Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
The strong support for Kendall in 2015 and Rory Stewart now and the fact the median PBer is a Remainer
This is nowhere near evidence that PBers "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs". It might be duboius evidence that PBers are basically LDs. The original claim is blatantly anti-democratic.
The median PBer dislikes Corbyn and dislikes Boris, the 2 candidates for the 2 main parties who also happen and happened to be furthest away from the LDs
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
Given the dramatic age profile, I suspect you are wrong. There aren't many "rich" young people.
The top 10% constituencies heavily backed Remain. Support for Remain/Leave didn't vary much among the other 90%.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
Hillary also got less than 50% and outside the coasts Trump won comfortably and over 300 EC votes
Huh? Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, Missisippi and the Carolinas are all coastal states.
The only non coastal state Hillary won was Illinois
Also if votes rather than states mattered then both parties would have adopted different campaign strategies. Under a simple vote count, Hilary may have one by a landslide, equally Trump may still have just scraped in.
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
It depends on what you mean by rich. Retired homeowners were strongly Leave, and have secured their wealth. Millenials may well have higher incomes, but also higher outgoings and often little capital, and strongly Remain.
Age and assets are quite heavily correlated in the UK.
Rich is living in Aldenham East, whereas comfortably off is living in Bushey Park.
I'm not sure. Unless HIGNFY is entirely scripted - and it isn't - he is extremely gifted at thinking on his feet. I would back myself in a live debate with Corbyn, but I'd concede immediately to Johnson. As for debates, provided you actually turn up to them they don't change minds, they largely just confirm the prejudices of the audience. The only *losing* strategy is not to play - a principle we might describe as May's Law.
Presiding over a TV show with a silenced audience is hardly the comparison, though, is it? I'd expect someone as you describe to revel in the chance to take on his (or her) opponents and demonstrate their grip and ability. Like Mrs T, Blair, or his hero Churchill. Yet Boris spent his mayoralty trying to dodge and avoid any scrutiny and is now doing the same with the media and his colleagues.
It is surely weaknesses that he is trying to hide - not strengths?
I take your point about hiding in this campaign. I think he'll do fine at PMQs, esp against Corbyn, and no PM ever suffered very much from being bad at PMQs anyway - look at Brown and May.
That list could also be consistent with Boris being an out and out wanker who goes for the easy laugh
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
That is setting the bar for being a racist way too high: basically if you're not Enoch Powell or a member of Combat-18 it's just bantz. You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist. But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
Aside from Women the other groups hardly vote for the Tories in any case so I don’t see it as a vote loser for Johnson. Priti Patel (remember her?) was on the Today programme this morning arguing that Boris’s letterboxes were out of context and he was arguing that Women should wear what they want and that made him a feminist!
My personal view on racism is that we are in a difficult position. Sometimes we may make comments about something we don’t fully understand, and may offend in the course of normal discourse. I find it hard to believe that is racism. Boris approaches my next line which is where something is said to deliberately provoke, and in a social media age this is breached all the time. Obviously by degree direct abuse, violence and discrimination seem to be the worst things and are clearly racist.
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
Given the dramatic age profile, I suspect you are wrong. There aren't many "rich" young people.
The top 10% constituencies heavily backed Remain. Support for Remain/Leave didn't vary much among the other 90%.
Nevertheless it's a fact that the elderly mostly have the wealth and mostly voted leave.
An explanation which is hard to square with how Streatham voted last time: Labour 38,000 Conservative 12,000 LibDems 3,500
The LibDems barely got more votes than Plaid Cymru and they don't stand in South London.
You could argue that Chuka joined the LibDems to make it easier to get a winnable seat in the future but that would imply a greater degree of foresight than the former TIGger and CUKer has shown so far.
Lib Dems have a team behind their candidates that Chuk lacked.
An explanation which is hard to square with how Streatham voted last time: Labour 38,000 Conservative 12,000 LibDems 3,500
The LibDems barely got more votes than Plaid Cymru and they don't stand in South London.
You could argue that Chuka joined the LibDems to make it easier to get a winnable seat in the future but that would imply a greater degree of foresight than the former TIGger and CUKer has shown so far.
But in 2010 the Lib Dems came close to beating Chuka, they have held a large number of council seats in Streatham in the past (though none now) and Lambeth showed one of the biggest swings to the Lib Dems at the European elections. I live in Chuka's constituency and I think he would have a pretty good chance as a Lib Dem, especially if Labour choose a candidate who supports Corbyn's fence sitting on Brexit. However he has a poor reputation as a constituency MP, in the past his office was notoriously disorganised and his erratic political journey will count against him.
He is a leader in search of a party, perhaps the Lib Dems will prove to be that party but I somehow doubt it.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
Of course - Trump won fair and square, there's no way round that. My only argument is with the notion that he was the president most Americans wanted. He clearly wasn't. And even if most Americans want to change the constitution, they can't - the hurdle for doing it is way higher than a simple majority. That is probably a good thing, though.
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
Hillary also got less than 50% and outside the coasts Trump won comfortably and over 300 EC votes
What percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states? I'm guessing about 30%.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, came 3rd and under AV or 3nd ballot more of his voters may well have gone for Trump than Hillary
I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
It depends on what you mean by rich. Retired homeowners were strongly Leave, and have secured their wealth. Millenials may well have higher incomes, but also higher outgoings and often little capital, and strongly Remain.
Age and assets are quite heavily correlated in the UK.
The Rich usually means people richer than you are and can hope to be.
Anecdote warning: One of my extended family has a very jaundiced view of politics, voted leave, and 'just wants it done', etc. He is originally from 'The North' (Yorkshire), identifies very strongly that he is a salt-of-the-earth type, not like those "rich bastards", etc.
