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.
Indeed, but nothing to do with May. That was all due to Davidson who was also the best campaigner Remain had by far in the referendum.
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.
Indeed, but nothing to do with May. That was all due to Davidson who was also the best campaigner Remain had by far in the referendum.
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.
She agreed a deal with the EU that she knew for a fact would not get through the HoC. What do you call that?
Not dishonest. Being bad at the job. She agreed with the EU as much of a deal as they were willing to accept. She, and they, have miscalculated what the HoC is willing to accept re No deal (or the EU have calculated it perfectly, if it leads to us remaining).
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 has no parliamentary experience, has a majority of only 816 votes, and is unknown.
I am not convinced she would be any better than Norman Lamb or Jo Swinson
Layla Moran was educated at Roedean, the girls equivalent to Eton.
Is that a good thing?
I suppose in the sense of whether she can play as being a woman of the people. But I've never heard of the place, and being posh doesn't matter as much as people think it does I think.
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.
Indeed, but nothing to do with May. That was all due to Davidson who was also the best campaigner Remain had by far in the referendum.
Labour are still 55 seats behind the Tories.
But they can get support from the LibDems and SNP. Having betrayed the DUP, the only party who will keep May in office, she is struggling to hold onto their support.
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 has no parliamentary experience, has a majority of only 816 votes, and is unknown.
I am not convinced she would be any better than Norman Lamb or Jo Swinson
If the LDs are content to stay basically where they are they can play it safe, but if they want to try to recapture what they had they probably need to take a gamble.
There is a vein of something approaching dishonesty in May’s politics. The 2017 election showed she can be flexible with her commitments. The meaningful vote has not been played with the straightest of bats. She has claimed support in her cabinet where she clearly doesn’t have it and upset/embarrassed people.
There is a vein of something approaching dishonesty in May’s politics. The 2017 election showed she can be flexible with her commitments. The meaningful vote has not been played with the straightest of bats. She has claimed support in her cabinet where she clearly doesn’t have it and upset/embarrassed people.
Whether it rises to the level of dishonesty I am not certain, but she is less straightforward and more politically slippery than she gives the appearance of being.
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
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.
Yes, the myriad attractions of No Deal. Good summary.
There is a vein of something approaching dishonesty in May’s politics. The 2017 election showed she can be flexible with her commitments. The meaningful vote has not been played with the straightest of bats. She has claimed support in her cabinet where she clearly doesn’t have it and upset/embarrassed people.
Whether it rises to the level of dishonesty I am not certain, but she is less straightforward and more politically slippery than she gives the appearance of being.
I have come to the conclusion that she is dangerous. She does not listen. She cannot distinguish her personal interest from the national interest. She seems to think she has unique insights and talks about duty. She believes her own spin. She treats people badly.
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.
Last month YouGov in a poll that was not commissioned by People's Vote actually had it Deal 65% No Deal 35% after preferences so as I said a Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum is the only one May will likely consider (the same poll also had it Remain 52% Leave with No Deal 48% and Remain 50% Leave with May Deal 50%)
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.
Yes, the myriad attractions of No Deal. Good summary.
And yet per Betfair it is a remote possibility.
Something is amiss.
Too much looking at the crocodile tears of those who say they don't want to risk no deal rather than, as Sean_F has, at the reasons politically it is not something to be feared by plenty. No deal should be impossible if those who say they hate it actually did.
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Diehard Remainers - are they the ones who hold out that it isn't a Christmas movie?
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
How long will that last if Corbyn switches position? He has been remarkably stubborn until now, but the MV will see many things start to move after all.
There is a vein of something approaching dishonesty in May’s politics. The 2017 election showed she can be flexible with her commitments. The meaningful vote has not been played with the straightest of bats. She has claimed support in her cabinet where she clearly doesn’t have it and upset/embarrassed people.
Whether it rises to the level of dishonesty I am not certain, but she is less straightforward and more politically slippery than she gives the appearance of being.
I have come to the conclusion that she is dangerous. She does not listen. She cannot distinguish her personal interest from the national interest. She seems to think she has unique insights and talks about duty. She believes her own spin.
Stupid and diligent. Von Clausewitz's fourth category...
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Diehard Remainers - are they the ones who hold out that it isn't a Christmas movie?
