politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB might have leads of upto 9% in the polls but punters still

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB might have leads of upto 9% in the polls but punters still make it neck and neck for the next general election

This does not happen very often but we are in a phase where the betting markets are out of line with the polls when it comes to the next general election.

Read the full story here

SquareRoot

First

NickPalmer

I think the header intended to say "without change" rather than "with change"?

isam

On the back of polling at this stage for the last 4 UK Elections, I’d say Lay Labour. But if the betting is 50/50 maybe the markets have woken up

SquareRoot

Less toxic Tory leader... like to know who that might be....

Richard_Nabavi

The next election hinges entirely on Brexit and the outcome of the Conservative Party civil war. Opinion polls at this stage have little predictive power (especially since they were telling us something different a month ago).

AlastairMeeks

It's easy to see how Labour might improve its polling. A swift change of leader would do that.

It's much less easy to see how the Conservatives might turn things around. Just changing the leader doesn't get rid of any of their underlying problems.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1117740439157858305

OldKingCole

AlastairMeeks said:

It's easy to see how Labour might improve its polling. A swift change of leader would do that.

It's much less easy to see how the Conservatives might turn things around. Just changing the leader doesn't get rid of any of their underlying problems.

Changing Conservative leader might well make things worse for them. Boris might have the activists swooning but at least one of his employers is prepared to say in public that he's a fantasist.

dixiedean

T May "electorally toxic"? I beg to differ. She is partially keeping them afloat.

RoyalBlue

I’ve reconciled myself to a Corbyn government. It feels inevitable now.

Hopefully the lack of an overall majority will stop them from doing anything truly catastrophic.

isam

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1117740439157858305

‘England’ not ‘Britain’ slip up?

dixiedean

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

AlastairMeeks

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

Richard_Nabavi

AlastairMeeks said:

It's easy to see how Labour might improve its polling. A swift change of leader would do that.

It's much less easy to see how the Conservatives might turn things around. Just changing the leader doesn't get rid of any of their underlying problems.

A change of Labour leader would be neither swift nor guaranteed to improve its polling. The sane wing of the party would be fighting tooth and nail to get their party back, and the extreme left who are now in control would fight equally hard to stop them. The party is unlikely to come out of that unscathed, and the next leader might well be as toxic as Corbyn, without the populist mandate.

TGOHF

AlastairMeeks said:

It's easy to see how Labour might improve its polling. A swift change of leader would do that.

It's much less easy to see how the Conservatives might turn things around. Just changing the leader doesn't get rid of any of their underlying problems.

It sure wouldn't hurt though would it.

All internal discipline has broken down.

dixiedean

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

Theuniondivvie

RoyalBlue said:

I’ve reconciled myself to a Corbyn government. It feels inevitable now.

Hopefully the lack of an overall majority will stop them from doing anything truly catastrophic.

Perhaps English centrists can put together a poster of Nicola with Corbyn in her pocket?

TGOHF

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

williamglenn

Theuniondivvie said:

RoyalBlue said:

I’ve reconciled myself to a Corbyn government. It feels inevitable now.

Hopefully the lack of an overall majority will stop them from doing anything truly catastrophic.

Perhaps English centrists can put together a poster of Nicola with Corbyn in her pocket?

Or one of Nicola stealing someon's wallet.

Stereotomy

There’s also the issue that LAB might have these margins in the GB as a whole but in Scotland it is still struggling badly in a part of the UK where it used to have 41 of the 59 seats.

When was the last time we had a Scotland poll?

anothernick

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

I also agree. As long as the EU27 don't decide to throw us out (which is unlikely I think) we will simply continue in a transitional state on the way out for the forseeable future. And that could run to decades - Norway is technically in a transitional state on the way in and has been in this position since the 1990s.

Eventually I guess a government with a substantial majority will be elected on a promise to revoke A50 but that doesn't look imminent at the moment.

williamglenn

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

The WA won't change for a new PM, but we could rewrite the political declaration to point to a different future relationship.

eek

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

Why does it? The deal is an agree between the UK Government and the EU, I don't see any evidence at any point of the EU being willing to negotiate it.

If you have evidence to contradict the above I will happy read it.

IanB2

They might just as easily have a more toxic leader.

