Mr. Roger, Corbyn habitually sides against the UK, regardless of whether others agree (in this case, perhaps) or almost no-one does (the novichok poisoning).
How we won the Cold War is a bit of a mystery. Much of Europe's population was anti-US back then, as well.
Also presumably a mystery why the middle east is such a monumental, largely US led clustefuck, given much of Europe's population is anti-US in that regard. Perhaps the take away is that the US does what it wants regardless of support or opposition (though we might retain an iota of self respect by not going all poodly at the sound of our master's voice).
Of course the locals bear absolutely no responsibility for their regional troubles. It’s all the result of manipulation by the Americans. I think more highly of the Arab population than you do I suppose
'The Arab population'
I'm sure they're all very grateful for your hugely generalised good opinion. Any encouraging words for Arameans, Assyrians, Baloch, Berbers, Copts, Druze, Jews, Kurds, Lurs, Mandaeans, Persians, Samaritans, Shabaks, Tats, and Zazas?
Excellent header. I fear for this country now. The choice of PM seems to be Boris, Farage or Corbyn. Quite incredible. We have collectively taken leave of our senses.
No, we haven’t. It’s effective a game of poker between ordinary voters and the London focused leadership of the country
LFL: You can’t have a say on EU OV: Fine, we’ll vote UKIP LFL: Ok we’ll give you a referendum OV: we want to leave LFL: We’ll pretend but work to frustrate it LFL: See, it’s all too difficult. Let’s revoke OV: Sod off, we said leave LFL: but we can’t agree a deal OV: fine, no deal LFL: are you nuts? OV: just try us
In case you hadn’t noticed, for the last year polls have consistently shown that the public think that the decision to leave the EU was a mistake.
Prior to the referendum they also showed a majority for Remain
Moreover they reflect the front of mind not the considered view. In the face of unrelenting gloom from talking heads of course people are nervous.
But it all comes back to: we voted to leave. Parliament has consistently obstructed that.
Parliament is the servant of the people, not the master
So you are just listening to the voices in your head and deciding that is what the will of the people is, or should be.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
That really is anti-science. Opinion polls are imperfect but they are of more evidential weight than smoke blown out of the arse of someone whose views you just happen to agree with. All Charles has is hope. The will of the people in this case is just Charles’s will. And should be ignored as such.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Corbyn is of course completely right, and looks statesmanlike. If even our Government is not 100% certain Iran attacked these tankers, why are we banging the war drum once again? When did it become the thing to act, or threaten to act, without evidence? Hunt's tweet in response is weaselly - it's basically an admission that we should be 'backing' America (Lord knows why) without looking too hard at the evidence. And how British interests in the region are served by invading Iran remains a mystery best known to Jeremy Hunt.
Jezza’s problem is that he previously chose Putin’s theory on Salisbury over the Uk security services.
And previously Gerry Adams, the PLO etc etc . He probably hopes it wasn’t an American false flag - deep down he’s really hoping it was Mossad.
Who else could it be, other than Mossad?
You would think Mossad would be keeping a low profile after Lockerbie, 9-11, the Manchester arena attacks etc.
Corbyn is of course completely right, and looks statesmanlike. If even our Government is not 100% certain Iran attacked these tankers, why are we banging the war drum once again? When did it become the thing to act, or threaten to act, without evidence? Hunt's tweet in response is weaselly - it's basically an admission that we should be 'backing' America (Lord knows why) without looking too hard at the evidence. And how British interests in the region are served by invading Iran remains a mystery best known to Jeremy Hunt.
Jezza’s problem is that he previously chose Putin’s theory on Salisbury over the Uk security services.
And previously Gerry Adams, the PLO etc etc . He probably hopes it wasn’t an American false flag - deep down he’s really hoping it was Mossad.
He may lack credibility as a messenger, but personally I'm glad in this instance that the fates have seen fit to give him this platform, or once again, we'd see Government and opposition solemnly opining that Iran had clearly torpedoed Japanese tankers during a Japanese state visit, and comitting British blood and treasure to yet another American Middle East adventure.
The party already has had huge damage inflicted on it by extending in March after May promised for years Brexit would be delivered on time and 'No Deal is better than a bad Deal'.
This is true. The unanswered question is whether the error was not to Leave in March, or whether it was to have used the rhetoric earlier that made not doing so tremendously damaging.
You believe the former, which leads you logically to support Johnson. If the error was the latter then Johnson is simply repeating May's mistake, as Richard Nabavi has argued.
May went for blackmail and brinkmanship, gambled and lost. Boris is doing the same.
This makes Stewart the candidate willing to do something different - try to sell May's Deal on its merits, as the reasonable compromise.
Stewart is crap and is going nowhere, what is it with PB fan boys , fantasising all the time.
Of course he wont win, but his campaign has at least been interesting to follow.
For you maybe. For me I hear a candidate utterly and cynically and dishonestly grossly overstating his chances and spending most of his time divisively slagging off the front runner while (ironically) claiming to be the unity candidate. To put his campaign in perspective, he secured 10 more votes than Ester McVey in the first round. Despite Hancock's withdrawal, he'll be gone by Tuesday.