When I pointed out the other day that he has what most people consider a privileged lifestyle (job for life in local government, decent pension, loads of holiday, owns his own house, two children who have been able to get on the property ladder) he got extremely shirty with me.
I think a lot of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s are similar to him. To use the vernacular, they don't know they are born, they have no clue how much they owe to a society that allowed them to amass wealth in the late 20th / early 21st century - but somehow they see themselves as 'victims' and have somehow been 'left behind'. Not sure whether that's insidious nature of late-stage capitalism where we are constantly being told 'you need more' and thus are kept in a permanent state of FOMO and unsatisfaction, but the reality gap is staggering.
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
You might have a point, had any of these leading politicians actually been "caught", and taken the consequences - and then advocated zero tolerance for the rest of us.
Wealthy in a British upper middle class way is not worrying about driving an aged Subaru Outback held together with baler twine and with spaniels destroying the inside. Wealthy in, say, new money Cheshire, means owning a box fresh never seen (or will see mud) Range Rover Evoque, being orange and advertising one’s wealth at every opportunity.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
Of course - Trump won fair and square, there's no way round that. My only argument is with the notion that he was the president most Americans wanted. He clearly wasn't. And even if most Americans want to change the constitution, they can't - the hurdle for doing it is way higher than a simple majority. That is probably a good thing, though.
The bottom line is that the Americans got their idiot by voting for him (if through a flawed system) whereas ours looks like he will be thrust upon us.
His minders can hinder Johnson from making a tit of himself during the Tory leadership contest, but they cannot change his basic personality. Once elected, the inner-Boris will out. The man is a buffoon.
Yes, his victory is inevitable as long as the minders succeed in protecting him from himself,
No, he is not a vote winner, because the finest minders in the world cannot erect an impregnable barrier around him.
He’s only a winner because people are assuming name recognition in polling as something more than that. Come any election and the truth will quickly be revealed.
Boris will crash and burn like May during a GE, but unlike May his denouement will come pre-GE. He won’t survive PMQs or the most rudimentary journalist quizzing without the truth being revealed.
What on earth are Conservative MPs thinking?
Yes, that's right, he will wilt under the forensic questioning of the Leader of the Opposition... Oh.
For all May's faults Corbyn hasn't managed to cause her too much difficulty at PMQs. I'm confident that a few, well-delivered, in-jokes from Johnson will cheer his backbenches sufficiently to see him safely through PMQs.
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
It depends on what you mean by rich. Retired homeowners were strongly Leave, and have secured their wealth. Millenials may well have higher incomes, but also higher outgoings and often little capital, and strongly Remain.
Age and assets are quite heavily correlated in the UK.
The Rich usually means people richer than you are and can hope to be.
Anecdote warning: One of my extended family has a very jaundiced view of politics, voted leave, and 'just wants it done', etc. He is originally from 'The North' (Yorkshire), identifies very strongly that he is a salt-of-the-earth type, not like those "rich bastards", etc.
When I pointed out the other day that he has what most people consider a privileged lifestyle (job for life in local government, decent pension, loads of holiday, owns his own house, two children who have been able to get on the property ladder) he got extremely shirty with me.
I think a lot of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s are similar to him. To use the vernacular, they don't know they are born, they have no clue how much they owe to a society that allowed them to amass wealth in the late 20th / early 21st century - but somehow they see themselves as 'victims' and have somehow been 'left behind'. Not sure whether that's insidious nature of late-stage capitalism where we are constantly being told 'you need more' and thus are kept in a permanent state of FOMO and unsatisfaction, but the reality gap is staggering.
Yep. It is the denial of the same opportunity to those following in our footsteps that is the scandal of our age. And yet we fail to understand why people back Corbyn.
Wealthy in a British upper middle class way is not worrying about driving an aged Subaru Outback held together with baler twine and with spaniels destroying the inside. Wealthy in, say, new money Cheshire, means owning a box fresh never seen (or will see mud) Range Rover Evoque, being orange and advertising one’s wealth at every opportunity.
13% of households now have £1m + assets (including pensions ) so that probably £1m doesn't count as rich. Perhaps £2m?
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
Hillary also got less than 50% and outside the coasts Trump won comfortably and over 300 EC votes
What percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states? I'm guessing about 30%.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, came 3rd and under AV or 3nd ballot more of his voters may well have gone for Trump than Hillary
I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
Hillary also got less than 50% and outside the coasts Trump won comfortably and over 300 EC votes
What percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states? I'm guessing about 30%.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, came 3rd and under AV or 3nd ballot more of his voters may well have gone for Trump than Hillary
I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
DoTexas or Mississippi count as a coastal states for this tally or is it only east and west coasts which matter? As somebody else implied, Illinois or Michigan? They’d have longer coastlines than, say, Belgium.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
Hillary also got less than 50% and outside the coasts Trump won comfortably and over 300 EC votes
What percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states? I'm guessing about 30%.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, came 3rd and under AV or 3nd ballot more of his voters may well have gone for Trump than Hillary
I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
DoTexas or Mississippi count as a coastal states for this tally or is it only east and west coasts which matter? As somebody else implied, Illinois or Michigan? They’d have longer coastlines than, say, Belgium.
Only if you include lakes but I was focused on bordering the oceans.
If you say Illinois is coastal Hillary only won Vermont, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico in the non coastal US
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
Hillary also got less than 50% and outside the coasts Trump won comfortably and over 300 EC votes
What percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states? I'm guessing about 30%.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, came 3rd and under AV or 3nd ballot more of his voters may well have gone for Trump than Hillary
I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
From the map you could argue that Illinois is as much a coastal state as is Bulgaria.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
Nothing more tedious than the phrase "virtue signalling".