And the problem for the Tories - as set out by that comprehensive opinion poll discussed last thread - is that right now everybody is hoping for their preferred outcome from Brexit. When it actually happens, a whole lot of people are going to be disappointed. And the most likely compromise options (CU/CM etc.) are the ones that actually disappoint the most people of all.

dixiedean

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

If we no longer have May, I think the government falls. The Tory Party is too divided to survive a leadership election in office. Which is why she will stay. Many Tory MPs would be voting themselves out.
The only exception is a Party stitch-up around a "unity" PM. But, I can't see who, reasonably, that would be, nor, how it would be engineered.

TGOHF

eek said:

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

Why does it? The deal is an agree between the UK Government and the EU, I don't see any evidence at any point of the EU being willing to negotiate it.

If you have evidence to contradict the above I will happy read it.

Realpolitik.

The uncertainty isn't good for the EU either.

TGOHF

dixiedean said:

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

If we no longer have May, I think the government falls.

Utter balls.

justin124

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

eek

IanB2 said:

They might just as easily have a more toxic leader.

And the problem for the Tories - as set out by that comprehensive opinion poll discussed last thread - is that right now everybody is hoping for their preferred outcome from Brexit. When it actually happens, a whole lot of people are going to be disappointed. And the most likely compromise options (CU/CM etc.) are the ones that actually disappoint the most people of all.

As I've repeated multiple times - the Tory party is dead - the only question is how it destroys itself...

williamglenn

TGOHF said:

eek said:

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

Why does it? The deal is an agree between the UK Government and the EU, I don't see any evidence at any point of the EU being willing to negotiate it.

If you have evidence to contradict the above I will happy read it.

Realpolitik.

The uncertainty isn't good for the EU either.

How many Greek Prime Ministers were there during the debt crisis?

anothernick

TGOHF said:

eek said:

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

Why does it? The deal is an agree between the UK Government and the EU, I don't see any evidence at any point of the EU being willing to negotiate it.

If you have evidence to contradict the above I will happy read it.

Realpolitik.

The uncertainty isn't good for the EU either.

Oh I don't know, having a humbled UK shorn of influence in the EU and unable to agree on how, or even if, to leave, but still paying the bills strikes me as a pretty good deal for the EU27, so good that they are likely to continue it for some time.

Richard_Nabavi

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RoyalBlue said:

I’ve reconciled myself to a Corbyn government. It feels inevitable now.

Hopefully the lack of an overall majority will stop them from doing anything truly catastrophic.

Perhaps English centrists can put together a poster of Nicola with Corbyn in her pocket?

Or one of Nicola stealing someon's wallet.

She's certainly stealing the wallets of Scots earning between £43,430 and £50,000, who not only get charged income tax at a marginal rate of 41%, but also get landed with a 12% national insurance rate (not to mention the 13.8% their employer also pays on their behalf).

Richard_Nabavi

deleted

eek

TGOHF said:

eek said:

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

Why does it? The deal is an agree between the UK Government and the EU, I don't see any evidence at any point of the EU being willing to negotiate it.

If you have evidence to contradict the above I will happy read it.

Realpolitik.

The uncertainty isn't good for the EU either.

So you are clutching at straws. While the UK in limbo isn't the greatest thing for the EU it's better than us leaving...

noneoftheabove

anothernick said:

TGOHF said:

eek said:

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

Why does it? The deal is an agree between the UK Government and the EU, I don't see any evidence at any point of the EU being willing to negotiate it.

If you have evidence to contradict the above I will happy read it.

Realpolitik.

The uncertainty isn't good for the EU either.

Oh I don't know, having a humbled UK shorn of influence in the EU and unable to agree on how, or even if, to leave, but still paying the bills strikes me as a pretty good deal for the EU27, so good that they are likely to continue it for some time.

Exactly, it is close to their optimum outcome, short term better than remain with good businesses and jobs flowing out from the UK to the EU without any of the risks of no deal and the contagion that could bring.

OldKingCole

justin124 said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

Which way would the Tiggers, plus Grieve and Boles vote in a VoNC tabled by Jeremy? We can assume the SNP, LibDems etc would line up behind it, I think. And I suspect, the likes of Field.

Richard_Nabavi

OldKingCole said:

justin124 said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

Which way would the Tiggers, plus Grieve and Boles vote in a VoNC tabled by Jeremy? We can assume the SNP, LibDems etc would line up behind it, I think. And I suspect, the likes of Field.

It's pretty unlikely that all the various opposition groups and independents would vote together. I suspect that the government is actually slightly safer than it was before the various MPs split off.

