Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Boris Johnson is putting the CTF band together the last tim
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Boris Johnson is putting the CTF band together the last time they worked together he was massively overstated in the polls
The Times reported earlier on this week that
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"Trump has managed to insert himself, and his signature brand of contempt and malice, into the most important institution in American government that he had not yet soiled. We already knew that everything Trump touches becomes debased, putrescent. Now his poison touch has infected the Supreme Court, and its venomous effects on the court may persist long after his presidency, even perhaps for as long as his new 53-year-old justice serves."
avanaugh-confirmed-ugly-win-trump-and-republicans-column/1547362002/
For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon
Even if he is someone who would make the Conservative party overstated in polls that is a quite minor flaw. On purely electoral terms then Boris winning or drawing whilst being overstated is still better than a rival candidate who might be very accurately judged but draws or loses.
I'm not sure if Boris is the best choice electorally or not but if he is then this flaw is unimportant.
Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.
Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
I get the impression that Boris’ ship has sailed; a bit like the late Tony Benn when he failed to be elected as Deputy Leader and indeed temporarily lost his seat in Parliament.
‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken on the flood leads on to fortune.........And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.’
Boris chickened out after the Referendum, made a bog of being FS and that is going to be that.
Later Edit......The one that astounded me has been removed!!!!!
You get a holier than thou attitude from some centrists who like to pretend that everyone either side of them is bad whilst they are purer than the driven snow. Which is a bit hypocritical when mixed in with a rant about closeness to a US president who is a bad person.
One of the causes of the collapse of the centre is a complete lack of self awareness from some in the centre.
If you wanted an on topic post then my first post is probably more what you are looking for...
Edit: In regards to Boris prospects I'm slightly negative on them. I do think they have been harmed somewhat but I still wouldn't rule him out. If he gets to the members he has a good chance but I do struggle to see the Conservative MPs putting him on the final ballot.
However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn.
As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
Back then, he was capable of being all things to all people, everybody's friend.
Back then, it was at least possible to imagine he might one day be able to step up to the responsibility of senior government office.
F1: quite an eventful race. Be interesting to see how much I forget to include in the write up.
On the flip side he is the only Conservative (JRM maybe) that has any kind of celebrity to him. Boris can draw a crowd by being Boris. He is one of the few with passionate supporters.
I am tempted by the idea of facing of against him as a Labour supporter but I think it is a tough one to judge, he would likely rally people for the Conservatives and put them off the Conservatives.
What would the so called centrist third way people do ?
But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.
There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.
Ranting about a man being close to a terrible US president whilst you were a supporter of and voter for Tony Blair is hypocritical.
That some in the centre can't even acknowledge that is part of the self awareness I was talking about.
Then we have the interesting Quasi AV system for London that forces choice between the top two parties. That will not apply to a GE.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/10/japan-post-race-analysis-2018.html
Contains spoilers and mild regret.
It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
Now the differences. Boris is selfish, arrogant, greedy and utterly ruthless. Corbyn isn't selfish or greedy, and he has shown no inclination to unnecessary butchery, but he is malicious and vindictive. In all likelihood Boris would struggle to put together a cabinet. Corbyn has already failed to do so, but in the event of winning an election might be able to tempt some waverers back to the front line. Boris is undoubtedly intelligent, but has no empathy and lacks judgement. Corbyn is very far from intelligent, but his ability to tug people's emotions is rivalled only by Blair's. Boris has a sense of humour and the ability to make jokes off the cuff disarming his opponents. I'm struggling to think of a time I've seen him really angry in public. Corbyn is rather pompous and quickly gets rattled when people probe the weaknesses of his arguments, displaying a fiery temper.
To be honest, I don't think there's a lot to choose between them. Therefore, in the fairly unlikely event that Boris won the leadership, it might come down to the fact that nobody would expect him to hold it for long as the Tories would defenestrate him at the first reasonable excuse. Meanwhile, we have already seen that Corbyn cannot be removed without his co-operation. Therefore, we would be stuck with PM Corbyn but might not have to put up with PM Johnson for long.
I think that might be enough to tip the balance, but what an awful choice. It would make Clinton v Trump look like Gladstone v Disraeli.
Also doesn't this kind of kill your propaganda lines?
Accusing the left of just wanting to get the Blairites whilst plotting the Blairites attempt to overthrow the left from the party.
Isn't it just a little lacking in.... self awareness?
Survation last year also had the Tories under Boris doing better than under Hammond and Rudd but May and Davis doing better against Corbyn than Boris
In many ways it's a tribute to Blair. Second only to Thatcher in his influence on modern politics.
Shocking that a team that finished 4th in two consecutive years and had the pace to do so a third time almost went under due to financial pressure.
Many people who come under the label Blairite, centrist or any other similar label the criticisms are not aimed at because they are not guilty of them.
For example Fox (at least I think it was) criticised some in the remain (or peoples vote) campaign the other day. Not because he hates them, but because he felt the criticism is justified.
'Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention'
While we're on the subject, why the quote marks round 'dastardly'? I don't recall Blair ever calling it that.