I'm not sure. Unless HIGNFY is entirely scripted - and it isn't - he is extremely gifted at thinking on his feet. I would back myself in a live debate with Corbyn, but I'd concede immediately to Johnson. As for debates, provided you actually turn up to them they don't change minds, they largely just confirm the prejudices of the audience. The only *losing* strategy is not to play - a principle we might describe as May's Law.
Presiding over a TV show with a silenced audience is hardly the comparison, though, is it? I'd expect someone as you describe to revel in the chance to take on his (or her) opponents and demonstrate their grip and ability. Like Mrs T, Blair, or his hero Churchill. Yet Boris spent his mayoralty trying to dodge and avoid any scrutiny and is now doing the same with the media and his colleagues.
It is surely weaknesses that he is trying to hide - not strengths?
I take your point about hiding in this campaign. I think he'll do fine at PMQs, esp against Corbyn, and no PM ever suffered very much from being bad at PMQs anyway - look at Brown and May.
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
No idea but leaving aside the merits of the issue, Michael Gove is 51 so 20 years ago he was 31. This is not like David Cameron having the odd smoke at school, at half that age, when the term youthful indiscretion might have been appropriate.
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
You might have a point, had any of these leading politicians actually been "caught", and taken the consequences - and then advocated zero tolerance for the rest of us.
But the two happened as times changed and as they changed.
Leave beat Remain in 2016 under any measure you care to use, yet we are still in the EU, and people who moan about the unfairness of Trumps victory are not moaning about that
The referendum bound/advised the 2015 parliament. There was an election in 2017 - basic rule of our system is that no parliament can bind its successor. The 2017 parliament has proven incapable of agreeing any method of leaving the EU. The only solution to this is either to hold another referendum to instruct this parliament or hold a new election.
Where the "leave is democracy" argument falls down is that we've had an election since then.
The basic rule of politics is that we always get the correct result because thats what people chose to vote for. I know that I am a better person than my main opponent in the locals, but they won, we lost, so people get what they want.
Boris is all of the criticisms and accusations that get thrown at him. But so what if thats what people want. This was my point about the Trump visit - I may find him reprehensible but he was elected President so its not for me to say Americans are wrong if thats what they want.
Right now the Tory party has (largely) forgotten what "Conservative" means. If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
Though Trump received fewer votes than Clinton, and Johnson is probably about to become PM on the votes of perhaps a hundred thousand members of the Conservative party.
And if we really have three parties capable of contending for power at the next election, FPTP is wholly inadequate, if the aim of our democracy is to give voters what they want.
I've been an open advocate for STV and multi-member constituencies for 25 years. I am not arguing at all that FPTP is a good system. But democracy IS, even if sometimes we get interesting people elected.
An example. In the next town to me a man got elected to council who when he previously ran for UKIP declared that storms were God's response to Gay Marriage. As a recently out member of the LGBTetc community I find his comments to be stupid and pig ignorant.
But he won. Thats what local voters wanted. Are his pig ignorant views getting him elected his fault? Or the voters? People get what they vote for.
If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?
If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?
If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”
Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.
As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.
We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?
It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.
For decades the UK has been a net financial contributor to the EU, had net migration from the EU and run a trade deficit with the EU.
That's been the power politics reality of life in the EU.
Perhaps you could turn your ire on those politicians and Sir Humphreys who got the UK into that position.
It’s British people buying European goods and British manufacturers not selling enough British goods to Europeans who cause a trade deficit not the Sir Humphrey’s of this world.
Still, with a load of tariffs on our goods and no FTA, that should help matters, no?
Wealthy in a British upper middle class way is not worrying about driving an aged Subaru Outback held together with baler twine and with spaniels destroying the inside. Wealthy in, say, new money Cheshire, means owning a box fresh never seen (or will see mud) Range Rover Evoque, being orange and advertising one’s wealth at every opportunity.
13% of households now have £1m + assets (including pensions ) so that probably £1m doesn't count as rich. Perhaps £2m?
How about having enough income generating assets (ie not the house lived in) to fund an upper middle class lifestyle ?
I'm not sure. Unless HIGNFY is entirely scripted - and it isn't - he is extremely gifted at thinking on his feet. I would back myself in a live debate with Corbyn, but I'd concede immediately to Johnson. As for debates, provided you actually turn up to them they don't change minds, they largely just confirm the prejudices of the audience. The only *losing* strategy is not to play - a principle we might describe as May's Law.
Presiding over a TV show with a silenced audience is hardly the comparison, though, is it? I'd expect someone as you describe to revel in the chance to take on his (or her) opponents and demonstrate their grip and ability. Like Mrs T, Blair, or his hero Churchill. Yet Boris spent his mayoralty trying to dodge and avoid any scrutiny and is now doing the same with the media and his colleagues.
It is surely weaknesses that he is trying to hide - not strengths?
I take your point about hiding in this campaign. I think he'll do fine at PMQs, esp against Corbyn, and no PM ever suffered very much from being bad at PMQs anyway - look at Brown and May.
Being good at PMQs did Hague no good, for sure.
Being bad at PMQs destroyed IDS. Brown was OK. Theresa May was recently ranked the most evasive prime minister at PMQs since Pitt the Elder or the last few the researcher had to hand, and doubtless Boris would try to beat her record.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Them’s the rules for a Tory party leadership contest.
But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.
Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
It's a no brainer. If it was just for Tory leader, it doesn't matter what process they use or how secretive they want it to be, it's of no concern for the general public. The fact that whatever posh lad they hand the crown to becomes PM is most definitely of concern to us.
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
No idea but leaving aside the merits of the issue, Michael Gove is 51 so 20 years ago he was 31. This is not like David Cameron having the odd smoke at school, at half that age, when the term youthful indiscretion might have been appropriate.
So nobody changes between 30s and 50s?
How come Labour won the 2017 election as far as those in their 30s voted but those in the 50s voted Tory?
31 year olds are closer to 18 year olds both numerically and by voting than they are to 51 year olds.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
Leave beat Remain in 2016 under any measure you care to use, yet we are still in the EU, and people who moan about the unfairness of Trumps victory are not moaning about that
Leave beat remain on a possibly false prospectus that we would leave with a deal. We got a deal and the ERG et al decided that wasn't pure enough. There is no correlation with the situation in the US, a the US electorate have the opportunity to reverse what some would say was a dumb decision in a comparatively short time frame. POTUS is not for life.
Blimey, John Major really giving it both barrels on the idea or proroguing parliament. If there is one politician who has consistently gone up in my estimation over time it is him.
“I don’t think anybody who proposes that, or even let it flit through their mind for a second, has any understanding of what parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about, or what the UK is about and the sooner the House of Commons stamps on the idea absolutely, comprehensibly and forever, the better.”
Wealthy in a British upper middle class way is not worrying about driving an aged Subaru Outback held together with baler twine and with spaniels destroying the inside. Wealthy in, say, new money Cheshire, means owning a box fresh never seen (or will see mud) Range Rover Evoque, being orange and advertising one’s wealth at every opportunity.
13% of households now have £1m + assets (including pensions ) so that probably £1m doesn't count as rich. Perhaps £2m?
The top 13% are nearly all in the top 10% you mean? You'd probably need to look at the shape of the graph and see if there is an inflection point near the top.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
Leave beat Remain in 2016 under any measure you care to use, yet we are still in the EU, and people who moan about the unfairness of Trumps victory are not moaning about that
Leave beat remain on a possibly false prospectus that we would leave with a deal. We got a deal and the ERG et al decided that wasn't pure enough. There is no correlation with the situation in the US, a the US electorate have the opportunity to reverse what some would say was a dumb decision in a comparatively short time frame. POTUS is not for life.
Leave is not for life either. Even if we leave on Halloween (unlikely according to Betfair) there will be a new General Election no later than May 2022 and a party could be elected then pledging to rejoin.
As we should still have pretty much the full Acquis Communitaire (and it shouldn't be difficult to reverse any divergence) it is very plausible we could be back in within less than 4 years. If the people vote that way at an election.
Blimey, John Major really giving it both barrels on the idea or proroguing parliament. If there is one politician who has consistently gone up in my estimation over time it is him.
“I don’t think anybody who proposes that, or even let it flit through their mind for a second, has any understanding of what parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about, or what the UK is about and the sooner the House of Commons stamps on the idea absolutely, comprehensibly and forever, the better.”
Voice from a lost age before politicians became totally deranged about Brexit.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
I see like your fellow SCons that you're accommodating the new reality. Disappointing.
Perhaps the ott eulogising of Boris is directly responsible for the over the top nonsense. I don't think I've seen such top notch arslikhan since the first flowering of Ruthiemania.
If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?
If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?
If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”
Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.
As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.
We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?
It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.
For decades the UK has been a net financial contributor to the EU, had net migration from the EU and run a trade deficit with the EU.
That's been the power politics reality of life in the EU.
Perhaps you could turn your ire on those politicians and Sir Humphreys who got the UK into that position.
It’s British people buying European goods and British manufacturers not selling enough British goods to Europeans who cause a trade deficit not the Sir Humphrey’s of this world.
Still, with a load of tariffs on our goods and no FTA, that should help matters, no?
An FTA would be economically beneficial
But it’s not the be all and end all
It will be more economically beneficial then the consequences of trying to trade tariff free with the EU without a FTA...
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
How about speeding while he was in his early thirties and writing articles about how speeding laws should be toughened up and implying people who speed have moral failings?
In an odd way Rory Stewart reminds me of the description of Edward Heath in Alan Clark's history of the Tories.
In that book Heath is described as travelling around meeting voters and saying something like: "As I go round the country it's clear that people want an entirely different type of politics. They're more interested in the way we might do things, rather than what we actually do." That was Heath in about 1970. That sounds very similar to what Rory has been saying as he walks around talking to people.
This line that Gove at 31 wasn't young compared to Gove at 51 is utterly absurd.
Even when May had over 20% leads in the polls at the start of the campaign, Corbyn was leading amongst 31 year olds, the tipping point was 34. Even after May's appalling floundering in the campaign threw away her majority she won amongst 51 year olds, the tipping point was 47.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
Leave beat Remain in 2016 under any measure you care to use, yet we are still in the EU, and people who moan about the unfairness of Trumps victory are not moaning about that
Leave beat remain on a possibly false prospectus that we would leave with a deal. We got a deal and the ERG et al decided that wasn't pure enough. There is no correlation with the situation in the US, a the US electorate have the opportunity to reverse what some would say was a dumb decision in a comparatively short time frame. POTUS is not for life.
Leave is not for life either. Even if we leave on Halloween (unlikely according to Betfair) there will be a new General Election no later than May 2022 and a party could be elected then pledging to rejoin.
As we should still have pretty much the full Acquis Communitaire (and it shouldn't be difficult to reverse any divergence) it is very plausible we could be back in within less than 4 years. If the people vote that way at an election.