MarqueeMark

The Conservative Party is currently in a state of drift. It has pissed off a majority of its voters and an even greater proportion of its activists. We have a PM who many in the wider electorate feel is doing her best - but that her best isn't good enough.

But the alternative? Jeremy Corbyn PM would mean a Govt. soft on ani-semitism, soft on the causes of anti-semitism. His stewardship of the economy risks damaging one that is still surprisingly robust, considering.

And the ornery electorate are sat looking at both, glowering. "Go away and sort it out. Because if you ask us again, you REALLY won't like the answer..."

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1117778925596348417

Richard_Nabavi

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1117778925596348417

Begins???

Scott_P

MarqueeMark said:

And the ornery electorate are sat looking at both, glowering. "Go away and sort it out. Because if you ask us again, you REALLY won't like the answer..."

https://twitter.com/arobertwebb/status/1117756301604478976

Charles

eek said:

TGOHF said:

eek said:

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

Why does it? The deal is an agree between the UK Government and the EU, I don't see any evidence at any point of the EU being willing to negotiate it.

If you have evidence to contradict the above I will happy read it.

Realpolitik.

The uncertainty isn't good for the EU either.

So you are clutching at straws. While the UK in limbo isn't the greatest thing for the EU it's better than us leaving...

Against that if the PM changes the government changes.

Hence the EU doesn't have anything but their legal obligation to negotiate a deal to exit

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/johnvanreenen/status/1117708200013385729

justin124

OldKingCole said:

justin124 said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

Which way would the Tiggers, plus Grieve and Boles vote in a VoNC tabled by Jeremy? We can assume the SNP, LibDems etc would line up behind it, I think. And I suspect, the likes of Field.

The Tiggers would be at serious risk of being seen as the 'Tories Little Helpers' were they to prop up such a dysfunctional Tory Government. If Tory support remains at current levels for quite some time, some of them might even fancy their chances in Tory seats.

Mysticrose

OldKingCole said:

justin124 said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

Which way would the Tiggers, plus Grieve and Boles vote in a VoNC tabled by Jeremy? We can assume the SNP, LibDems etc would line up behind it, I think. And I suspect, the likes of Field.

From a self-serving point of view the answer is probably that they'd benefit from waiting three years. Two reasons for this. First to gain traction and infrastructure to fight coherently and effectively. Second, a Corbyn led administration isn't going to be a happy experience for them.

To the person who described the Tory party as already dead, that's hyperbole. It might well be that they are about to enter the wilderness again but they would return from it, as a centre-right party which is where the majority of people sit in this country. If the tories are stupid enough to elect a right-winger, or a total arse like Boris Johnson, then they will be in the wilderness for a lengthy period.

As for the short to medium term, a Corbyn Labour - SNP General Election win is possibly enough to scare off sufficient voters to make another hung parliament likely. But in these febrile times, truly, who knows?

MarqueeMark

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1117778925596348417

As opposed to Westminster after the Easter recess.

"MLLIONS TUNE OUT AS SHIT-SHOW RETURNS...."

TheWhiteRabbit

If you fancied footage of Assange trying the patience of Embassy staff:

https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/04/13/actualidad/1555189138_144555.html

justin124

Mysticrose said:

OldKingCole said:

justin124 said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

Which way would the Tiggers, plus Grieve and Boles vote in a VoNC tabled by Jeremy? We can assume the SNP, LibDems etc would line up behind it, I think. And I suspect, the likes of Field.

From a self-serving point of view the answer is probably that they'd benefit from waiting three years. Two reasons for this. First to gain traction and infrastructure to fight coherently and effectively. Second, a Corbyn led administration isn't going to be a happy experience for them.

To the person who described the Tory party as already dead, that's hyperbole. It might well be that they are about to enter the wilderness again but they would return from it, as a centre-right party which is where the majority of people sit in this country. If the tories are stupid enough to elect a right-winger, or a total arse like Boris Johnson, then they will be in the wilderness for a lengthy period.

As for the short to medium term, a Corbyn Labour - SNP General Election win is possibly enough to scare off sufficient voters to make another hung parliament likely. But in these febrile times, truly, who knows?

By acting in such a self -interested way, the Tiggers would effectively destroy the rationale for supporting them - certainly from a left of centre perspective.

MarqueeMark

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1117778925596348417

Which one of the five has got dragons?

