely damaging for Labour. It doesn't need to turn people into mini-Moggs. If it turns 2% into non-voters it will cost Labour dear in the Midlands and the suburbs.
I assume your just half joking with your first line, obviously Labour do have many older voters and some of these will die but given the age distribution of voters for both parties then more Conservative 2017 voters won't be around for the next election than Labour 2017. Without any vote changing the Tories are already behind from the off. Which means just to match Labour in terms of vote retention they have to keep a higher percentage of their still living voters on board than Labour do.
The problem is say for example with lying to the students, it seems to be mainly right wing Conservative voters who are middle aged and older who feel they were lied to. It might be an age thing but I think younger Labour voters understand the idea that the opposition doesn't get to implement its manifesto.
It seems to me to be like saying they won't vote for him because they think he is an IRA lover when the people who say that are people who already aren't voting for him. If we are talking about losing voters then cheap attack lines from right wing newspapers aren't very effective otherwise they wouldn't have voted Labour in 2017.
Brexit is the big killer for me, when you consider how many voters the Conservative party won because of Brexit, then even those people that they please won't necessarily all vote Conservative as a thank you, many voters will bank that and look to the next thing. Those who are angry at what has been done with Brexit could cost the Tories dearly. When you add in the cost of governing and the fact they do lose more voters have an older voter base then the Tories have to work much harder than Labour to keep voters on board.
When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done? On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
It is commonplace to argue that Theresa May did Boris up like a kipper by appointing him Foreign Secretary to expose his incompetence, but the corollary of this is that Theresa May deliberately endangered the country by appointing someone she knew to be incompetent.
I wonder if that is the reason why nobody in the EU takes Mrs May seriously.....
Mr Ace, being 80 doesn’t mean one shouldn’t, or can’t, be active in mind and body. I was 80 last May and while I won’t go to the gym today, as a pensioner I’m paying a non-weekend sub, I do three days a week.
Whether I’m rational in my posts here, I must leave others to judge, but I’m active in other intellectual areas, and, as far as I can see not treated as a silly old fool.
I think the Kavanaugh affair makes it very unlikely to be Sanders.
Also he'll be 81 at the time of the next election. My father will be 80 this year and, even though he's in good health, it seems ulikely, though not impossible, that someone of that age could be effective as POTUS. The gamut of my dad's capabilities now runs to the Telegraph crossword and inventing cruel nicknames for Philip May.
In general I agree with you. The greatest post war leader of them all, in my opinion, Konrad Adenauer, took office when he was 75, I think. He went on for another 15 years, although he was past it by the end
I appreciate in the pic there Starmer does not feel the need to wear a red tie. Nothing wrong with wearing your party colours of course, especially at conference, but it can get amusing, like a time Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were sat next to each other and appeared to literally be wearing the same suit and were distinguishable only by the tie colour.
On the subject, party leaders and their cohorts don't like it when peons cause trouble, even if they used to be peons themselves.
Mr. Song, he was an idiot to support the polygraph's use (it isn't a lie detector. A lie detector is a fictional box of magic).
Mr. B, true, but given the polygraph is practically worthless it's alarming that some actually care what it would say. It misses deceit and 'spots' false positives all the time. It's barely better than tossing a coin.
It is interesting that a judge who believed in their accuracy, sufficiently to affirm in law their admissibility as evidence, refuses to take one.
Surely if you don’t think they are entirely random then You should admit in evidence and place the appropriate weight on the results?
It was the refusal that was interesting.
Except that they (IIRC) just measure stress/heart rate. Anger would trigger a positive.
When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
On calling the last election, giving the polling at the time, what would you have done? On Boris, it’s called “enough rope” - and Boris obliged. The real beneficiary of that is Hunt, who daily reminds us what having a competent FS is like.
It is commonplace to argue that Theresa May did Boris up like a kipper by appointing him Foreign Secretary to expose his incompetence, but the corollary of this is that Theresa May deliberately endangered the country by appointing someone she knew to be incompetent.
I wonder if that is the reason why nobody in the EU takes Mrs May seriously.....
"What America saw before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an injudicious man, an angry brat veering from fury to sniveling sobs, a judge so bereft of composure and proportion that it was difficult not to squirm.......
That fit me is the biggest negative. He was clearly unbelievably angry (and I think reasonably) but he let it show and as a judge he should be able to restrain himself from lashing out
For a judge to say that this was a ‘conspiracy’ against him - on significantly less evidence than has been brought against him - is absolutely disqualificatory, angry or not.
He didn’t quite say that - he said it was a political conspiracy
The Democrats have quite clearly played this in a way to maximise the political damage regardless of the truth of the charges. I do not think the term “conspiracy” is helpful but he’s basically complaining about politicians being political
Which is a pretty stupid thing to complain about.
Judges being political is, of course, a quite different matter.
Haven't you forgotten a lot of Socialists are elderly? Look at Corbyn himself!
I think they key point is I expect the Tories to lose votes. But I think Labour is running a high risk of losing more votes. That doesn't have to be through switching. It could be through apathy. Will all those students who voted last time after Corbyn promised them free money vote again now he's admitted he was lying? I don't think that can be taken for granted.
The reason momentum (no pun intended) traditionally goes one way when a party starts losing seats is because they keep losing votes. But both parties have some way to fall next time, and the question is, 'who will fall further?' The one who falls least should win comfortably given the number of tight marginals available.