Seems an awful lot of grief to go through, when we could have the vote now and skip straight to the end.
Leave beat Remain in 2016 under any measure you care to use, yet we are still in the EU, and people who moan about the unfairness of Trumps victory are not moaning about that
The referendum bound/advised the 2015 parliament. There was an election in 2017 - basic rule of our system is that no parliament can bind its successor. The 2017 parliament has proven incapable of agreeing any method of leaving the EU. The only solution to this is either to hold another referendum to instruct this parliament or hold a new election.
Where the "leave is democracy" argument falls down is that we've had an election since then.
An election where people like, Soubry, Umunna, Allen & Grieve were elected on a platform of honouring and implementing the referendum result
I'm not sure. Unless HIGNFY is entirely scripted - and it isn't - he is extremely gifted at thinking on his feet. I would back myself in a live debate with Corbyn, but I'd concede immediately to Johnson. As for debates, provided you actually turn up to them they don't change minds, they largely just confirm the prejudices of the audience. The only *losing* strategy is not to play - a principle we might describe as May's Law.
Presiding over a TV show with a silenced audience is hardly the comparison, though, is it? I'd expect someone as you describe to revel in the chance to take on his (or her) opponents and demonstrate their grip and ability. Like Mrs T, Blair, or his hero Churchill. Yet Boris spent his mayoralty trying to dodge and avoid any scrutiny and is now doing the same with the media and his colleagues.
It is surely weaknesses that he is trying to hide - not strengths?
I take your point about hiding in this campaign. I think he'll do fine at PMQs, esp against Corbyn, and no PM ever suffered very much from being bad at PMQs anyway - look at Brown and May.
Being good at PMQs did Hague no good, for sure.
Being bad at PMQs destroyed IDS. Brown was OK. Theresa May was recently ranked the most evasive prime minister at PMQs since Pitt the Elder or the last few the researcher had to hand, and doubtless Boris would try to beat her record.
Indeed. And there were plenty of other reasons why IDS failed.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
I see like your fellow SCons that you're accommodating the new reality. Disappointing.
Perhaps the ott eulogising of Boris is directly responsible for the over the top nonsense. I don't think I've seen such top notch arslikhan since the first flowering of Ruthiemania.
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
No idea but leaving aside the merits of the issue, Michael Gove is 51 so 20 years ago he was 31. This is not like David Cameron having the odd smoke at school, at half that age, when the term youthful indiscretion might have been appropriate.
So nobody changes between 30s and 50s?
How come Labour won the 2017 election as far as those in their 30s voted but those in the 50s voted Tory?
31 year olds are closer to 18 year olds both numerically and by voting than they are to 51 year olds.
Stop knee-jerking and read what I said, which was merely to point out that whatever Gove did get up to, it was hardly a youthful indiscretion as the propagandists would have it.
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
You might have a point, had any of these leading politicians actually been "caught", and taken the consequences - and then advocated zero tolerance for the rest of us.
But the two happened as times changed and as they changed.
Are you the same person you were 20 years ago?
I should be in parliament, as I seem to be a rare example of someone who never got anywhere near drugs.
If I had done so, and been caught and punished, I'd feel it was reasonable to advocate zero tolerance and stiff penalties for others. But if I had done so and got away with it, I'd feel doing the same was pretty shabby.
That list could also be consistent with Boris being an out and out wanker who goes for the easy laugh
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
That is setting the bar for being a racist way too high: basically if you're not Enoch Powell or a member of Combat-18 it's just bantz. You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist. But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
It’s your last part that’s key
I think that Johnson just picks on the weakest target in front of him. He doesn’t care whether the target is black, white, fat, thin, Scouse or whatever. That makes him a bully rather than a racist
Blimey, John Major really giving it both barrels on the idea or proroguing parliament. If there is one politician who has consistently gone up in my estimation over time it is him.
“I don’t think anybody who proposes that, or even let it flit through their mind for a second, has any understanding of what parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about, or what the UK is about and the sooner the House of Commons stamps on the idea absolutely, comprehensibly and forever, the better.”
Voice from a lost age before politicians became totally deranged about Brexit.
The man who put interest rates up to 15% to try to keep the UK in the ERM.
Plus pissing away billions of the foreign exchange markets in the same cause.
Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
The strong support for Kendall in 2015 and Rory Stewart now and the fact the median PBer is a Remainer
The median person is now a remainer. (even SeanT is having a go at being a remainer (if not very convincingly)
Blimey, John Major really giving it both barrels on the idea or proroguing parliament. If there is one politician who has consistently gone up in my estimation over time it is him.
“I don’t think anybody who proposes that, or even let it flit through their mind for a second, has any understanding of what parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about, or what the UK is about and the sooner the House of Commons stamps on the idea absolutely, comprehensibly and forever, the better.”
Must be tough for Dear John, beaten by the Bastards.....
That list could also be consistent with Boris being an out and out wanker who goes for the easy laugh
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
That is setting the bar for being a racist way too high: basically if you're not Enoch Powell or a member of Combat-18 it's just bantz. You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist. But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
It’s your last part that’s key
I think that Johnson just picks on the weakest target in front of him. He doesn’t care whether the target is black, white, fat, thin, Scouse or whatever. That makes him a bully rather than a racist
If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?
If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?
If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”
Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.
As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.
We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?
It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.
The difference between you and me, between committed Leavers and Remainers is I don't view them as the stronger party. Yes they have something we want. We have something they want. Therefore a reasonable deal should be possible. If both sides acted in good faith a good deal would be rational.
