I don't believe it to be possible, in the present climate. Ok that's my gut vs polling which, imperfect though it is, is generally better than mere gut feeling, but I just cannot believe that, for instance, Corbyn dragging his feat on second referendum support could see such a drop, resulting in the Tories, this divided, barely coherent Tory party, so far ahead.
Bank Holiday polling is not reliable. Moreover, this was carried out over a two week period - three or four times as extended a period than is normal.
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
A poll of Tory Party members by Queen Mary University, London, and Sussex University for their Party Members' Project finds Boris Johnson Tory members preferred candidate to succeed May on 20%. Rees-Mogg is second on 15%, Davis third on 8%. Javid was the only former Remainer in the top 5
I wondered when you would pick this up seeing as you have been saying Boris for some time. Also seeing as you keep getting into tussles over Conhome surverys, over on Conhome they have been comparing thier surveys versus this poll. You may find them of interest.
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
No, there will never be another Tone. The stars aligned amazingly in his favour:
End of an unprecedentedly long, yet often divisive, era of Tory rule.
Tories rancorous and divided over Maggie's ousting.
Tories dubious about or downright hostile to her wishy washy replacement.
Sexual and financial Tory sleaze (real or imagined) all around.
Tory MPs popping off at regular intervals, providing lots of juicy by-elections to feed the narrative.
The dramatic calamity of Black Wednesday.
A feverishly hostile press consumed with blood lust.
A government with a tiny, or non-existent, majority held to ransom by fringe euro-sceptic fanatics.
The British Left in retreat, allowing Tone to concentrate fully on his right flank.
If you could ignore Iraq - and that is some caveat - he was actually a pretty decent PM.
Let's not forget that Blair won a majority AFTER Iraq. Looking back, that result is more remarkable than the two landslides.
I wonder how much 2005 was actually Gordon's election. Amazing to think that at the time many regarded Tony's premiership as merely a kind of warm-up act - preparation for the golden age of Brown that was to come.
I know I posted that Blair made one mistake but in fact there were two significant ones. Iraq, of course, and why he backed Bush, God alone knows. However his other was hanging on and making Brown wait. If it hadn't been for Iraq, of course, Brown might have led the party into the 2005 election.
Interesting light shed on both those, Stark, in Andrew Rawnesly's excellent book The End Of The Party.
Blair and Clinton were very close. When Bush was elected, Clinton warned Blair that you could only be for or against him - nothing in the middle. Blair decided (disastrously) that he had to be for. Blair once asked Alex Ferguson what he would do with a star player who would not support the Manager, or play for the Team. Fergy said get rid of him. Blair asked 'what if you can't'. 'Then you have a problem', the great man replied.
Now I wonder who Blair had in mind?
Robin Cook or John Prescott? Actually I understand Blair and Prescott got along quite well.
That could happen, but to prevent Brexit, I think one needs a change of government.
I thought that until Theresa May was made bombproof within her party for a year courtesy of the ERG. Much depends on what Theresa May would do if her deal is decisively defeated. Offering it to the country for a referendum looks one of the likelier possibilities.
A referendum would require Article 50 to be extended, which requires the unanimous consent of the 27 EU countries.
What would they want in return? Wouldn't they want a clear choice on the Referendum question e.g. Remain or the Deal, No Deal being the default option if there is no referendum?
I can't see the Irish government in particular putting itself in the situation of facilitating a referendum which could result in a vote for "No Deal". And laying itself open to the accusation that this wouldn't have happened if the decision had been left to the UK Parliament.
Mr. HYUFD, the Lib Dems could do with a rather more proactive leader, though.
Interesting to consider how Farron would be doing if he'd stayed on.
Farron would quite possibly be doing worse. He was dreadful. However, had they elected Norman Lamb as leader in 2015, I think they would be doing considerably better than they are now.
It is surely not the case that all but 19 Labour MPs would be prepared to vote positively for a 2nd referendum, particularly if Corbyn continues to be opposed to that course. The number who would not do so is far higher than 19, so the "the rest" count is exaggerated, although many would just choose not to go through the lobbies.
Mr. HYUFD, the Lib Dems could do with a rather more proactive leader, though.
Interesting to consider how Farron would be doing if he'd stayed on.
Farron would quite possibly be doing worse. He was dreadful. However, had they elected Norman Lamb in 2015, I think they would be doing considerably better than they are now.
I like Norman Lamb a lot, but don't forget he is very much we must leave because must respect the referendum. I don't think that is what Remainers want to hear.
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
I don't believe it to be possible, in the present climate. Ok that's my gut vs polling which, imperfect though it is, is generally better than mere gut feeling, but I just cannot believe that, for instance, Corbyn dragging his feat on second referendum support could see such a drop, resulting in the Tories, this divided, barely coherent Tory party, so far ahead.
Bank Holiday polling is not reliable. Moreover, this was carried out over a two week period - three or four times as extended a period than is normal.
Shouldn’t more people be home during this particular bank holiday though?
A poll of Tory Party members by Queen Mary University, London, and Sussex University for their Party Members' Project finds Boris Johnson Tory members preferred candidate to succeed May on 20%. Rees-Mogg is second on 15%, Davis third on 8%. Javid was the only former Remainer in the top 5
I wondered when you would pick this up seeing as you have been saying Boris for some time. Also seeing as you keep getting into tussles over Conhome surverys, over on Conhome they have been comparing thier surveys versus this poll. You may find them of interest.
I hope this poll will finally shut up those saying ConHome polls with Boris ahead amongst Tory members are outliers and wrong
Mr. HYUFD, the Lib Dems could do with a rather more proactive leader, though.
Interesting to consider how Farron would be doing if he'd stayed on.
Probably about the same, it does not matter who leads the LDs they will get more support from former Labour Remainers the closer we get to Brexit Day and the longer Corbyn refuses to back EUref2
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
If this is true surely Labour will back the Referendum (and therefore it happens) - which goes against the our mutual view from yesterday that the Deal will pass?
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
No, there will never be another Tone. The stars aligned amazingly in his favour:
End of an unprecedentedly long, yet often divisive, era of Tory rule.
Tories rancorous and divided over Maggie's ousting.
Tories dubious about or downright hostile to her wishy washy replacement.
Sexual and financial Tory sleaze (real or imagined) all around.
Tory MPs popping off at regular intervals, providing lots of juicy by-elections to feed the narrative.
The dramatic calamity of Black Wednesday.
A feverishly hostile press consumed with blood lust.
A government with a tiny, or non-existent, majority held to ransom by fringe euro-sceptic fanatics.
The British Left in retreat, allowing Tone to concentrate fully on his right flank.
If you could ignore Iraq - and that is some caveat - he was actually a pretty decent PM.
Let's not forget that Blair won a majority AFTER Iraq. Looking back, that result is more remarkable than the two landslides.
I wonder how much 2005 was actually Gordon's election. Amazing to think that at the time many regarded Tony's premiership as merely a kind of warm-up act - preparation for the golden age of Brown that was to come.
I know I posted that Blair made one mistake but in fact there were two significant ones. Iraq, of course, and why he backed Bush, God alone knows. However his other was hanging on and making Brown wait. If it hadn't been for Iraq, of course, Brown might have led the party into the 2005 election.
Interesting light shed on both those, Stark, in Andrew Rawnesly's excellent book The End Of The Party.
Blair and Clinton were very close. When Bush was elected, Clinton warned Blair that you could only be for or against him - nothing in the middle. Blair decided (disastrously) that he had to be for. Blair once asked Alex Ferguson what he would do with a star player who would not support the Manager, or play for the Team. Fergy said get rid of him. Blair asked 'what if you can't'. 'Then you have a problem', the great man replied.
Now I wonder who Blair had in mind?
Robin Cook or John Prescott? Actually I understand Blair and Prescott got along quite well.
The EU eventually forced France to lift its ban on British beef. The other countries were already compliant. The EU would have kept its ban just as the US did, if we weren't members. Definitely an instance where membership was beneficial.
On topic, sort of, with Corporal's excellent spreadsheet mini-series, Thatcher was far less popular than made out to be in hindsight. She benefited from a divided opposition.
No, it didn't 'force France to lift its ban on British beef.' It allowed France to keep its ban in place for seven years AFTER the ban had been revoked, despite numerous rulings from the CJEU that it should be lifted. And it has never forced France to pay the £2.1 billion in fines it should have had for that breach of the rules.
As for the suggestion that if we had not been in the EU there would have been somebody to impose a blanket ban on the export of all British beef - what are you smoking?