This is one reason I thought the anti-semitism row all summer long would be hugely damaging for Labour. It doesn't need to turn people into mini-Moggs. If it turns 2% into non-voters it will cost Labour dear in the Midlands and the suburbs.
I assume your just half joking with your first line, obviously Labour do have many older voters and some of these will die but given the age distribution of voters for both parties then more Conservative 2017 voters won't be around for the next election than Labour 2017. Without any vote changing the Tories are already behind from the off. Which means just to match Labour in terms of vote retention they have to keep a higher percentage of their still living voters on board than Labour do.
The problem is say for example with lying to the students, it seems to be mainly right wing Conservative voters who are middle aged and older who feel they were lied to. It might be an age thing but I think younger Labour voters understand the idea that the opposition doesn't get to implement its manifesto.
It seems to me to be like saying they won't vote for him because they think he is an IRA lover when the people who say that are people who already aren't voting for him. If we are talking about losing voters then cheap attack lines from right wing newspapers aren't very effective otherwise they wouldn't have voted Labour in 2017.
Brexit is the big killer for me, when you consider how many voters the Conservative party won because of Brexit, then even those people that they please won't necessarily all vote Conservative as a thank you, many voters will bank that and look to the next thing. Those who are angry at what has been done with Brexit could cost the Tories dearly. When you add in the cost of governing and the fact they do lose more voters have an older voter base then the Tories have to work much harder than Labour to keep voters on board.
Not many voters who were students in 2017 will still be so in 2022.
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
It was worth appointing Boris FS. It proved to all and sundry what may of us knew from a long acquaintance with the man: that he is utterly unfit to hold high office
The Great Offices of State should be positions of prestige, not some sort of fools’ theatre used to expose the negligent, irresponsible and incompetent.
It's easy to agree with all of that but when you look at the Labour leadership there's something that tells you they aren't anything like competent and that's why I don't believe they can win.
Having a chantable name isn't enough.
I suspect that is correct -- there is a basic lack of arithmetical skills missing, so that the promises of a National Care Service or free University tuition or free childcare are just fanciful.
I do expect a politician who tells me that University tuition should be free or a National Care Service for all can be provided to understand how much it will cost (I am happy for them to be vaguer about the origin of the money).
The order of magnitude sums are not difficult -- but Nick Palmer's PhD in mathematics notwithstanding -- no-one left in the Labour Party seems to be able to add up.
If you are trying to do something ambitious, and the budget is wrong at outset, then the project will likely end in failure.
For me, that is a greater impediment to voting for Corbyn than the claims of antisemitism (which I believe have been guilefully created by his political opponents).
Does it concern you that the government has been less than forthright about the cost of its own flagship policy, Brexit? Depending which Conservatives you believe, whether we crash out or stay in will cost hundreds of billions of pounds. That would pay for a lot of train sets and water boards. Today's papers tell us Brexit is already costing £500 million a week and it's not even happened yet. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
I would say that the initial costs of the National Care Service or Free University Tuition can be reasonably estimated from public data to within 10 per cent.
I would say the effects of Brexit cannot at the moment be even estimated without being reasonably certain what form Brexit will take.
However, as you have quoted 500 million pounds a week, please do summarise the order of magnitude calculation that gets us to this figure ?
I am afraid an answer such as "Go read the Guardian" gets minus points. If the figure is 500 million pounds a week, it should be possible for you to explain how the number is arrived it. (It is already a suspiciously nice and rounded-off number).
Overall, I am strongly in favour of politicians and commentators (whether left or right) having sufficient basic numeracy skills to be able to justify numbers that they quote, or being able to cost a policy (to say 20 per cent) and explain the costing to the public.
Because the very soul of the world is economic, and that the lowest abyss is not the absence of love, but the absence of the coin.
When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
It was worth appointing Boris FS. It proved to all and sundry what may of us knew from a long acquaintance with the man: that he is utterly unfit to hold high office
The Great Offices of State should be positions of prestige, not some sort of fools’ theatre used to expose the negligent, irresponsible and incompetent.
If he hadn’t we’d have wall to wall “If only Boris had been Foreign Secretary” from the usual suspects. Curiously they remain silent on the matter.
OT. If you get the chance take a look at 'The Wife'. Flawed but Oscar winning performance by Glenn Close.
Will do. Wifey went to the premier of First Man, which got rave reviews at Venice. She wasn't bowled over - too long, she thought, lots and lots of cramped capsule stuff where you spend an age looking up Ryan Gosling's nose....
Mr Ace, being 80 doesn’t mean one shouldn’t, or can’t, be active in mind and body. I was 80 last May and while I won’t go to the gym today, as a pensioner I’m paying a non-weekend sub, I do three days a week.
Whether I’m rational in my posts here, I must leave others to judge, but I’m active in other intellectual areas, and, as far as I can see not treated as a silly old fool.
Being active and lucid is one thing and I hope you continue to be so for many years but being President is on another level altogether.
(I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)
Whinge if you want but if Warren does run she already leads the last New Hampshire Democratic primary poll on 26% to 20% for Biden, 13% for Sanders and 8% for Booker
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Mr Ace, being 80 doesn’t mean one shouldn’t, or can’t, be active in mind and body. I was 80 last May and while I won’t go to the gym today, as a pensioner I’m paying a non-weekend sub, I do three days a week.
Whether I’m rational in my posts here, I must leave others to judge, but I’m active in other intellectual areas, and, as far as I can see not treated as a silly old fool.
