> @AndyJS said: > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO.
He could combine it with his idea of a bridge to France and try to fill in the Channel.
> @AndyJS said: > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO.
Curious as to why you say this? I don't know much about the topic but have the opposite opinion so would be keen to hear your rationale.
> @Quincel said: > > @AndyJS said: > > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO. > > Curious as to why you say this? I don't know much about the topic but have the opposite opinion so would be keen to hear your rationale.
Heathrow is well past its sell-by date. I think we need a completely new airport in the same way that Hong Kong built a new airport on an artificial island in the late 1990s, with a high speed rail link connecting it to London. Heathrow could then be turned into a science park and residential area.
> @isam said: > If BXP get 31% my guess is that it might give a few Tory MPs pause for thought about backing a candidate vowing to press ahead with a No Deal Brexit. > > What if UKIP got 6-7% as well?
Imagine if TBP came 2nd on 25%, narrowly edged out by the LDs, while UKIP got 10%? That would put the cats amongst all sorts of pigeons!
Realistically I expect that if TBP wins by any margin and especially if it isn't razor close (say 3% lead or more, which is likely) then the reaction of MPs will be mostly that No Deal has a lot of support not the opposite. That's not entirely unfair, even though some TBP voters will be sending a message but not want No Deal - a lot of them either want it or at least wouldn't object to it.
I think so long as they were seen as the dominant part of the deal, the takeover not the takenover, then they'd benefit from a sense of strength and momentum if nothing else. Plus another 11 MPs on their team (even if not officially) is always good.
> @AndyJS said: > > @Quincel said: > > > @AndyJS said: > > > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO. > > > > Curious as to why you say this? I don't know much about the topic but have the opposite opinion so would be keen to hear your rationale. > > Heathrow is well past its sell-by date. I think we need a completely new airport in the same way that Hong Kong built a new airport on an artificial island in the late 1990s, with a high speed rail link connecting it to London. Heathrow could then be turned into a science park and residential area.
Wouldn't that cost a fortune though? Not only the cost of building the island but also building runways, terminals, high speed rail, a motorway to the airport (presumably), etc compared to just building new runways at Heathrow which already has everything else. I worry the additional cost would be tens of billions and difficult to justify even over many years later. To say nothing of the cost of redeveloping the Heathrow site.
> @rottenborough said: > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> @williamglenn said: > > @AndyJS said: > > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO. > > He could combine it with his idea of a bridge to France and try to fill in the Channel.
If HS2 is dropped I don't see any concept of a new Thames estuary airport going anywhere. It was a great idea to win Uxbridge - less necessary as PM. But it may affect Heathrow expansion.
It will be interesting of course to see who he makes chief of staff and the wider No 10 team if he wins.
Sir Simon Milton and Sir Eddie Lister actually ran London from 2008 to 2016 - Boris mostly just signed the decisions!
> @malcolmg said: > Ruthie now in hiding, lying comes naturally. One good thrashing and she would not come back for a second one. > > Ruth there was an election in @ScotParl. We both voted. You got 15 votes and Nicola got 66. 18 months later there was a #Holyrood election - you lost just as the Tories have lost every #Holyrood election. You then decided not to stand for FM in the subsequent @ScotParl vote. > > > Ruth Davidson > Verified account @RuthDavidsonMSP > But, obviously, fine for a First Minister to be 'installed' in Bute House without a Holyrood election. Eh, Nicola? https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1131852746792013825 > > …
Surely if Boris becomes PM the Scots will demand another independence referendum? Why would they be prepared to have that buffoon foisted on them?
> @williamglenn said: > > @AndyJS said: > > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO. > > He could combine it with his idea of a bridge to France and try to fill in the Channel.
> @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > @rottenborough said: > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. >
Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> @Quincel said: > > @AndyJS said: > > > @Quincel said: > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO. > > > > > > Curious as to why you say this? I don't know much about the topic but have the opposite opinion so would be keen to hear your rationale. > > > > Heathrow is well past its sell-by date. I think we need a completely new airport in the same way that Hong Kong built a new airport on an artificial island in the late 1990s, with a high speed rail link connecting it to London. Heathrow could then be turned into a science park and residential area. > > Wouldn't that cost a fortune though? Not only the cost of building the island but also building runways, terminals, high speed rail, a motorway to the airport (presumably), etc compared to just building new runways at Heathrow which already has everything else. I worry the additional cost would be tens of billions and difficult to justify even over many years later. To say nothing of the cost of redeveloping the Heathrow site.
The original govt commission for the new runway at Heathrow was in 1990. Yes lets change tack again in 2019. This is how we make the UK great again.....how can the rest of the world with such a dynamic and decisive economy.
> @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > @rottenborough said: > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. >
Telling people that untrustworthy people are not to be trusted and that unicorns are very hard to find should not be divisive for any sane electorate.
Entertaining bit of whimsy but its a bit far fetched isn't it?
Jess Phillips is more likely to lose her previously Libdem seat than Corbyn is likely to win 291 seats on 28% of the vote. They only have 246 (soon to be 245) now and under pressure from the Libdems where are they going to win an additional 45 seats. Scotland isn't going to change and beyond their urban ghetto fortresses there is slim pickings in such an environment. If anything the growth of the Libdems would probably see them closer to 200 seats and thats if the BXP do not start picking off seats in the north and Wales. Labour would then have to become the largest party in a rainbow coalition with all the mayhem that goes with it. After such a circus anything could happen. Whether a Demratic Alliance would rise out of it is anyone's guess
At some point someone is going to find the leverage to remove Bercow especially given he has previously contemplated his retirement this year. Boris may come across as a some sort of buffoon but he is the only Tory to succeed in London in a very long time and he didn't come away from that job under any real dark political clouds. That suggests he does have the nouse to manage the politics of it all reasonably well and deal with the likes of the poisonous Bercow if required.
Expect a story about the Bercows, a packing crate, a tub of axle grease and a very large turkey baster or similar with pictures in the Palace of Westminster all on the taxpayers tab leaked on social media by some dubious non descript media source.
Whilst the Tories are at risk of significant losses if they get this wrong again it would still take a lot more than just Farage rabble rousing over Europe to break into the Tories Middle England heartlands (Surrey, Berks, Bucks etc). They may lose the east coast to the BXP and be skewered in the west between the BXP and Libdems but I am dubious of any major breakthrough by the BXP in the Tory hinterlands. My hunch is that the Tories under any circumstances would still boast a core of well over 100 MPs. Furthermore, I expect the BXP with limited funding to target Tory remainers in Tory withdrawal seats effectively largely purging the Tories of their Parliamentary EU affiliations
I cannot see the BXP ever being in the position to win a majority. In a truly chaotic situation (a la Greece) they could potentially become the largest party in a greatly split electorate with 4 parties each having over 100 seats and with other parties with tens of seats. In that case who would work with them? A Tory party purged of its pro EU tendencies is possibly the only option. Would a Raab / Rees Mogg led Tory party work with the BXP. After all Anunziata (why not make her leader of the BXP Parliamentary party) can be very persuasive.
This is brilliant. Johnson, in his terms, has chronically poor standards of epistemological hygiene. Or in our terms is a stinking and inveterate liar. It's great news for politics to see someone from his own side saying as much.