You dont like his campaign, that doesnt counter the view it has been interesting in any way. Trump's campaigns are interesting too.
Yes, its hard to see how he gets past the next ballot and he has gotten carried away. I still dont see how that speaks to the interestingness or not of his campaign. I wasnt saying he would win or that one must like his campaign.
Off to cut my lawn before the rain starts again, but could I point out that few here have been saying that Boris cannot become Prime Minister, what they have been saying is that he is manifestly unsuited to the post. Apart from possibly a sense of humour and name recognition no one seems to have a positive view of him.
Of course, there is the possibility that Boris may actually clear the low bar of expectations, at least in the short term. He has such a track record of mendacity and incompetence that merely not tripping over Larry the Cat on his way into Number 10 will be greeted as a triumph.
No, that’s what they say now he’s going to win. Before that was obvious they said lay him in the betting because the price is wrong.
Excellent header. I fear for this country now. The choice of PM seems to be Boris, Farage or Corbyn. Quite incredible. We have collectively taken leave of our senses.
No, we haven’t. It’s effective a game of poker between ordinary voters and the London focused leadership of the country
LFL: You can’t have a say on EU OV: Fine, we’ll vote UKIP LFL: Ok we’ll give you a referendum OV: we want to leave LFL: We’ll pretend but work to frustrate it LFL: See, it’s all too difficult. Let’s revoke OV: Sod off, we said leave LFL: but we can’t agree a deal OV: fine, no deal LFL: are you nuts? OV: just try us
In case you hadn’t noticed, for the last year polls have consistently shown that the public think that the decision to leave the EU was a mistake.
Prior to the referendum they also showed a majority for Remain
Moreover they reflect the front of mind not the considered view. In the face of unrelenting gloom from talking heads of course people are nervous.
But it all comes back to: we voted to leave. Parliament has consistently obstructed that.
Parliament is the servant of the people, not the master
So you are just listening to the voices in your head and deciding that is what the will of the people is, or should be.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
That really is anti-science. Opinion polls are imperfect but they are of more evidential weight than smoke blown out of the arse of someone whose views you just happen to agree with. All Charles has is hope. The will of the people in this case is just Charles’s will. And should be ignored as such.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
Mr. Roger, Corbyn habitually sides against the UK, regardless of whether others agree (in this case, perhaps) or almost no-one does (the novichok poisoning).
How we won the Cold War is a bit of a mystery. Much of Europe's population was anti-US back then, as well.
Also presumably a mystery why the middle east is such a monumental, largely US led clustefuck, given much of Europe's population is anti-US in that regard. Perhaps the take away is that the US does what it wants regardless of support or opposition (though we might retain an iota of self respect by not going all poodly at the sound of our master's voice).
Of course the locals bear absolutely no responsibility for their regional troubles. It’s all the result of manipulation by the Americans. I think more highly of the Arab population than you do I suppose
'The Arab population'
I'm sure they're all very grateful for your hugely generalised good opinion. Any encouraging words for Arameans, Assyrians, Baloch, Berbers, Copts, Druze, Jews, Kurds, Lurs, Mandaeans, Persians, Samaritans, Shabaks, Tats, and Zazas?
Nice diversion from removing all agency from the local population generally by focusing on terminology to ignore the point. Kudos
“Police are now investigating five electoral fraud allegations relating to the recent Peterborough by-election.
The number of investigations has risen from two earlier in the week and includes one message shared on social media allegedly showing someone bragging that he and two others had ‘burned more than 1,000 votes for the Brexit Party’.”
Is it not possible that the people of Peterborough do not love the Nigel as much as you do, and that Labour won fair and square?
This talk of conspiracy is very dangerous for our democracy. This was a highly scrutinised election crawling with observers from all parties and journalists. You are going to have to work a bit harder to find your Reichstag fire.
Of course it’s possible, but I don’t see why you are attacking me. It’s a story in the local paper, not something I have invented or have anything to do with
Twitter gossip of 1000 ballots burned?
Five police investigations is not Twitter gossip.
Police are obliged to investigate reports, but it does not mean that there is substance to them.
Excellent header. I fear for this country now. The choice of PM seems to be Boris, Farage or Corbyn. Quite incredible. We have collectively taken leave of our senses.
No, we haven’t. It’s effective a game of poker between ordinary voters and the London focused leadership of the country
In case you hadn’t noticed, for the last year polls have consistently shown that the public think that the decision to leave the EU was a mistake.
Prior to the referendum they also showed a majority for Remain
Moreover they reflect the front of mind not the considered view. In the face of unrelenting gloom from talking heads of course people are nervous.
But it all comes back to: we voted to leave. Parliament has consistently obstructed that.