It was not only not beneficial, it was a disaster, a criminal enterprise put forward by certain elements that shall be nameless to exploit a public health emergency for their personal gain - and people died as a result.
That is not to say the EU is all bad - if it was, I wouldn't have voted remain - just to remind people that there are times when it got it appallingly badly wrong and showed itself in the darkest of lights.
Of course, if we had behaved like France and ignored the EU when it didn't suit us, we would not be about to leave. That's the irony.
Rightly or wrongly, consumers found the idea of eating mad cows abhorrent. All the bans on British beef were driven by consumer pressure. The EU lifted its ban on British beef after three years only because the UK was a member and could bring pressure to bear. Otherwise it would have left its ban in place - as the Americans did for twenty years!
So we should be a member because otherwise corrupt and illegal things will be done to hurt us?
I don't get your point. I am simply pointing out, as a matter of fact, that the EU lifted its ban on British beef far earlier than it would have done otherwise and well before other administrations. Unfortunately British beef was seen worldwide as poison.
The EU ban lasted 10 years, not 3. (1996-2006)
We could, of course, taken the EU to the WTO for illegal restraint of trade if we were not a member
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
No, there will never be another Tone. The stars aligned amazingly in his favour:
End of an unprecedentedly long, yet often divisive, era of Tory rule.
Tories rancorous and divided over Maggie's ousting.
Tories dubious about or downright hostile to her wishy washy replacement.
Sexual and financial Tory sleaze (real or imagined) all around.
Tory MPs popping off at regular intervals, providing lots of juicy by-elections to feed the narrative.
The dramatic calamity of Black Wednesday.
A feverishly hostile press consumed with blood lust.
A government with a tiny, or non-existent, majority held to ransom by fringe euro-sceptic fanatics.
The British Left in retreat, allowing Tone to concentrate fully on his right flank.
If you could ignore Iraq - and that is some caveat - he was actually a pretty decent PM.
True best PM in my lifetime .
Personally I'd go for Major, although he was regularly stymied by the dysfunctional state of his Party.
Thatcher, for me.
She was the worst - and by far the most venal - in my lifetime.
Do you understand the meaning of 'venal'?
Thatcher was many things, but there is little to no evidence she was willing to behave in a way that is not honest or moral in exchange for money.
"I like Norman Lamb a lot, but don't forget he is very much we must leave because must respect the referendum. I don't think that is what Remainers want to hear."
What's he doing in the Liberal Democrats then? I assumed their title was meant to be sarcastic?
I know Corbyn (and presumably Gardiner too) are intent on making the point that a Labour leave would be better than a Tory leave, rather than just do what their members want and come out for Remain, but surely there's better ways?
Labour leave is as mythical as the unicorn farms. It is a load of hot air about negotiating a jobs first Brexit. The EU wont give Labour the cake they want and the only way to really protect thousands of jobs is to remain.
It is too late for a new negotiation under Corbyn, this is true, and I am surprised they are still pushing it, but I understand why, but there's unrealistic claims and then theirs very unrealistic claims.
I don't think Maggie's reputation will pass the test of time as well as I once thought. I know of ardent admirers of her back then who now express reservations or downright hostility. Yes, she dragged Britain from the mire of the 1970s, but that seems increasingly like a battle of its time. Pointing to an enduring legacy is more difficult.
I upset a family member of mine recently when I expressed the view, oft mentioned, that I really hope we are getting to a point whereby people stop trying to scare and inspire me by banging on about Thatcher. Which is not to say I think any legacy of hers, positive and negative, should be dismissed or forgotten, and in fairness the deification/demonisation of her has not seemed particularly prominent in the past few years, but it can be wearying how passionate people can get and think others should get about it still.
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
If this is true surely Labour will back the Referendum (and therefore it happens) - which goes against the our mutual view from yesterday that the Deal will pass?
It does not happen unless TM legislates for it or Corbyn wins a GE endorseing a second referendum, both of which seem very unlikely
Mr. HYUFD, the Lib Dems could do with a rather more proactive leader, though.
Interesting to consider how Farron would be doing if he'd stayed on.
Farron would quite possibly be doing worse. He was dreadful. However, had they elected Norman Lamb in 2015, I think they would be doing considerably better than they are now.
I like Norman Lamb a lot, but don't forget he is very much we must leave because must respect the referendum. I don't think that is what Remainers want to hear.
He's pragmatic and sensible, and his stance on Brexit would have attracted many voters from both main parties.
It looks the only thing that can be definitively ruled out is May's deal. So we'll probably persist with that fantasy for another couple of months.
Why? Deal + No Deal = 339 MPs, comfortably more than the 300 MPs for EUref2 and Remain.
Either Dealers shift to EUref2 or EUref2 MPs shift to the Deal, otherwise No Deal by default given neither Deal nor EUref2 has the 326 MPs needed for a majority at the moment
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
No, there will never be another Tone. The stars aligned amazingly in his favour:
End of an unprecedentedly long, yet often divisive, era of Tory rule.
Tories rancorous and divided over Maggie's ousting.
Tories dubious about or downright hostile to her wishy washy replacement.
Sexual and financial Tory sleaze (real or imagined) all around.
Tory MPs popping off at regular intervals, providing lots of juicy by-elections to feed the narrative.
The dramatic calamity of Black Wednesday.
A feverishly hostile press consumed with blood lust.
A government with a tiny, or non-existent, majority held to ransom by fringe euro-sceptic fanatics.
The British Left in retreat, allowing Tone to concentrate fully on his right flank.
If you could ignore Iraq - and that is some caveat - he was actually a pretty decent PM.
True best PM in my lifetime .
I used to be able to completely ignore politics in his day, safe in the knowledge that they were quietly getting on with it. The hunting and shooting lot around my way didn't like him much, which was a nice bonus.
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
If this is true surely Labour will back the Referendum (and therefore it happens) - which goes against the our mutual view from yesterday that the Deal will pass?
Even on Rentoul's figures the vast majority of Labour MPs are assumed to ultimately back the Referendum, including Corbyn. Yet even then the Referendum does not get the 326 votes needed for a majority.
In fact given Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs and a majority the only likely referendum that could carry the Commons and indeed the only one May would be likely to consider would be straight Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal. Given Leave beat Remain in 2016 that would be fair enough, we should just be deciding on the method of leaving not whether we Leave or Remain
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
No, there will never be another Tone. The stars aligned amazingly in his favour:
End of an unprecedentedly long, yet often divisive, era of Tory rule.
Tories rancorous and divided over Maggie's ousting.
Tories dubious about or downright hostile to her wishy washy replacement.
Sexual and financial Tory sleaze (real or imagined) all around.
Tory MPs popping off at regular intervals, providing lots of juicy by-elections to feed the narrative.
The dramatic calamity of Black Wednesday.
A feverishly hostile press consumed with blood lust.
A government with a tiny, or non-existent, majority held to ransom by fringe euro-sceptic fanatics.
The British Left in retreat, allowing Tone to concentrate fully on his right flank.
If you could ignore Iraq - and that is some caveat - he was actually a pretty decent PM.
True best PM in my lifetime .
I used to be able to completely ignore politics in his day, safe in the knowledge that they were quietly getting on with it. The hunting and shooting lot around my way didn't like him much, which was a nice bonus.
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
No, there will never be another Tone. The stars aligned amazingly in his favour:
End of an unprecedentedly long, yet often divisive, era of Tory rule.
Tories rancorous and divided over Maggie's ousting.
Tories dubious about or downright hostile to her wishy washy replacement.
Sexual and financial Tory sleaze (real or imagined) all around.
Tory MPs popping off at regular intervals, providing lots of juicy by-elections to feed the narrative.
The dramatic calamity of Black Wednesday.
A feverishly hostile press consumed with blood lust.
A government with a tiny, or non-existent, majority held to ransom by fringe euro-sceptic fanatics.
The British Left in retreat, allowing Tone to concentrate fully on his right flank.
If you could ignore Iraq - and that is some caveat - he was actually a pretty decent PM.
True best PM in my lifetime .
Personally I'd go for Major, although he was regularly stymied by the dysfunctional state of his Party.
Thatcher, for me.
She was the worst - and by far the most venal - in my lifetime.
Do you understand the meaning of 'venal'?
Thatcher was many things, but there is little to no evidence she was willing to behave in a way that is not honest or moral in exchange for money.
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
No, there will never be another Tone. The stars aligned amazingly in his favour:
End of an unprecedentedly long, yet often divisive, era of Tory rule.
Tories rancorous and divided over Maggie's ousting.
Tories dubious about or downright hostile to her wishy washy replacement.