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Diehard Remainers - are they the ones who hold out that it isn't a Christmas movie?
Our numbers grow every day we move on from its premiere!
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Diehard Remainers - are they the ones who hold out that it isn't a Christmas movie?
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Diehard Remainers - are they the ones who hold out that it isn't a Christmas movie?
A film which has "Ode to Joy" on the soundtrack...
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
Of course it is as the only reason Labour got 40% at GE17 was by squeezing minor parties like the LDs and uniting most Remainers behind 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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?
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.
It’s not the EU, Beverley
It’s nation states pulling a fast one as they always do. The French used BSE to try to handicap our beef trade in the way that they and the Germans tried to grab clearing.
They used the structures of the EU but we’re twisting the rules.
The EU is simply a mechanism for power politics. But culturally we are a law-abiding state and our politicians do not have the mindset to behave otherwise (i’ll Leave it up you to decide if that’s a good thing or not).
The EU was not serving our interests and it was restricting our ability to stand up for ourselves.
There’s no “bogeyman” or patronising bullshit involved. Continued membership wasn’t in the country’s interest in my view. I appreciate you have reached a different conclusion, which I suspect may be because you are more risk adverse on a near term basis (while I have been trained to think on a multi generational basis)
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.
She only did on the back of Scottish oil, otherwise she was a dud. It did need someone to curb the unions however and she did do that but at what cost to the country.
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
How long will that last if Corbyn switches position? He has been remarkably stubborn until now, but the MV will see many things start to move after all.
Even if he switches to back EUref2 with a Remain option that at most gets back voters lost to the LDs, it does not add any new ones and risks losing Labour Leavers to the Tories or UKIP.
Indeed according to Rentoul's figures if Corbyn does back EUref2 with a Remain option that still only gets it to 300 MPs, 26 short of a majority. By contrast Deal + No Deal MPs comes to 339 MPs ie a majority, thus a Deal v No Deal referendum is the only one likely to carry the Commons and get May's support
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Diehard Remainers - are they the ones who hold out that it isn't a Christmas movie?
A film which has "Ode to Joy" on the soundtrack...
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
Of course it is as the only reason Labour got 40% at GE17 was by squeezing minor parties like the LDs and uniting most Remainers behind it
How does a YouGov poll of current voting intentions in Jan 2019 help explain Labour’s 2017 GE performance.
LibDems actually increased their seats in 2017, BTW so not much evidence of LD support drifting to Labour, either.
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.
It’s not the EU, Beverley
It’s nation states pulling a fast one as they always do. The French used BSE to try to handicap our beef trade in the way that they and the Germans tried to grab clearing.
They used the structures of the EU but we’re twisting the rules.
The EU is simply a mechanism for power politics. But culturally we are a law-abiding state and our politicians do not have the mindset to behave otherwise (i’ll Leave it up you to decide if that’s a good thing or not).
The EU was not serving our interests and it was restricting our ability to stand up for ourselves.
There’s no “bogeyman” or patronising bullshit involved. Continued membership wasn’t in the country’s interest in my view. I appreciate you have reached a different conclusion, which I suspect may be because you are more risk adverse on a near term basis (while I have been trained to think on a multi generational basis)
Your problem is conflating your personal and family interest with the national interest. No doubt a consequence of your training.
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?
She agreed a deal with the EU that she knew for a fact would not get through the HoC. What do you call that?
Theresa May is interestingly dishonest. You might think, as a daughter of a priest and very stubborn, that her redeeming feature would be her honesty. Not so. Nevertheless she is less dishonest than outspoken ideologue, Jeremy Corbyn. As always, May is flattered by comparison with her opponent.
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.
It’s not the EU, Beverley
It’s nation states pulling a fast one as they always do. The French used BSE to try to handicap our beef trade in the way that they and the Germans tried to grab clearing.
They used the structures of the EU but we’re twisting the rules.
The EU is simply a mechanism for power politics. But culturally we are a law-abiding state and our politicians do not have the mindset to behave otherwise (i’ll Leave it up you to decide if that’s a good thing or not).
The EU was not serving our interests and it was restricting our ability to stand up for ourselves.