Parliament is the servant of the people, not the master
So you are just listening to the voices in your head and deciding that is what the will of the people is, or should be.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
That really is anti-science. Opinion polls are imperfect but they are of more evidential weight than smoke blown out of the arse of someone whose views you just happen to agree with. All Charles has is hope. The will of the people in this case is just Charles’s will. And should be ignored as such.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty of you to insinuate that I do.
Since Trump entered the White House, my inclination to trust the US has diminished considerably.
I think most of the country would agree with you. Bilateral talks between IDS (our new foreign secretary) and John Bolton over military action in the Middle East are one of the pleasures we have to look forward to as Johnson and Trump show the world the inviolability of our special relationship.
Off to cut my lawn before the rain starts again, but could I point out that few here have been saying that Boris cannot become Prime Minister, what they have been saying is that he is manifestly unsuited to the post.
"Cannot" means impossible. Nothing is certain in life but there have been numerous threads let alone comments on this site which have warned against backing Johnson at quite long odds to become next PM, with mantras along the lines of "beware of backing the favourite in Tory leadership elections". If anyone geared their betting strategy to the site's consensus on Johnson they are going to be well out of pocket.
The Tories are now an active menace to the country’s interests. They care only about themselves, are willing to attack or trample over any of our constitutional safeguards in their desire to get their own way and are willing to cause serious harm to others.
They are in no position to criticise Corbyn’s Labour for a lack of patriotism or economic lunacy.
My daughter runs her own business, employing 4 people. It is currently profitable - though margins are tight and she has to work extremely hard. Some of her customers are in the farming sector which will be hit very hard by a No Deal exit. That could mean the end of her business. It is one of those small businesses a long long way away from the sorts of places people like Boris and Raab and Gove inhabit. There are not many 24 year olds who decide to learn about business the hard way and do something in and for their local community.
The Tories are saying to her and many many others: “Fuck business.”
Well, “Fuck the Tories”.
Boris has no plan for how to exit and no plan for what happens next. Anyone with eyes to see can see he is not fit for purpose. If he calls a GE I hope he loses. It will serve him and the Tories right. A hung Parliament with, I hope, increased Lib Dem representation is the best I could hope for.
No, we haven’t. It’s effective a game of poker between ordinary voters and the London focused leadership of the country
In case you hadn’t noticed, for the last year polls have consistently shown that the public think that the decision to leave the EU was a mistake.
Prior to the referendum they also showed a majority for Remain
Moreover they reflect the front of mind not the considered view. In the face of unrelenting gloom from talking heads of course people are nervous.
But it all comes back to: we voted to leave. Parliament has consistently obstructed that.
Parliament is the servant of the people, not the master
So you are just listening to the voices in your head and deciding that is what the will of the people is, or should be.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
That really is anti-science. Opinion polls are imperfect but they are of more evidential weight than smoke blown out of the arse of someone whose views you just happen to agree with. All Charles has is hope. The will of the people in this case is just Charles’s will. And should be ignored as such.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
No, we haven’t. It’s effective a game of poker between ordinary voters and the London focused leadership of the country
In case you hadn’t noticed, for the last year polls have consistently shown that the public think that the decision to leave the EU was a mistake.
Prior to the referendum they also showed a majority for Remain
Moreover they reflect the front of mind not the considered view. In the face of unrelenting gloom from talking heads of course people are nervous.
But it all comes back to: we voted to leave. Parliament has consistently obstructed that.
Parliament is the servant of the people, not the master
So you are just listening to the voices in your head and deciding that is what the will of the people is, or should be.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll. I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
No, we haven’t. It’s effective a game of poker between ordinary voters and the London focused leadership of the country
In case you hadn’t noticed, for the last year polls have consistently shown that the public think that the decision to leave the EU was a mistake.
Prior to the referendum they also showed a majority for Remain
Moreover they reflect the front of mind not the considered view. In the face of unrelenting gloom from talking heads of course people are nervous.
But it all comes back to: we voted to leave. Parliament has consistently obstructed that.
Parliament is the servant of the people, not the master
So you are just listening to the voices in your head and deciding that is what the will of the people is, or should be.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
Tory party have taken leave of their senses. What they see in boris is beyond me.
The media hate him, remainers hate him, yet another posho in a climate where the public are more anti it than usual and is more damaged and dodgy than something out of del boys van.
The issue is whether enough of the public in general hate him so that he can't win?
I don't think they do.
Johnson will be the lesser of 2 evils against Corbyn. All bets would be off if Corbyn goes and is replaced by a credible leader without his baggage.
The Tories own Brexit now lock, stock and barrel. If it does turn out to have been a horrible mistake they are going to be toxic for a very long time, especially given the age profile of remainers. The ERG will always be there to remind us even after Corbyn is long gone.
We are in an electoral environment where LDs, Greens and SNP are all likely to gain seats, and Labour has a pretty solid turnout machine as we saw in 2017 and more recently in Peterborough. More than likely an October election results in a parliament more hung than the present
We were told how good the Labour turnout machine was in 2015, it did not help when the Tories had a more charismatic leader and a motivated base
Mr. Roger, Corbyn habitually sides against the UK, regardless of whether others agree (in this case, perhaps) or almost no-one does (the novichok poisoning).