Being active and lucid is one thing and I hope you continue to be so for many years but being President is on another level altogether.
The before and after photos of presidents illustrate that rather dramatically.
Mr Ace, being 80 doesn’t mean one shouldn’t, or can’t, be active in mind and body. I was 80 last May and while I won’t go to the gym today, as a pensioner I’m paying a non-weekend sub, I do three days a week.
Whether I’m rational in my posts here, I must leave others to judge, but I’m active in other intellectual areas, and, as far as I can see not treated as a silly old fool.
Being active and lucid is one thing and I hope you continue to be so for many years but being President is on another level altogether.
Most people don't have what it takes at 40, if someone does at 80 they are a remarkable person indeed. I know people in their 70s far more energetic and able than I (And not talking of ability Trump appears to have almost too much energy). But it's not dismissing people even older than that to think it would be that much harder for them to cope with a job like the presidency, even though there will be someone out there who could.
Mr Ace, being 80 doesn’t mean one shouldn’t, or can’t, be active in mind and body. I was 80 last May and while I won’t go to the gym today, as a pensioner I’m paying a non-weekend sub, I do three days a week.
Whether I’m rational in my posts here, I must leave others to judge, but I’m active in other intellectual areas, and, as far as I can see not treated as a silly old fool.
Being active and lucid is one thing and I hope you continue to be so for many years but being President is on another level altogether.
Totally agree with you. Retired from my profession 10 years ago because I’d seen too many people work on far beyond their safe level.
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Barnier has at least said he is willing to do a Canada style issue for GB, he has flat out rejected Chequers.
Regarding NI I would prefer the Boles solution of leaving via the EEA/EFTA route which would ensure no hard border in NI and then trying to negotiate a Canada style deal for the whole UK longer term
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Nothing addresses the NI issue. That's the point of it.
Does it concern you that the government has been less than forthright about the cost of its own flagship policy, Brexit? Depending which Conservatives you believe, whether we crash out or stay in will cost hundreds of billions of pounds. That would pay for a lot of train sets and water boards. Today's papers tell us Brexit is already costing £500 million a week and it's not even happened yet. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
I would say that the initial costs of the National Care Service or Free University Tuition can be reasonably estimated from public data to within 10 per cent.
I would say the effects of Brexit cannot at the moment be even estimated without being reasonably certain what form Brexit will take.
However, as you have quoted 500 million pounds a week, please do summarise the order of magnitude calculation that gets us to this figure ?
I am afraid an answer such as "Go read the Guardian" gets minus points. If the figure is 500 million pounds a week, it should be possible for you to explain how the number is arrived it. (It is already a suspiciously nice and rounded-off number).
Overall, I am strongly in favour of politicians and commentators (whether left or right) having sufficient basic numeracy skills to be able to justify numbers that they quote, or being able to cost a policy (to say 20 per cent) and explain the costing to the public.
Because the very soul of the world is economic, and that the lowest abyss is not the absence of love, but the absence of the coin.
The argument is the percentage loss of GDP. While it’s a credible figure, there’s no real evidence for it. But then again you can say that about many macro economic policies in the relatively short term, since it’s almost impossible to run a direct comparator.
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Nothing addresses the NI issue. That's the point of it.
When it comes to self inflicted wounds it's difficult to know whch was the worst. Calling the last election or appointing Boris Foreign Scretary.
It was worth appointing Boris FS. It proved to all and sundry what may of us knew from a long acquaintance with the man: that he is utterly unfit to hold high office
The Great Offices of State should be positions of prestige, not some sort of fools’ theatre used to expose the negligent, irresponsible and incompetent.
If he hadn’t we’d have wall to wall “If only Boris had been Foreign Secretary” from the usual suspects. Curiously they remain silent on the matter.
Foreign Secretary in the 21st century may be a great office of state but it's also as impotent as Vice President of the United States if the occupier is not on the same page as the PM.
May has been the only one entrusted with any authority. That was the case during the election and it has been the case through Brexit negotiations. And she has messed up both.
(I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)
Whinge if you want but if Warren does run she already leads the last New Hampshire Democratic primary poll on 26% to 20% for Biden, 13% for Sanders and 8% for Booker
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Nothing addresses the NI issue. That's the point of it.
No Deal does. Problem belong EU/Ireland......
Indeed. No deal then Canada seems to be the only long term solution other than abandon Brexit.
Does it concern you that the government has been less than forthright about the cost of its own flagship policy, Brexit? Depending which Conservatives you believe, whether we crash out or stay in will cost hundreds of billions of pounds. That would pay for a lot of train sets and water boards. Today's papers tell us Brexit is already costing £500 million a week and it's not even happened yet. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
I would say that the initial costs of the National Care Service or Free University Tuition can be reasonably estimated from public data to within 10 per cent.
I would say the effects of Brexit cannot at the moment be even estimated without being reasonably certain what form Brexit will take.
However, as you have quoted 500 million pounds a week, please do summarise the order of magnitude calculation that gets us to this figure ?
I am afraid an answer such as "Go read the Guardian" gets minus points. If the figure is 500 million pounds a week, it should be possible for you to explain how the number is arrived it. (It is already a suspiciously nice and rounded-off number).
Overall, I am strongly in favour of politicians and commentators (whether left or right) having sufficient basic numeracy skills to be able to justify numbers that they quote, or being able to cost a policy (to say 20 per cent) and explain the costing to the public.