Richard_Nabavi

justin124 said:

Mysticrose said:

OldKingCole said:

justin124 said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

Which way would the Tiggers, plus Grieve and Boles vote in a VoNC tabled by Jeremy? We can assume the SNP, LibDems etc would line up behind it, I think. And I suspect, the likes of Field.

From a self-serving point of view the answer is probably that they'd benefit from waiting three years. Two reasons for this. First to gain traction and infrastructure to fight coherently and effectively. Second, a Corbyn led administration isn't going to be a happy experience for them.

To the person who described the Tory party as already dead, that's hyperbole. It might well be that they are about to enter the wilderness again but they would return from it, as a centre-right party which is where the majority of people sit in this country. If the tories are stupid enough to elect a right-winger, or a total arse like Boris Johnson, then they will be in the wilderness for a lengthy period.

As for the short to medium term, a Corbyn Labour - SNP General Election win is possibly enough to scare off sufficient voters to make another hung parliament likely. But in these febrile times, truly, who knows?

By acting in such a self -interested way, the Tiggers would effectively destroy the rationale for supporting them - certainly from a left of centre perspective.

Yes, I'm sure that failure to help put the anti-semitic, economically insane, terrorist-supporting Corbyn party into power would be very unpopular... amongst people that want an anti-semitic, economically insane, terrorist-supporting Corbyn government. The latter, however, are not going to vote for the Tiggers in any circumstances, so I wouldn't be so sure that the Tiggers will be very much influenced by that consideration, especially since they would lose their seats and all influence immediately if they were.

Benpointer

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1117778925596348417

Which one of the five has got dragons?

It's the putative leadership challenge that's going to continuously dragon.

blueblue

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

Mysticrose said:

OldKingCole said:

justin124 said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

Which way would the Tiggers, plus Grieve and Boles vote in a VoNC tabled by Jeremy? We can assume the SNP, LibDems etc would line up behind it, I think. And I suspect, the likes of Field.

From a self-serving point of view the answer is probably that they'd benefit from waiting three years. Two reasons for this. First to gain traction and infrastructure to fight coherently and effectively. Second, a Corbyn led administration isn't going to be a happy experience for them.

To the person who described the Tory party as already dead, that's hyperbole. It might well be that they are about to enter the wilderness again but they would return from it, as a centre-right party which is where the majority of people sit in this country. If the tories are stupid enough to elect a right-winger, or a total arse like Boris Johnson, then they will be in the wilderness for a lengthy period.

As for the short to medium term, a Corbyn Labour - SNP General Election win is possibly enough to scare off sufficient voters to make another hung parliament likely. But in these febrile times, truly, who knows?

By acting in such a self -interested way, the Tiggers would effectively destroy the rationale for supporting them - certainly from a left of centre perspective.

Yes, I'm sure that failure to help put the anti-semitic, economically insane, terrorist-supporting Corbyn party into power would be very unpopular... amongst people that want an anti-semitic, economically insane, terrorist-supporting Corbyn government. The latter, however, are not going to vote for the Tiggers in any circumstances, so I wouldn't be so sure that the Tiggers will be very much influenced by that consideration, especially since they would lose their seats and all influence immediately if they were.

Quite.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, my fellow F1 enthusiasts.

Repost from earlier in case anyone interested missed it:
Betting Post

F1: I recommend splitting one stake or so amongst this lot, because there's a lot of money for long shots otherwise. However, Azerbaijan has been something of a crash-happy race in the past. It has a high chance of relatively high DNF rates again. A year or two ago, Stroll ended up on the podium.

Currently, the winner market has fifth the odds top three each way (ie, bets pay out for a podium). You *may* be better off waiting for the podium market in a week or so. Or not.

Each way, I've backed the following to win (prices are Ladbrokes, with boost):
Ricciardo 651
Hulkenberg 651
Magnussen 901
Grosjean 901
Raikkonen 1301
Perez 1751
Stroll 3001

If Giovinazzi wins I'll be bloody annoyed.

justin124

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

Mysticrose said:

OldKingCole said:

justin124 said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

Which way would the Tiggers, plus Grieve and Boles vote in a VoNC tabled by Jeremy? We can assume the SNP, LibDems etc would line up behind it, I think. And I suspect, the likes of Field.