How we won the Cold War is a bit of a mystery. Much of Europe's population was anti-US back then, as well.
Also presumably a mystery why the middle east is such a monumental, largely US led clustefuck, given much of Europe's population is anti-US in that regard. Perhaps the take away is that the US does what it wants regardless of support or opposition (though we might retain an iota of self respect by not going all poodly at the sound of our master's voice).
Of course the locals bear absolutely no responsibility for their regional troubles. It’s all the result of manipulation by the Americans. I think more highly of the Arab population than you do I suppose
'The Arab population'
I'm sure they're all very grateful for your hugely generalised good opinion. Any encouraging words for Arameans, Assyrians, Baloch, Berbers, Copts, Druze, Jews, Kurds, Lurs, Mandaeans, Persians, Samaritans, Shabaks, Tats, and Zazas?
Nice diversion from removing all agency from the local population generally by focusing on terminology to ignore the point. Kudos
You don't think some anonymous diddy pompously opining on how highly he thinks of Arabs to divert from the agency that the Anglosphere has had in said clusterfuck isn't fecking ridiculous? Chacun à son goût I guess.
But it all comes back to: we voted to leave. Parliament has consistently obstructed that.
Parliament is the servant of the people, not the master
So you are just listening to the voices in your head and deciding that is what the will of the people is, or should be.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator. Moreover, the assertion that voters outside London act as Charles described is not evidence free, it has happened.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
It doesn’t qualify as thinking. It’s a story: a story that is contradicted by such evidence as we have.
But it all comes back to: we voted to leave. Parliament has consistently obstructed that.
Parliament is the servant of the people, not the master
So you are just listening to the voices in your head and deciding that is what the will of the people is, or should be.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator. Moreover, the assertion that voters outside London act as Charles described is not evidence free, it has happened.
Ordinary voters think that you've lost this argument, and you should sleep it off.
The UK is unlikely to leave the EU on the 1st November. At most, path will be set by that date where the UK leaves a few months later.
Bruno Waterford, Times correspondent in Brussels reckons, the EU will move to a three month preparation for No Deal at that point, refusing to negotiate during that period.
That sounds plausible, but I suspect firstly that there will be a mounting sense of panic in the UK during that period and secondly the EU would negotiate if the UK sounded serious about accepting the backstop.
That would suit Boris by giving time for a general election on the theme of the dastardly Brussels bureaucrats, while avoiding his being blamed for a disastrous crash-out at the end of October.
And just exactly how many Tory MPs would ou expect to be left in the House after such an election?
In their heads, a Boris-led anti-EU campaign would sideline Farage, and leave Remain voters split between Labour and the LibDems; a landslide for the Conservative Party.
And in one sense they might have a point because electoral prospects after Brexit will be a good deal worse after the paper cuts of 700 (per Cyclefree) lost deals.
In HYUFD's head, maybe, but PB's own Professor Pangloss does not represent the entirety of Conservative thinking on the subject and is becoming increasingly detached from reality with each passing day. Sensible Tories, and there are plenty of them on here in addition to the widely respected voices of DH and RichardN, can see what's coming next.
Widely respected voices told us for two years that Boris couldn’t become Conservative leader, and to lay him at 5/1 and bigger, while @HYUFD was lampooned for disagreeing.
TBF @HYUFD is lampooned because of his unreflected fondness for polls, not because of his conclusions per se
Although he does also reach some wacky conclusions
He has been telling us of Boris's popularity among supporters of UK''s third party for some time, for sure. But during the same period he has also advanced various far fetched scenarios for Boris's ascent to power that never came to pass. Even now, once we get beyond his now probable selection, HY is back off into flights of fancy.
We are not going to get "no deal". Whoever is Tory leader will get another 2 years (at least) of status quo. He will be able to say we are out of the EU - the nutters will moan but most will say thats all OK the sky hasn't fallen in after all.
Of course in the longer term will be a mess -we will be rule takers with no influence but that will be the result of a badly thought out referendum.
Mr. Roger, Corbyn habitually sides against the UK, regardless of whether others agree (in this case, perhaps) or almost no-one does (the novichok poisoning).
How we won the Cold War is a bit of a mystery. Much of Europe's population was anti-US back then, as well.
Also presumably a mystery why the middle east is such a monumental, largely US led clustefuck, given much of Europe's population is anti-US in that regard. Perhaps the take away is that the US does what it wants regardless of support or opposition (though we might retain an iota of self respect by not going all poodly at the sound of our master's voice).
Of course the locals bear absolutely no responsibility for their regional troubles. It’s all the result of manipulation by the Americans. I think more highly of the Arab population than you do I suppose
'The Arab population'
I'm sure they're all very grateful for your hugely generalised good opinion. Any encouraging words for Arameans, Assyrians, Baloch, Berbers, Copts, Druze, Jews, Kurds, Lurs, Mandaeans, Persians, Samaritans, Shabaks, Tats, and Zazas?