Sexual and financial Tory sleaze (real or imagined) all around.
Tory MPs popping off at regular intervals, providing lots of juicy by-elections to feed the narrative.
The dramatic calamity of Black Wednesday.
A feverishly hostile press consumed with blood lust.
A government with a tiny, or non-existent, majority held to ransom by fringe euro-sceptic fanatics.
The British Left in retreat, allowing Tone to concentrate fully on his right flank.
If you could ignore Iraq - and that is some caveat - he was actually a pretty decent PM.
Let's not forget that Blair won a majority AFTER Iraq. Looking back, that result is more remarkable than the two landslides.
I wonder how much 2005 was actually Gordon's election. Amazing to think that at the time many regarded Tony's premiership as merely a kind of warm-up act - preparation for the golden age of Brown that was to come.
I know I posted that Blair made one mistake but in fact there were two significant ones. Iraq, of course, and why he backed Bush, God alone knows. However his other was hanging on and making Brown wait. If it hadn't been for Iraq, of course, Brown might have led the party into the 2005 election.
Interesting light shed on both those, Stark, in Andrew Rawnesly's excellent book The End Of The Party.
Blair and Clinton were very close. When Bush was elected, Clinton warned Blair that you could only be for or against him - nothing in the middle. Blair decided (disastrously) that he had to be for. Blair once asked Alex Ferguson what he would do with a star player who would not support the Manager, or play for the Team. Fergy said get rid of him. Blair asked 'what if you can't'. 'Then you have a problem', the great man replied.
I know Corbyn (and presumably Gardiner too) are intent on making the point that a Labour leave would be better than a Tory leave, rather than just do what their members want and come out for Remain, but surely there's better ways?
He is Fox’s shadow so perhaps trying to one-up him.
Seriously though, when is the media going to call out what are bald-faced lies?
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
No, there will never be another Tone. The stars aligned amazingly in his favour:
End of an unprecedentedly long, yet often divisive, era of Tory rule.
Tories rancorous and divided over Maggie's ousting.
Tories dubious about or downright hostile to her wishy washy replacement.
Sexual and financial Tory sleaze (real or imagined) all around.
Tory MPs popping off at regular intervals, providing lots of juicy by-elections to feed the narrative.
The dramatic calamity of Black Wednesday.
A feverishly hostile press consumed with blood lust.
A government with a tiny, or non-existent, majority held to ransom by fringe euro-sceptic fanatics.
The British Left in retreat, allowing Tone to concentrate fully on his right flank.
If you could ignore Iraq - and that is some caveat - he was actually a pretty decent PM.
True best PM in my lifetime .
Personally I'd go for Major, although he was regularly stymied by the dysfunctional state of his Party.
Thatcher, for me.
She was the worst - and by far the most venal - in my lifetime.
Do you understand the meaning of 'venal'?
Thatcher was many things, but there is little to no evidence she was willing to behave in a way that is not honest or moral in exchange for money.
'The biggest victim of the vote for Brexit to date has been the value of sterling. Since the final quarter of 2015, when Brexit first became a distinct possibility, the pound has lost nearly a quarter of its value on a trade weighted basis, making this one of the most serious devaluations of the post-war period. You’ll be pleased to know, however, that according to true believers in the economic benefits of Brexit, this is a good thing, as it ought, by making exports cheaper and imports more expensive, help induce a much-needed rebalancing in the UK economy towards net trade.
Unfortunately, there is as yet no sign of it. As a proportion of GDP, net trade is no higher today than it was three years ago when the devaluation began. Indeed, the only observable impact of the exchange rate correction so far is that relative to the rest of the world it has made us all notably poorer. This should in truth come as no surprise, since none of the previous devaluations have had any long-term impact on trade either. Down and down the pound has gone, but just as dependent on household and government consumption for our growth do we seem to remain.
Why is this? Why has the economy failed to adjust as you might expect? Samuel Tombs, of Pantheon Macroeconomics, suggests three explanations. One is that UK exporters are these days highly integrated into international supply chains. The price advantage they gain from currency devaluation in export markets is therefore largely lost on the higher prices they pay for imported components and raw materials.
Second, Brexit uncertainty is causing European customers to shun British suppliers in favour of Continental alternatives. Supply chains are being reworked in preparation for barriers to trade.
And third, there has been surprisingly little import substitution, possibly because British manufacturing has become so acutely hollowed out over the years that it is incapable any longer of responding to increased demand. Brexit uncertainty has also depressed business investment, further crimping the UK’s ability to substitute for imports.
The upshot is that so far there has been zero gain from currency devaluation, only cost. ...'
'The biggest victim of the vote for Brexit to date has been the value of sterling. Since the final quarter of 2015, when Brexit first became a distinct possibility, the pound has lost nearly a quarter of its value on a trade weighted basis, making this one of the most serious devaluations of the post-war period. You’ll be pleased to know, however, that according to true believers in the economic benefits of Brexit, this is a good thing, as it ought, by making exports cheaper and imports more expensive, help induce a much-needed rebalancing in the UK economy towards net trade.
Unfortunately, there is as yet no sign of it. As a proportion of GDP, net trade is no higher today than it was three years ago when the devaluation began. Indeed, the only observable impact of the exchange rate correction so far is that relative to the rest of the world it has made us all notably poorer. This should in truth come as no surprise, since none of the previous devaluations have had any long-term impact on trade either. Down and down the pound has gone, but just as dependent on household and government consumption for our growth do we seem to remain.
Why is this? Why has the economy failed to adjust as you might expect? Samuel Tombs, of Pantheon Macroeconomics, suggests three explanations. One is that UK exporters are these days highly integrated into international supply chains. The price advantage they gain from currency devaluation in export markets is therefore largely lost on the higher prices they pay for imported components and raw materials.
Second, Brexit uncertainty is causing European customers to shun British suppliers in favour of Continental alternatives. Supply chains are being reworked in preparation for barriers to trade.
And third, there has been surprisingly little import substitution, possibly because British manufacturing has become so acutely hollowed out over the years that it is incapable any longer of responding to increased demand. Brexit uncertainty has also depressed business investment, further crimping the UK’s ability to substitute for imports.
The upshot is that so far there has been zero gain from currency devaluation, only cost. ...'
Who knows, without that devaluation the net trade figures might have been even worse.
Agreed. You cannot get huffy about one and not the other.
Mumbling "stupid woman" under your breath as a woman who is more powerful than you behaves crassly.
A loud instruction to "calm down dear!" in an amused and patronizing tone directly to a woman less powerful than you who is being animated.
There is a distinction. Quite a clear one.
Then I do not see it. A good rule of thumb to determine if it is actually something worthy of complaint is would the people complaining do so if someone on their side said it. In both cases that was not the case, Labour would not have complained if their PM had done what Cameron did (that is, mock an opponent, and pretending it was more than that because it happened to be a woman), and Tories would not have complained if their leader had done what Corbyn did.
Therefore both were a nonsense. And we can be confident that is the case because if there was a distinction as you claim, Labour would have claimed there was. And they didn't. Some supporters did, but Labour instead said that he simply hadn't said it.
If you were correct he would at least have said 'I did not say what is claimed, but it would be ok because X'. They didn't, because they knew attempting to draw that distinction was a fool's errand.
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
If this is true surely Labour will back the Referendum (and therefore it happens) - which goes against the our mutual view from yesterday that the Deal will pass?
Even on Rentoul's figures the vast majority of Labour MPs are assumed to ultimately back the Referendum, including Corbyn. Yet even then the Referendum does not get the 326 votes needed for a majority.
In fact given Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs and a majority the only likely referendum that could carry the Commons and indeed the only one May would be likely to consider would be straight Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal. Given Leave beat Remain in 2016 that would be fair enough, we should just be deciding on the method of leaving not whether we Leave or Remain
But....but...but that wouldn't be A People's Vote!
(Would love to see it though - watching Remainers going out to vote for May's Brexit to prevent End of Days Brexit.....)
Woe unto thee who yields not to the wisdom of Morris Dancer.
Cable’s problems (soporific, grey, tainted by coalition, potential health issues) are all shared by Lamb.
Cable’s strength and electoral USP (strongly pro-Remain) is not.
Lamb would have had less electoral appeal than either Farron (gay sex aside) or Cable. The Lib Dems’ mistake was not to get Swinson or Moran into leadership last year when no-one was looking. It’s probably too late now.