There’s no “bogeyman” or patronising bullshit involved. Continued membership wasn’t in the country’s interest in my view. I appreciate you have reached a different conclusion, which I suspect may be because you are more risk adverse on a near term basis (while I have been trained to think on a multi generational basis)
Your problem is conflating your personal and family interest with the national interest. No doubt a consequence of your training.
My father’s family has done fine with the status quo - around half went for leave and half for remain. My mother’s family are among the most prominent arch Remainers in the country (although around 40% supported leave)
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.
It’s not the EU, Beverley
It’s nation states pulling a fast one as they always do. The French used BSE to try to handicap our beef trade in the way that they and the Germans tried to grab clearing.
They used the structures of the EU but we’re twisting the rules.
The EU is simply a mechanism for power politics. But culturally we are a law-abiding state and our politicians do not have the mindset to behave otherwise (i’ll Leave it up you to decide if that’s a good thing or not).
The EU was not serving our interests and it was restricting our ability to stand up for ourselves.
There’s no “bogeyman” or patronising bullshit involved. Continued membership wasn’t in the country’s interest in my view. I appreciate you have reached a different conclusion, which I suspect may be because you are more risk adverse on a near term basis (while I have been trained to think on a multi generational basis)
This almost sounded like a reasonable reply until that classic last sentence. A master class in patronising tosh.
In actual fact you’ve nothing to base your Leave position on apart from windy garbage that “we” just don’t fit in.
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?
I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.
Perhaps if Labour also gives up with the notion they won in 2017?
No one is suggesting they did.
No one sensible, although some people do seem to forget that while the Tories went backwards in terms of seats they did confirm they were still the most popular political party in the country at that time. So it is possible to overdo the criticism of the Tories for the result, even though it was clearly not great.
She agreed a deal with the EU that she knew for a fact would not get through the HoC. What do you call that?
Theresa May is interestingly dishonest. You might think, as a daughter of a priest and very stubborn, that her redeeming feature would be her honesty. Not so. Nevertheless she is less dishonest than outspoken ideologue, Jeremy Corbyn. As always, May is flattered by comparison with her opponent.
Strongly agree with this. May will try to avoid the lie direct but seeks to deceive through cowardice.
Corbyn has no issue with outright fraud, if it serve the interest of the revolution.
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 ist Party.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
Of course it is as the only reason Labour got 40% at GE17 was by squeezing minor parties like the LDs and uniting most Remainers behind it
How does a YouGov poll of current voting intentions in Jan 2019 help explain Labour’s 2017 GE performance.
LibDems actually increased their seats in 2017, BTW so not much evidence of LD support drifting to Labour, either.
Only in mainly very Remain Tory seats like Twickenham, Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath or in gaining seats from the SNP. The LDs actually made a net loss of 2 seats to Labour in 2017 when they lost Sheffield Hallam and Leeds North West.
If other polls confirm Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
On today’s political scene, she is outclassed only by Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davison, and potentially John McDonnell.
Do you not rate Michael Gove?
I do, but I don’t think he outclasses May. He suffers from questions about his judgment.
Hmm, I will know to double check your opinions if you think Gove is anything other than a lying useless ar**hole.
I'll say this for him - he has ideas, and some balls, and is more interesting than most of them. None of that necessarily means he is any better than the rest, but he is at least different from most of them I think.
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Diehard Remainers - are they the ones who hold out that it isn't a Christmas movie?
Only in mainly very Remain Tory seats like Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath or in gaining seats from the SNP. The LDs actually made a net loss of a seat to Labour in 2017 when they lost Sheffield Hallam.
If the YouGov poll confirms Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
Lib Dems made a net loss of two seats to Labour at GE2017.
I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.
Perhaps if Labour also gives up with the notion they won in 2017?
No one is suggesting they did.
No one sensible, although some people do seem to forget that while the Tories went backwards in terms of seats they did confirm they were still the most popular political party in the country at that time. So it is possible to overdo the criticism of the Tories for the result, even though it was clearly not great.
You can say that again - losing 13 seats despite winning 12 more in Scotland and against predictions of a Tory landslide at the start of the campaign.
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 ist Party.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
Of course it is as the only reason Labour got 40% at GE17 was by squeezing minor parties like the LDs and uniting most Remainers behind it
How does a YouGov poll of current voting intentions in Jan 2019 help explain Labour’s 2017 GE performance.