Nice diversion from removing all agency from the local population generally by focusing on terminology to ignore the point. Kudos
You don't think some anonymous diddy pompously opining on how highly he thinks of Arabs to divert from the agency that the Anglosphere has had in said clusterfuck isn't fecking ridiculous? Chacun à son goût I guess.
I think he can over egg his point a little, but that doesn't make the entire poibt disappear because he over generalised on the ethnicity front.
Mr. Roger, Corbyn habitually sides against the UK, regardless of whether others agree (in this case, perhaps) or almost no-one does (the novichok poisoning).
How we won the Cold War is a bit of a mystery. Much of Europe's population was anti-US back then, as well.
Also presumably a mystery why the middle east is such a monumental, largely US led clustefuck, given much of Europe's population is anti-US in that regard. Perhaps the take away is that the US does what it wants regardless of support or opposition (though we might retain an iota of self respect by not going all poodly at the sound of our master's voice).
Of course the locals bear absolutely no responsibility for their regional troubles. It’s all the result of manipulation by the Americans. I think more highly of the Arab population than you do I suppose
'The Arab population'
I'm sure they're all very grateful for your hugely generalised good opinion. Any encouraging words for Arameans, Assyrians, Baloch, Berbers, Copts, Druze, Jews, Kurds, Lurs, Mandaeans, Persians, Samaritans, Shabaks, Tats, and Zazas?
Nice diversion from removing all agency from the local population generally by focusing on terminology to ignore the point. Kudos
You don't think some anonymous diddy pompously opining on how highly he thinks of Arabs to divert from the agency that the Anglosphere has had in said clusterfuck isn't fecking ridiculous? Chacun à son goût I guess.
Anglosphere? That's a bit general isn't it? No rebukes for the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians, the English, the Channel Islanders, people from Abergele, the Picts, the Hugenots etc.
I am merely serving Boris’s own words back at them. If it’s good enough for our likely next PM them it’s good enough for this mere voter. And I am not obliged to show any even-handedness.
But it all comes back to: we voted to leave. Parliament has consistently obstructed that.
Parliament is the servant of the people, not the master
So you are just listening to the voices in your head and deciding that is what the will of the people is, or should be.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator. Moreover, the assertion that voters outside London act as Charles described is not evidence free, it has happened.
Ordinary voters think that you've lost this argument, and you should sleep it off.
Mr. Isam, that's quite a story. If we had another by-election I wonder what the odds would be.
If someone really did destroy 1,000 votes, they're very stupid to brag about it.
That quote can be read in two ways. That they burnt 1000+ Brexit Party votes. Or that they burnt 1000+ votes on the instruction of the Brexit Party.
Either sounds implausible to me. When would anyone be alone with the ballot papers to get the chance to do this?
Before the votes are sorted they are counted (verified). How did 1000 votes for one party get selected before that process. Otherwise the number of votes for each candidate would not equal the number of votes cast.
The referendum was only real in Charles’ head, and we are just characters in that daydream? Heavy!
The numerous opinion polls that Charles airily disregards suggesting his nursery rhyme is rot are real enough too. He has no evidence that the public now wants no deal other than his own hope.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
It doesn’t qualify as thinking. It’s a story: a story that is contradicted by such evidence as we have.
No, its not. You were so convinced Remain would win you wrote a thread explaining why it was a value bet at 1/4. Now, three years after they lost, you are relying on the flawed pseudoscience of hypothetical opinion polls to convince yourself you were right.
Charles' analysis is broadly correct, as evidenced by UKIP winning the 2014 Euros, a party promising a referendum winning the 2015 election, Leave winning in the referendum in 2016, and The Brexit Party winning in May.
The UK is unlikely to leave the EU on the 1st November. At most, path will be set by that date where the UK leaves a few months later.
Bruno Waterford, Times correspondent in Brussels reckons, the EU will move to a three month preparation for No Deal at that point, refusing to negotiate during that period.
That sounds plausible, but I suspect firstly that there will be a mounting sense of panic in the UK during that period and secondly the EU would negotiate if the UK sounded serious about accepting the backstop.
That would suit Boris by giving time for a general election on the theme of the dastardly Brussels bureaucrats, while avoiding his being blamed for a disastrous crash-out at the end of October.
And just exactly how many Tory MPs would ou expect to be left in the House after such an election?
In their heads, a Boris-led anti-EU campaign would sideline Farage, and leave Remain voters split between Labour and the LibDems; a landslide for the Conservative Party.
And in one sense they might have a point because electoral prospects after Brexit will be a good deal worse after the paper cuts of 700 (per Cyclefree) lost deals.
In HYUFD's head, maybe, but PB's own Professor Pangloss does not represent the entirety of Conservative thinking on the subject and is becoming increasingly detached from reality with each passing day. Sensible Tories, and there are plenty of them on here in addition to the widely respected voices of DH and RichardN, can see what's coming next.