'The biggest victim of the vote for Brexit to date has been the value of sterling. Since the final quarter of 2015, when Brexit first became a distinct possibility, the pound has lost nearly a quarter of its value on a trade weighted basis, making this one of the most serious devaluations of the post-war period. You’ll be pleased to know, however, that according to true believers in the economic benefits of Brexit, this is a good thing, as it ought, by making exports cheaper and imports more expensive, help induce a much-needed rebalancing in the UK economy towards net trade.
Unfortunately, there is as yet no sign of it. As a proportion of GDP, net trade is no higher today than it was three years ago when the devaluation began. Indeed, the only observable impact of the exchange rate correction so far is that relative to the rest of the world it has made us all notably poorer. This should in truth come as no surprise, since none of the previous devaluations have had any long-term impact on trade either. Down and down the pound has gone, but just as dependent on household and government consumption for our growth do we seem to remain.
Why is this? Why has the economy failed to adjust as you might expect? Samuel Tombs, of Pantheon Macroeconomics, suggests three explanations. One is that UK exporters are these days highly integrated into international supply chains. The price advantage they gain from currency devaluation in export markets is therefore largely lost on the higher prices they pay for imported components and raw materials.
Second, Brexit uncertainty is causing European customers to shun British suppliers in favour of Continental alternatives. Supply chains are being reworked in preparation for barriers to trade.
And third, there has been surprisingly little import substitution, possibly because British manufacturing has become so acutely hollowed out over the years that it is incapable any longer of responding to increased demand. Brexit uncertainty has also depressed business investment, further crimping the UK’s ability to substitute for imports.
The upshot is that so far there has been zero gain from currency devaluation, only cost. ...'
Who knows, without that devaluation the net trade figures might have been even worse.
Would you like to buy an elephant gun? I've owned it for years and I've had absolutely no elephant attacks. Just think of all the elephant attacks I would have suffered if I hadn't have had it. Whew, it's quite a worry, I can tell you...
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
The EU eventually forced France to lift its ban on British beef. The other countries were already compliant. The EU would have kept its ban just as the US did, if we weren't members. Definitely an instance where membership was beneficial.
On topic, sort of, with Corporal's excellent spreadsheet mini-series, Thatcher was far less popular than made out to be in hindsight. She benefited from a divided opposition.
's the irony.
Rightly or wrongly, consumers found the idea of eating mad cows abhorrent. All the bans on British beef were driven by consumer pressure. The EU lifted its ban on British beef after three years only because the UK was a member and could bring pressure to bear. Otherwise it would have left its ban in place - as the Americans did for twenty years!
So we should be a member because otherwise corrupt and illegal things will be done to hurt us?
I don't get your point. I am simply pointing out, as a matter of fact, that the EU lifted its ban on British beef far earlier than it would have done otherwise and well before other administrations. Unfortunately British beef was seen worldwide as poison.
The EU ban lasted 10 years, not 3. (1996-2006)
We could, of course, taken the EU to the WTO for illegal restraint of trade if we were not a member
That was the EU ban on UK beef exports to third countries to head off third country bans and consumer boycotts being extended to all EU beef rather the UK part of it. To be fair the export ban wouldn't have applied if the UK hadn't been a member. The UK will have lost some sales to countries that didn't already have bans in place.
The EU ban on exports to other EU countries was lifted after three years, as I said.
As far as I know, no WTO action was taken over bans on UK beef because of BSE. In any case that's a question for third countries as the EU had lifted its ban by then.
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
We can only hope not. Smarmy, self righteous git that he was.
Its worth remembering how much respect both Cameron and (especially) Osborne had for him. I remember an incident in a biography of Osborne that he and his good pal Danny the Fink had gone to hear Blair speak at a Labour Party Conference (they were there representing the Tories, somewhat weirdly). After the speech George was deeply despondent. "We'll never beat him," he said. And they never did.
On topic: sort of. Thatcher and Blair are the finest leaders of the last 40 years because they both had a vision of what they wanted to achieve, and set out to achieve it, ultimately changing the country.
Thatcher may have been divisive, but one can argue she had to be given the nature of the changes she wished to make. Blair may indeed have squandered his high polling, playing too conservative in his first term.
Both, in their pomp, extraordinary leaders with a global presence.
After that, Callaghan and Major are probably much of a muchness. Cameron would have scored higher than both for public appeal and administrative competence but for the referendum: that one act puts him below both and exposed a lethal complacency. Neither Callaghan, Major or Cameron bequeathed any kind of ideology or vision.
Brown had the intellectual potential to be great, but let down by terrible administrative skills.
Too early to place May. However, she has neither the charm of Callaghan or Cameron, the bravery of Major, nor the intellect of Brown. She is, however, and this pains me, head and shoulders above both her current Cabinet and the shadow one - with one exception noted below.
On today’s political scene, she is outclassed only by Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davison, and potentially John McDonnell.
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
The Tory share actually held up pretty well, it was the opposition vote that coalesced around Labour.
Woe unto thee who yields not to the wisdom of Morris Dancer.
Cable’s problems (soporific, grey, tainted by coalition, potential health issues) are all shared by Lamb.
Cable’s strength and electoral USP (strongly pro-Remain) is not.
Lamb would have had less electoral appeal than either Farron (gay sex aside) or Cable. The Lib Dems’ mistake was not to get Swinson or Moran into leadership last year when no-one was looking. It’s probably too late now.
Swinson had it for the asking but essentially turned it down.
It is surely not the case that all but 19 Labour MPs would be prepared to vote positively for a 2nd referendum, particularly if Corbyn continues to be opposed to that course. The number who would not do so is far higher than 19, so the "the rest" count is exaggerated, although many would just choose not to go through the lobbies.
Indeed. Unless the leadership back the referendum I would have thought the number of Labour MPs voting for it would be in the low 2 digits.
I don't believe it to be possible, in the present climate. Ok that's my gut vs polling which, imperfect though it is, is generally better than mere gut feeling, but I just cannot believe that, for instance, Corbyn dragging his feat on second referendum support could see such a drop, resulting in the Tories, this divided, barely coherent Tory party, so far ahead.
Bank Holiday polling is not reliable. Moreover, this was carried out over a two week period - three or four times as extended a period than is normal.
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
Since when have you been in a position to dismiss the warnings attached to Bank Holiday polls? I am sure there are very sound reasons why newspapers and other media organisations tend to refrain from using them during such periods.
'The biggest victim of the vote for Brexit to date has been the value of sterling. Since the final quarter of 2015, when Brexit first became a distinct possibility, the pound has lost nearly a quarter of its value on a trade weighted basis, making this one of the most serious devaluations of the post-war period. You’ll be pleased to know, however, that according to true believers in the economic benefits of Brexit, this is a good thing, as it ought, by making exports cheaper and imports more expensive, help induce a much-needed rebalancing in the UK economy towards net trade.
Unfortunately, there is as yet no sign of it. As a proportion of GDP, net trade is no higher today than it was three years ago when the devaluation began. Indeed, the only observable impact of the exchange rate correction so far is that relative to the rest of the world it has made us all notably poorer. This should in truth come as no surprise, since none of the previous devaluations have had any long-term impact on trade either. Down and down the pound has gone, but just as dependent on household and government consumption for our growth do we seem to remain.
Why is this? Why has the economy failed to adjust as you might expect? Samuel Tombs, of Pantheon Macroeconomics, suggests three explanations. One is that UK exporters are these days highly integrated into international supply chains. The price advantage they gain from currency devaluation in export markets is therefore largely lost on the higher prices they pay for imported components and raw materials.
Second, Brexit uncertainty is causing European customers to shun British suppliers in favour of Continental alternatives. Supply chains are being reworked in preparation for barriers to trade.
And third, there has been surprisingly little import substitution, possibly because British manufacturing has become so acutely hollowed out over the years that it is incapable any longer of responding to increased demand. Brexit uncertainty has also depressed business investment, further crimping the UK’s ability to substitute for imports.
The upshot is that so far there has been zero gain from currency devaluation, only cost. ...'
Who knows, without that devaluation the net trade figures might have been even worse.
There were news items on the BBC in the run up to Christmas on people crossing the border from Eire to shop in NI due to the bargains to be had. Wonder when / if those sales figures will be out?
The EU eventually forced France to lift its ban on British beef. The other countries were already compliant. The EU would have kept its ban just as the US did, if we weren't members. Definitely an instance where membership was beneficial.
On topic, sort of, with Corporal's excellent spreadsheet mini-series, Thatcher was far less popular than made out to be in hindsight. She benefited from a divided opposition.