Truth ahead of party loyalty. Rory Stewart is the kind of leader the country needs.
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
If what he says is true, (and I guess you believe it is?) do the voters not deserve to know that Boris continues to say whatever people want to hear in order to get what he wants?
This is particularly true at a time when the hardest task facing whoever the new PM is will be to be frank, open and honest with the party and country about what our realistic options are.
He is not running to win, but to stand up for values and be a contender/player at a future time.
Those numbers look very small but it's a bit deceptive - including the candidates themselves a total of 83 Con MPs have declared - that's just over 25% of Con MPs.
For nobody to have more than 15 declared votes (including their own vote) suggests nobody is off to a strong start.
Maybe suggests a good chance of something unexpected happening.
"Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
An election campaign is by its nature a divisive situation unless you want the candidates to utter bland drivel and motherhood and apple pie. Albeit that the former is singularly the preserve of Andrea Leadsom.
Let's hear it, warts and all. The public deserve nothing less as this campaign is not just a Conservative leadership contest but for highest government office in the land.
Let it all hang out. Note to Boris - your shirt tail excluded.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > If what he says is true, (and I guess you believe it is?) do the voters not deserve to know that Boris continues to say whatever people want to hear in order to get what he wants? > > This is particularly true at a time when the hardest task facing whoever the new PM is will be to be frank, open and honest with the party and country about what our realistic options are. > > He is not running to win, but to stand up for values and be a contender/player at a future time.
I heard Rory the Tory on Radio 4 this morning. He seemed to be answering the questions honestly and logically and nor ducking, Unlike Matt Hancock.
> @MikeL said: > Number of declared backers according to Guido: > > > > Raab: 14 > > Johnson: 13 > > Hunt: 12 > > Javid: 7 > > Gove: 6 > > McVey: 5 > > Hancock: 4 > > Leadsom: 2 > > Truss: 2 > > Harper: 1 > > Baker: 1 > > Cleverly: 1 > > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hLVVTLnTTPIO43qTM7GsGs5GqvQ1UVGKmd_n1B51s5M/edit?ts=5ce7aed7#gid=0 > > Those numbers look very small but it's a bit deceptive - including the candidates themselves a total of 83 Con MPs have declared - that's just over 25% of Con MPs. > > For nobody to have more than 15 declared votes (including their own vote) suggests nobody is off to a strong start. > > Maybe suggests a good chance of something unexpected happening.
Should we take the names and numbers serously considering they come from Guido? I mean is it credible that McVey has 5 votes?
> Those numbers look very small but it's a bit deceptive - including the candidates themselves a total of 83 Con MPs have declared - that's just over 25% of Con MPs.
>
> For nobody to have more than 15 declared votes (including their own vote) suggests nobody is off to a strong start.
>
> Maybe suggests a good chance of something unexpected happening.
Should we take the names and numbers serously considering they come from Guido? I mean is it credible that McVey has 5 votes?
McVey is a deeply repulsive Europhobe, so could well be the choice if she makes the final 2. I am green on her.
> @ah009 said: > > @brendan16 said: > > People have been expelled for doing so - even in seats which are hopeless for Labour. That hardly applies to the London Euro list. As the article below makes clear about the expulsion of some Labour members in Jeremy's Hunt's seat during the 2017 election its in the rules. > > > > You can't have one rule for some members and another rule for Alastair Campbell. If you don't apply the rules what is the point of them? > > > > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/south-west-surrey-labour-party-louise-irvine-steve-williams-kate-townsend-jeremy-hunt-general-a7725446.html > > I'm aware that people can be expelled for advocating a future vote against their party. I understand that rule. > I was asking about when someone says after an election that have voted for another party. Reading the rule on that link (thank you for it) it's not clear to me which way it should be interpreted. > > Personal view is that it's draconian to throw someone out if the person only said after the election is over that they voted another way. Appreciate others might have different views. > >
Yes, I'm close to the case cited - one of the three is now head of the Greens locally and a fellow-exec member on the borough, another is a colleague at work. Like so many disciplinary cases their appeal is still pending and has been pending for years. But I agree that saying in retrospect that one voted some other way in the past is not the same thing as campaigning for another party before the election. I've voted Liberal (sic) and Communist at different (admittedly distant) past times in my life, shrug. On this divisive election in particular I think it's best to move on.
> If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
>
Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> @Charles said: > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > What did he say?
> @Gardenwalker said: > Sad to see Big G’s misguided comments. > > Boris is an inveterate liar. > We know it. Boris’s former employers know it. His wife knows it. His colleagues know it. Even Big G knows it. > > Pointing this out is a national service, well done Rory.
I do not support Boris but I do want unity. Rory is a straight switch for TM
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @Charles said: > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > > > What did he say? > > He refused to join a Boris cabinet
Any sane human being would refuse to join a Boris cabinet!
> > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
>
>
>
> I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
>
>
>
> Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
>
> What did he say?
He refused to join a Boris cabinet
I think that’s a good thing.
If you don’t respect the leader, surely the honourable thing is to serve quietly on the back benches? If he was sitting in Cabinet undermining the PM or sniping from the sidelines that would be different
> @Charles said: > > @Charles said: > > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > > > > > What did he say? > > > > He refused to join a Boris cabinet > > I think that’s a good thing. > > If you don’t respect the leader, surely the honourable thing is to serve quietly on the back benches? If he was sitting in Cabinet undermining the PM or sniping from the sidelines that would be different
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
The idea there can be unity in the Tory ranks is laughable. One of May's biggest flaws was she tried to hold off decision making over and over again because one faction or the other would go nuts if she did anything. I've no doubt a new leader could for a short time preserve the illusion of unity, but it's as much a unicorn as anything a fantasy Brexiteer is offering - the problem is the factions want things which are mutually exclusive, putting on false smiles and insisting we can all work together now doesn't change that, or fool anyone.
> @Gardenwalker said: > Sad to see Big G’s misguided comments. > > Boris is an inveterate liar. > We know it. Boris’s former employers know it. His wife knows it. His colleagues know it. Even Big G knows it. > > Pointing this out is a national service, well done Rory.
So self evidently true it hardly needed saying. I would add that several Tory MPs are likely to jump ship if he becomes leader so it is a service to his party to bring these consequences into the open.
* facial tattoos * "I find it interesting that..." * Staff asking "are you alright" when what they mean is "can I help you" * People saying "thanks" when what they mean is "please" * People who think Nigel Farage is a fascist * People who think fascists were socialists * Widespread misuse of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith"
> @viewcode said: > I do not support Boris but I do want unity. > > The second part of your sentence contradicts the first part. If Boris wins (and it's obviously possible) then unity will require supporting him.
And unity can mean many things. It can mean genuinely bringing people together, or it can mean a bunch of people deeply unhappy but beaten down by the winners to the point they dare not speak up right away, and so just grumble away. Unity of the artificial kind is no good.