Widely respected voices told us for two years that Boris couldn’t become Conservative leader, and to lay him at 5/1 and bigger, while @HYUFD was lampooned for disagreeing.
Indeed following 'widely respected voices' has led to the position the Tories are 4th in the latest poll and were 5th in the European elections and 3rd in the Peterborough by election. Following their advice again to reject Boris means the Tories will probably stay there
I am merely serving Boris’s own words back at them. If it’s good enough for our likely next PM them it’s good enough for this mere voter. And I am not obliged to show any even-handedness.
What Boris said sotto voce was a riposte to some preposterous wibbling by Carolyn Fairbairn.
I am second to no man in my general mocking of Jeremy Corbyn but if John Bolton told me the sky was blue and water was wet I would want rigerous third party analysis before I believed him.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
It doesn’t qualify as thinking. It’s a story: a story that is contradicted by such evidence as we have.
No, its not. You were so convinced Remain would win you wrote a thread explaining why it was a value bet at 1/4. Now, three years after they lost, you are relying on the flawed pseudoscience of hypothetical opinion polls to convince yourself you were right.
Charles' analysis is broadly correct, as evidenced by UKIP winning the 2014 Euros, a party promising a referendum winning the 2015 election, Leave winning in the referendum in 2016, and The Brexit Party winning in May.
I’m not relying on polls at all, except to show that Charles has absolutely no evidence for his assertion that the public is ready for no deal. And nor have you. Voting to Leave cannot be equated with support for no deal.
Curiously, Charles is the poster most opposed to retesting public opinion in a referendum.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
It doesn’t qualify as thinking. It’s a story: a story that is contradicted by such evidence as we have.
No, its not. You were so convinced Remain would win you wrote a thread explaining why it was a value bet at 1/4. Now, three years after they lost, you are relying on the flawed pseudoscience of hypothetical opinion polls to convince yourself you were right.
Charles' analysis is broadly correct, as evidenced by UKIP winning the 2014 Euros, a party promising a referendum winning the 2015 election, Leave winning in the referendum in 2016, and The Brexit Party winning in May.
I’m not relying on polls at all, except to show that Charles has absolutely no evidence for his assertion that the public is ready for no deal. And nor have you. Voting to Leave cannot be equated with support for no deal.
Curiously, Charles is the poster most opposed to retesting public opinion in a referendum.
How would the Brexit Party & UKIP have done in the European Elections if you take out the numbers from London?
Boris has shortened and Hunt and Gove lengthened to near enough 20/1 and 30/1 for the pair this morning, probably off the back of David's article, so I've topped up a tad.
Tory party have taken leave of their senses. What they see in boris is beyond me.
The media hate him, remainers hate him, yet another posho in a climate where the public are more anti it than usual and is more damaged and dodgy than something out of del boys van.
The issue is whether enough of the public in general hate him so that he can't win?
I don't think they do.
Johnson will be the lesser of 2 evils against Corbyn. All bets would be off if Corbyn goes and is replaced by a credible leader without his baggage.
The Tories own Brexit now lock, stock and barrel. If it does turn out to have been a horrible mistake they are going to be toxic for a very long time, especially given the age profile of remainers. The ERG will always be there to remind us even after Corbyn is long gone.
We are in an electoral environment where LDs, Greens and SNP are all likely to gain seats, and Labour has a pretty solid turnout machine as we saw in 2017 and more recently in Peterborough. More than likely an October election results in a parliament more hung than the present
We were told how good the Labour turnout machine was in 2015, it did not help when the Tories had a more charismatic leader and a motivated base
The Tories gains in 2015 were pretty well all from the LD's and Labour's losses similarly to the SNP.
We are not going to get "no deal". Whoever is Tory leader will get another 2 years (at least) of status quo. He will be able to say we are out of the EU - the nutters will moan but most will say thats all OK the sky hasn't fallen in after all.
Of course in the longer term will be a mess -we will be rule takers with no influence but that will be the result of a badly thought out referendum.
Ultimately correct in my view, but there could be a lot of mess in the meantime. Also I don't think people realise what rule taking means. We will be denied an opinion on what happens to us. Despite the rhetoric that's not the situation now.
I am second to no man in my general mocking of Jeremy Corbyn but if John Bolton told me the sky was blue and water was wet I would want rigerous third party analysis before I believed him.
Trump has done a lot of damage to the standing of the US administration. Years of telling easily-detected lies has consequences. There will be no coalition of the willing. Only a coalition of the willingly credulous.
Your point about Boris got me to check my own book. At one point on 15-Jul-18 (Chequers?), he was 16/1. That gave me a point to level my book out a bit on him, because I would have been about -£100 on him, which is relatively big money for me.
His path to today has been a great example of "panic button" thinking within the party, and a useful exercise for other contests. Who, do we think, is Labour's panic button if they fall 12pts behind (and actually get rid of Corbs)?
The UK is unlikely to leave the EU on the 1st November. At most, path will be set by that date where the UK leaves a few months later.
Bruno Waterford, Times correspondent in Brussels reckons, the EU will move to a three month preparation for No Deal at that point, refusing to negotiate during that period.