No, it didn't 'force France to lift its ban on British beef.' It allowed France to keep its ban in place for seven years AFTER the ban had been revoked, despite numerous rulings from the CJEU that it should be lifted. And it has nev
That is not to say the EU is all bad - if it was, I wouldn't have voted remain - just to remind people that there are times when it got it appallingly badly wrong and showed itself in the darkest of lights.
Of course, if we had behaved like France and ignored the EU when it didn't suit us, we would not be about to leave. That's the irony.
Rightly or wrongly, consumers found the idea of eating mad cows abhorrent. All the bans on British beef were driven by consumer pressure. The EU lifted its ban on British beef after three years only because the UK was a member and could bring pressure to bear. Otherwise it would have left its ban in place - as the Americans did for twenty years!
So we should be a member because otherwise corrupt and illegal things will be done to hurt us?
He's almost admitting that the EU is no more than a dressed up protection racket. Surprising honesty from the most EUfanatic member on here.
Jeez, you guys!
A club supports its members. If you want to call that a protection racket go ahead. But then NATO is a protection racket too. The UK is a protection racket.
The Conservative party is a protection racket... (hang on, you might have a point on that one.)
No: what @FF43 said was the ban was illegal but it was only lifted as quickly as it was because we were a member.
My view is that an illegal ban should never have been imposed.
I didn't say the ban was illegal. It almost certainly wasn't illegal. I was making the specific point, as a matter of fact, that, uniquely, the EU shortened its ban because the UK was a member. This contradicts the assertion that the beef ban was a negative of membership. Whether the EU could have done more for a member is a different discussion that is made moot if we are no longer actually a member.
Would love to see it though - watching Remainers going out to vote for May's Brexit to prevent End of Days Brexit.....)
I don't think there will be a second referendum because of time constraints, and I'm not convinced there should be one at all. However should one occur without a "Remain" option, then I will cheerfully vote for the deal. I believe I have been making this or similar points for several weeks now.
Betfair continues to suggest almost ZERO chance of leaving on 29 March with No Deal.
Look at the two markets:
Will UK leave by 29 March? No: 1.61 Back, 1,65 Lay
When will Commons pass Brexit vote? Not before 30 March: 1.56 Back, 1.6 Lay
So odds are within a whisker of identical.
Assuming that if the vote passes we 100% do leave (seems reasonable) then if vote doesn't pass then there is only a miniscule chance (literally about 2% - ie difference between 1.56 and 1.61) of leaving on 29 March.
Yes I've pointed that out too. I think that is why bookies are confident in offering 3/1 against a No Deal. It's more like 10/1 against.
I didn't say the ban was illegal. It almost certainly wasn't illegal. I was making the specific point, as a matter of fact, that, uniquely, the EU shortened its ban because the UK was a member. This contradicts the assertion that the beef ban was a negative of membership. Whether the EU could have done more for a member is a different discussion that is made moot if we are no longer actually a member.
Save your breath. This is the sort of EU-bashing we have had for decades that painted the EU in the minds of many as a big, bad bogeyman.
The reality is that all the Leavers are interested in is Leaving, so do not expect much in the way of agreement that the EU is not the consumer of firstborns or the breeder of anti-UK locusts.
That could happen, but to prevent Brexit, I think one needs a change of government.
I thought that until Theresa May was made bombproof within her party for a year courtesy of the ERG. Much depends on what Theresa May would do if her deal is decisively defeated. Offering it to the country for a referendum looks one of the likelier possibilities.
I think that would require her to be like Sir Robert Peel, and to break with her party. Not impossible, but unlikely, IMHO.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
That could happen, but to prevent Brexit, I think one needs a change of government.
I thought that until Theresa May was made bombproof within her party for a year courtesy of the ERG. Much depends on what Theresa May would do if her deal is decisively defeated. Offering it to the country for a referendum looks one of the likelier possibilities.
I think that would require her to be like Sir Robert Peel, and to break with her party. Not impossible, but unlikely, IMHO.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
You think they're plotting to become the first Prime Minister of an independent England?
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
TM is keeping the conservative ratings where they are. She is not a deadweight but then she is not pleasing your view of Brexit and therefore you live your dream that some other conservative mp could lead the country into some brexit wonderland that does not exist
Then I do not see it. A good rule of thumb to determine if it is actually something worthy of complaint is would the people complaining do so if someone on their side said it. In both cases that was not the case, Labour would not have complained if their PM had done what Cameron did (that is, mock an opponent, and pretending it was more than that because it happened to be a woman), and Tories would not have complained if their leader had done what Corbyn did.
Therefore both were a nonsense. And we can be confident that is the case because if there was a distinction as you claim, Labour would have claimed there was. And they didn't. Some supporters did, but Labour instead said that he simply hadn't said it.
If you were correct he would at least have said 'I did not say what is claimed, but it would be ok because X'. They didn't, because they knew attempting to draw that distinction was a fool's errand.
The distinction between the incidents that I see and you do not is as follows:
If the PM opposing him had been male but behaving in the same manner, one can imagine JC mumbling "stupid man" to himself in the same way. It was tetchy, a weakness of his, but no more than that. The subsequent lie was worse. That showed a certain weakness of character. Similar to his 'didn't lay a wreath' nonsense.
DC's comment, which he boomed out in the chamber rather than whispered to himself, was taken from a TV commercial starring Michael Winner. "Calm down dear, it's only a commercial." The vibe of it was about how men often have to deal with excitable females getting themselves all in a tizz about nothing. Winner was chosen for the advert because he was famously sexist and patronizing. Or that was the image he sold rather. DC's use of it was clearly in that vein, and (since directed at somebody far less powerful than himself) a little bit bullying too.
So in summary, JC's comment was not sexist, patronizing or bullying, whereas that of DC was all three.
That could happen, but to prevent Brexit, I think one needs a change of government.
I thought that until Theresa May was made bombproof within her party for a year courtesy of the ERG. Much depends on what Theresa May would do if her deal is decisively defeated. Offering it to the country for a referendum looks one of the likelier possibilities.
I think that would require her to be like Sir Robert Peel, and to break with her party. Not impossible, but unlikely, IMHO.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
+1
Indeed. Anyone who doubts Mrs May’s devotion to the Tory party hasn’t been paying attention for the past 25 years. She was canvassing on Saturday, according to my timeline.
There is still an awful lot of Never Brexit wish fulfilment projection going on...
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
If this is true surely Labour will back the Referendum (and therefore it happens) - which goes against the our mutual view from yesterday that the Deal will pass?
Even on Rentoul's figures the vast majority of Labour MPs are assumed to ultimately back the Referendum, including Corbyn. Yet even then the Referendum does not get the 326 votes needed for a majority.
In fact given Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs and a majority the only likely referendum that could carry the Commons and indeed the only one May would be likely to consider would be straight Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal. Given Leave beat Remain in 2016 that would be fair enough, we should just be deciding on the method of leaving not whether we Leave or Remain
But....but...but that wouldn't be A People's Vote!
(Would love to see it though - watching Remainers going out to vote for May's Brexit to prevent End of Days Brexit.....)
They had their People's Vote in 2016, they lost.
A lot of Remainers would stay home but enough would still vote for the Deal to see it win reasonably comfortably, about 60% to 40%. Given Northern Ireland and Scotland would also likely vote for the Deal over No Deal it would have the added bonus of shutting up the DUP and SNP
That could happen, but to prevent Brexit, I think one needs a change of government.
I thought that until Theresa May was made bombproof within her party for a year courtesy of the ERG. Much depends on what Theresa May would do if her deal is decisively defeated. Offering it to the country for a referendum looks one of the likelier possibilities.
I think that would require her to be like Sir Robert Peel, and to break with her party. Not impossible, but unlikely, IMHO.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
+1
Indeed. Anyone who doubts Mrs May’s devotion to the Tory party hasn’t been paying attention for the past 25 years. She was canvassing on Saturday, according to my timeline.
There is still an awful lot of Never Brexit wish fulfilment projection going on...
It's her devotion to the Tory party that led her to pursue a strategy aimed at exorcising the dark heart of Euroscepticism that threatens its survival.
That could happen, but to prevent Brexit, I think one needs a change of government.
I thought that until Theresa May was made bombproof within her party for a year courtesy of the ERG. Much depends on what Theresa May would do if her deal is decisively defeated. Offering it to the country for a referendum looks one of the likelier possibilities.
I think that would require her to be like Sir Robert Peel, and to break with her party. Not impossible, but unlikely, IMHO.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
+1
Indeed. Anyone who doubts Mrs May’s devotion to the Tory party hasn’t been paying attention for the past 25 years. She was canvassing on Saturday, according to my timeline.