Because the very soul of the world is economic, and that the lowest abyss is not the absence of love, but the absence of the coin.
The argument is the percentage loss of GDP. While it’s a credible figure, there’s no real evidence for it. But then again you can say that about many macro economic policies in the relatively short term, since it’s almost impossible to run a direct comparator.
It's not a credible figure as there is no reason to believe from what happened pre Referendum that the public finances would be £26bn better off.
Does it concern you that the government has been less than forthright about the cost of its own flagship policy, Brexit? Depending which Conservatives you believe, whether we crash out or stay in will cost hundreds of billions of pounds. That would pay for a lot of train sets and water boards. Today's papers tell us Brexit is already costing £500 million a week and it's not even happened yet. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
I would say that the initial costs of the National Care Service or Free University Tuition can be reasonably estimated from public data to within 10 per cent.
I would say the effects of Brexit cannot at the moment be even estimated without being reasonably certain what form Brexit will take.
However, as you have quoted 500 million pounds a week, please do summarise the order of magnitude calculation that gets us to this figure ?
I am afraid an answer such as "Go read the Guardian" gets minus points. If the figure is 500 million pounds a week, it should be possible for you to explain how the number is arrived it. (It is already a suspiciously nice and rounded-off number).
Overall, I am strongly in favour of politicians and commentators (whether left or right) having sufficient basic numeracy skills to be able to justify numbers that they quote, or being able to cost a policy (to say 20 per cent) and explain the costing to the public.
Because the very soul of the world is economic, and that the lowest abyss is not the absence of love, but the absence of the coin.
The argument is the percentage loss of GDP. While it’s a credible figure, there’s no real evidence for it. But then again you can say that about many macro economic policies in the relatively short term, since it’s almost impossible to run a direct comparator.
That is my point. A macro economic model is a model.
To work out the cost of the National Care Service right now needs no model.
It is a much more well-defined calculation that involved the number of people receiving care now and the cost of delivering the care. (To extrapolate into the future of course involves a model, though again a more certain one that a macro economic model).
If you can get the simple sums right (Corby can't), you have no hope with the difficult sums.
Not for the first time, you're very keen to write Boris off. He's always bounced back and done better than forecast and I shouldn't be in the least surprised to see him bounce back and do better than is being forecast now. I shouldn't be in the least surprised, either, to discover that yesterday's poll was wrong about Theresa May: the poll figures look better for her than I suspect would be reflected in an actual vote. After all, it isn't only Conservative voters who will determine her fate, is it, it's the electorate as a whole and I suspect she has very little support beyond the Tory heartlands. She strikes me as as a decent woman who's doing her best but who is further out of her depth with every day that passes - and that's simply not good enough. She got the sympathy vote when the Europeans bullied her - but it was a weak position to be in, nonetheless. Can you imagine them bullying Margaret Thatcher like that? They wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.
You're entirely right, however, about the set at the Tory Conference. It will be as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar - but bluer!
It's a very long time since I posted on this site. I've been ill and have had to have heart surgery but am now much improved - and it will be a very long time before I grumble about the NHS again. They were quite wonderful and very kind with it. And reading this site was definitely therapeutic, for which thank you, all of you.
Mr. Song, he was an idiot to support the polygraph's use (it isn't a lie detector. A lie detector is a fictional box of magic).
Mr. B, true, but given the polygraph is practically worthless it's alarming that some actually care what it would say. It misses deceit and 'spots' false positives all the time. It's barely better than tossing a coin.
It is interesting that a judge who believed in their accuracy, sufficiently to affirm in law their admissibility as evidence, refuses to take one.
Surely if you don’t think they are entirely random then You should admit in evidence and place the appropriate weight on the results?
It was the refusal that was interesting.
Except that they (IIRC) just measure stress/heart rate. Anger would trigger a positive.
If kavanaugh ever encounters Occam’s razor, it will be a bloodbath. The intellectual contortions required to justify his every inconsistency are exhausting.
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Nothing addresses the NI issue. That's the point of it.
No Deal does. Problem belong EU/Ireland......
Indeed. No deal then Canada seems to be the only long term solution other than abandon Brexit.
And the biggest danger for Boris and the ERG is they push too hard and a second referendum becomes much more likely
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Barnier has at least said he is willing to do a Canada style issue for GB, he has flat out rejected Chequers.
Regarding NI I would prefer the Boles solution of leaving via the EEA/EFTA route which would ensure no hard border in NI and then trying to negotiate a Canada style deal for the whole UK longer term
Blocking the whole thing because the NI solution is difficult isn't terribly wise. So something like Canada, and perhaps setting aside some (or all) of the Brexit 'fee' to find a NI solution. There has to be some sort of hardish border that would be acceptable. NI and Ireland are after all two different countries, there was always going to be some need to have something on the border. You could even subsidise cross-border trade to ease the hassles.
Boris is broadly along sensible lines, however he's two years too late. Running into the buffers is a bad plan, running into them and then pulling back is even worse. Chequers is better than both - just about. If Boris is serious about his last minute plan then he certainly shouldn't be using such careless language.
Does it concern you that the government has been less than forthright about the cost of its own flagship policy, Brexit? Depending which Conservatives you believe, whether we crash out or stay in will cost hundreds of billions of pounds. That would pay for a lot of train sets and water boards. Today's papers tell us Brexit is already costing £500 million a week and it's not even happened yet. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
I would say that the initial costs of the National Care Service or Free University Tuition can be reasonably estimated from public data to within 10 per cent.
