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.
I meant status quo in the sense of “no dramatic disruption”
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.
Why - they are amusing
They might have been amusing the first time Big_G but not the tenth. I for one would like another election just so I never have to see Sunil's puerile charts again.
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 vevel.
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.
In 2005 the Tories won 33 extra seats despite their voteshare going up just 0.7% due to an almost 5% swing from Labour to LD, even if it was more pronounced in the marginals. Far from being ominous for the Tories that would be great news for the Tories
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’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.
AmpfieldAndy is a Corbynista fanboy ?!?
There are only PB Tories, and Corbynista Fanboys, with nothing in between. Choose wisely.
May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher dain.
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 YouGoiscussing.
Of course it is as the onost 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.
In 1983 Thatcher got 42.4%, in 2017 May also got 42.4%.
The only reason Thatcher got a majority of 144 in 1983 and May got no majority at all in 2017 was in 1983 Labour got 28% and the SDP/Liberal Alliance got 25% thus dividing the centre left under FPTP while in 2017 Labour got 40% and the LDs just 7% so the centre left vote was largely united behind Labour
On today’s political scene, she is outclassed only by Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davison, and potentially John McDonnell.
Do you not rate Michael Gove?
Only a cretin would rate Gove
Oi!
I wouldn't go that far. That said, I do think anyone who doesn't believe he was ultimately a disaster at Education spends too much time taking Gove's (or Cummings', or Spielman's) own version of events at face value, rather than objectively studying the facts. And that had nothing to do with his ideas and everything to do with the kack-handed way he implemented them.
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.
You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....
Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record about the need for new GE.
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.
You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....
Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.
Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.
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
Yes PFI was an abomination. Would like to say more on that topic but on phone.
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.
These are all question begging declarations, except the first which makes no sense given we are not in the Euro.
I agree with your points about the varyinf failures, but would have to say the fault lies largely with the U.K.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The standing is fine, people need to get a grip - do you think nation's never go through periods of distraught politics?
Standing isn't fine, I read a lot of foreign newspapers, and we've enfeebled ourselves through Brexit.
It is so bad even the French are laughing at us.
With respect, cry me a river. Brexit being a big mistake or not, other countries laughing at us is not a reason to do or not do anything. Nations will laugh at others for things which seem ridiculous, but for the nation in question might be necessary, even beneficial. I don't want the country to do unnecessarily stupid things, and I'd be sad if we had, say, a Trumpian leader, but this sobbing refrain we see that suggests the mere fact others laugh at us means we must not do certain things is ridiculous.
And the point was not that we have not been hit by all of this, you are correct we have, but that nations take perception hits sometimes, particularly when they have deep problems and divisive politics. We do, others do too, and it will cause merriment and dismay in others, and ourselves.
That needs dealing with. It can be saddening. But the 'woe is us, french/german newspapers and comedy shows laugh at us' type of comment is one of the most singularly unconvincing whinges out there.
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.
It isn't a minority view at all. It is the view of the vast majority of (and excuse me using this awful word) stakeholders working with DEFRA. There is a long list of organisations, both farming and conservation, who have been delighted by his attitude to his brief and the fact he actually listens to people about how best to improve things. You just have a chip on your shoulder about him because you are a teacher.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
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?
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.
It isn't a minority view at all. It is the view of the vast majority of (and excuse me using this awful word) stakeholders working with DEFRA. There is a long list of organisations, both farming and conservation, who have been delighted by his attitude to his brief and the fact he actually listens to people about how best to improve things. You just have a chip on your shoulder about him because you are a teacher.
Go on, name them.
Against that, my father works for him and has gone from being an admirer to a hater.
Edit - I would add teachers felt the same way at the start, until it became obvious that he would listen politely and then ignore our views and do something stupid. It was why his reforms have been disastrous.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
Well, plus we're probably due for a downturn anyway.
But I have to do some preperatory work for the week ahead. Good jousting everyone.
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.
You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....
Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.
Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.
I don’t think parliamentary gridlock on Brexit and a complete lack of any domestic policy agenda (nothwithstanding today’s NHS announcement) is at all desirable myself. A GE would give Corbyn the chance he craves but a Corbyn Gov would be an economic disaster. Rather than run the risk of losing a no confidence vote, May should resign and give a new leader a chance to establish themselves - and rebuild relationships withthe DUP, at least in my view.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
Well, plus we're probably due for a downturn anyway.
But I have to do some preperatory work for the week ahead. Good jousting everyone.