LibDems actually increased their seats in 2017, BTW so not much evidence of LD support drifting to Labour, either.
Only in mainly very Remain Tory seats like Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath or in gaining seats from the SNP. The LDs actually made a net loss of a seat to Labour in 2017 when they lost Sheffield Hallam.
If the YouGov poll confirms Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
It depends very much on where those Lab to LD voters are. If we are seeing the re-emegence of tactical voting, while dropping a few votes in safe University city seats then it could be ominous for the Tories. We need constituency level data to be sure.
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.
It’s not the EU, Beverley
It’s nation states pulling a fast one as they always do. The French used BSE to try to handicap our beef trade in the way that they and the Germans tried to grab clearing.
They used the structures of the EU but we’re twisting the rules.
The EU is simply a mechanism for power politics. But culturally we are a law-abiding state and our politicians do not have the mindset to behave otherwise (i’ll Leave it up you to decide if that’s a good thing or not).
The EU was not serving our interests and it was restricting our ability to stand up for ourselves.
There’s no “bogeyman” or patronising bullshit involved. Continued membership wasn’t in the country’s interest in my view. I appreciate you have reached a different conclusion, which I suspect may be because you are more risk adverse on a near term basis (while I have been trained to think on a multi generational basis)
Your problem is conflating your personal and family interest with the national interest. No doubt a consequence of your training.
My father’s family has done fine with the status quo - around half went for leave and half for remain. My mother’s family are among the most prominent arch Remainers in the country (although around 40% supported leave)
Why do you perceive a vote for the EU as a vote for the status quo? I, for one, want a break with the status quo, and for us to get out of the slow lane of integration.
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 ist Party.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
Of course it is as the only reason Labour got 40% at GE17 was by squeezing minor parties like the LDs and uniting most Remainers behind it
How does a YouGov poll of current voting intentions in Jan 2019 help explain Labour’s 2017 GE performance.
LibDems actually increased their seats in 2017, BTW so not much evidence of LD support drifting to Labour, either.
Only in mainly very Remain Tory seats like Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath or in gaining seats from the SNP. The LDs actually made a net loss of a seat to Labour in 2017 when they lost Sheffield Hallam.
If other polls confirm Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
Still doesn’t explain Labour’s performance in 2017. Just speculates on what might happen to it in a future GE.
With respect, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you appear to be entirely missing the point as a result.
I am not talking about the EU banning imports of beef to the continent. If they wanted to do that, fine. That would have been their decision. It would have been a stupid decision, but so was appointing an alcoholic with the intellect of a stuffed donkey who stands accused of enabling massive tax evasion as Chairman of the Commission and they clearly had no qualms about that.
I am talking about the decision to ban British from exporting any beef or cattle to any country whatsoever on the entire planet for three years, which was completely unjustifiable on any grounds, none of their damn business, and cost us £10 billion a year as well as leading to several suicides. Even if the Thais, for example, had wanted to import our beef, they couldn't, because of the EU.
That was done solely to support the French beef industry, which had, and still has, incidentally, twice as many cases of BSE as we do but hadn't even taken the most rudimentary precautions to stop contaminated meat entering the food chain (which also led to nine confirmed deaths, if you're interested). It was backed by the CJEU and was crippling.
And then in 1999 when it was lifted, and France was ordered to comply, they refused to do so for seven years, despite court orders, and yet have never been fined for doing so despite the fact that under the EU's own rules the fine should have been £1 million every day until they complied.
I can't help it if you don't like those facts. They are still facts. They show the EU in a very bad light. They are, in fact, a perfect illustration of the EU core using their muscle to outmanoeuvre us to or severe detriment, which was the original point.
As for the USA, I think you will find that was a tit-for-tat ban for us refusing to take in meat that had been injected with growth hormones.
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Diehard Remainers - are they the ones who hold out that it isn't a Christmas movie?
A film which has "Ode to Joy" on the soundtrack...
I think you forgot 'Golden economic legacy that he and the iron chancellor could then piss away for the next decade.'.
Hospitals and schools falling apart, you mean. That one?