What is screwing things up and is unreasonable is that on our side we are not saying they have something we want but rather people saying they have something we must get rather than want, meaning they are not acting in good faith.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
How about speeding while he was in his early thirties and writing articles about how speeding laws should be toughened up and implying people who speed have moral failings?
Would be reasonable. People can be self-aware that they have moral failings. Do you view yourself or others as morally perfect all the time?
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
Leave beat Remain in 2016 under any measure you care to use, yet we are still in the EU, and people who moan about the unfairness of Trumps victory are not moaning about that
Leave beat remain on a possibly false prospectus that we would leave with a deal. We got a deal and the ERG et al decided that wasn't pure enough. There is no correlation with the situation in the US, a the US electorate have the opportunity to reverse what some would say was a dumb decision in a comparatively short time frame. POTUS is not for life.
Leave is not for life either. Even if we leave on Halloween (unlikely according to Betfair) there will be a new General Election no later than May 2022 and a party could be elected then pledging to rejoin.
As we should still have pretty much the full Acquis Communitaire (and it shouldn't be difficult to reverse any divergence) it is very plausible we could be back in within less than 4 years. If the people vote that way at an election.
Seems an awful lot of grief to go through, when we could have the vote now and skip straight to the end.
You could have said that in January 2017 about bringing forward the Nov 2020 election. Doesn't work that way though.
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
Given the dramatic age profile, I suspect you are wrong. There aren't many "rich" young people.
The top 10% constituencies heavily backed Remain. Support for Remain/Leave didn't vary much among the other 90%.
Nevertheless it's a fact that the elderly mostly have the wealth and mostly voted leave.
Over 75 voters were less strongly in favour of Brexit than those slightly younger.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
That list could also be consistent with Boris being an out and out wanker who goes for the easy laugh
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
That is setting the bar for being a racist way too high: basically if you're not Enoch Powell or a member of Combat-18 it's just bantz. You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist. But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
It’s your last part that’s key
I think that Johnson just picks on the weakest target in front of him. He doesn’t care whether the target is black, white, fat, thin, Scouse or whatever. That makes him a bully rather than a racist
Sounds like Bernard Manning!
I still vaguely remember him on Parkinson defending the charge that he was a racist. He said (I paraphrase, and use letters to denote one minority or another):
"Actually I really am not a racist. I love everyone. I wish all the As and Bs and Cs and Ds would come together to be as one big friendly group...[pause]...and beat up the Es."
Bloody funny, literally unrepeatable now and proved one point or another although I'm not sure what point it was.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
If he's as bad as Gordon Brown who was foisted upon us, he may have a point. Boris might be bad, he might surprise on the upside. We'll find out. Gordon Brown we know - he was a walking shitfest. We are all still paying for his tenure as Chancellor and PM. What say did I have in his appointment?
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
No idea but leaving aside the merits of the issue, Michael Gove is 51 so 20 years ago he was 31. This is not like David Cameron having the odd smoke at school, at half that age, when the term youthful indiscretion might have been appropriate.
So nobody changes between 30s and 50s?
How come Labour won the 2017 election as far as those in their 30s voted but those in the 50s voted Tory?
31 year olds are closer to 18 year olds both numerically and by voting than they are to 51 year olds.
Stop knee-jerking and read what I said, which was merely to point out that whatever Gove did get up to, it was hardly a youthful indiscretion as the propagandists would have it.
If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?
If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?
If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”
Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.
As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.
We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?
It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.
The difference between you and me, between committed Leavers and Remainers is I don't view them as the stronger party. Yes they have something we want. We have something they want. Therefore a reasonable deal should be possible. If both sides acted in good faith a good deal would be rational.
What is screwing things up and is unreasonable is that on our side we are not saying they have something we want but rather people saying they have something we must get rather than want, meaning they are not acting in good faith.
Even if you were right, then given that we are a divided nation with a hung parliament that is not going to negotiate with your faith, surely you can see that our internal disagreement alone makes the EU the stronger party?
So your side either needs to get more people on board (some clues - dont divide people into leavers/remainers, dont call us citizens of nowhere, side with moderate rather than extreme leave voices), or the EU will be the strong party due to our division and Cylcefree's observations stand.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
OT a calendar-maker rues HMG's late change to next year's bank holiday as 400,000 calendars had already been printed with the original date. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48631198
That list could also be consistent with Boris being an out and out wanker who goes for the easy laugh
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
That is setting the bar for being a racist way too high: basically if you're not Enoch Powell or a member of Combat-18 it's just bantz. You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist. But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
It’s your last part that’s key
I think that Johnson just picks on the weakest target in front of him. He doesn’t care whether the target is black, white, fat, thin, Scouse or whatever. That makes him a bully rather than a racist
Sounds like Bernard Manning!
I still vaguely remember him on Parkinson defending the charge that he was a racist. He said (I paraphrase, and use letters to denote one minority or another):
Actually I really am not a racist. I love everyone. I wish all the As and Bs and Cs and Ds would come together to be as one big friendly group...[pause]...and beat up the Es.
Bloody funny, literally unrepeatable now and proved one point or another although I'm not sure what point it was.
Unsurprisingly I am quite a big fan of his. He did a bit about Terry Waite and the Archbishop of Canterbury that was hilarious. This is my fav
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
Hillary also got less than 50% and outside the coasts Trump won comfortably and over 300 EC votes
What percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states? I'm guessing about 30%.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, came 3rd and under AV or 3nd ballot more of his voters may well have gone for Trump than Hillary
I'm just curious about what percentage of the US population live outside the coastal states. "Coastal States" is a commonly used phrase. I guess a non-coastal state is a fly-over or out in the sticks. I'm trying to educate myself in things American.