Basically put it is hard to argue firstly that the left/Corbynistas care more about attacking the Blairites than the Tories whilst also arguing those people should stay and continue to undermine the left/Corbynistas to get rid of them.
The obvious result would be that the left/Corbynistas would need to actually fight the Blairites in order to try and defeat the Tories, ignoring those trying to bring you down internally (as you proposed) would only help the Tories electorally.
With a Blind Brexit imminent, and interminable arguing afterwards over FTA and Customs Union, they are going to be sicker of it still.
The Tories aren't immune from that phenomenon, but one side is not as much in the ascendancy, though it is cleAR which side is the biggest.
OK. I noted your use of the more loaded term, 'propaganda', over a more neutral one, 'position', say. You also described my analysis that moderates would try to get rid of Corbyn as something I had 'proposed'. That is just not the same thing.
"Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite"
Is not an answer... probably explains part of the centrists electoral problem but it certainly isn't an answer to my post....
Sadly Westminster politics will be all about gaining control of either of the 2 main parties. This fact has not been lost on the extremes of politics - the left have taken over Labour and there is a fair chance that the Tories become UKIP Mark 2 - I read this morning that Aaron banks is funding an attempt to deselect Sarah Wolleston in Totnes.
There are going to be an increasing number of party political orphans - I didn't vote at the last GE for the first time in my life and I doubt I will be voting at the next one.
The Tories will probably be very chaotic and unsure what to even campaign on- no good asking for a majority to confirm the deal labour just shot down, since the local candidate might not back it and I doubt they can get rid of all the ERG crowd.
And of course there might not be a GE. Other options open up. But I cannot see why most labour mps would not obey the whip to vote against.
A simple computer script will be much more economical. No expenses, no salary, no fuss.
Given that you actively approve of the idea of Blairites bringing down the Labour leadership rather than fighting the Tories isn't it then at least somewhat misleading to make a criticism of the Corbynistas based on them apparently being more interested in attacking the Blairites than the Tories.
If they think along the lines of what you hoped for (and your accusation of Corbynistas is accurate) then it is something both sides are equally guilty of. If it is something they have actively been doing already then surely the Corbynista do need to fight them in order to defeat the Tories?
"Among voters at large, almost twice as many (32%) think May is the best person to run the Conservative party compared with Johnson, who is preferred by 17%.
Among Tory voters, the gap between the two is far more clearly in May’s favour, with 62% thinking she is best to lead the party, compared with 15% who believe Johnson would be better.
When asked about their individual qualities, voters prefer May to Johnson on almost all counts, with Conservative voters again backing her by higher margins than supporters of all parties"
Doesn't support your frequently aired view about the popularity of Johnson does it? I think comparisons with the liberal Johnson that ran for Mayor of London years ago are past their sell-by date, we all know a great deal more about him these days and most people don't like what they see.
It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.
This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
In reality, little has changed. May is trying to go for an all-UK customs union. The problem with that plan is that it is incompatible with the CETA deal that Barnier and Tusk want. If the UK remains in the customs union as a backstop, the UK will have to stay aligned with SM regulations or it does nothing for the NI border. It basically allows the UK to remain in the SM without observing FOM or payment of money.
Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.
Chequers is completely off the table.
Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.
The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem.
May's problems will then be:
1. She has agreed to permanent UK membership of the customs union unless the EU release us.
2. It will be impossible to claim that the EU will release us, because under CETA it will not be possible and that will be what is in the political declaration. The customs partnership will not appear in the political declaration, so it will be impossible for May to claim that this will solve the backstop. The only way the backstop could ever be released is to go back to the NI only backstop and institute CETA for GB only.
3. If she caves on a NI only backstop, the DUP will remove her. They may well remove her for an all-UK backstop as well, as it appears to involve a regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
My point being that May has real problems even with her current sellout. It does not provide a path to a deal. It would really only work if the EU accepted Chequers as the basis for the trade agreement. I am sure many will say 'it will be fudged' but there is very little that can dress this up, which is why I predict it would be defeated in Parliament. It will basically be a road to another cliff-edge in less than two years time.
Although quibbles about the use of the word passive or active does not invalidate the rest of my point or the original use of the word propaganda.
If they genuinely that think what the vote will be on us bad anyone should vote against. If they think it is the best that can be had they should vote for. And both apply to both parties. They don't exist as representatives to automatically follow a party line to take down the other at every opportunity. The shadow cabinet know that better than most being no stranger to rebellion as a point of principle. And if it is on principle it will apply even if there are consequences such as government defeat, for Tories, or government survival, for labour.
However, given so many people in the right agree whatever they might get a vote on will be terrible I don't think labour will find it hard to defend thinking the same, and will therefore mostly vote against. They don't need to justify it as a way to collapse the government.
Obviously parties exist to take power and believe their side being in power is itself a noble aim. But rebellions happen for a reason and people can be perfectly justified in doing so even if short term it props up someone they don't like. Would someone fearing no deal is a catastrophe therefore be clearly saying labour should not be in power? If course not.
But maybe sometimes attaining power has to wait. Not least since voting down a deal doesn't guarantee they get power.
It is interesting just how poorly Boris is viewed in todays Opinium and how much support TM seems to have over him