The opposite in some cases. We had the future schools fund or whatever it was, it was so reprehensibly wasteful that the civil servant in charge insisted that Ed Balls sign a letter to make it clear he did it against his advice. We had loads of schools built and rebuilt many with absolutely no need for it, at costs many times the cost of it done locally. Everything was central controlled, down to the architects and builders. A local friend who was a bursar of one of the schools rebuilt said they could achieved the £25 mill build for about £10 mill
Cameron trying to change history. He promised a referendum to shore up the Tory vote against UKIP. On its own, it wasn’t a bad decision. He made it so with his pisspoor planning and “chillax, it’s just the constitution” approach.
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.
It’s not the EU, Beverley
It’s nation states pulling a fast one as they always do. The French used BSE to try to handicap our beef trade in the way that they and the Germans tried to grab clearing.
They used the structures of the EU but we’re twisting the rules.
The EU is simply a mechanism for power politics. But culturally we are a law-abiding state and our politicians do not have the mindset to behave otherwise (i’ll Leave it up you to decide if that’s a good thing or not).
The EU was not serving our interests and it was restricting our ability to stand up for ourselves.
There’s no “bogeyman” or patronising bullshit involved. Continued membership wasn’t in the country’s interest in my view. I appreciate you have reached a different conclusion, which I suspect may be because you are more risk adverse on a near term basis (while I have been trained to think on a multi generational basis)
Your problem is conflating your personal and family interest with the national interest. No doubt a consequence of your training.
Your problem is conflating your own personal fanaticism with the national interest.
Cameron trying to change history. He promised a referendum to shore up the Tory vote against UKIP. On its own, it wasn’t a bad decision. He made it so with his pisspoor planning and “chillax, it’s just the constitution” approach.
I think the evidence is that on its own it was a bad decision because it legitimised UKIP's platform. UKIP won the 2014 European elections *after* Cameron had made the pledge.
I think you forgot 'Golden economic legacy that he and the iron chancellor could then piss away for the next decade.'.
Hospitals and schools falling apart, you mean. That one?
The opposite in some cases. We had the future schools fund or whatever it was, it was so reprehensibly wasteful that the civil servant in charge insisted that Ed Balls sign a letter to make it clear he did it against his advice. We had loads of schools built and rebuilt many with absolutely no need for it, at costs many times the cost of it done locally. Everything was central controlled, down to the architects and builders. A local friend who was a bursar of one of the schools rebuilt said they could achieved the £25 mill build for about £10 mill
Many of the schools, at least, were in fairness badly needed.
They were just overpriced, poor quality, and in many cases designed for architectural awards not teaching (I cherish the example of a school in southern Gloucestershire that won an award for its L-shaped classrooms...)
Only in mainly very Remain Tory seats like Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath or in gaining seats from the SNP. The LDs actually made a net loss of a seat to Labour in 2017 when they lost Sheffield Hallam.
If the YouGov poll confirms Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
Lib Dems made a net loss of two seats to Labour at GE207.
Yeah but the Romano-Britain period was a tough one for the Lib Dems.
Only in mainly very Remain Tory seats like Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath or in gaining seats from the SNP. The LDs actually made a net loss of a seat to Labour in 2017 when they lost Sheffield Hallam.
If the YouGov poll confirms Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
Lib Dems made a net loss of two seats to Labour at GE207.
Yeah but the Romano-Britain period was a tough one for the Lib Dems.
LOL. No one could accuse them of not being stubborn in clinging on through the hard times.
Only in mainly very Remain Tory seats like Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath or in gaining seats from the SNP. The LDs actually made a net loss of a seat to Labour in 2017 when they lost Sheffield Hallam.
If the YouGov poll confirms Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
Lib Dems made a net loss of two seats to Labour at GE207.
Yeah but the Romano-Britain period was a tough one for the Lib Dems.
How we laughed when Hadrian first promised to build that big, beautiful wall.
On today’s political scene, she is outclassed only by Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davison, and potentially John McDonnell.
Do you not rate Michael Gove?
I do, but I don’t think he outclasses May. He suffers from questions about his judgment.
Hmm, I will know to double check your opinions if you think Gove is anything other than a lying useless ar**hole.
Well, with the exception of the teachers, about whom the less said the better, all the other groups he has worked with at both justice and DFRA think he is one of the best, most informed and supportive ministers they have dealt with in many years. Admittedly at Justice that was not hard, following on from 'Book Ban' Grayling but still it is refreshing to see so many of the concerned organisations hoping Gove does not get moved from DEFRA because he is actually making a difference.