Thanks. That's an interesting link. But it refers to coastal counties rather than coastal states. So less than 48%. Maybe 40%. Still more than I expected. Good pub quiz night question. Maybe not.
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
Given the dramatic age profile, I suspect you are wrong. There aren't many "rich" young people.
The top 10% constituencies heavily backed Remain. Support for Remain/Leave didn't vary much among the other 90%.
Nevertheless it's a fact that the elderly mostly have the wealth and mostly voted leave.
Over 75 voters were less strongly in favour of Brexit than those slightly younger.
Household wealth peaks at 65-74. 75+ are closer in wealth to 45-54 than 55-74.
So the wealthy age demographics correlate very strongly with the leave vote, neglibible at the 16-24 group, increasing to 65-74 and then decreasing a bit.
It "feels" like those who already have wealth and those who will probably never have it want to leave. Those who need the economy to work and will earn future wealth want to remain.
That list could also be consistent with Boris being an out and out wanker who goes for the easy laugh
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
That is setting the bar for being a racist way too high: basically if you're not Enoch Powell or a member of Combat-18 it's just bantz. You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist. But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
It’s your last part that’s key
I think that Johnson just picks on the weakest target in front of him. He doesn’t care whether the target is black, white, fat, thin, Scouse or whatever. That makes him a bully rather than a racist
Sounds like Bernard Manning!
I still vaguely remember him on Parkinson defending the charge that he was a racist. He said (I paraphrase, and use letters to denote one minority or another):
Actually I really am not a racist. I love everyone. I wish all the As and Bs and Cs and Ds would come together to be as one big friendly group...[pause]...and beat up the Es.
Bloody funny, literally unrepeatable now and proved one point or another although I'm not sure what point it was.
Unsurprisingly I am quite a big fan of his. He did a bit about Terry Waite and the Archbishop of Canterbury that was hilarious. This is my fav
I'm not sure. Unless HIGNFY is entirely scripted - and it isn't - he is extremely gifted at thinking on his feet. I would back myself in a live debate with Corbyn, but I'd concede immediately to Johnson. As for debates, provided you actually turn up to them they don't change minds, they largely just confirm the prejudices of the audience. The only *losing* strategy is not to play - a principle we might describe as May's Law.
Presiding over a TV show with a silenced audience is hardly the comparison, though, is it? I'd expect someone as you describe to revel in the chance to take on his (or her) opponents and demonstrate their grip and ability. Like Mrs T, Blair, or his hero Churchill. Yet Boris spent his mayoralty trying to dodge and avoid any scrutiny and is now doing the same with the media and his colleagues.
It is surely weaknesses that he is trying to hide - not strengths?
I take your point about hiding in this campaign. I think he'll do fine at PMQs, esp against Corbyn, and no PM ever suffered very much from being bad at PMQs anyway - look at Brown and May.
Being good at PMQs did Hague no good, for sure.
Being bad at PMQs destroyed IDS. Brown was OK. Theresa May was recently ranked the most evasive prime minister at PMQs since Pitt the Elder or the last few the researcher had to hand, and doubtless Boris would try to beat her record.
Being IDS destroyed IDS. I don't remember any specifics from PMQs except him being creepily consensual about Iraq, whereas the glorious "quiet man" speeches to conference are etched upon my mind.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Them’s the rules for a Tory party leadership contest.
But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.
Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
James Callaghan was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Wilson retired. Gordon Brown was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Blair resigned. Any demand for an immediate election for the voters to endorse either of them was ignored.
It's the system. Want it changed? Get elected....
I give you Boris Johnson's words from 2007:
"It is the arrogance. It is the contempt. That is what gets me. It's Gordon Brown's apparent belief that he can trample on the democratic will of the British people. It's at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting a gigantic fraud... They voted for Tony, and they now get Gordon, and a transition about as democratically proper as the transition from Claudius to Nero. It is a scandal. Why are we all conniving in this stitch up? This is nothing less than a palace coup... No one elected Gordon Brown as Prime Minister."
Boris likely will face a membership vote unlike Brown
I wasn't commenting upon whether I agreed with Boris or not. Just pointing out what he said that some might find a smidge hypocritical.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
If he's as bad as Gordon Brown who was foisted upon us, he may have a point. Boris might be bad, he might surprise on the upside. We'll find out. Gordon Brown we know - he was a walking shitfest. We are all still paying for his tenure as Chancellor and PM. What say did I have in his appointment?
I recall that you had a lot to say about it at the time on here.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
It depends. If he said speeders should face seven year jail terms and be banned from teaching yes that would be hypocritical and low, especially as we know young people are more likely to speed and once he is past that stage of his life he wants to impose far stricter standards on others than he thinks is right for himself.
He does not think he should have gone to prison for seven years, but is happy for other people to do so for the same offence.
If he increased a speeding fine from £100 to £150 or changed the limit from 60mph to 55mph those are on a completely different scale and I would not see a hypocrisy problem.
Comments
Corbyn is NOT an anti semite Boris is NOT a racist.
Corbyn has integrity Boris has none.
Corbyn would destroy the economy. Boris wouldn't.
Corbyn would side with the Angels. Boris with the Devil
Who would you prefer as PM?
Unfortunately there can only be one answer.........
My personal view on racism is that we are in a difficult position. Sometimes we may make comments about something we don’t fully understand, and may offend in the course of normal discourse. I find it hard to believe that is racism. Boris approaches my next line which is where something is said to deliberately provoke, and in a social media age this is breached all the time. Obviously by degree direct abuse, violence and discrimination seem to be the worst things and are clearly racist.