I would say the effects of Brexit cannot at the moment be even estimated without being reasonably certain what form Brexit will take.
However, as you have quoted 500 million pounds a week, please do summarise the order of magnitude calculation that gets us to this figure ?
I am afraid an answer such as "Go read the Guardian" gets minus points. If the figure is 500 million pounds a week, it should be possible for you to explain how the number is arrived it. (It is already a suspiciously nice and rounded-off number).
Overall, I am strongly in favour of politicians and commentators (whether left or right) having sufficient basic numeracy skills to be able to justify numbers that they quote, or being able to cost a policy (to say 20 per cent) and explain the costing to the public.
Because the very soul of the world is economic, and that the lowest abyss is not the absence of love, but the absence of the coin.
The argument is the percentage loss of GDP. While it’s a credible figure, there’s no real evidence for it. But then again you can say that about many macro economic policies in the relatively short term, since it’s almost impossible to run a direct comparator.
That is my point. A macro economic model is a model.
To work out the cost of the National Care Service right now needs no model.
It is a much more well-defined calculation that involved the number of people receiving care now and the cost of delivering the care. (To extrapolate into the future of course involves a model, though again a more certain one that a macro economic model).
If you can get the simple sums right (Corby can't), you have no hope with the difficult sums.
I think we are in agreement. (Though, FWIW, I remain stubbornly attached to the belief that absent the referendum result, the economy would likely be significantly stronger.)
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Nothing addresses the NI issue. That's the point of it.
No Deal does. Problem belong EU/Ireland......
Indeed. No deal then Canada seems to be the only long term solution other than abandon Brexit.
How long would it take to go from No Deal to a Canada Plus FTA?
Not for the first time, you're very keen to write Boris off. He's always bounced back and done better than forecast and I shouldn't be in the least surprised to see him bounce back and do better than is being forecast now. I shouldn't be in the least surprised, either, to discover that yesterday's poll was wrong about Theresa May: the poll figures look better for her than I suspect would be reflected in an actual vote. After all, it isn't only Conservative voters who will determine her fate, is it, it's the electorate as a whole and I suspect she has very little support beyond the Tory heartlands. She strikes me as as a decent woman who's doing her best but who is further out of her depth with every day that passes - and that's simply not good enough. She got the sympathy vote when the Europeans bullied her - but it was a weak position to be in, nonetheless. Can you imagine them bullying Margaret Thatcher like that? They wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.
You're entirely right, however, about the set at the Tory Conference. It will be as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar - but bluer!
It's a very long time since I posted on this site. I've been ill and have had to have heart surgery but am now much improved - and it will be a very long time before I grumble about the NHS again. They were quite wonderful and very kind with it. And reading this site was definitely therapeutic, for which thank you, all of you.
Not for the first time, you're very keen to write Boris off. He's always bounced back and done better than forecast and I shouldn't be in the least surprised to see him bounce back and do better than is being forecast now. I shouldn't be in the least surprised, either, to discover that yesterday's poll was wrong about Theresa May: the poll figures look better for her than I suspect would be reflected in an actual vote. After all, it isn't only Conservative voters who will determine her fate, is it, it's the electorate as a whole and I suspect she has very little support beyond the Tory heartlands. She strikes me as as a decent woman who's doing her best but who is further out of her depth with every day that passes - and that's simply not good enough. She got the sympathy vote when the Europeans bullied her - but it was a weak position to be in, nonetheless. Can you imagine them bullying Margaret Thatcher like that? They wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.
You're entirely right, however, about the set at the Tory Conference. It will be as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar - but bluer!
It's a very long time since I posted on this site. I've been ill and have had to have heart surgery but am now much improved - and it will be a very long time before I grumble about the NHS again. They were quite wonderful and very kind with it. And reading this site was definitely therapeutic, for which thank you, all of you.
Welcome back and good to see you well again
However, unfortunately every poll shows Boris failing to enthuse the electorate. He is yesterdays story and I would expect him to leave the HOC and continue in journalism within the next couple of years
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Nothing addresses the NI issue. That's the point of it.
No Deal does. Problem belong EU/Ireland......
No Deal likely kills Brexit, with Remain having at least a 10% lead over No Deal in Euref polls No Deal would see Brexit reversed either at the next general election or at a second EU referendum
Not for the first time, you're very keen to write Boris off. He's always bounced back and done better than forecast and I shouldn't be in the least surprised to see him bounce back and do better than is being forecast now. I shouldn't be in the least surprised, either, to discover that yesterday's poll was wrong about Theresa May: the poll figures look better for her than I suspect would be reflected in an actual vote. After all, it isn't only Conservative voters who will determine her fate, is it, it's the electorate as a whole and I suspect she has very little support beyond the Tory heartlands. She strikes me as as a decent woman who's doing her best but who is further out of her depth with every day that passes - and that's simply not good enough. She got the sympathy vote when the Europeans bullied her - but it was a weak position to be in, nonetheless. Can you imagine them bullying Margaret Thatcher like that? They wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.
You're entirely right, however, about the set at the Tory Conference. It will be as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar - but bluer!
It's a very long time since I posted on this site. I've been ill and have had to have heart surgery but am now much improved - and it will be a very long time before I grumble about the NHS again. They were quite wonderful and very kind with it. And reading this site was definitely therapeutic, for which thank you, all of you.