A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
> @NickPalmer said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @brendan16 said: > > > People have been expelled for doing so - even in seats which are hopeless for Labour. That hardly applies to the London Euro list. As the article below makes clear about the expulsion of some Labour members in Jeremy's Hunt's seat during the 2017 election its in the rules. > > > > > > You can't have one rule for some members and another rule for Alastair Campbell. If you don't apply the rules what is the point of them? > > > > > > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/south-west-surrey-labour-party-louise-irvine-steve-williams-kate-townsend-jeremy-hunt-general-a7725446.html > > > > I'm aware that people can be expelled for advocating a future vote against their party. I understand that rule. > > I was asking about when someone says after an election that have voted for another party. Reading the rule on that link (thank you for it) it's not clear to me which way it should be interpreted. > > > > Personal view is that it's draconian to throw someone out if the person only said after the election is over that they voted another way. Appreciate others might have different views. > > > > > > Yes, I'm close to the case cited - one of the three is now head of the Greens locally and a fellow-exec member on the borough, another is a colleague at work. Like so many disciplinary cases their appeal is still pending and has been pending for years. But I agree that saying in retrospect that one voted some other way in the past is not the same thing as campaigning for another party before the election. I've voted Liberal (sic) and Communist at different (admittedly distant) past times in my life, shrug. On this divisive election in particular I think it's best to move on.
How people vote when not party members of a party has to be a matter for them alone. However, to support another against your own party whilst a party member is unforgiveable - and the response ought to be expulsion. Had he kept the matter to himself no one would have been aware of his disloyalty , but the fact that he has revealed this in public suggests some intent to cause harm to Corbyn and his party.
> @justin124 said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > > > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago. > > I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
------------------------------- And how, precisely, can they do that when they will be proposing ways forward which the others, and many members, think are awful and terrible?
Yes, it's not edifying for a member to see leadership contenders, many of whom will have served in office together, to be tearing great big chunks out of each other, but not attacking each other would require nothing but a series of vague cliches and bland policy offerings that insult our intelligence.
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > > > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago. > > I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
But you took a much firmer line than that a few months ago. It is obvious to many people - including Tory party members - that Boris is a thoroughly malign human being.
I hope all the Tories who are accommodating themselves to an oncoming Boris have the good grace never to utter another word about Labour supporters who have accommodated Corbyn.
Mr. 124, that's no way to speak about the 2018 Afghanistan Hide and Seek Champion.
Edited extra bit: I went onto Wikipedia just to check I had the year right (I did), and searched for 'resign'. It turns up surprisingly often on his page.
> @Theuniondivvie said: > I hope all the Tories who are accommodating themselves to an oncoming Boris have the good grace never to utter another word about Labour supporters who have accommodated Corbyn. ----------------- That's different because, er, reasons.
> @justin124 said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
Stewart has no chance. He's far too sensible and honest.
> @justin124 said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > > > > > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago. > > > > I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other > > But you took a much firmer line than that a few months ago. > It is obvious to many people - including Tory party members - that Boris is a thoroughly malign human being.
The problem is that he may well win the leadership and if he does through a genuine leadership contest then the party needs to come together and make the best of it. If he does not win I will be very pleased as I do not support him as long as it is not Baker.
I am applying pragmatics to a very difficult problem
> @isam said: > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious... > > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
I wouldn’t say it’s very bad for Leave . And there’s still loads of authorities to report yet .
The BP could easily hit 35% of the vote even with better Remain turnout . I think some hyperbole has broken out across social media . Some are forgetting that the Remain vote is split .
I wouldn’t be cancelling your celebrations tomorrow night . From my Remainer perspective I’m interested to see what happens with the Lib Dem v Labour battle for second place .
> @justin124 said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120 > > > > > > > > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins. > > > > > > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. > > > > > > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration. > > > > > > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post > > > > > > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago. > > > > I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other > > But you took a much firmer line than that a few months ago. > It is obvious to many people - including Tory party members - that Boris is a thoroughly malign human being. ____________________________
Those in doubt need only watch a ~15 min. interview
> @isam said: > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious... > > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
> > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> > >
> >
> > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> >
> > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> >
> > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
>
> Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
> @isam said: > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious... > > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
I'm not sure it counts as analysis *before* the results come out.
This hour-long ode to the Trump economy is no fluke. The President and his advisers have identified soaring growth as their best chance of re-election, judging that Americans tend not to vote against their own pockets.
> A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
>
> are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
I'm not sure it counts as analysis *before* the results come out.
If the turnout is up in all the Remain places and only steady/down in the Leave ones, it does seem obvious to think the result might not be as the polls forecast. Lots of Remainers are posting them under the header "interesting" ie "I can retract this if it doesnt show what I imply"
> @logical_song said: > The polls are a bit wild right now. A Labour range of 25% to 33% and are Brexit Party up 1 to 25% or down 1 to 12%? > > Britain Elects > > Westminster voting intention: > > LAB: 26% (-3) > BREX: 25% (+1) > CON: 22% (-) > LDEM: 12% (+1) > GRN: 4% (+1) > UKIP: 2% (-) > CHUK: 2% (-1) > > via @OpiniumResearch, 17 - 20 May > Chgs. w/ 16 May > > > Westminster voting intention: > > LAB: 33% (+1) > CON: 28% (+1) > LDEM: 13% (-) > BREX: 12% (-1) > GRN: 3% (-) > UKIP: 3% (+1) > CHUK: 2% (-) > > via @Survation, 22 May > Chgs. w/ 17 May
These polls are really miles apart . It’s the Survation which really threw a curveball into the EU elections.
What was really bizarre they had Lib Dems 13% for Westminster and only 12% for the EU elections which flies in the face of all logic . Their previous poll was similar on Westminster and EU elections . The Survation was done Wednesday after 5 pm. That could be a problem only capturing data for a narrow timeframe , equally it could be that their sample also had mentally began to move on from the EU elections , so the seepage issue had reduced .
> > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> > > >
> > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
> > >
> > > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
> >
> > I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
>
> But you took a much firmer line than that a few months ago.
> It is obvious to many people - including Tory party members - that Boris is a thoroughly malign human being.
____________________________
Those in doubt need only watch a ~15 min. interview
We need more interviews by Mair. He's as good as Neil.
> @FrancisUrquhart said: > > @ydoethur said: > > Jos Buttler showing the cheating ozzies how to play this ODI lark. > > > > You muppet. > > Am I to be banished to ConHome?
It's a warm-up game, so you get off with a caution but don't do it again.
> @isam said: > > @isam said: > > > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious... > > > > > > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s?? > > > > I'm not sure it counts as analysis *before* the results come out. > > If the turnout is up in all the Remain places and only steady/down in the Leave ones, it does seem obvious to think the result might not be as the polls forecast. Lots of Remainers are posting them under the header "interesting" ie "I can retract this if it doesnt show what I imply"
Turnout is up in most of the Leave districts that have reported so far. It's up by a bit more in most of the Remain districts that have reported so far, but I've not seen anything so far that's inconsistent with the polling.
> @Sean_F said: > > @isam said: > > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious... > > > > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s?? > > No.
That is worryingly reminiscent of Roger's lapidary comment on OGH's suggestion that Barack Obama might be a value bet at 50/1 for the Presidency.