With respect, cry me a river. Brexit being a big mistake or not, other countries laughing at us is not a reason to do or not do anything. Nations will laugh at others for things which seem ridiculous, but for the nation in question might be necessary, even beneficial. I don't want the country to do unnecessarily stupid things, and I'd be sad if we had, say, a Trumpian leader, but this sobbing refrain we see that suggests the mere fact others laugh at us means we must not do certain things is ridiculous.
And the point was not that we have not been hit by all of this, you are correct we have, but that nations take perception hits sometimes, particularly when they have deep problems and divisive politics. We do, others do too, and it will cause merriment and dismay in others, and ourselves.
That needs dealing with. It can be saddening. But the 'woe is us, french/german newspapers and comedy shows laugh at us' type of comment is one of the most singularly unconvincing whinges out there.
Brexit isn't the issue per se, is the way we're handling it is what is enfeebling us.
There was a report out recently showing that UK is slipping down the attractiveness stakes for both highly educated/wealthy students/graduates/professionals.
My former employee is bemoaning the number of highly qualified foreign candidates that don't wish to come to the UK because we're increasingly seen as anti foreigner.
My father's former colleagues in the NHS are making the same observations.
It is no coincidence that the Yellow Vests in Manchester yesterday were chanting variations of 'Fuck off, we're taking back control'.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Unemployment is half what is when, the economy is one fifth bigger, and the deficit is one seventh what it was then.
So not AAA then I guess, what are we?
What difference does AA or AAA make to anyone?
The government’s cost of borrowing was considerably higher when we were triple AAA, so the answer seems to be the square route of bugger all.
It’s not clear to me how meaningful credit ratings are when the issuer can print the currency in question. If we borrowed extensively in EUR or USD, it would matter.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Unemployment is half what is when, the economy is one fifth bigger, and the deficit is one seventh what it was then.
So not AAA then I guess, what are we?
What difference does AA or AAA make to anyone?
I seem to remember conservatives saw it as very important indeed. Osborne made it the litmus test of the economy on his watch. Oh well. Seems we’re back to the 70s with that one.
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
snip
snip.
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 vevel.
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.
In 2005 the Tories won 33 extra seats despite their voteshare going up just 0.7% due to an almost 5% swing from Labour to LD, even if it was more pronounced in the marginals. Far from being ominous for the Tories that would be great news for the Tories
Could be. But a lot has changed since 2005. I know some people who in 2005 would have been quite happy to see the Tories back in contention who are now coughing blood at the very mention of them. I had one over Xmas quizzing me on whether the Lib Dems or Labour were best placed to beat her Tory MP who she now loathes.
By contrast the leavers I know are still leavers but have, unaccountably to me, decided that Mrs May is the hero of the story and the Conservatives who oppose her are the villains. I can see them turning out to vote for her. But if she moves on they might well sit on their hands.
This is a small town with a particular gripe against the EU so this may not be representative of anything much. But it is a very different picture to the polls and the media.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
Then, we realised that currency fluctuations mean bugger all, save to forex traders.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
The Euro, a proper currency? Give me a break!
I'd quite like to join the Euro. I thought it wouldn't happen in my lifetime. But that was before the referendum. It seems quite likely now.
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.
You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....
Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.
Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.
I don’t think parliamentary gridlock on Brexit and a complete lack of any domestic policy agenda (nothwithstanding today’s NHS announcement) is at all desirable myself. A GE would give Corbyn the chance he craves but a Corbyn Gov would be an economic disaster. Rather than run the risk of losing a no confidence vote, May should resign and give a new leader a chance to establish themselves - and rebuild relationships withthe DUP, at least in my view.
Given all the latest Tory members polls have Boris ahead and No Dealers in the top positions beyond him if May went we likely go straight to No Deal without passing go. May at least offers the chance for a Deal, even if it goes to a Deal v No Deal referendum, while still maintaining a Tory lead according to YouGov today
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
Tell 20% unemployment Greece and 16% unemployment Spain and 11% unemployment Italy how well the Euro is working out for them? Our unemployment rate is just 4%
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
The Euro, a proper currency? Give me a break!
I'd quite like to join the Euro. I thought it wouldn't happen in my lifetime. But that was before the referendum. It seems quite likely now.
Even No Deal has about 10% more support than joining the Euro according to the latest polls on them
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.
You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....
Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.
Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.
I don’t think parliamentary gridlock on Brexit and a complete lack of any domestic policy agenda (nothwithstanding today’s NHS announcement) is at all desirable myself. A GE would give Corbyn the chance he craves but a Corbyn Gov would be an economic disaster. Rather than run the risk of losing a no confidence vote, May should resign and give a new leader a chance to establish themselves - and rebuild relationships withthe DUP, at least in my view.