That sounds plausible, but I suspect firstly that there will be a mounting sense of panic in the UK during that period and secondly the EU would negotiate if the UK sounded serious about accepting the backstop.
That would suit Boris by giving time for a general election on the theme of the dastardly Brussels bureaucrats, while avoiding his being blamed for a disastrous crash-out at the end of October.
And just exactly how many Tory MPs would ou expect to be left in the House after such an election?
In their heads, a Boris-led anti-EU campaign would sideline Farage, and leave Remain voters split between Labour and the LibDems; a landslide for the Conservative Party.
And in one sense they might have a point because electoral prospects after Brexit will be a good deal worse after the paper cuts of 700 (per Cyclefree) lost deals.
In HYUFD's head, maybe, but PB's own Professor Pangloss does not represent the entirety of Conservative thinking on the subject and is becoming increasingly detached from reality with each passing day. Sensible Tories, and there are plenty of them on here in addition to the widely respected voices of DH and RichardN, can see what's coming next.
Widely respected voices told us for two years that Boris couldn’t become Conservative leader, and to lay him at 5/1 and bigger, while @HYUFD was lampooned for disagreeing.
Indeed following 'widely respected voices' has led to the position the Tories are 4th in the latest poll and were 5th in the European elections and 3rd in the Peterborough by election. Following their advice again to reject Boris means the Tories will probably stay there
Leaving aside your opinion on the effect of Johnson as leader on Tory electoral chances, what is your opinion on his likely performance as Prime Minister?
I am merely serving Boris’s own words back at them. If it’s good enough for our likely next PM them it’s good enough for this mere voter. And I am not obliged to show any even-handedness.
What Boris said sotto voce was a riposte to some preposterous wibbling by Carolyn Fairbairn.
Carolyn Fairbairn = Director-General of the CBI.
Boris = a man who has never worked in business and has been sacked from a number of jobs he has held for unethical behaviour
Preposterous wibbling = stuff you disagree with. Other senior business people have stated how dangerous a No Deal exit is and how unprepared for it Britain is; see the director of the port of Immingham, senior people in the pharmaceuticals sector and the SMMT in recent days.
Sotto voce = it’s been heard loud and clear in this country and elsewhere.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
It doesn’t qualify as thinking. It’s a story: a story that is contradicted by such evidence as we have.
No, its not. You were so convinced Remain would win you wrote a thread explaining why it was a value bet at 1/4. Now, three years after they lost, you are relying on the flawed pseudoscience of hypothetical opinion polls to convince yourself you were right.
Charles' analysis is broadly correct, as evidenced by UKIP winning the 2014 Euros, a party promising a referendum winning the 2015 election, Leave winning in the referendum in 2016, and The Brexit Party winning in May.
I’m not relying on polls at all, except to show that Charles has absolutely no evidence for his assertion that the public is ready for no deal. And nor have you. Voting to Leave cannot be equated with support for no deal.
Curiously, Charles is the poster most opposed to retesting public opinion in a referendum.
How would the Brexit Party & UKIP have done in the European Elections if you take out the numbers from London?
Why would anyone do that calculation? Londoners are people too.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
It doesn’t qualify as thinking. It’s a story: a story that is contradicted by such evidence as we have.
No, its not. You were so convinced Remain would win you wrote a thread explaining why it was a value bet at 1/4. Now, three years after they lost, you are relying on the flawed pseudoscience of hypothetical opinion polls to convince yourself you were right.
Charles' analysis is broadly correct, as evidenced by UKIP winning the 2014 Euros, a party promising a referendum winning the 2015 election, Leave winning in the referendum in 2016, and The Brexit Party winning in May.
I’m not relying on polls at all, except to show that Charles has absolutely no evidence for his assertion that the public is ready for no deal. And nor have you. Voting to Leave cannot be equated with support for no deal.
Curiously, Charles is the poster most opposed to retesting public opinion in a referendum.
How would the Brexit Party & UKIP have done in the European Elections if you take out the numbers from London?
Why would anyone do that calculation? Londoners are people too.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
It doesn’t qualify as thinking. It’s a story: a story that is contradicted by such evidence as we have.
No, its not. You were so convinced Remain would win you wrote a thread explaining why it was a value bet at 1/4. Now, three years after they lost, you are relying on the flawed pseudoscience of hypothetical opinion polls to convince yourself you were right.
Charles' analysis is broadly correct, as evidenced by UKIP winning the 2014 Euros, a party promising a referendum winning the 2015 election, Leave winning in the referendum in 2016, and The Brexit Party winning in May.
I’m not relying on polls at all, except to show that Charles has absolutely no evidence for his assertion that the public is ready for no deal. And nor have you. Voting to Leave cannot be equated with support for no deal.
Curiously, Charles is the poster most opposed to retesting public opinion in a referendum.
How would the Brexit Party & UKIP have done in the European Elections if you take out the numbers from London?
Why would anyone do that calculation? Londoners are people too.