> @nico67 said: > > @logical_song said: > > The polls are a bit wild right now. A Labour range of 25% to 33% and are Brexit Party up 1 to 25% or down 1 to 12%? > > > > Britain Elects > > > > Westminster voting intention: > > > > LAB: 26% (-3) > > BREX: 25% (+1) > > CON: 22% (-) > > LDEM: 12% (+1) > > GRN: 4% (+1) > > UKIP: 2% (-) > > CHUK: 2% (-1) > > > > via @OpiniumResearch, 17 - 20 May > > Chgs. w/ 16 May > > > > > > Westminster voting intention: > > > > LAB: 33% (+1) > > CON: 28% (+1) > > LDEM: 13% (-) > > BREX: 12% (-1) > > GRN: 3% (-) > > UKIP: 3% (+1) > > CHUK: 2% (-) > > > > via @Survation, 22 May > > Chgs. w/ 17 May > > These polls are really miles apart . It’s the Survation which really threw a curveball into the EU elections. > > What was really bizarre they had Lib Dems 13% for Westminster and only 12% for the EU elections which flies in the face of all logic . Their previous poll was similar on Westminster and EU elections . The Survation was done Wednesday after 5 pm. That could be a problem only capturing data for a narrow timeframe , equally it could be that their sample also had mentally began to move on from the EU elections , so the seepage issue had reduced . > >
In the past, the LibDems have underperformed at EU elections compared with Local and Westminster elections. This year the dynamics may be different.
> @isam said: > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious... > > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
I'm not really looking for who beats who tomorrow night, I want to see what percentage of the electorate are incensed enough by the by the Brexit "betrayal" to have come out to voter for Farage or UKIP. My guess is that it will be in the 10-15% range and if that is the case it hardly suggests that that country is on the verge of the civil disorder that some would try to have us believe.
> @OllyT said: > > @isam said: > > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious... > > > > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s?? > > I'm not really looking for who beats who tomorrow night, I want to see what percentage of the electorate are incensed enough by the by the Brexit "betrayal" to have come out to voter for Farage or UKIP. My guess is that it will be in the 10-15% range and if that is the case it hardly suggests that that country is on the verge of the civil disorder that some would try to have us believe.
Indeed - and the mere fact that no more than 40% have bothered to vote clearly suggests that Brexit is not an issue gripping the attention of the electorate in the way the commentariat would have us believe.
> @MikeL said: > Boris drifting on Betfair - now out to 2.32 having been around Evens (2.0) for much of yesterday. > > Looks like quite a few people are already losing confidence in his ability to win.
His Mayesque comments yesterday were ridiculous. If this is how he means to go on, he'll only be a liability.
@Sean_F said: Turnout is up in most of the Leave districts that have reported so far. It's up by a bit more in most of the Remain districts that have reported so far, but I've not seen anything so far that's inconsistent with the polling.
++++++
I think the maths on this one is relatively simple. If there were two districts that voted in the referendum, one voted 50-0 in favour of Leave, and the other 50-0 in favour of Remain. If in the Leave dictrict, turnout was down 10 people, while in the Remain one it was flat, then you would expect that in aggregate numbers Remain would be doing better.
It is, of course, slightly more complex, as none of the districts are 50-0, one way or another. Nevertheless, on any crude modelling, a situation where Remain-y places are turning out more than Leave-y ones, suggests that Remain will do slightly better.
However, the one thing it's really important to note is that the effects are quite small. By and large Leave-ier districts are up around two percentage points, while Remain are up about five. So that's a roughly three percentage point differential.
Errors from pollsters in sampling are likely to be a bigger issue. (And I would note that Leavers were more confident in turning out than Remainers in polls. Something that might not be born out in the figures tomorrow.)
> A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
>
> are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
I'm not really looking for who beats who tomorrow night, I want to see what percentage of the electorate are incensed enough by the by the Brexit "betrayal" to have come out to voter for Farage or UKIP. My guess is that it will be in the 10-15% range and if that is the case it hardly suggests that that country is on the verge of the civil disorder that some would try to have us believe.
You think Brexit Party + UKIP will poll 10-15% combined?
> @justin124 said: > > @OllyT said: > > > @isam said: > > > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious... > > > > > > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s?? > > > > I'm not really looking for who beats who tomorrow night, I want to see what percentage of the electorate are incensed enough by the by the Brexit "betrayal" to have come out to voter for Farage or UKIP. My guess is that it will be in the 10-15% range and if that is the case it hardly suggests that that country is on the verge of the civil disorder that some would try to have us believe. > > Indeed - and the mere fact that no more than 40% have bothered to vote clearly suggests that Brexit is not an issue gripping the attention of the electorate in the way the commentariat would have us believe.
Exactly the argument many Europhiles on here used to make about the EU as an issue prior to the referendum. Remember "don't give a monkeys"?
Turnout is up in most of the Leave districts that have reported so far. It's up by a bit more in most of the Remain districts that have reported so far, but I've not seen anything so far that's inconsistent with the polling.
++++++
I think the maths on this one is relatively simple. If there were two districts that voted in the referendum, one voted 50-0 in favour of Leave, and the other 50-0 in favour of Remain. If in the Leave dictrict, turnout was down 10 people, while in the Remain one it was flat, then you would expect that in aggregate numbers Remain would be doing better.
It is, of course, slightly more complex, as none of the districts are 50-0, one way or another. Nevertheless, on any crude modelling, a situation where Remain-y places are turning out more than Leave-y ones, suggests that Remain will do slightly better.
However, the one thing it's really important to note is that the effects are quite small. By and large Leave-ier districts are up around two percentage points, while Remain are up about five. So that's a roughly three percentage point differential.
Errors from pollsters in sampling are likely to be a bigger issue. (And I would note that Leavers were more confident in turning out than Remainers in polls. Something that might not be born out in the figures tomorrow.)
Arent there a lot more Leave districts than Remain?
Comments
> One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO.
He could combine it with his idea of a bridge to France and try to fill in the Channel.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1132279514082365440
Broken down into strong versus weak Remain and the same for Leave , so above 55 or below that either way.
Strong Remain 19
Strong Leave 11
Weak Remain 8
Weak Leave 12
There are no strong Leave local authorities currently in the top 20
Strong Remain makes up 11 of the top 20.
> One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO.
Curious as to why you say this? I don't know much about the topic but have the opposite opinion so would be keen to hear your rationale.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO.
>
> Curious as to why you say this? I don't know much about the topic but have the opposite opinion so would be keen to hear your rationale.
Heathrow is well past its sell-by date. I think we need a completely new airport in the same way that Hong Kong built a new airport on an artificial island in the late 1990s, with a high speed rail link connecting it to London. Heathrow could then be turned into a science park and residential area.
> If BXP get 31% my guess is that it might give a few Tory MPs pause for thought about backing a candidate vowing to press ahead with a No Deal Brexit.
>
> What if UKIP got 6-7% as well?
Imagine if TBP came 2nd on 25%, narrowly edged out by the LDs, while UKIP got 10%? That would put the cats amongst all sorts of pigeons!
Realistically I expect that if TBP wins by any margin and especially if it isn't razor close (say 3% lead or more, which is likely) then the reaction of MPs will be mostly that No Deal has a lot of support not the opposite. That's not entirely unfair, even though some TBP voters will be sending a message but not want No Deal - a lot of them either want it or at least wouldn't object to it.
> Interesting story.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/25/change-uk-could-form-pro-remain-pact-with-liberal-democrats
>
> But would the LibDems actually benefit from CUK support?