From a self-serving point of view the answer is probably that they'd benefit from waiting three years. Two reasons for this. First to gain traction and infrastructure to fight coherently and effectively. Second, a Corbyn led administration isn't going to be a happy experience for them.

To the person who described the Tory party as already dead, that's hyperbole. It might well be that they are about to enter the wilderness again but they would return from it, as a centre-right party which is where the majority of people sit in this country. If the tories are stupid enough to elect a right-winger, or a total arse like Boris Johnson, then they will be in the wilderness for a lengthy period.

As for the short to medium term, a Corbyn Labour - SNP General Election win is possibly enough to scare off sufficient voters to make another hung parliament likely. But in these febrile times, truly, who knows?

By acting in such a self -interested way, the Tiggers would effectively destroy the rationale for supporting them - certainly from a left of centre perspective.

Yes, I'm sure that failure to help put the anti-semitic, economically insane, terrorist-supporting Corbyn party into power would be very unpopular... amongst people that want an anti-semitic, economically insane, terrorist-supporting Corbyn government. The latter, however, are not going to vote for the Tiggers in any circumstances, so I wouldn't be so sure that the Tiggers will be very much influenced by that consideration, especially since they would lose their seats and all influence immediately if they were.

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

Theuniondivvie

TheWhiteRabbit said:

If you fancied footage of Assange trying the patience of Embassy staff:

https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/04/13/actualidad/1555189138_144555.html

Just to check, it doesn't involve any wall spackling does it? Just had lunch (with a piece of chocolate for afters).

Tissue_Price

MarqueeMark said:

Which one of the five has got dragons?

Well, Hancock's clearly got the Evening Standard pulling for him. Does that count?

FrancisUrquhart

The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY

Richard_Nabavi

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

Oh, I'm sure they'd find an argument. 'Now is not the time, we should be focussing 100% on the People's Vote, and Labour have not given us the commitment, blah blah.' As for the way forward, being wiped out within a few months of forming certainly isn't a credible way forward, is it? And bear in mind the the Tiggers comprise ex-Conservatives and MPs driven out of Labour on policy and because of anti-semitism. Do you seriously think Corbyn can rely on either to help him, at the immediate cost of their own political careers?

OldKingCole

TheWhiteRabbit said:

If you fancied footage of Assange trying the patience of Embassy staff:

https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/04/13/actualidad/1555189138_144555.html

Seems like he was a fully paid up PITA!

Sean_F

OldKingCole said:

justin124 said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The Government could well be just a couple of by election defeats away from having an election forced upon it - even if DUP does not pull the rug away.

Which way would the Tiggers, plus Grieve and Boles vote in a VoNC tabled by Jeremy? We can assume the SNP, LibDems etc would line up behind it, I think. And I suspect, the likes of Field.

dixiedean said:

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

If we no longer have May, I think the government falls. The Tory Party is too divided to survive a leadership election in office. Which is why she will stay. Many Tory MPs would be voting themselves out.
The only exception is a Party stitch-up around a "unity" PM. But, I can't see who, reasonably, that would be, nor, how it would be engineered.

Perhaps, but Australians seem to do okay with chopping and changing leaders.

NickPalmer

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

TGOHF

Charles said:

eek said:

TGOHF said:

eek said:

TGOHF said:

dixiedean said:

AlastairMeeks said:

dixiedean said:

Oh. And if the polls stay as per the past 2 weeks, we won't be having an election for 3 years...
A second "cones hotline and back to basics" era beckons. What fun.

The cones hotline was representative of one of the biggest shifts in government thinking since the second world war, seeking to introduce accountability into government. It could do with a refresh, as it happens.

Unfortunately I expect we'll be getting three more years of Brexit contortions. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if Britain were still in the EU then and still had not revoked Article 50.

That's my expectation too. There aren't the votes in Parliament for Revoke, or Mays Deal. Or for an election, unless the polls change, or for a referendum.
Once we have MEPs we will simply continue pretending we are leaving.
Which means we will have a zombie government till 2022, unable to legislate for anything controversial at all.

If we no longer have May we no longer have May's deal.

A new PM enables the EU to open, shorten or dispense with the WA.

Why does it? The deal is an agree between the UK Government and the EU, I don't see any evidence at any point of the EU being willing to negotiate it.

If you have evidence to contradict the above I will happy read it.

Realpolitik.

The uncertainty isn't good for the EU either.

So you are clutching at straws. While the UK in limbo isn't the greatest thing for the EU it's better than us leaving...