There is still an awful lot of Never Brexit wish fulfilment projection going on...
TM confirmed that on Marr this morning and said a couple of constituents had asked her to agree a second referendum while another had wanted no deal, but the vast majority just want her deal and to get on with it
I actually believe that is a wide held view among the populace
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
If this is true surely Labour will back the Referendum (and therefore it happens) - which goes against the our mutual view from yesterday that the Deal will pass?
Even on Rentoul's figures the vast majority of Labour MPs are assumed to ultimately back the Referendum, including Corbyn. Yet even then the Referendum does not get the 326 votes needed for a majority.
In fact given Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs and a majority the only likely referendum that could carry the Commons and indeed the only one May would be likely to consider would be straight Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal. Given Leave beat Remain in 2016 that would be fair enough, we should just be deciding on the method of leaving not whether we Leave or Remain
But....but...but that wouldn't be A People's Vote!
(Would love to see it though - watching Remainers going out to vote for May's Brexit to prevent End of Days Brexit.....)
They had their People's Vote in 2016, they lost.
A lot of Remainers would stay home but enough would still vote for the Deal to see it win reasonably comfortably, about 60% to 40%. Given Northern Ireland and Scotland would also likely vote for the Deal over No Deal it would have the added bonus of shutting up the DUP and SNP
No Deal = No Brexit. The same logic that applies in parliament would apply in a referendum, and enough Remainers would vote down the deal to ensure the gambit failed.
That could happen, but to prevent Brexit, I think one needs a change of government.
I thought that until Theresa May was made bombproof within her party for a year courtesy of the ERG. Much depends on what Theresa May would do if her deal is decisively defeated. Offering it to the country for a referendum looks one of the likelier possibilities.
I think that would require her to be like Sir Robert Peel, and to break with her party. Not impossible, but unlikely, IMHO.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
+1
Indeed. Anyone who doubts Mrs May’s devotion to the Tory party hasn’t been paying attention for the past 25 years. She was canvassing on Saturday, according to my timeline.
There is still an awful lot of Never Brexit wish fulfilment projection going on...
TM confirmed that on Marr this morning and said a couple of constituents had asked her to agree a second referendum while another had wanted no deal, but the vast majority just want her deal and to get on with it
I actually believe that is a wide held view among the populace
I think the common sentiment is not so much "get on with it" but "get it over with", and May has dishonestly positioned her deal as the end of the matter when in fact it means years more divisive negotiations, conducted from a weaker position.
That could happen, but to prevent Brexit, I think one needs a change of government.
I thought that until Theresa May was made bombproof within her party for a year courtesy of the ERG. Much depends on what Theresa May would do if her deal is decisively defeated. Offering it to the country for a referendum looks one of the likelier possibilities.
I think that would require her to be like Sir Robert Peel, and to break with her party. Not impossible, but unlikely, IMHO.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
+1
Indeed. Anyone who doubts Mrs May’s devotion to the Tory party hasn’t been paying attention for the past 25 years. She was canvassing on Saturday, according to my timeline.
There is still an awful lot of Never Brexit wish fulfilment projection going on...
TM confirmed that on Marr this morning and said a couple of constituents had asked her to agree a second referendum while another had wanted no deal, but the vast majority just want her deal and to get on with it
I actually believe that is a wide held view among the populace
I think the common sentiment is not so much "get on with it" but "get it over with", and May has dishonestly positioned her deal as the end of the matter when in fact it means years more divisive negotiations, conducted from a weaker position.
I do not think she has been dishonest. She has agreed a deal that is brexit but is business friendly, but above all else she has a WDA that is widely supported by business and across Northern Ireland. Trade talks will take a long time and will evolve almost certainly not under TM
We can only hope not. Smarmy, self righteous git that he was.
Its worth remembering how much respect both Cameron and (especially) Osborne had for him. I remember an incident in a biography of Osborne that he and his good pal Danny the Fink had gone to hear Blair speak at a Labour Party Conference (they were there representing the Tories, somewhat weirdly). After the speech George was deeply despondent. "We'll never beat him," he said. And they never did.
Yes, they were 'Heirs to Blair' and proud of it.
TB fell foul of Messiah complex IMO. If you watch him now, there's something in his eye that is not quite right, and I don't mean a stray hair.
Still, he gave us 1st May 1997, and for that he will always have a place in my heart.
Mr. HYUFD, the Lib Dems could do with a rather more proactive leader, though.
Interesting to consider how Farron would be doing if he'd stayed on.
If Layla Moran agrees to stand as leader, I can see Vince cable resigning as leader in York on 17th March.
She would be an excellent leader.
Fully agree. Charismatic, good on policy, untainted by coalition but able to work cross-party, and as a social liberal, better positioned than the Orange Bookers to peel off Labour voters.
So TM offers nothing for a three week delay. Can we get on with it now? Have the blasted vote, lose it and let’s get closer to whatever actually will happen. No more time to waste.
So TM offers nothing for a three week delay. Can we get on with it now? Have the blasted vote, lose it and let’s get closer to whatever actually will happen. No more time to waste.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
You think they're plotting to become the first Prime Minister of an independent England?
Remainers expect No Deal to result in horrors, and that will be a fitting punishment for our original sin in having voted for Leave. Socialists think it will usher in the revolution. Scots Nats think it will produce independence. Ambitious Tories think it will propel them to high office. The DUP think it will copper-fasten partition. And the ERG love No Deal.
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
If this is true surely Labour will back the Referendum (and therefore it happens) - which goes against the our mutual view from yesterday that the Deal will pass?
Even on Rentoul's figures the vast majority of Labour MPs are assumed to ultimately back the Referendum, including Corbyn. Yet even then the Referendum does not get the 326 votes needed for a majority.
In fact given Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs and a majority the only likely referendum that could carry the Commons and indeed the only one May would be likely to consider would be straight Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal. Given Leave beat Remain in 2016 that would be fair enough, we should just be deciding on the method of leaving not whether we Leave or Remain
But....but...but that wouldn't be A People's Vote!
(Would love to see it though - watching Remainers going out to vote for May's Brexit to prevent End of Days Brexit.....)
They had their People's Vote in 2016, they lost.
A lot of Remainers would stay home but enough would still vote for the Deal to see it win reasonably comfortably, about 60% to 40%. Given Northern Ireland and Scotland would also likely vote for the Deal over No Deal it would have the added bonus of shutting up the DUP and SNP
No Deal = No Brexit. The same logic that applies in parliament would apply in a referendum, and enough Remainers would vote down the deal to ensure the gambit failed.
The voters voted to Leave in 2016, whatever method they then decide to Leave with ie Deal or No Deal would then have to be accepted by MPs.
326 MPs are needed for a Commons majority. According to Rentoul 339 MPs back Deal or No Deal, only 300 MPs back EUref2 with a Remain option, so the only way to avoid No Deal by default which could get a Commons majority and May's support may indeed be a Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
You think they're plotting to become the first Prime Minister of an independent England?
Remainers expect No Deal to result in horrors, and that will be a fitting punishment for our original sin in having voted for Leave. Socialists think it will usher in the revolution. Scots Nats think it will produce independence. Ambitious Tories think it will propel them to high office. The DUP think it will copper-fasten partition. And the ERG love No Deal.
Mr. HYUFD, the Lib Dems could do with a rather more proactive leader, though.
Interesting to consider how Farron would be doing if he'd stayed on.
If Layla Moran agrees to stand as leader, I can see Vince cable resigning as leader in York on 17th March.
She would be an excellent leader.
Fully agree. Charismatic, good on policy, untainted by coalition but able to work cross-party, and as a social liberal, better positioned than the Orange Bookers to peel off Labour voters.
I'm convinced that if Layla Moran does decide to stand then she will secure the LD leadership which would have a big impact on the party's visibility. She's got s lot going for her and has an amazing amount of presence. She's been very strong on Brexit and it is noticeable how she is getting more media slots. The big question is whether she wants it.
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
TM is keeping the conservative ratings where they are. She is not a deadweight but then she is not pleasing your view of Brexit and therefore you live your dream that some other conservative mp could lead the country into some brexit wonderland that does not exist
Tory ratings are much more to do with Labour’s chronic problems with misogyny and antisemitism than May. She is trying to railroad a deal through Parliament that 57% of her own party’s members think is second best to no deal. She blew a 20% lead in the polls and lost her majority in a snap election she called.
She is a deadweight and only an unthinking sycophant would think otherwise.
It is fascinating, isn't it? Blair, what a phenom. A politician with sustained popularity ratings equal to that of apple crumble and custard on a winter's afternoon. Amazing. Will we ever see the like again?