Given all the latest Tory members polls have Boris ahead and No Dealers in the top positions beyond him if May went we likely go straight to No Deal without passing go. May at least offers the chance for a Deal, even if it goes to a Deal v No Deal referendum, while still maintaining a Tory lead according to YouGov today
There was never any chance of a deal with May forcing Davis to agree to the EU agenda, ignore trade and try and build a special relationship with the EU that they clearly do not want. The best chance of a deal that would have support would have been either to go for a Norway type deal after she lost her majority and focus on domestic policy or to have focussed on trade so the EU agenda and trade were two parts of the same deal.
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
snip
snip.
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 vevel.
It depends very much on where those Lency level data to be sure.
In 2005 the Tories won 33 extra s that would be great news for the Tories
Could be. But a lot has changed since 2005. I know some people who in 2005 would have been quite happy to see the Tories back in contention who are now coughing blood at the very mention of them. I had one over Xmas quizzing me on whether the Lib Dems or Labour were best placed to beat her Tory MP who she now loathes.
By contrast the leavers I know are still leavers but have, unaccountably to me, decided that Mrs May is the hero of the story and the Conservatives who oppose her are the villains. I can see them turning out to vote for her. But if she moves on they might well sit on their hands.
This is a small town with a particular gripe against the EU so this may not be representative of anything much. But it is a very different picture to the polls and the media.
The Tories got 32% in 2005, they are on 40% today.
Given the LDs start from such a low base and Labour from such a high one any net movement back from Labour to the LDs helps the Tories even if the Tory vote stands still
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
Tell 20% unemployment Greece and 16% unemployment Spain and 11% unemployment Italy how well the Euro is working out for them? Our unemployment rate is just 4%
It would have been a different currency if we had joined it. And we'd have had more influence on the decisions.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Unemployment is half what is when, the economy is one fifth bigger, and the deficit is one seventh what it was then.
So not AAA then I guess, what are we?
What difference does AA or AAA make to anyone?
I seem to remember conservatives saw it as very important indeed. Osborne made it the litmus test of the economy on his watch. Oh well. Seems we’re back to the 70s with that one.
Certainly it was widely seen as important, but given the economic facts I think we probably didn't deserve that AAA rating in the past, and in many important respects our current AA rated economy is healthier than it was then. Or to put it more simply, maybe ratings and the agencies that create them aren't worth a toss.
Probably another case of garbage in, garbage out. The very things that matter the most are the hardest to measure, and so we get rated on easy to measure but ultimately meaningless data.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
Then, we realised that currency fluctuations mean bugger all, save to forex traders.
Given how much we need to/want to import, you are staggeringly wrong. A 25% decrease cannot to be hand-waved.
It’s this kind of wilful know-nothingness that gives Brexitism a bad name.
Right, off to watch “the Favourite”. Play safe, kids.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
Then, we realised that currency fluctuations mean bugger all, save to forex traders.
I wouldn’t put it that strongly. The Thatcher’s government’s decision to let sterling appreciate in the early 80s thanks to the dollars flooding in for North Sea oil helped to wipe out much of our manufacturing base. It would have been better for the Bank of England to sell sterling, buy dollars/Deutschmarks and buy overseas assets with them. The government would have saved a lot of money on welfare payments too.
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.
You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....
Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.
Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.
I don’t think parliamentary gridlock on Brexit and a complete lack of any domestic policy agenda (nothwithstanding today’s NHS announcement) is at all desirable myself. A GE would give Corbyn the chance he craves but a Corbyn Gov would be an economic disaster. Rather than run the risk of losing a no confidence vote, May should resign and give a new leader a chance to establish themselves - and rebuild relationships withthe DUP, at least in my view.
Given all the latest Tory members polls ov today
There was never any chance of a deal with May forcing Davis to agree to the EU agenda, ignore trade and try and build a special relationship with the EU that they clearly do not want. The best chance of a deal that would have support would have been either to go for a Norway type deal after she lost her majority and focus on domestic policy or to have focussed on trade so the EU agenda and trade were two parts of the same deal.
A Norway type deal requires free movement and therefore obviously disrespects the Leave vote and would have turned the current trickle of Tory voters to UKIP into a flood.
We cannot do any trade deal without a guarantee of a backstop of no hard border in Ireland as the EU have made abundantly clear
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.
You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....
Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.
Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.