I think so long as they were seen as the dominant part of the deal, the takeover not the takenover, then they'd benefit from a sense of strength and momentum if nothing else. Plus another 11 MPs on their team (even if not officially) is always good.
Beginning to wonder if the Ferrari strategy team are secretly German.
> > @Quincel said:
> > > @AndyJS said:
> > > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO.
> >
> > Curious as to why you say this? I don't know much about the topic but have the opposite opinion so would be keen to hear your rationale.
>
> Heathrow is well past its sell-by date. I think we need a completely new airport in the same way that Hong Kong built a new airport on an artificial island in the late 1990s, with a high speed rail link connecting it to London. Heathrow could then be turned into a science park and residential area.
Wouldn't that cost a fortune though? Not only the cost of building the island but also building runways, terminals, high speed rail, a motorway to the airport (presumably), etc compared to just building new runways at Heathrow which already has everything else. I worry the additional cost would be tens of billions and difficult to justify even over many years later. To say nothing of the cost of redeveloping the Heathrow site.
> https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
>
If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO.
>
> He could combine it with his idea of a bridge to France and try to fill in the Channel.
If HS2 is dropped I don't see any concept of a new Thames estuary airport going anywhere. It was a great idea to win Uxbridge - less necessary as PM. But it may affect Heathrow expansion.
It will be interesting of course to see who he makes chief of staff and the wider No 10 team if he wins.
Sir Simon Milton and Sir Eddie Lister actually ran London from 2008 to 2016 - Boris mostly just signed the decisions!
Raab: 14
Johnson: 13
Hunt: 12
Javid: 7
Gove: 6
McVey: 5
Hancock: 4
Leadsom: 2
Truss: 2
Harper: 1
Baker: 1
Cleverly: 1
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hLVVTLnTTPIO43qTM7GsGs5GqvQ1UVGKmd_n1B51s5M/edit?ts=5ce7aed7#gid=0
> Number of declared backers according to Guido:
>
> Raab: 14
> Johnson: 13
> Hunt: 12
> Javid: 7
> Gove: 6
> McVey: 5
> Hancock: 4
> Leadsom: 2
> Truss: 2
> Harper: 1
> Baker: 1
> Cleverly: 1
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hLVVTLnTTPIO43qTM7GsGs5GqvQ1UVGKmd_n1B51s5M/edit?ts=5ce7aed7#gid=0
Stewart 0
> Ruthie now in hiding, lying comes naturally. One good thrashing and she would not come back for a second one.
>
> Ruth there was an election in @ScotParl. We both voted. You got 15 votes and Nicola got 66. 18 months later there was a #Holyrood election - you lost just as the Tories have lost every #Holyrood election. You then decided not to stand for FM in the subsequent @ScotParl vote.
>
>
> Ruth Davidson
> Verified account @RuthDavidsonMSP
> But, obviously, fine for a First Minister to be 'installed' in Bute House without a Holyrood election. Eh, Nicola? https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1131852746792013825
>
> …
Surely if Boris becomes PM the Scots will demand another independence referendum? Why would they be prepared to have that buffoon foisted on them?
> > @AndyJS said:
> > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO.
>
> He could combine it with his idea of a bridge to France and try to fill in the Channel.
Why not dry out Doggerland?
> > @rottenborough said:
> > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> >
> If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
>
Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
> > @AndyJS said:
> > > @Quincel said:
> > > > @AndyJS said:
> > > > One upside of Boris as PM is that maybe the Boris Island airport idea could be revived. It makes more sense that expanding Heathrow IMO.
> > >
> > > Curious as to why you say this? I don't know much about the topic but have the opposite opinion so would be keen to hear your rationale.
> >
> > Heathrow is well past its sell-by date. I think we need a completely new airport in the same way that Hong Kong built a new airport on an artificial island in the late 1990s, with a high speed rail link connecting it to London. Heathrow could then be turned into a science park and residential area.
>
> Wouldn't that cost a fortune though? Not only the cost of building the island but also building runways, terminals, high speed rail, a motorway to the airport (presumably), etc compared to just building new runways at Heathrow which already has everything else. I worry the additional cost would be tens of billions and difficult to justify even over many years later. To say nothing of the cost of redeveloping the Heathrow site.
The original govt commission for the new runway at Heathrow was in 1990. Yes lets change tack again in 2019. This is how we make the UK great again.....how can the rest of the world with such a dynamic and decisive economy.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> >
> If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
>
Telling people that untrustworthy people are not to be trusted and that unicorns are very hard to find should not be divisive for any sane electorate.
Jess Phillips is more likely to lose her previously Libdem seat than Corbyn is likely to win 291 seats on 28% of the vote. They only have 246 (soon to be 245) now and under pressure from the Libdems where are they going to win an additional 45 seats. Scotland isn't going to change and beyond their urban ghetto fortresses there is slim pickings in such an environment. If anything the growth of the Libdems would probably see them closer to 200 seats and thats if the BXP do not start picking off seats in the north and Wales. Labour would then have to become the largest party in a rainbow coalition with all the mayhem that goes with it. After such a circus anything could happen. Whether a Demratic Alliance would rise out of it is anyone's guess
At some point someone is going to find the leverage to remove Bercow especially given he has previously contemplated his retirement this year. Boris may come across as a some sort of buffoon but he is the only Tory to succeed in London in a very long time and he didn't come away from that job under any real dark political clouds. That suggests he does have the nouse to manage the politics of it all reasonably well and deal with the likes of the poisonous Bercow if required.
Expect a story about the Bercows, a packing crate, a tub of axle grease and a very large turkey baster or similar with pictures in the Palace of Westminster all on the taxpayers tab leaked on social media by some dubious non descript media source.
Whilst the Tories are at risk of significant losses if they get this wrong again it would still take a lot more than just Farage rabble rousing over Europe to break into the Tories Middle England heartlands (Surrey, Berks, Bucks etc). They may lose the east coast to the BXP and be skewered in the west between the BXP and Libdems but I am dubious of any major breakthrough by the BXP in the Tory hinterlands. My hunch is that the Tories under any circumstances would still boast a core of well over 100 MPs. Furthermore, I expect the BXP with limited funding to target Tory remainers in Tory withdrawal seats effectively largely purging the Tories of their Parliamentary EU affiliations
I cannot see the BXP ever being in the position to win a majority. In a truly chaotic situation (a la Greece) they could potentially become the largest party in a greatly split electorate with 4 parties each having over 100 seats and with other parties with tens of seats. In that case who would work with them? A Tory party purged of its pro EU tendencies is possibly the only option. Would a Raab / Rees Mogg led Tory party work with the BXP. After all Anunziata (why not make her leader of the BXP Parliamentary party) can be very persuasive.
See David it could be worse than you think......
> https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
>
> https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1132279514082365440
This is brilliant. Johnson, in his terms, has chronically poor standards of epistemological hygiene. Or in our terms is a stinking and inveterate liar.
It's great news for politics to see someone from his own side saying as much.
Truth ahead of party loyalty. Rory Stewart is the kind of leader the country needs.
> > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> > >
> > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> >
>
> Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
>
> I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
>
> Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
If what he says is true, (and I guess you believe it is?) do the voters not deserve to know that Boris continues to say whatever people want to hear in order to get what he wants?
This is particularly true at a time when the hardest task facing whoever the new PM is will be to be frank, open and honest with the party and country about what our realistic options are.