No, there will never be another Tone. The stars aligned amazingly in his favour:
End of an unprecedentedly long, yet often divisive, era of Tory rule.
Tories rancorous and divided over Maggie's ousting.
Tories dubious about or downright hostile to her wishy washy replacement.
Sexual and financial Tory sleaze (real or imagined) all around.
Tory MPs popping off at regular intervals, providing lots of juicy by-elections to feed the narrative.
The dramatic calamity of Black Wednesday.
A feverishly hostile press consumed with blood lust.
A government with a tiny, or non-existent, majority held to ransom by fringe euro-sceptic fanatics.
The British Left in retreat, allowing Tone to concentrate fully on his right flank.
I think you forgot 'Golden economic legacy that he and the iron chancellor could then piss away for the next decade.'.
Nothing to do with Bank Holiday polling, the movement was all Labour to LD, the Tory share was actually down 1% but the reason was clearly Remainers abandoning Labour for the LDs as Corbyn still refuses to back EUref2. If other polls confirm that trend that is great news for the Tories, the more Labour voters shift to the LDs the greater the chance of a Tory majority under FPTP even if they do not add one extra voter from 2017
If this is true surely Labour will back the Referendum (and therefore it happens) - which goes against the our mutual view from yesterday that the Deal will pass?
Even on Rentoul's figures the vast majority of Labour MPs are assumed to ultimately back the Referendum, including Corbyn. Yet even then the Referendum does not get the 326 votes needed for a majority.
In fact given Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs and a majority the only likely referendum that could carry the Commons and indeed the only one May would be likely to consider would be straight Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal. Given Leave beat Remain in 2016 that would be fair enough, we should just be deciding on the method of leaving not whether we Leave or Remain
But....but...but that wouldn't be A People's Vote!
(Would love to see it though - watching Remainers going out to vote for May's Brexit to prevent End of Days Brexit.....)
They had their People's Vote in 2016, they lost.
A lot of Remainers would stay home but enough would still vote for the Deal to see it win reasonably comfortably, about 60% to 40%. Given Northern Ireland and Scotland would also likely vote for the Deal over No Deal it would have the added bonus of shutting up the DUP and SNP
No Deal = No Brexit. The same logic that applies in parliament would apply in a referendum, and enough Remainers would vote down the deal to ensure the gambit failed.
Indeed, the Yougov poll did seem to think May's Deal is less popular than No Deal with the voters.
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
TM is keeping the conservative ratings where they are. She is not a deadweight but then she is not pleasing your view of Brexit and therefore you live your dream that some other conservative mp could lead the country into some brexit wonderland that does not exist
Tory ratings are much more to do with Labour’s chronic problems with misogyny and antisemitism than May. She is trying to railroad a deal through Parliament that 57% of her own party’s members think is second best to no deal. She blew a 20% lead in the polls and lost her majority in a snap election she called.
She is a deadweight and only an unthinking sycophant would think otherwise.
You are becoming very repetitive and Con home do not represent conservative voters.
And as far as your last sentence is concerned suggesting I am an unthinking sycophant is a very sad reflection on your attitude to others, not my postings or thoughts expressed on here
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
The Tory share actually held up pretty well, it was the opposition vote that coalesced around Labour.
UKIP voters didn’t exactly swell Labour numbers though did they and nor did LibDems. The support he got was new support (students attracted by his unfunded promise on tuition fees for example), Labour support that was minced to vote Tory but stayed loyal when they saw some of her policies like social care and fox hunting, and few odds and sods from the SWP and the Communist Party.
The EU eventually forced France to lift its ban on British beef. The other countries were already compliant. The EU would have kept its ban just as the US did, if we weren't members. Definitely an instance where membership was beneficial.
On topic, sort of, with Corporal's excellent spreadsheet mini-series, Thatcher was far less popular than made out to be in hindsight. She benefited from a divided opposition.
No, it didn't 'force France to lift its ban on British beef.' It allowed France to keep its ban in place for seven years AFTER the ban had been revoked, despite numerous rulings from the CJEU that it should be lifted. And it has never forced France to pay the £2.1 billion in fines it should have had for that breach of the rules.
As for the suggestion that if we had not been in the EU there would have been somebody to impose a blanket ban on the export of all British beef - what are you smoking?
It was not only not beneficial, it was a disaster, a criminal enterprise put forward by certain elements that shall be nameless to exploit a public health emergency for their personal gain - and people died as a result.
That is not to say the EU is all bad - if it was, I wouldn't have voted remain - just to remind people that there are times when it got it appallingly badly wrong and showed itself in the darkest of lights.
Of course, if we had behaved like France and ignored the EU when it didn't suit us, we would not be about to leave. That's the irony.
Rightly or wrongly, consumers found the idea of eating mad cows abhorrent. All the bans on British beef were driven by consumer pressure. The EU lifted its ban on British beef after three years only because the UK was a member and could bring pressure to bear. Otherwise it would have left its ban in place - as the Americans did for twenty years!
So we should be a member because otherwise corrupt and illegal things will be done to hurt us?
I don't get your point. I am simply pointing out, as a matter of fact, that the EU lifted its ban on British beef far earlier than it would have done otherwise and well before other administrations. Unfortunately British beef was seen worldwide as poison.
The EU ban lasted 10 years, not 3. (1996-2006)
We could, of course, taken the EU to the WTO for illegal restraint of trade if we were not a member
Did we take the USA to the WTO?
We couldn't because of the EU I thought?
So the moral of this little tale is, there's no benefit to be found there. Non shock.
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
TM is keeping the conservative ratings where they are. She is not a deadweight but then she is not pleasing your view of Brexit and therefore you live your dream that some other conservative mp could lead the country into some brexit wonderland that does not exist
Tory ratings are much more to do with Labour’s chronic problems with misogyny and antisemitism than May. She is trying to railroad a deal through Parliament that 57% of her own party’s members think is second best to no deal. She blew a 20% lead in the polls and lost her majority in a snap election she called.
She is a deadweight and only an unthinking sycophant would think otherwise.
Corbyn won only 4 more seats than Gordon did in 2010. Corbyn 55 seats behind the Tories.
Mr. HYUFD, the Lib Dems could do with a rather more proactive leader, though.
Interesting to consider how Farron would be doing if he'd stayed on.
If Layla Moran agrees to stand as leader, I can see Vince cable resigning as leader in York on 17th March.
She would be an excellent leader.
Fully agree. Charismatic, good on policy, untainted by coalition but able to work cross-party, and as a social liberal, better positioned than the Orange Bookers to peel off Labour voters.
I'm convinced that if Layla Moran does decide to stand then she will secure the LD leadership which would have a big impact on the party's visibility. She's got s lot going for her and has an amazing amount of presence. She's been very strong on Brexit and it is noticeable how she is getting more media slots. The big question is whether she wants it.
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
The Tory share actually held up pretty well, it was the opposition vote that coalesced around Labour.
UKIP voters didn’t exactly swell Labour numbers though did they and nor did LibDems. The support he got was new support (students attracted by his unfunded promise on tuition fees for example), Labour support that was minced to vote Tory but stayed loyal when they saw some of her policies like social care and fox hunting, and few odds and sods from the SWP and the Communist Party.
The entire fractured left went in behind jezza, as he’s about as left as they mostly are. Unite the left against a monstrous three figure Tory majority was the mantra.
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
TM is keeping the conservative ratings where they are. She is not a deadweight but then she is not pleasing your view of Brexit and therefore you live your dream that some other conservative mp could lead the country into some brexit wonderland that does not exist
Tory ratings are much more to do with Labour’s chronic problems with misogyny and antisemitism than May. She is trying to railroad a deal through Parliament that 57% of her own party’s members think is second best to no deal. She blew a 20% lead in the polls and lost her majority in a snap election she called.
She is a deadweight and only an unthinking sycophant would think otherwise.
Corbyn won only 4 more seats than Gordon did in 2010. Corbyn 55 seats behind the Tories.
Brown had far more Scottish seats though which Miliband lost.
Mr. HYUFD, the Lib Dems could do with a rather more proactive leader, though.
Interesting to consider how Farron would be doing if he'd stayed on.
If Layla Moran agrees to stand as leader, I can see Vince cable resigning as leader in York on 17th March.
She would be an excellent leader.
Fully agree. Charismatic, good on policy, untainted by coalition but able to work cross-party, and as a social liberal, better positioned than the Orange Bookers to peel off Labour voters.
But thus unable to implement the economic liberalism needed for UK success.
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.
Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.
Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
TM is keeping the conservative ratings where they are. She is not a deadweight but then she is not pleasing your view of Brexit and therefore you live your dream that some other conservative mp could lead the country into some brexit wonderland that does not exist
Tory ratings are much more to do with Labour’s chronic problems with misogyny and antisemitism than May. She is trying to railroad a deal through Parliament that 57% of her own party’s members think is second best to no deal. She blew a 20% lead in the polls and lost her majority in a snap election she called.
She is a deadweight and only an unthinking sycophant would think otherwise.
Corbyn won only 4 more seats than Gordon did in 2010. Corbyn 55 seats behind the Tories.
Brown had far more Scottish seats though which Miliband lost.
May won 13 Scottish Tory seats to Cameron's grand total of 1.
Comments
Interesting to consider how Farron would be doing if he'd stayed on.
The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition
It bothers me that they adopted a complex tax structure to minimise their payments to the Treasury
"I like Norman Lamb a lot, but don't forget he is very much we must leave because must respect the referendum. I don't think that is what Remainers want to hear."
What's he doing in the Liberal Democrats then? I assumed their title was meant to be sarcastic?
Either Dealers shift to EUref2 or EUref2 MPs shift to the Deal, otherwise No Deal by default given neither Deal nor EUref2 has the 326 MPs needed for a majority at the moment
Please let us get back to this state of affairs.
In fact given Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs and a majority the only likely referendum that could carry the Commons and indeed the only one May would be likely to consider would be straight Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal. Given Leave beat Remain in 2016 that would be fair enough, we should just be deciding on the method of leaving not whether we Leave or Remain
Seriously though, when is the media going to call out what are bald-faced lies?
A loud instruction to "calm down dear!" in an amused and patronizing tone directly to a woman less powerful than you who is being animated.
There is a distinction. Quite a clear one.
Former Prime Ministers should hold themselves to a higher standard.
Woe unto thee who yields not to the wisdom of Morris Dancer.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/05/markets-climb-wall-worry-no-deal-brexit-least/
Extract only:
'The biggest victim of the vote for Brexit to date has been the value of sterling. Since the final quarter of 2015, when Brexit first became a distinct possibility, the pound has lost nearly a quarter of its value on a trade weighted basis, making this one of the most serious devaluations of the post-war period. You’ll be pleased to know, however, that according to true believers in the economic benefits of Brexit, this is a good thing, as it ought, by making exports cheaper and imports more expensive, help induce a much-needed rebalancing in the UK economy towards net trade.
Unfortunately, there is as yet no sign of it. As a proportion of GDP, net trade is no higher today than it was three years ago when the devaluation began. Indeed, the only observable impact of the exchange rate correction so far is that relative to the rest of the world it has made us all notably poorer. This should in truth come as no surprise, since none of the previous devaluations have had any long-term impact on trade either. Down and down the pound has gone, but just as dependent on household and government consumption for our growth do we seem to remain.
Why is this? Why has the economy failed to adjust as you might expect? Samuel Tombs, of Pantheon Macroeconomics, suggests three explanations. One is that UK exporters are these days highly integrated into international supply chains. The price advantage they gain from currency devaluation in export markets is therefore largely lost on the higher prices they pay for imported components and raw materials.
Second, Brexit uncertainty is causing European customers to shun British suppliers in favour of Continental alternatives. Supply chains are being reworked in preparation for barriers to trade.
And third, there has been surprisingly little import substitution, possibly because British manufacturing has become so acutely hollowed out over the years that it is incapable any longer of responding to increased demand. Brexit uncertainty has also depressed business investment, further crimping the UK’s ability to substitute for imports.
The upshot is that so far there has been zero gain from currency devaluation, only cost. ...'
Therefore both were a nonsense. And we can be confident that is the case because if there was a distinction as you claim, Labour would have claimed there was. And they didn't. Some supporters did, but Labour instead said that he simply hadn't said it.
If you were correct he would at least have said 'I did not say what is claimed, but it would be ok because X'. They didn't, because they knew attempting to draw that distinction was a fool's errand.
(Would love to see it though - watching Remainers going out to vote for May's Brexit to prevent End of Days Brexit.....)
Cable’s strength and electoral USP (strongly pro-Remain) is not.
Lamb would have had less electoral appeal than either Farron (gay sex aside) or Cable. The Lib Dems’ mistake was not to get Swinson or Moran into leadership last year when no-one was looking. It’s probably too late now.
A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.
The EU ban on exports to other EU countries was lifted after three years, as I said.
As far as I know, no WTO action was taken over bans on UK beef because of BSE. In any case that's a question for third countries as the EU had lifted its ban by then.
Its worth remembering how much respect both Cameron and (especially) Osborne had for him. I remember an incident in a biography of Osborne that he and his good pal Danny the Fink had gone to hear Blair speak at a Labour Party Conference (they were there representing the Tories, somewhat weirdly). After the speech George was deeply despondent. "We'll never beat him," he said. And they never did.
Thatcher may have been divisive, but one can argue she had to be given the nature of the changes she wished to make. Blair may indeed have squandered his high polling, playing too conservative in his first term.
Both, in their pomp, extraordinary leaders with a global presence.
After that, Callaghan and Major are probably much of a muchness. Cameron would have scored higher than both for public appeal and administrative competence but for the referendum: that one act puts him below both and exposed a lethal complacency. Neither Callaghan, Major or Cameron bequeathed any kind of ideology or vision.
Brown had the intellectual potential to be great, but let down by terrible administrative skills.
Too early to place May. However, she has neither the charm of Callaghan or Cameron, the bravery of Major, nor the intellect of Brown. She is, however, and this pains me, head and shoulders above both her current Cabinet and the shadow one - with one exception noted below.
On today’s political scene, she is outclassed only by Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davison, and potentially John McDonnell.
PM's ratings change in the run-up to elections. Just to illustrate that May's performance in 2017 was off the charts terrible.
The reality is that all the Leavers are interested in is Leaving, so do not expect much in the way of agreement that the EU is not the consumer of firstborns or the breeder of anti-UK locusts.
I've gone back and forth over this, but while I think only 100 or so MP's favour No Deal, as their preferred outcome, a far greater number think that there is political advantage to be gained from it.
If the PM opposing him had been male but behaving in the same manner, one can imagine JC mumbling "stupid man" to himself in the same way. It was tetchy, a weakness of his, but no more than that. The subsequent lie was worse. That showed a certain weakness of character. Similar to his 'didn't lay a wreath' nonsense.
DC's comment, which he boomed out in the chamber rather than whispered to himself, was taken from a TV commercial starring Michael Winner. "Calm down dear, it's only a commercial." The vibe of it was about how men often have to deal with excitable females getting themselves all in a tizz about nothing. Winner was chosen for the advert because he was famously sexist and patronizing. Or that was the image he sold rather. DC's use of it was clearly in that vein, and (since directed at somebody far less powerful than himself) a little bit bullying too.
So in summary, JC's comment was not sexist, patronizing or bullying, whereas that of DC was all three.
Phew!
There is still an awful lot of Never Brexit wish fulfilment projection going on...
A lot of Remainers would stay home but enough would still vote for the Deal to see it win reasonably comfortably, about 60% to 40%. Given Northern Ireland and Scotland would also likely vote for the Deal over No Deal it would have the added bonus of shutting up the DUP and SNP
I actually believe that is a wide held view among the populace
TB fell foul of Messiah complex IMO. If you watch him now, there's something in his eye that is not quite right, and I don't mean a stray hair.
Still, he gave us 1st May 1997, and for that he will always have a place in my heart.
326 MPs are needed for a Commons majority. According to Rentoul 339 MPs back Deal or No Deal, only 300 MPs back EUref2 with a Remain option, so the only way to avoid No Deal by default which could get a Commons majority and May's support may indeed be a Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum.
I am not convinced she would be any better than Norman Lamb or Jo Swinson
She is a deadweight and only an unthinking sycophant would think otherwise.
Personally, I have no fears about it.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1081682656734126085?s=19
Layla Moran was educated at Roedean, the girls equivalent to Eton.
And as far as your last sentence is concerned suggesting I am an unthinking sycophant is a very sad reflection on your attitude to others, not my postings or thoughts expressed on here
UKIP voters didn’t exactly swell Labour numbers though did they and nor did LibDems. The support he got was new support (students attracted by his unfunded promise on tuition fees for example), Labour support that was minced to vote Tory but stayed loyal when they saw some of her policies like social care and fox hunting, and few odds and sods from the SWP and the Communist Party.
Leicester making heavy weather at Newport - just over 10 minutes to equalise