This site - therapeutic??? You clearly aren't on blood pressure meds then!
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Barnier has at least said he is willing to do a Canada style issue for GB, he has flat out rejected Chequers.
Regarding NI I would prefer the Boles solution of leaving via the EEA/EFTA route which would ensure no hard border in NI and then trying to negotiate a Canada style deal for the whole UK longer term
NI and Ireland are after all two different countries.
About 40% and rising of the NI population disagree.
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Barnier has at least said he is willing to do a Canada style issue for GB, he has flat out rejected Chequers.
Regarding NI I would prefer the Boles solution of leaving via the EEA/EFTA route which would ensure no hard border in NI and then trying to negotiate a Canada style deal for the whole UK longer term
NI and Ireland are after all two different countries.
About 40% and rising of the NI population disagree.
BMG gives Labour a 5 point lead. Polls are all over the place.
That probably happens when they are actually about even I guess. Not much point either one worrying overmuch, since the only circumstances where an early election occurs will be so chaotic that I doubt the polling as it exists now would remain anyway.
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Barnier has at least said he is willing to do a Canada style issue for GB, he has flat out rejected Chequers.
Regarding NI I would prefer the Boles solution of leaving via the EEA/EFTA route which would ensure no hard border in NI and then trying to negotiate a Canada style deal for the whole UK longer term
NI and Ireland are after all two different countries.
About 40% and rising of the NI population disagree.
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Barnier has at least said he is willing to do a Canada style issue for GB, he has flat out rejected Chequers.
Regarding NI I would prefer the Boles solution of leaving via the EEA/EFTA route which would ensure no hard border in NI and then trying to negotiate a Canada style deal for the whole UK longer term
NI and Ireland are after all two different countries.
About 40% and rising of the NI population disagree.
(I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)
Whinge if you want but if Warren does run she already leads the last New Hampshire Democratic primary poll on 26% to 20% for Biden, 13% for Sanders and 8% for Booker
The latest polling available, plus if Warren won New Hampshire most of the Sanders voters would move to her giving her a near unassailable lead sooner rather than later
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Nothing addresses the NI issue. That's the point of it.
No Deal does. Problem belong EU/Ireland......
No Deal likely kills Brexit, with Remain having at least a 10% lead over No Deal in Euref polls No Deal would see Brexit reversed either at the next general election or at a second EU referendum
It does look like it would be a second referendum, probably due to the overwhelming demand of mps
I suspect that is correct -- there is a basic lack of arithmetical skills missing, so that the promises of a National Care Service or free University tuition or free childcare are just fanciful.
Does it concern you that the government has been less than forthright about the cost of its own flagship policy, Brexit? Depending which Conservatives you believe, whether we crash out or stay in will cost hundreds of billions of pounds. That would pay for a lot of train sets and water boards. Today's papers tell us Brexit is already costing £500 million a week and it's not even happened yet. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
I would say that the initial costs of the National Care Service or Free University Tuition can be reasonably estimated from public data to within 10 per cent.
I would say the effects of Brexit cannot at the moment be even estimated without being reasonably certain what form Brexit will take.
However, as you have quoted 500 million pounds a week, please do summarise the order of magnitude calculation that gets us to this figure ?
I am afraid an answer such as "Go read the Guardian" gets minus points. If the figure is 500 million pounds a week, it should be possible for you to explain how the number is arrived it. (It is already a suspiciously nice and rounded-off number).
Overall, I am strongly in favour of politicians and commentators (whether left or right) having sufficient basic numeracy skills to be able to justify numbers that they quote, or being able to cost a policy (to say 20 per cent) and explain the costing to the public.
Because the very soul of the world is economic, and that the lowest abyss is not the absence of love, but the absence of the coin.
The cost of Brexit is placed at £500 million a week already -- this is not a forecast of how much it will cost after we leave, but an estimate of how much it is already costing us right now, based on comparing economic growth with our peers and past and finding the economy is 2.5 per cent smaller than expected. You can read the report here: https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2018
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Nothing addresses the NI issue. That's the point of it.
No Deal does. Problem belong EU/Ireland......
Indeed. No deal then Canada seems to be the only long term solution other than abandon Brexit.
How long would it take to go from No Deal to a Canada Plus FTA?
It depends how long it takes emotions to cool. If people work hard on it and stop trying to mess around the other party it could be done very quickly. Within 2 years. If people don't want to cooperate then it might never happen.
(I'm sure HYUFD will be along shortly to pontificate endlessly about Sanders, Warren and Biden. And possibly Boris. This time I intend to ignore him. There's only so many times somebody can talk utter rubbish and refuse to be corrected.)
Whinge if you want but if Warren does run she already leads the last New Hampshire Democratic primary poll on 26% to 20% for Biden, 13% for Sanders and 8% for Booker
The latest polling available, plus if Warren won New Hampshire most of the Sanders voters would move to her giving her a near unassailable lead sooner rather than later
I suspect that is correct -- there is a basic lack of arithmetical skills missing, so that the promises of a National Care Service or free University tuition or free childcare are just fanciful.
Does it concern you that the government has been less than forthright about the cost of its own flagship policy, Brexit? Depending which Conservatives you believe, whether we crash out or stay in will cost hundreds of billions of pounds. That would pay for a lot of train sets and water boards. Today's papers tell us Brexit is already costing £500 million a week and it's not even happened yet. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
I would say that the initial costs of the National Care Service or Free University Tuition can be reasonably estimated from public data to within 10 per cent.