He is not running to win, but to stand up for values and be a contender/player at a future time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48407083
It is a bit like saying the mural "You are Now Entering Free Derry" is commercial advertising.
For nobody to have more than 15 declared votes (including their own vote) suggests nobody is off to a strong start.
Maybe suggests a good chance of something unexpected happening.
"Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity. I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
Indeed TM may as well have remained in post."
..........................................................................................................................
An election campaign is by its nature a divisive situation unless you want the candidates to utter bland drivel and motherhood and apple pie. Albeit that the former is singularly the preserve of Andrea Leadsom.
Let's hear it, warts and all. The public deserve nothing less as this campaign is not just a Conservative leadership contest but for highest government office in the land.
Let it all hang out. Note to Boris - your shirt tail excluded.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> > > >
> > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> > >
> >
> > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> >
> > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> >
> > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
>
> If what he says is true, (and I guess you believe it is?) do the voters not deserve to know that Boris continues to say whatever people want to hear in order to get what he wants?
>
> This is particularly true at a time when the hardest task facing whoever the new PM is will be to be frank, open and honest with the party and country about what our realistic options are.
>
> He is not running to win, but to stand up for values and be a contender/player at a future time.
I heard Rory the Tory on Radio 4 this morning. He seemed to be answering the questions honestly and logically and nor ducking, Unlike Matt Hancock.
> Number of declared backers according to Guido:
>
>
>
> Raab: 14
>
> Johnson: 13
>
> Hunt: 12
>
> Javid: 7
>
> Gove: 6
>
> McVey: 5
>
> Hancock: 4
>
> Leadsom: 2
>
> Truss: 2
>
> Harper: 1
>
> Baker: 1
>
> Cleverly: 1
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hLVVTLnTTPIO43qTM7GsGs5GqvQ1UVGKmd_n1B51s5M/edit?ts=5ce7aed7#gid=0
>
> Those numbers look very small but it's a bit deceptive - including the candidates themselves a total of 83 Con MPs have declared - that's just over 25% of Con MPs.
>
> For nobody to have more than 15 declared votes (including their own vote) suggests nobody is off to a strong start.
>
> Maybe suggests a good chance of something unexpected happening.
Should we take the names and numbers serously considering they come from Guido? I mean is it credible that McVey has 5 votes?
Would be interesting to see if RoryS manages to generate a media wave, and ride it all the way into the final 2.
Boris is an inveterate liar.
We know it. Boris’s former employers know it. His wife knows it. His colleagues know it. Even Big G knows it.
Pointing this out is a national service, well done Rory.
> > @brendan16 said:
> > People have been expelled for doing so - even in seats which are hopeless for Labour. That hardly applies to the London Euro list. As the article below makes clear about the expulsion of some Labour members in Jeremy's Hunt's seat during the 2017 election its in the rules.
> >
> > You can't have one rule for some members and another rule for Alastair Campbell. If you don't apply the rules what is the point of them?
> >
> > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/south-west-surrey-labour-party-louise-irvine-steve-williams-kate-townsend-jeremy-hunt-general-a7725446.html
>
> I'm aware that people can be expelled for advocating a future vote against their party. I understand that rule.
> I was asking about when someone says after an election that have voted for another party. Reading the rule on that link (thank you for it) it's not clear to me which way it should be interpreted.
>
> Personal view is that it's draconian to throw someone out if the person only said after the election is over that they voted another way. Appreciate others might have different views.
>
>
Yes, I'm close to the case cited - one of the three is now head of the Greens locally and a fellow-exec member on the borough, another is a colleague at work. Like so many disciplinary cases their appeal is still pending and has been pending for years. But I agree that saying in retrospect that one voted some other way in the past is not the same thing as campaigning for another party before the election. I've voted Liberal (sic) and Communist at different (admittedly distant) past times in my life, shrug. On this divisive election in particular I think it's best to move on.
> > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
>
> > > @rottenborough said:
>
> > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
>
>
>
> I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
>
>
>
> Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
>
> What did he say?
He refused to join a Boris cabinet
> Sad to see Big G’s misguided comments.
>
> Boris is an inveterate liar.
> We know it. Boris’s former employers know it. His wife knows it. His colleagues know it. Even Big G knows it.
>
> Pointing this out is a national service, well done Rory.
I do not support Boris but I do want unity. Rory is a straight switch for TM
> > @Charles said:
> > > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> >
> > > > @rottenborough said:
> >
> > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> >
> >
> >
> > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> >
> >
> >
> > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
> >
> > What did he say?
>
> He refused to join a Boris cabinet
Any sane human being would refuse to join a Boris cabinet!
> My input on the Conservative Party leadership contest: I don't hate Rory Stewart.
Why should anyone hate anyone !!
If you don’t respect the leader, surely the honourable thing is to serve quietly on the back benches? If he was sitting in Cabinet undermining the PM or sniping from the sidelines that would be different
And completely credible. Difficult to see any of it failing to happen.
Especially the Boris bus thing - that is nailed on.
> > @Charles said:
>
> > > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @rottenborough said:
>
> >
>
> > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
>
> >
>
> > What did he say?
>
>
>
> He refused to join a Boris cabinet
>
> I think that’s a good thing.
>
> If you don’t respect the leader, surely the honourable thing is to serve quietly on the back benches? If he was sitting in Cabinet undermining the PM or sniping from the sidelines that would be different
Fair point
> > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> > >
> > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> >
>
> Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
>
> I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
>
> Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
> Sad to see Big G’s misguided comments.
>
> Boris is an inveterate liar.
> We know it. Boris’s former employers know it. His wife knows it. His colleagues know it. Even Big G knows it.
>
> Pointing this out is a national service, well done Rory.
So self evidently true it hardly needed saying. I would add that several Tory MPs are likely to jump ship if he becomes leader so it is a service to his party to bring these consequences into the open.
* facial tattoos
* "I find it interesting that..."
* Staff asking "are you alright" when what they mean is "can I help you"
* People saying "thanks" when what they mean is "please"
* People who think Nigel Farage is a fascist
* People who think fascists were socialists
* Widespread misuse of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith"
> I do not support Boris but I do want unity.
>
> The second part of your sentence contradicts the first part. If Boris wins (and it's obviously possible) then unity will require supporting him.
And unity can mean many things. It can mean genuinely bringing people together, or it can mean a bunch of people deeply unhappy but beaten down by the winners to the point they dare not speak up right away, and so just grumble away. Unity of the artificial kind is no good.
are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @brendan16 said:
> > > People have been expelled for doing so - even in seats which are hopeless for Labour. That hardly applies to the London Euro list. As the article below makes clear about the expulsion of some Labour members in Jeremy's Hunt's seat during the 2017 election its in the rules.
> > >
> > > You can't have one rule for some members and another rule for Alastair Campbell. If you don't apply the rules what is the point of them?
> > >
> > > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/south-west-surrey-labour-party-louise-irvine-steve-williams-kate-townsend-jeremy-hunt-general-a7725446.html
> >
> > I'm aware that people can be expelled for advocating a future vote against their party. I understand that rule.
> > I was asking about when someone says after an election that have voted for another party. Reading the rule on that link (thank you for it) it's not clear to me which way it should be interpreted.