I don’t think parliamentary gridlock on Brexit and a complete lack of any domestic policy agenda (nothwithstanding today’s NHS announcement) is at all desirable myself. A GE would give Corbyn the chance he craves but a Corbyn Gov would be an economic disaster. Rather than run the risk of losing a no confidence vote, May should resign and give a new leader a chance to establish themselves - and rebuild relationships withthe DUP, at least in my view.
Given all the latest Tory members polls have Boris ahead and No Dealers in the top positions beyond him if May went we likely go straight to No Deal without passing go. May at least offers the chance for a Deal, even if it goes to a Deal v No Deal referendum, while still maintaining a Tory lead according to YouGov today
There was never any chance of a deal with May forcing Davis to agree to the EU agenda, ignore trade and try and build a special relationship with the EU that they clearly do not want. The best chance of a deal that would have support would have been either to go for a Norway type deal after she lost her majority and focus on domestic policy or to have focussed on trade so the EU agenda and trade were two parts of the same deal.
Except this deal doesn’t address the future relationship. Because of the EU’s stupid sequencing we can’t even start discussing that until March 29th.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
Tell 20% unemployment Greece and 16% unemployment Spain and 11% unemployment Italy how well the Euro is working out for them? Our unemployment rate is just 4%
It would have been a different currency if we had joined it. And we'd have had more influence on the decisions.
No, the decisions would still have been made by Germany, they are still a bigger economy than we are
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).
And that’s just for the apperitif.
In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
Tell 20% unemployment Greece and 16% unemployment Spain and 11% unemployment Italy how well the Euro is working out for them? Our unemployment rate is just 4%
It would have been a different currency if we had joined it. And we'd have had more influence on the decisions.
Frankly, I suspect it might have fallen apart in the aftermath of 2008 had we been members of the Eurozone.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.
We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?
Unemployment is half what is when, the economy is one fifth bigger, and the deficit is one seventh what it was then.
So not AAA then I guess, what are we?
What difference does AA or AAA make to anyone?
I seem to remember conservatives saw it as very important indeed. Osborne made it the litmus test of the economy on his watch. Oh well. Seems we’re back to the 70s with that one.
Certainly it was widely seen as important, but given the economic facts I think we probably didn't deserve that AAA rating in the past, and in many important respects our current AA rated economy is healthier than it was then. Or to put it more simply, maybe ratings and the agencies that create them aren't worth a toss.
Probably another case of garbage in, garbage out. The very things that matter the most are the hardest to measure, and so we get rated on easy to measure but ultimately meaningless data.
I'd agree. Economies are complicated things and to boil them down to a letter is just plain silly.
It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.
And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.
The standing is fine, people need to get a grip - do you think nation's never go through periods of distraught politics?
Standing isn't fine, I read a lot of foreign newspapers, and we've enfeebled ourselves through Brexit.
It is so bad even the French are laughing at us.
I do wonder if you actually ever speak to anyone from another country. Or at least anyone you can understand.
Richard, I'm fluent in French and German, which are two of the six languages I'm fluent in.
I'm spending the latter part of this forthcoming week in Germany,
I spent 36 days in Germany last year for work.
So as with many things you're wrong.
I have had a fair few conversations about Brexit with foreigners. Mostly curiosity: what do you think of Brexit? Oddly, the "You're bonkers" conversations have largely been with Swiss people. Odd because Switzerland isn't in the EU either.
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.
You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....
Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.
Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.
I don’t think parliamentary gridlock on Brexit and a complete lack of any domestic policy agenda (nothwithstanding today’s NHS announcement) is at all desirable myself. A GE would give Corbyn the chance he craves but a Corbyn Gov would be an economic disaster. Rather than run the risk of losing a no confidence vote, May should resign and give a new leader a chance to establish themselves - and rebuild relationships withthe DUP, at least in my view.
Given all the latest Tory members polls ov today
There was never any chance of a deal with May forcing Davis to agree to the EU agenda, ignore trade and try and build a special relationship with the EU that they clearly do not want. The best chance of a deal that would have support would have been either to go for a Norway type deal after she lost her majority and focus on domestic policy or to have focussed on trade so the EU agenda and trade were two parts of the same deal.
A Norway type deal requires free movement and therefore obviously disrespects the Leave vote and would have turned the current trickle of Tory voters to UKIP into a flood.
We cannot do any trade deal without a guarantee of a backstop of no hard border in Ireland as the EU have made abundantly clear
If you pander to the EU agenda, you get no deal. The EU have been allowed to ruthlessly and expertly exploit the Irish border because of the inept way we have handled the negotiations.
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.
You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....
Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.
Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.
I don’tw.