Against that if the PM changes the government changes.

Hence the EU doesn't have anything but their legal obligation to negotiate a deal to exit

Some leaders are reactive, some are pro-active.

May is reactive. A new leader might be pro-active. Guess which one has more chance of Brexit.

Chris

Any opinions on whether Chuk (or TIG as they still seem to be calling themselves on their website ?!?) could survive contesting the Euro elections and not winning a single seat?

justin124

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

Oh, I'm sure they'd find an argument. 'Now is not the time, we should be focussing 100% on the People's Vote, and Labour have not given us the commitment, blah blah.' As for the way forward, being wiped out within a few months of forming certainly isn't a credible way forward, is it? And bear in mind the the Tiggers comprise ex-Conservatives and MPs driven out of Labour on policy and because of anti-semitism. Do you seriously think Corbyn can rely on either to help him, at the immediate cost of their own political careers?

That would be their problem! They have nothing to gain from being seen as Tory allies - akin to the National Liberals in the 1930s or the Liberal Unionists in the 1890s. Effectively they will have been outmanoeuvred , but- at the end of the day - Corbyn's future would be determined at a General Election not by them - ie. a People's Vote.

Sean_F

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

Oh, I'm sure they'd find an argument. 'Now is not the time, we should be focussing 100% on the People's Vote, and Labour have not given us the commitment, blah blah.' As for the way forward, being wiped out within a few months of forming certainly isn't a credible way forward, is it? And bear in mind the the Tiggers comprise ex-Conservatives and MPs driven out of Labour on policy and because of anti-semitism. Do you seriously think Corbyn can rely on either to help him, at the immediate cost of their own political careers?

It would depend whether they hate the Conservatives more than they hate Corbyn. And, I'm really not sure what side of that fence they'd fall on.

MarqueeMark

Tissue_Price said:

MarqueeMark said:

Which one of the five has got dragons?

Well, Hancock's clearly got the Evening Standard pulling for him. Does that count?

Not sure the Lizard-people count as dragons....

Richard_Nabavi

Chris said:

Any opinions on whether Chuk (or TIG as they still seem to be calling themselves on their website ?!?) could survive contesting the Euro elections and not winning a single seat?

Why not? They'd still have MPs, and as long as they have MPs, in a hung parliament, they potentially have influence. They'll be hoping something turns up, notably more defections from either (or preferably both) of the two main parties. They'll probably be disappointed in that, but who knows? Their best hope is to avoid a GE for the moment.

justin124

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

MarqueeMark

Chris said:

Any opinions on whether Chuk (or TIG as they still seem to be calling themselves on their website ?!?) could survive contesting the Euro elections and not winning a single seat?

Would an increase in their polling amount to an up-Chuk?

Richard_Nabavi

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

TheWhiteRabbit

Theuniondivvie said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

If you fancied footage of Assange trying the patience of Embassy staff:

https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/04/13/actualidad/1555189138_144555.html

Just to check, it doesn't involve any wall spackling does it? Just had lunch (with a piece of chocolate for afters).

No sir

justin124

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

But that would be disastrous for them - and would suit Labour very well really.

Sean_F

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

But that would be disastrous for them.

Less disastrous than an early election.

It all depends which of the two main parties they dislike most.

anothernick

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

Quite. Stopping Brexit is fundamental for the Tiggers. And so sustaining a Tory Government trying to deliver Brexit would be fatal for them - their supporter base, such as it is, would never forgive them.

justin124

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

But that would be disastrous for them.

Less disastrous than an early election.

It all depends which of the two main parties they dislike most.

Centre-Left voters would cease to have interest in them thereafter.

stodge

NickPalmer said:

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

As I opined at the end of last week, the Coalition "experience" won't be lost on any of the smaller parties next time it happens. The small party needs to decide what it wants to change the battlefield to its advantage - for the SNP it might be that second referendum, for the LDs it might be STV at all elections without a referendum. for CUK it might be something else.

Both Conservative and Labour will have to pay a heavy price for power - which one will be prepared to pay?

Richard_Nabavi

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

But that would be disastrous for them.

Not as disastrous as a GE. This isn't hard to understand, surely? Wipe-out now, versus the possibility of something in the future. It's a no-brainer. Nor is the possibility of something turning up too outlandish - if for example the Conservative Party becomes even more insane than it currently is, which is not at all unlikely, there could be a large chunk of potential defectors available for the Tiggers. The landscape might look totally different in a couple of years time. And if it doesn't, what have they lost?