Only in mainly very Remain Tory seats like Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath or in gaining seats from the SNP. The LDs actually made a net loss of a seat to Labour in 2017 when they lost Sheffield Hallam.
If the YouGov poll confirms Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
Lib Dems made a net loss of two seats to Labour at GE207.
Yeah but the Romano-Britain period was a tough one for the Lib Dems.
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 s
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?
I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.
Why - they are amusing
Come again?
Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.
Tedious? Look who's talking!
AmpfieldAndy, like most Corbynista fan-boys, is of the opinion that Labour somehow won GE2017. I was just spoofing that sentiment with my original tweet.
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.
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Diehard Remainers - are they the ones who hold out that it isn't a Christmas movie?
Only in mainly very Remain Tory seats like Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath or in gaining seats from the SNP. The LDs actually made a net loss of a seat to Labour in 2017 when they lost Sheffield Hallam.
If the YouGov poll confirms Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
Lib Dems made a net loss of two seats to Labour at GE207.
Yeah but the Romano-Britain period was a tough one for the Lib Dems.
How we laughed when Hadrian first promised to build that big, beautiful wall.
As is often the way with successors, Antonius Pius just had to go and promise a new one, a better one, and simply couldn't live up to the promises.
On today’s political scene, she is outclassed only by Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davison, and potentially John McDonnell.
Do you not rate Michael Gove?
I do, but I don’t think he outclasses May. He suffers from questions about his judgment.
Hmm, I will know to double check your opinions if you think Gove is anything other than a lying useless ar**hole.
Well, with the exception of the teachers, about whom the less said the better, all the other groups he has worked with at both justice and DFRA think he is one of the best, most informed and supportive ministers they have dealt with in many years. Admittedly at Justice that was not hard, following on from 'Book Ban' Grayling but still it is refreshing to see so many of the concerned organisations hoping Gove does not get moved from DEFRA because he is actually making a difference.
Nick Palmer thinks Gove is good - but then, he thinks the same of Corbyn.
That is a minority view for those who deal with Gove at DEFRA.
The one thing they'll say in his favour is that he's better than Leadsom, but that's like saying syphilis is preferable to AIDS.
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.
It’s not the EU, Beverley
It’s nation states pulling a fast one as they always do. The French used BSE to try to handicap our beef trade in the way that they and the Germans tried to grab clearing.
They used the structures of the EU but we’re twisting the rules.
The EU is simply a mechanism for power politics. But culturally we are a law-abiding state and our politicians do not have the mindset to behave otherwise (i’ll Leave it up you to decide if that’s a good thing or not).
The EU was not serving our interests and it was restricting our ability to stand up for ourselves.
There’s no “bogeyman” or patronising bullshit involved. Continued membership wasn’t in the country’s interest in my view. I appreciate you have reached a different conclusion, which I suspect may be because you are more risk adverse on a near term basis (while I have been trained to think on a multi generational basis)
This almost sounded like a reasonable reply until that classic last sentence. A master class in patronising tosh.
In actual fact you’ve nothing to base your Leave position on apart from windy garbage that “we” just don’t fit in.
We don’t have an optimal currency area. We don’t have a common legal system. We don’t have a unified demos. We have different global interests. That’s 4 for a start.
It makes a lot of sense to trade and cooperate with our European neighbours. The EU isn’t the right structure for us. In my view Cameron’s real failure (and Merkel) was that they were to able to develop a structure that could accommodate those different needs while preserving what is good about the set up.
May (and Merkel and Barnier)’s failure is they haven’t been able to focus on the bigger picture.
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 s
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?
I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.
Why - they are amusing
Come again?
Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.
Tedious? Look who's talking!
AmpfieldAndy, like most Corbynista fan-boys, is of the opinion that Labour somehow won GE2017. I was just spoofing that sentiment with my original tweet.
I see your Look Who’s Talking and raise you Look Who’s Talking Too and Look Who’s Talking Now.
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 s
Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD
Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.
So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?
I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.
Why - they are amusing
Come again?
Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.
Tedious? Look who's talking!
AmpfieldAndy, like most Corbynista fan-boys, is of the opinion that Labour somehow won GE2017. I was just spoofing that sentiment with my original tweet.