I would say the effects of Brexit cannot at the moment be even estimated without being reasonably certain what form Brexit will take.
However, as you have quoted 500 million pounds a week, please do summarise the order of magnitude calculation that gets us to this figure ?
I am afraid an answer such as "Go read the Guardian" gets minus points. If the figure is 500 million pounds a week, it should be possible for you to explain how the number is arrived it. (It is already a suspiciously nice and rounded-off number).
Overall, I am strongly in favour of politicians and commentators (whether left or right) having sufficient basic numeracy skills to be able to justify numbers that they quote, or being able to cost a policy (to say 20 per cent) and explain the costing to the public.
Because the very soul of the world is economic, and that the lowest abyss is not the absence of love, but the absence of the coin.
The cost of Brexit is placed at £500 million a week already -- this is not a forecast of how much it will cost after we leave, but an estimate of how much it is already costing us right now, based on comparing economic growth with our peers and past and finding the economy is 2.5 per cent smaller than expected. You can read the report here: https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2018
Its voodoo bullshit. Do you really believe that ceteris paribus if Remain had won and Osborne had remained Chancellor that the budget deficit would have fallen by as much as it already has plus another £26 bn on top?
Not for the first time, you're very keen to write Boris off. He's always bounced back and done better than forecast and I shouldn't be in the least surprised to see him bounce back and do better than is being forecast now. I shouldn't be in the least surprised, either, to discover that yesterday's poll was wrong about Theresa May: the poll figures look better for her than I suspect would be reflected in an actual vote. After all, it isn't only Conservative voters who will determine her fate, is it, it's the electorate as a whole and I suspect she has very little support beyond the Tory heartlands. She strikes me as as a decent woman who's doing her best but who is further out of her depth with every day that passes - and that's simply not good enough. She got the sympathy vote when the Europeans bullied her - but it was a weak position to be in, nonetheless. Can you imagine them bullying Margaret Thatcher like that? They wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.
You're entirely right, however, about the set at the Tory Conference. It will be as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar - but bluer!
It's a very long time since I posted on this site. I've been ill and have had to have heart surgery but am now much improved - and it will be a very long time before I grumble about the NHS again. They were quite wonderful and very kind with it. And reading this site was definitely therapeutic, for which thank you, all of you.
This site - therapeutic??? You clearly aren't on blood pressure meds then!
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Nothing addresses the NI issue. That's the point of it.
No Deal does. Problem belong EU/Ireland......
No Deal likely kills Brexit, with Remain having at least a 10% lead over No Deal in Euref polls No Deal would see Brexit reversed either at the next general election or at a second EU referendum
It does look like it would be a second referendum, probably due to the overwhelming demand of mps
Indeed, Brexit cannot be sustained longer term under No Deal given such clear opposition to No Deal amongst the voters.
The only sustainable and long term Brexit is a Norway or Canada style Brexit
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Barnier has at least said he is willing to do a Canada style issue for GB, he has flat out rejected Chequers.
Regarding NI I would prefer the Boles solution of leaving via the EEA/EFTA route which would ensure no hard border in NI and then trying to negotiate a Canada style deal for the whole UK longer term
NI and Ireland are after all two different countries.
About 40% and rising of the NI population disagree.
A good poll for May and for Javid who has the least negative rating to succeed her.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
How does a more Canada style deal address the NI issue?
Barnier has at least said he is willing to do a Canada style issue for GB, he has flat out rejected Chequers.
Regarding NI I would prefer the Boles solution of leaving via the EEA/EFTA route which would ensure no hard border in NI and then trying to negotiate a Canada style deal for the whole UK longer term
Blocking the whole thing because the NI solution is difficult isn't terribly wise. So something like Canada, and perhaps setting aside some (or all) of the Brexit 'fee' to find a NI solution. There has to be some sort of hardish border that would be acceptable. NI and Ireland are after all two different countries, there was always going to be some need to have something on the border. You could even subsidise cross-border trade to ease the hassles.
Boris is broadly along sensible lines, however he's two years too late. Running into the buffers is a bad plan, running into them and then pulling back is even worse. Chequers is better than both - just about. If Boris is serious about his last minute plan then he certainly shouldn't be using such careless language.
A Canada style Deal which avoids a hard border is what is needed but is easier said than done
Comments
I have little doubt they were talking of decapitating Boris and I would be very surprised if Ruth doesn't launch a full on broadside against Boris in her conference speech. He disgusts her
Anyway, however much rope May gave him, he resigned, he wasn’t sacked.
I will get my coat as I need to inflate my mighty eight foot horn and fiddle with full swell.
Have a good morning.
As you say based on history this favours Labour in 2022.
I said 'I don't buy into the idea we have to be multiple points ahead midterm to gain seats at the next election.' and then later on I referred back to this when I said 'Although even without it the idea has already been proven false at the last election.'
We weren't multiple points ahead and we did gain seats at the GE.
A) show us the hero is smart enough to know how to beat one
b) show a psychopath beating one while clearly being guilty.
Having seen the enormous queues to both get into Spain and then get into the UK for non EEA passports this summer (and the additional screening area just for UK that had been built at Alicante airport) we're not booking a holiday for next Summer. Yet.