Given all the latest Tory members polls ov today
There was never any chance of a deal with May forcing Davis to agree to the EU agenda, ignore trade and try and build a special relationship with the EU that they clearly do not want. The best chance of a deal that would have support would have been either to go for a Norway type deal after she lost her majority and focus on domestic policy or to have focussed on trade so the EU agenda and trade were two parts of the same deal.
A Norway type deal requires free movement and therefore obviously disrespects the Leave vote and would have turned the current trickle of Tory voters to UKIP into a flood.
We cannot do any trade deal without a guarantee of a backstop of no hard border in Ireland as the EU have made abundantly clear
If you pander to the EU agenda, you get no deal. The EU have been allowed to ruthlessly and expertly exploit the Irish border because of the inept way we have handled the negotiations.
The EU have been clear throughout the negotiations, no backstop, no deal and they are a bigger percentage of our exports than we are of theirs
Comments
It took him some time...
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/02/star-wars-the-last-jedi-rian-johnson-abuse-politically-motivated-russian-trolls
20172018".....The only reason Thatcher got a majority of 144 in 1983 and May got no majority at all in 2017 was in 1983 Labour got 28% and the SDP/Liberal Alliance got 25% thus dividing the centre left under FPTP while in 2017 Labour got 40% and the LDs just 7% so the centre left vote was largely united behind Labour
It is so bad even the French are laughing at us.
I agree with your points about the varyinf failures, but would have to say the fault lies largely with the U.K.
Their delusional thinking finally exposed, the Brexiteers have pivoted. Don’t let this cuddly-sounding rebrand fool you
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/06/managed-no-deal-brexit-brexiteers
The number of times Labour has had a 40% share of the vote in the last fifty years - and one of those was 48 years ago.
(OK, I know Corbyn nearly managed it, but nearly isn't quite.)
Of course, if we want to be really mean: 0 is the number of times the Liberals or Liberal Democrats have exceeded 70 seats in the last 95 years.
And the point was not that we have not been hit by all of this, you are correct we have, but that nations take perception hits sometimes, particularly when they have deep problems and divisive politics. We do, others do too, and it will cause merriment and dismay in others, and ourselves.
That needs dealing with. It can be saddening. But the 'woe is us, french/german newspapers and comedy shows laugh at us' type of comment is one of the most singularly unconvincing whinges out there.
Shadsy got back to me regarding the Harris bets. Huzzah! They're fine, it seems. Cheers to Mr. Eagles for that suggestion.
Anyway, time to go and read about a time of fragmented Europe and constant infighting.
Just the wrong one!
And that’s just for the apperitif.
I'm spending the latter part of this forthcoming week in Germany,
I spent 36 days in Germany last year for work.
So as with many things you're wrong.
Eventually.
Against that, my father works for him and has gone from being an admirer to a hater.
Edit - I would add teachers felt the same way at the start, until it became obvious that he would listen politely and then ignore our views and do something stupid. It was why his reforms have been disastrous.
But I have to do some preperatory work for the week ahead. Good jousting everyone.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/05/elizabeth-warren-iowa-democrats-2020-1082574
There was a report out recently showing that UK is slipping down the attractiveness stakes for both highly educated/wealthy students/graduates/professionals.
My former employee is bemoaning the number of highly qualified foreign candidates that don't wish to come to the UK because we're increasingly seen as anti foreigner.
My father's former colleagues in the NHS are making the same observations.
It is no coincidence that the Yellow Vests in Manchester yesterday were chanting variations of 'Fuck off, we're taking back control'.
You're not going to like it though.
Oh, not that sort of chart?!!
It’s not clear to me how meaningful credit ratings are when the issuer can print the currency in question. If we borrowed extensively in EUR or USD, it would matter.
The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.
It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.
Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.
We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.
By contrast the leavers I know are still leavers but have, unaccountably to me, decided that Mrs May is the hero of the story and the Conservatives who oppose her are the villains. I can see them turning out to vote for her. But if she moves on they might well sit on their hands.
This is a small town with a particular gripe against the EU so this may not be representative of anything much. But it is a very different picture to the polls and the media.
Given the LDs start from such a low base and Labour from such a high one any net movement back from Labour to the LDs helps the Tories even if the Tory vote stands still
Probably another case of garbage in, garbage out. The very things that matter the most are the hardest to measure, and so we get rated on easy to measure but ultimately meaningless data.
NEW THREAD
It’s this kind of wilful know-nothingness that gives Brexitism a bad name.
Right, off to watch “the Favourite”. Play safe, kids.
We cannot do any trade deal without a guarantee of a backstop of no hard border in Ireland as the EU have made abundantly clear