Comments
And yet per Betfair it is a remote possibility.
Something is amiss.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/12/06/mays-brexit-deal-leads-just-two-constituencies-it-
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/876894066478329857
It’s nation states pulling a fast one as they always do. The French used BSE to try to handicap our beef trade in the way that they and the Germans tried to grab clearing.
They used the structures of the EU but we’re twisting the rules.
The EU is simply a mechanism for power politics. But culturally we are a law-abiding state and our politicians do not have the mindset to behave otherwise (i’ll Leave it up you to decide if that’s a good thing or not).
The EU was not serving our interests and it was restricting our ability to stand up for ourselves.
There’s no “bogeyman” or patronising bullshit involved. Continued membership wasn’t in the country’s interest in my view. I appreciate you have reached a different conclusion, which I suspect may be because you are more risk adverse on a near term basis (while I have been trained to think on a multi generational basis)
Indeed according to Rentoul's figures if Corbyn does back EUref2 with a Remain option that still only gets it to 300 MPs, 26 short of a majority. By contrast Deal + No Deal MPs comes to 339 MPs ie a majority, thus a Deal v No Deal referendum is the only one likely to carry the Commons and get May's support
LibDems actually increased their seats in 2017, BTW so not much evidence of LD support drifting to Labour, either.
He suffers from questions about his judgment.
Indeed more PL winners than Spurs can field
In actual fact you’ve nothing to base your Leave position on apart from windy garbage that “we” just don’t fit in.
Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.
May will try to avoid the lie direct but seeks to deceive through cowardice.
Corbyn has no issue with outright fraud, if it serve the interest of the revolution.
Something you could perhaps learn from ...
If other polls confirm Labour Remainers shifting to the LDs, Labour's 2017 vote will start to unravel.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1081968506504134656
You’re welcome.
With respect, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you appear to be entirely missing the point as a result.
I am not talking about the EU banning imports of beef to the continent. If they wanted to do that, fine. That would have been their decision. It would have been a stupid decision, but so was appointing an alcoholic with the intellect of a stuffed donkey who stands accused of enabling massive tax evasion as Chairman of the Commission and they clearly had no qualms about that.
I am talking about the decision to ban British from exporting any beef or cattle to any country whatsoever on the entire planet for three years, which was completely unjustifiable on any grounds, none of their damn business, and cost us £10 billion a year as well as leading to several suicides. Even if the Thais, for example, had wanted to import our beef, they couldn't, because of the EU.
That was done solely to support the French beef industry, which had, and still has, incidentally, twice as many cases of BSE as we do but hadn't even taken the most rudimentary precautions to stop contaminated meat entering the food chain (which also led to nine confirmed deaths, if you're interested). It was backed by the CJEU and was crippling.
And then in 1999 when it was lifted, and France was ordered to comply, they refused to do so for seven years, despite court orders, and yet have never been fined for doing so despite the fact that under the EU's own rules the fine should have been £1 million every day until they complied.
I can't help it if you don't like those facts. They are still facts. They show the EU in a very bad light. They are, in fact, a perfect illustration of the EU core using their muscle to outmanoeuvre us to or severe detriment, which was the original point.
As for the USA, I think you will find that was a tit-for-tat ban for us refusing to take in meat that had been injected with growth hormones.
He promised a referendum to shore up the Tory vote against UKIP. On its own, it wasn’t a bad decision. He made it so with his pisspoor planning and “chillax, it’s just the constitution” approach.
They were just overpriced, poor quality, and in many cases designed for architectural awards not teaching (I cherish the example of a school in southern Gloucestershire that won an award for its L-shaped classrooms...)
AmpfieldAndy, like most Corbynista fan-boys, is of the opinion that Labour somehow won GE2017. I was just spoofing that sentiment with my original tweet.
That is a minority view for those who deal with Gove at DEFRA.
The one thing they'll say in his favour is that he's better than Leadsom, but that's like saying syphilis is preferable to AIDS.
It makes a lot of sense to trade and cooperate with our European neighbours. The EU isn’t the right structure for us. In my view Cameron’s real failure (and Merkel) was that they were to able to develop a structure that could accommodate those different needs while preserving what is good about the set up.
May (and Merkel and Barnier)’s failure is they haven’t been able to focus on the bigger picture.