> >
> > Personal view is that it's draconian to throw someone out if the person only said after the election is over that they voted another way. Appreciate others might have different views.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I'm close to the case cited - one of the three is now head of the Greens locally and a fellow-exec member on the borough, another is a colleague at work. Like so many disciplinary cases their appeal is still pending and has been pending for years. But I agree that saying in retrospect that one voted some other way in the past is not the same thing as campaigning for another party before the election. I've voted Liberal (sic) and Communist at different (admittedly distant) past times in my life, shrug. On this divisive election in particular I think it's best to move on.
How people vote when not party members of a party has to be a matter for them alone. However, to support another against your own party whilst a party member is unforgiveable - and the response ought to be expulsion. Had he kept the matter to himself no one would have been aware of his disloyalty , but the fact that he has revealed this in public suggests some intent to cause harm to Corbyn and his party.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> > > >
> > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> > >
> >
> > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> >
> > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> >
> > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
>
> Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> > > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> > > > >
> > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> > >
> > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> > >
> > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
> >
> > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
>
> I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
-------------------------------
And how, precisely, can they do that when they will be proposing ways forward which the others, and many members, think are awful and terrible?
Yes, it's not edifying for a member to see leadership contenders, many of whom will have served in office together, to be tearing great big chunks out of each other, but not attacking each other would require nothing but a series of vague cliches and bland policy offerings that insult our intelligence.
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> > > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> > > > >
> > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> > >
> > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> > >
> > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
> >
> > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
>
> I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
But you took a much firmer line than that a few months ago.
It is obvious to many people - including Tory party members - that Boris is a thoroughly malign human being.
Edited extra bit: I went onto Wikipedia just to check I had the year right (I did), and searched for 'resign'. It turns up surprisingly often on his page.
> I hope all the Tories who are accommodating themselves to an oncoming Boris have the good grace never to utter another word about Labour supporters who have accommodated Corbyn.
-----------------
That's different because, er, reasons.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> > > >
> > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> > >
> >
> > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> >
> > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> >
> > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
>
> Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
Stewart has no chance. He's far too sensible and honest.
He should join the LibDems.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> > > > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> > > > > >
> > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> > > >
> > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
> > >
> > > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
> >
> > I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
>
> But you took a much firmer line than that a few months ago.
> It is obvious to many people - including Tory party members - that Boris is a thoroughly malign human being.
The problem is that he may well win the leadership and if he does through a genuine leadership contest then the party needs to come together and make the best of it. If he does not win I will be very pleased as I do not support him as long as it is not Baker.
I am applying pragmatics to a very difficult problem
Looks like quite a few people are already losing confidence in his ability to win.
> A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
>
> are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
I wouldn’t say it’s very bad for Leave . And there’s still loads of authorities to report yet .
The BP could easily hit 35% of the vote even with better Remain turnout . I think some hyperbole has broken out across social media . Some are forgetting that the Remain vote is split .
I wouldn’t be cancelling your celebrations tomorrow night . From my Remainer perspective I’m interested to see what happens with the Lib Dem v Labour battle for second place .
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > > > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
> > > > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1132272412366725120
> > > > > >
> > > > > If Rory Stewart was acting in good faith in standing for Tory leader, then he would realise that in chosing to present himself as an utterly divisive figure he is disqualifying himself at the starting gun. The only rational explanation I can see is that he is acting in concert with a more serious unknown candidate as part of a "get Boris" campaign of throwing mud at Johnson, and has probably been promised some political favours in return if that unknown candidate wins.
> > > >
> > > > Rory lost me today with his ill judged comments sowing division when we need unity.
> > > >
> > > > I was very disappointed and now discount him from any consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed TM may as well have remained in post
> > >
> > > Perhaps he holds the same views on Boris that you were expressing yourself until a few weeks ago.
> >
> > I am no supporter of Boris as I have said all along and I will not vote for him. However I want to see an attempt by all the candidates to seek a positive way forward and not attacking each other
>
> But you took a much firmer line than that a few months ago.
> It is obvious to many people - including Tory party members - that Boris is a thoroughly malign human being.
____________________________
Those in doubt need only watch a ~15 min. interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAxA-9D4X3o
We need more interviews by Mair. He's as good as Neil.
> A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
>
> are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
No.
It is not clear BoZo can do that, even if the members want him. It's Corbyn all over again.
Britain Elects
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 26% (-3)
BREX: 25% (+1)
CON: 22% (-)
LDEM: 12% (+1)
GRN: 4% (+1)
UKIP: 2% (-)
CHUK: 2% (-1)
via @OpiniumResearch, 17 - 20 May
Chgs. w/ 16 May
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 33% (+1)
CON: 28% (+1)
LDEM: 13% (-)
BREX: 12% (-1)
GRN: 3% (-)
UKIP: 3% (+1)
CHUK: 2% (-)
via @Survation, 22 May
Chgs. w/ 17 May
> Jos Buttler showing the cheating ozzies how to play this ODI lark.
>
> You muppet.
Am I to be banished to ConHome?
> A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
>
> are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
I'm not sure it counts as analysis *before* the results come out.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/trump-2020-exclusive-first-look-inside-presidents-re-election/
> The polls are a bit wild right now. A Labour range of 25% to 33% and are Brexit Party up 1 to 25% or down 1 to 12%?
>
> Britain Elects
>
> Westminster voting intention:
>
> LAB: 26% (-3)
> BREX: 25% (+1)
> CON: 22% (-)
> LDEM: 12% (+1)
> GRN: 4% (+1)
> UKIP: 2% (-)
> CHUK: 2% (-1)
>
> via @OpiniumResearch, 17 - 20 May
> Chgs. w/ 16 May
>
>
> Westminster voting intention:
>
> LAB: 33% (+1)
> CON: 28% (+1)
> LDEM: 13% (-)
> BREX: 12% (-1)
> GRN: 3% (-)
> UKIP: 3% (+1)
> CHUK: 2% (-)
>
> via @Survation, 22 May
> Chgs. w/ 17 May
12 to 25 variation is absolutely crazy...not sure we should give too much weight to the polls just now.
> The polls are a bit wild right now. A Labour range of 25% to 33% and are Brexit Party up 1 to 25% or down 1 to 12%?
>
> Britain Elects
>
> Westminster voting intention:
>
> LAB: 26% (-3)
> BREX: 25% (+1)
> CON: 22% (-)
> LDEM: 12% (+1)
> GRN: 4% (+1)
> UKIP: 2% (-)
> CHUK: 2% (-1)
>
> via @OpiniumResearch, 17 - 20 May
> Chgs. w/ 16 May
>
>
> Westminster voting intention:
>
> LAB: 33% (+1)
> CON: 28% (+1)
> LDEM: 13% (-)
> BREX: 12% (-1)
> GRN: 3% (-)
> UKIP: 3% (+1)
> CHUK: 2% (-)
>
> via @Survation, 22 May
> Chgs. w/ 17 May
These polls are really miles apart . It’s the Survation which really threw a curveball into the EU elections.
What was really bizarre they had Lib Dems 13% for Westminster and only 12% for the EU elections which flies in the face of all logic . Their previous poll was similar on Westminster and EU elections . The Survation was done Wednesday after 5 pm. That could be a problem only capturing data for a narrow timeframe , equally it could be that their sample also had mentally began to move on from the EU elections , so the seepage issue had reduced .