Sean_F

justin124 said:

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

But that would be disastrous for them.

Less disastrous than an early election.

It all depends which of the two main parties they dislike most.

Centre-Left voters would cease to have interest in them thereafter.

Centre left voters have no interest in them anyway.

noneoftheabove

anothernick said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

Quite. Stopping Brexit is fundamental for the Tiggers. And so sustaining a Tory Government trying to deliver Brexit would be fatal for them - their supporter base, such as it is, would never forgive them.

This parliament is not particularly likely to deliver brexit (without a referendum). So calling a general election does not decrease the chance of brexit, I think it is just as likely to increase it. How all this would be perceived, who knows.

justin124

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

But that would be disastrous for them.

Not as disastrous as a GE. This isn't hard to understand, surely? Wipe-out now, versus the possibility of something in the future. It's a no-brainer. Nor is the possibility of something turning up too outlandish - if for example the Conservative Party becomes even more insane than it currently is, which is not at all unlikely, there could be a large chunk of potential defectors available for the Tiggers. The landscape might look totally different in a couple of years time. And if it doesn't, what have they lost?

The Tiggers would be trapped - particularly as the LibDems are now likely to find an early election quite an appealing prospect given the shift in the polls.

Richard_Nabavi

justin124 said:

The Tiggers would be trapped - particularly as the LibDems are now likely to find an early election quite an appealing prospect given the shift in the polls.

The LibDems might not be reliable either. They might want to change leader first. Each party will be trying to optimise the timing for themselves.

justin124

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

But that would be disastrous for them.

Less disastrous than an early election.

It all depends which of the two main parties they dislike most.

Centre-Left voters would cease to have interest in them thereafter.

Centre left voters have no interest in them anyway.

Polls in late February did suggest a loss of Labour support to the new group. I am sure that abstaining on a VNOC would reverse that.

justin124

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

The Tiggers would be trapped - particularly as the LibDems are now likely to find an early election quite an appealing prospect given the shift in the polls.

The LibDems might not be reliable either. They might want to change leader first. Each party will be trying to optimise the timing for themselves.

The serious prospect of recouping half their 2015 losses to the Tories would be difficult to resist.

Sean_F

The votes I would see as more less certain for a VONC would be:-

Labour 246,
Lib Dem 11,
SNP 35,
Plaid 4,
Green 1.

That's 296, once you deduct the two Deputy Speakers.

There are 313 Conservatives and 10 DUP, making 322 against if you knock off 1 Deputy Speaker.

If the DUP switch, that's 306 to 312.

That leaves 11 TIG, 1 Independent Conservative, 1 Independent Unionist, 1 Independent Lib Dem, and 8 Independents, holding the balance of power.

If the DUP back a VONC, I think that Lady Hermon, Ivan Lewis, and Tony Woodcock would vote with the government, making 315 the target to beat.

logical_song

FrancisUrquhart said:

The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY

Thanks for posting.

Tissue_Price

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

The Tiggers would be trapped - particularly as the LibDems are now likely to find an early election quite an appealing prospect given the shift in the polls.

The LibDems might not be reliable either. They might want to change leader first. Each party will be trying to optimise the timing for themselves.

The serious prospect of recouping half their 2015 losses to the Tories would be difficult to resist.

There are 22 Tory gains from the LDs in 2015 that are still Tory. Here's the list of majorities under 4,000:

St Ives 312
Cheltenham 2569

noneoftheabove

justin124 said:

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

But that would be disastrous for them.

Less disastrous than an early election.

It all depends which of the two main parties they dislike most.

Centre-Left voters would cease to have interest in them thereafter.

Centre left voters have no interest in them anyway.

Polls in late February did suggest a loss of Labour support to the new group. I am sure that abstaining on a VNOC would reverse that.

It probably would but the value of getting 3-8% of the vote and no seats in a general election they are wholly unprepared for is less than keeping their current seats, particularly if they want to obstruct brexit.

Sean_F

justin124 said:

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

justin124 said:

Whilst I applaud the balanced and totally objective opening sentence of your comment, I am far from convinced that being seen as Tory allies represents a credible way forward for a supposedly centrist group - particularly in the context of a Government already abandoned by the DUP.