He is a leader in search of a party, perhaps the Lib Dems will prove to be that party but I somehow doubt it.
The headline writers will portray Boris as the Goliath figure and we will have
"Javid v Goliath"
When I pointed out the other day that he has what most people consider a privileged lifestyle (job for life in local government, decent pension, loads of holiday, owns his own house, two children who have been able to get on the property ladder) he got extremely shirty with me.
I think a lot of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s are similar to him. To use the vernacular, they don't know they are born, they have no clue how much they owe to a society that allowed them to amass wealth in the late 20th / early 21st century - but somehow they see themselves as 'victims' and have somehow been 'left behind'. Not sure whether that's insidious nature of late-stage capitalism where we are constantly being told 'you need more' and thus are kept in a permanent state of FOMO and unsatisfaction, but the reality gap is staggering.
Who knew......
@Sean_F,
Wealthy in a British upper middle class way is not worrying about driving an aged Subaru Outback held together with baler twine and with spaniels destroying the inside. Wealthy in, say, new money Cheshire, means owning a box fresh never seen (or will see mud) Range Rover Evoque, being orange and advertising one’s wealth at every opportunity.
We have no right to say that a democratically elected leader of another country isn’t a proper leader. The voters have chosen them.
You have the right to criticise your own democratically elected leader as you have standing in the situation
For all May's faults Corbyn hasn't managed to cause her too much difficulty at PMQs. I'm confident that a few, well-delivered, in-jokes from Johnson will cheer his backbenches sufficiently to see him safely through PMQs.
https://www.livescience.com/18997-population-coastal-areas-infographic.html
Stewart will not pull out as he wants to be in the debate. But his campaign should end on Tuesday hopefully.
If you say Illinois is coastal Hillary only won Vermont, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico in the non coastal US
Are you the same person you were 20 years ago?
Where the "leave is democracy" argument falls down is that we've had an election since then.
But it’s not the be all and end all
How come Labour won the 2017 election as far as those in their 30s voted but those in the 50s voted Tory?
31 year olds are closer to 18 year olds both numerically and by voting than they are to 51 year olds.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/13/john-major-tory-candidates-trying-to-force-brexit-gold-plated-hypocrites
“I don’t think anybody who proposes that, or even let it flit through their mind for a second, has any understanding of what parliament is about, what sovereignty is about, what leadership is about, or what the UK is about and the sooner the House of Commons stamps on the idea absolutely, comprehensibly and forever, the better.”
As we should still have pretty much the full Acquis Communitaire (and it shouldn't be difficult to reverse any divergence) it is very plausible we could be back in within less than 4 years. If the people vote that way at an election.
Perhaps the ott eulogising of Boris is directly responsible for the over the top nonsense. I don't think I've seen such top notch arslikhan since the first flowering of Ruthiemania.
https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1139118098290794497
In that book Heath is described as travelling around meeting voters and saying something like: "As I go round the country it's clear that people want an entirely different type of politics. They're more interested in the way we might do things, rather than what we actually do." That was Heath in about 1970. That sounds very similar to what Rory has been saying as he walks around talking to people.
Even when May had over 20% leads in the polls at the start of the campaign, Corbyn was leading amongst 31 year olds, the tipping point was 34. Even after May's appalling floundering in the campaign threw away her majority she won amongst 51 year olds, the tipping point was 47.
31 != 51
If I had done so, and been caught and punished, I'd feel it was reasonable to advocate zero tolerance and stiff penalties for others. But if I had done so and got away with it, I'd feel doing the same was pretty shabby.
I think that Johnson just picks on the weakest target in front of him. He doesn’t care whether the target is black, white, fat, thin, Scouse or whatever. That makes him a bully rather than a racist
Plus pissing away billions of the foreign exchange markets in the same cause.
What is screwing things up and is unreasonable is that on our side we are not saying they have something we want but rather people saying they have something we must get rather than want, meaning they are not acting in good faith.
https://twitter.com/philippullman/status/1139197896530759681?s=21
Saying the elected leader does not represent them is fine. Proroguing parliament is the real contempt for democracy.
"Actually I really am not a racist. I love everyone. I wish all the As and Bs and Cs and Ds would come together to be as one big friendly group...[pause]...and beat up the Es."
Bloody funny, literally unrepeatable now and proved one point or another although I'm not sure what point it was.
Where do you draw the line on youthful?
So your side either needs to get more people on board (some clues - dont divide people into leavers/remainers, dont call us citizens of nowhere, side with moderate rather than extreme leave voices), or the EU will be the strong party due to our division and Cylcefree's observations stand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48631198
https://youtu.be/RhYPVHSMgao
"He's shown that he has the credentials to become the leader of the internal Tory opposition to Mr Johnson."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7139833/PETER-OBORNE-dead-cert-rivals-admire-house-trained-Nigel-Farage.html
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.159344610
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/adhocs/008149distributionofaggregatehouseholdtotalwealthbyageandwealthcomponentgreatbritainjuly2012tojune2016
So the wealthy age demographics correlate very strongly with the leave vote, neglibible at the 16-24 group, increasing to 65-74 and then decreasing a bit.
It "feels" like those who already have wealth and those who will probably never have it want to leave. Those who need the economy to work and will earn future wealth want to remain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5cS0bZiJ1Q
What happens if rain interrupts play?
A large majority of the US public want stricter gun controls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
He does not think he should have gone to prison for seven years, but is happy for other people to do so for the same offence.
If he increased a speeding fine from £100 to £150 or changed the limit from 60mph to 55mph those are on a completely different scale and I would not see a hypocrisy problem.