> > @logical_song said:
> > The polls are a bit wild right now. A Labour range of 25% to 33% and are Brexit Party up 1 to 25% or down 1 to 12%?
> >
> > Britain Elects
> >
> > Westminster voting intention:
> >
> > LAB: 26% (-3)
> > BREX: 25% (+1)
> > CON: 22% (-)
> > LDEM: 12% (+1)
> > GRN: 4% (+1)
> > UKIP: 2% (-)
> > CHUK: 2% (-1)
> >
> > via @OpiniumResearch, 17 - 20 May
> > Chgs. w/ 16 May
> >
> >
> > Westminster voting intention:
> >
> > LAB: 33% (+1)
> > CON: 28% (+1)
> > LDEM: 13% (-)
> > BREX: 12% (-1)
> > GRN: 3% (-)
> > UKIP: 3% (+1)
> > CHUK: 2% (-)
> >
> > via @Survation, 22 May
> > Chgs. w/ 17 May
>
> 12 to 25 variation is absolutely crazy...not sure we should give too much weight to the polls just now.
From a betting point of view I'd disregard the polls for a bit.
.
> > @ydoethur said:
> > Jos Buttler showing the cheating ozzies how to play this ODI lark.
> >
> > You muppet.
>
> Am I to be banished to ConHome?
It's a warm-up game, so you get off with a caution but don't do it again.
There will be several companies that will have a lot of explaining to do!
> > @isam said:
>
> > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
>
> >
>
> > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
>
>
>
> I'm not sure it counts as analysis *before* the results come out.
>
> If the turnout is up in all the Remain places and only steady/down in the Leave ones, it does seem obvious to think the result might not be as the polls forecast. Lots of Remainers are posting them under the header "interesting" ie "I can retract this if it doesnt show what I imply"
Turnout is up in most of the Leave districts that have reported so far. It's up by a bit more in most of the Remain districts that have reported so far, but I've not seen anything so far that's inconsistent with the polling.
> > @isam said:
> > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
> >
> > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
>
> No.
That is worryingly reminiscent of Roger's lapidary comment on OGH's suggestion that Barack Obama might be a value bet at 50/1 for the Presidency.
I do hope you don't live to regret it.
> > @logical_song said:
> > The polls are a bit wild right now. A Labour range of 25% to 33% and are Brexit Party up 1 to 25% or down 1 to 12%?
> >
> > Britain Elects
> >
> > Westminster voting intention:
> >
> > LAB: 26% (-3)
> > BREX: 25% (+1)
> > CON: 22% (-)
> > LDEM: 12% (+1)
> > GRN: 4% (+1)
> > UKIP: 2% (-)
> > CHUK: 2% (-1)
> >
> > via @OpiniumResearch, 17 - 20 May
> > Chgs. w/ 16 May
> >
> >
> > Westminster voting intention:
> >
> > LAB: 33% (+1)
> > CON: 28% (+1)
> > LDEM: 13% (-)
> > BREX: 12% (-1)
> > GRN: 3% (-)
> > UKIP: 3% (+1)
> > CHUK: 2% (-)
> >
> > via @Survation, 22 May
> > Chgs. w/ 17 May
>
> These polls are really miles apart . It’s the Survation which really threw a curveball into the EU elections.
>
> What was really bizarre they had Lib Dems 13% for Westminster and only 12% for the EU elections which flies in the face of all logic . Their previous poll was similar on Westminster and EU elections . The Survation was done Wednesday after 5 pm. That could be a problem only capturing data for a narrow timeframe , equally it could be that their sample also had mentally began to move on from the EU elections , so the seepage issue had reduced .
>
>
In the past, the LibDems have underperformed at EU elections compared with Local and Westminster elections. This year the dynamics may be different.
> A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
>
> are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
I'm not really looking for who beats who tomorrow night, I want to see what percentage of the electorate are incensed enough by the by the Brexit "betrayal" to have come out to voter for Farage or UKIP. My guess is that it will be in the 10-15% range and if that is the case it hardly suggests that that country is on the verge of the civil disorder that some would try to have us believe.
> https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1132316753055354880
Maybe the voters are figuring out who they like least and want to make that person the next one for the poison chalice.
> > @isam said:
> > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
> >
> > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
>
> I'm not really looking for who beats who tomorrow night, I want to see what percentage of the electorate are incensed enough by the by the Brexit "betrayal" to have come out to voter for Farage or UKIP. My guess is that it will be in the 10-15% range and if that is the case it hardly suggests that that country is on the verge of the civil disorder that some would try to have us believe.
Indeed - and the mere fact that no more than 40% have bothered to vote clearly suggests that Brexit is not an issue gripping the attention of the electorate in the way the commentariat would have us believe.
> Boris drifting on Betfair - now out to 2.32 having been around Evens (2.0) for much of yesterday.
>
> Looks like quite a few people are already losing confidence in his ability to win.
His Mayesque comments yesterday were ridiculous. If this is how he means to go on, he'll only be a liability.
Turnout is up in most of the Leave districts that have reported so far. It's up by a bit more in most of the Remain districts that have reported so far, but I've not seen anything so far that's inconsistent with the polling.
++++++
I think the maths on this one is relatively simple. If there were two districts that voted in the referendum, one voted 50-0 in favour of Leave, and the other 50-0 in favour of Remain. If in the Leave dictrict, turnout was down 10 people, while in the Remain one it was flat, then you would expect that in aggregate numbers Remain would be doing better.
It is, of course, slightly more complex, as none of the districts are 50-0, one way or another. Nevertheless, on any crude modelling, a situation where Remain-y places are turning out more than Leave-y ones, suggests that Remain will do slightly better.
However, the one thing it's really important to note is that the effects are quite small. By and large Leave-ier districts are up around two percentage points, while Remain are up about five. So that's a roughly three percentage point differential.
Errors from pollsters in sampling are likely to be a bigger issue. (And I would note that Leavers were more confident in turning out than Remainers in polls. Something that might not be born out in the figures tomorrow.)
> > @Scott_P said:
>
> > https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1132316753055354880
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe the voters are figuring out who they like least and want to make that person the next one for the poison chalice.
>
> You can get 14/1 on BF.
No thanks. I've bought my quota of lottery tickets for the month.
> > @OllyT said:
> > > @isam said:
> > > A lot of seemingly clever analysts on twitter are showing the turnout is very bad for Leave... when I mildly questioned it on here I was patronised to within an inch of my life, but it does seem obvious...
> > >
> > > are the Lib Dems a good bet at 40s??
> >
> > I'm not really looking for who beats who tomorrow night, I want to see what percentage of the electorate are incensed enough by the by the Brexit "betrayal" to have come out to voter for Farage or UKIP. My guess is that it will be in the 10-15% range and if that is the case it hardly suggests that that country is on the verge of the civil disorder that some would try to have us believe.
>
> Indeed - and the mere fact that no more than 40% have bothered to vote clearly suggests that Brexit is not an issue gripping the attention of the electorate in the way the commentariat would have us believe.
Exactly the argument many Europhiles on here used to make about the EU as an issue prior to the referendum. Remember "don't give a monkeys"?
How did that work out for you?