They have the same problem as the LIbDems. In a close situation (VONC in a hung Parliament, or post-election Government formation), they have three choices:

1.Help the Tories stay on
2. Help Labour replace them
3. Abstain

1 leads to electoral disaster. 2 contradicts numerous public statements. 3 looks feeble.

Their unstated objective seems to be to damage Labour to the point that a centrist alternative emerges as the only plausible non-Tory option, which is a long-term possibility at best. In practice, their main effect seems to be to split the centrist vote.

In the context of a VONC in the current Parliament ,3 leads to 1.

Exactly. Which is why it's their most likely course.

But that would be disastrous for them.

Less disastrous than an early election.

It all depends which of the two main parties they dislike most.

Centre-Left voters would cease to have interest in them thereafter.

Centre left voters have no interest in them anyway.

Polls in late February did suggest a loss of Labour support to the new group. I am sure that abstaining on a VNOC would reverse that.

I don't think that more than penny packets of votes turn on whether they back a VONC or abstain. They aren't getting re-elected either way.

Richard_Nabavi

Sean_F said:

The votes I would see as more less certain for a VONC would be:-

Labour 246,
Lib Dem 11,
SNP 35,
Plaid 4,
Green 1.

That's 296, once you deduct the two Deputy Speakers.

There are 313 Conservatives and 10 DUP, making 322 against if you knock off 1 Deputy Speaker.

If the DUP switch, that's 306 to 312.

That leaves 11 TIG, 1 Independent Conservative, 1 Independent Unionist, 1 Independent Lib Dem, and 8 Independents, holding the balance of power.

If the DUP back a VONC, I think that Lady Hermon, Ivan Lewis, and Tony Woodcock would vote with the government, making 315 the target to beat.

It would be rather entertaining if it was a tie, as I think in that case Bercow would have to cast his vote for the government.

Artist

I think TIGs would find it easy to abstain. "We don't have confidence in the government, but we don't have confidence in Corbyn as an alternative either". How could anyone argue with that?

tlg86

Question regarding the EU elections. What's the point of no return for our participation in them? If the WA was passed before 23 May would the elections just not happen?

noneoftheabove

Artist said:

I think TIGs would find it easy to abstain. "We don't have confidence in the government, but we don't have confidence in Corbyn as an alternative either". How could anyone argue with that?

I like that approach, especially as achieves the same as voting for the govt at less cost.

rkrkrk

Artist said:

I think TIGs would find it easy to abstain. "We don't have confidence in the government, but we don't have confidence in Corbyn as an alternative either". How could anyone argue with that?

We don't trust Corbyn to support a second referendum, so we would rather stick with May who can guarantee she won't give us one!?

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/ukinjapan/status/1117714423785951232?s=21

anothernick

Richard_Nabavi said:

justin124 said:

The Tiggers would be trapped - particularly as the LibDems are now likely to find an early election quite an appealing prospect given the shift in the polls.

The LibDems might not be reliable either. They might want to change leader first. Each party will be trying to optimise the timing for themselves.

I don't think opposition parties could play that kind of game if there was a serious prospect of winning a VONC. May's government is widely regarded as the most divided, shambolic and incompetent in modern British history - or even the whole of British history - any opposition party that sustained it in office would look utterly ridiculous.

williamglenn

tlg86 said:

Question regarding the EU elections. What's the point of no return for our participation in them? If the WA was passed before 23 May would the elections just not happen?

In practice I think we're already past the point of no return because ratification also requires the legislation to pass. The EU parliament term ends on the 18th so there's no time for them to vote on the WA either.

tlg86

williamglenn said:

tlg86 said:

Question regarding the EU elections. What's the point of no return for our participation in them? If the WA was passed before 23 May would the elections just not happen?

In practice I think we're already past the point of no return because ratification also requires the legislation to pass. The EU parliament term ends on the 18th so there's no time for them to vote on the WA either.

Thank you.

SandyRentool

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/ukinjapan/status/1117714423785951232?s=21

Have we sent the Foreign Secretary to Japan to apologise for TSE's thread header at the weekend?

Tissue_Price

I suppose the question is how many times can Hunt return to Japan before the leadership election? It's great social media every time he does

OldKingCole

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/ukinjapan/status/1117714423785951232?s=21

To be fair to Hunt, I don't think that's too bad as a short explanation. England vs Britain...... well for a man who isn't sure where his wife comes from......