So lets see how events roll out. Whether we crash out or not its clear that we will suffer some of the effects anyway. The £500m a week (and growing!!!) retraction in the economy will bite hard, we have had major manufacturing announcing they are moving their annual shutdown to April (so bang goes your summer holiday) and they won't be the last.
Will ANY political party be rewarded for the grotesque chaos to come? Is the right bet for political leaders to be leading the charge into this abyss as the will of the people, or warning of it and trying to avoid it to save people from themselves...?
How authoritative and responsible is the Centre for European Reform?
Sounds good, but .........
Seats won by a government in the election are a function of {perceived competence, people they have pissed off, strength of the election campaign, strength of the opposition, luck}
The reason why governments usually lose seats is that most of those move within a tight band with the exception of “people they have pissed off” which moves against them
In this case the election campaign for the Tories was so weak (and I think they were unlucky with some events) that they are probably going to be better next time. Hence you can’t rely on the historical trends based analysis
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
I think the point about Sanders is that, not unlike Corbyn, he’s a symbol whose actual capabilities are barely relevant to the believers.
And to answer Charles question, there is no link between Sanders and Kavanaugh, which is exactly the point. Like it or not, the confirmation battle will be a litmus test for candidates going forward (and is why Biden’s history with the Clarence Thomas confirmation will likely count against him).
Sanders has simply become less relevant as a symbol.
The Democrats have quite clearly played this in a way to maximise the political damage regardless of the truth of the charges. I do not think the term “conspiracy” is helpful but he’s basically complaining about politicians being political
Have fun with the organ.
The problem is say for example with lying to the students, it seems to be mainly right wing Conservative voters who are middle aged and older who feel they were lied to. It might be an age thing but I think younger Labour voters understand the idea that the opposition doesn't get to implement its manifesto.
It seems to me to be like saying they won't vote for him because they think he is an IRA lover when the people who say that are people who already aren't voting for him. If we are talking about losing voters then cheap attack lines from right wing newspapers aren't very effective otherwise they wouldn't have voted Labour in 2017.
Brexit is the big killer for me, when you consider how many voters the Conservative party won because of Brexit, then even those people that they please won't necessarily all vote Conservative as a thank you, many voters will bank that and look to the next thing. Those who are angry at what has been done with Brexit could cost the Tories dearly. When you add in the cost of governing and the fact they do lose more voters have an older voter base then the Tories have to work much harder than Labour to keep voters on board.
😂
Whether I’m rational in my posts here, I must leave others to judge, but I’m active in other intellectual areas, and, as far as I can see not treated as a silly old fool.
On the subject, party leaders and their cohorts don't like it when peons cause trouble, even if they used to be peons themselves.
Judges being political is, of course, a quite different matter.
However May has to start pivoting away from Chequers and towards trying for a more Canada style deal or the moves towards a no confidence vote will get stronger
I would say the effects of Brexit cannot at the moment be even estimated without being reasonably certain what form Brexit will take.
However, as you have quoted 500 million pounds a week, please do summarise the order of magnitude calculation that gets us to this figure ?
I am afraid an answer such as "Go read the Guardian" gets minus points. If the figure is 500 million pounds a week, it should be possible for you to explain how the number is arrived it. (It is already a suspiciously nice and rounded-off number).
Overall, I am strongly in favour of politicians and commentators (whether left or right) having sufficient basic numeracy skills to be able to justify numbers that they quote, or being able to cost a policy (to say 20 per cent) and explain the costing to the public.
Because the very soul of the world is economic, and that the lowest abyss is not the absence of love, but the absence of the coin.
https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/5_2_2018_marginals.pdf
Regarding NI I would prefer the Boles solution of leaving via the EEA/EFTA route which would ensure no hard border in NI and then trying to negotiate a Canada style deal for the whole UK longer term
Vandoorne has a 5 place gearbox penalty coming, it seems.
While it’s a credible figure, there’s no real evidence for it. But then again you can say that about many macro economic policies in the relatively short term, since it’s almost impossible to run a direct comparator.
May has been the only one entrusted with any authority. That was the case during the election and it has been the case through Brexit negotiations. And she has messed up both.
To work out the cost of the National Care Service right now needs no model.
It is a much more well-defined calculation that involved the number of people receiving care now and the cost of delivering the care. (To extrapolate into the future of course involves a model, though again a more certain one that a macro economic model).
If you can get the simple sums right (Corby can't), you have no hope with the difficult sums.
You're entirely right, however, about the set at the Tory Conference. It will be as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar - but bluer!
It's a very long time since I posted on this site. I've been ill and have had to have heart surgery but am now much improved - and it will be a very long time before I grumble about the NHS again. They were quite wonderful and very kind with it. And reading this site was definitely therapeutic, for which thank you, all of you.
The intellectual contortions required to justify his every inconsistency are exhausting.
Boris is broadly along sensible lines, however he's two years too late. Running into the buffers is a bad plan, running into them and then pulling back is even worse. Chequers is better than both - just about. If Boris is serious about his last minute plan then he certainly shouldn't be using such careless language.
(Though, FWIW, I remain stubbornly attached to the belief that absent the referendum result, the economy would likely be significantly stronger.)
However, unfortunately every poll shows Boris failing to enthuse the electorate. He is yesterdays story and I would expect him to leave the HOC and continue in journalism within the next couple of years
Glad to have you back.
https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2018
The only sustainable and long term Brexit is a Norway or Canada style Brexit