Yes they are, I am technically one of them. But Charles' point, the thing that we are arguing about, is that outside of London, the people keep refusing to do as they are told.
The calculation only improves the No Deal parties by 2-3% anyway.
We are not going to get "no deal". Whoever is Tory leader will get another 2 years (at least) of status quo. He will be able to say we are out of the EU - the nutters will moan but most will say thats all OK the sky hasn't fallen in after all.
Of course in the longer term will be a mess -we will be rule takers with no influence but that will be the result of a badly thought out referendum.
Ultimately correct in my view, but there could be a lot of mess in the meantime. Also I don't think people realise what rule taking means. We will be denied an opinion on what happens to us. Despite the rhetoric that's not the situation now.
Tsk tsk, you gotta get with the programme.
“We will be denied an opinion on what happens to us.” = Taking Back Control
Off to cut my lawn before the rain starts again, but could I point out that few here have been saying that Boris cannot become Prime Minister, what they have been saying is that he is manifestly unsuited to the post. Apart from possibly a sense of humour and name recognition no one seems to have a positive view of him.
Of course, there is the possibility that Boris may actually clear the low bar of expectations, at least in the short term. He has such a track record of mendacity and incompetence that merely not tripping over Larry the Cat on his way into Number 10 will be greeted as a triumph.
No, that’s what they say now he’s going to win. Before that was obvious they said lay him in the betting because the price is wrong.
I'll put my hand up as one who said he would and could never become PM.
The UK is unlikely to leave the EU on the 1st November. At most, path will be set by that date where the UK leaves a few months later.
Bruno Waterford, Times correspondnobrussels/status/1139443985196441600
That would suit Boris by giving time for a general election on the theme of the dastardly Brussels bureaucrats, while avoiding his being blamed for a disastrous crash-out at the end of October.
And just exactly how many Tory MPs would ou expect to be left in the House after such an election?
In their heads, a Boris-led anti-EU campaign would sideline Farage, and leave Remain voters split between Labour and the LibDems; a landslide for the Conservative Party.
And in one sense they might have a point because electoral prospects after Brexit will be a good deal worse after the paper cuts of 700 (per Cyclefree) lost deals.
In HYUFD's head, maybe, but PB's own Professor Pangloss does not represent the entirety of Conservative thinking on thewhat's coming next.
Widely respected voices told us for two years that Boris couldn’t become Conservative leader, and to lay him at 5/1 and bigger, while @HYUFD was lampooned for disagreeing.
Indeed following 'widely respected voices' has led to the position the Tories are 4th in the latest poll and were 5th in the European elections and 3rd in the Peterborough by election. Following their advice again to reject Boris means the Tories will probably stay there
Leaving aside your opinion on the effect of Johnson as leader on Tory electoral chances, what is your opinion on his likely performance as Prime Minister?
I will just point out that for most of the late 1930s the Tory establishment and most Tory MPs were fully behind Neville Chamberlain and thought Winston Churchill an untrustworthy and unreliable egotist as shown in the Film 'Darkest Hour'. It was only after the breach of the Munich Agreement and the invasion of Poland and the inept Norway campaign they finally and reluctantly got behind Churchill as PM.
I am not saying May is Chamberlain and Boris is Churchill and Hunt is Halifax as such but it is true that the 2 greatest Tory PMs of the last century, Churchill and Thatcher, were both deeply distrusted by 'widely respected voices' within the party establishment until they firmly stamped their mark on the party and the country
Your point about Boris got me to check my own book. At one point on 15-Jul-18 (Chequers?), he was 16/1. That gave me a point to level my book out a bit on him, because I would have been about -£100 on him, which is relatively big money for me.
His path to today has been a great example of "panic button" thinking within the party, and a useful exercise for other contests. Who, do we think, is Labour's panic button if they fall 12pts behind (and actually get rid of Corbs)?
Off to cut my lawn before the rain starts again, but could I point out that few here have been saying that Boris cannot become Prime Minister, what they have been saying is that he is manifestly unsuited to the post. Apart from possibly a sense of humour and name recognition no one seems to have a positive view of him.
Of course, there is the possibility that Boris may actually clear the low bar of expectations, at least in the short term. He has such a track record of mendacity and incompetence that merely not tripping over Larry the Cat on his way into Number 10 will be greeted as a triumph.
No, that’s what they say now he’s going to win. Before that was obvious they said lay him in the betting because the price is wrong.
I'll put my hand up as one who said he would and could never become PM.
Voters, eh.
You also said that we could never leave the EU without the backstop as agreed by May.
It does not say much about the British press that I have yet to read a balanced account of Boris Johnson, the man likely to become our next Prime Minister.
It is easy to write off Boris as “racist”. As it happens, I don’t think he is, save that the odd flirtation with racially charged language is a price worth paying if he can get a laugh out of it.
I read often that he is a “bad man”, but apart from the Guppy recording (cowardice?) and of course the serial adultery (a sin practiced by at least a third of the population and de rigeur for French Presidents), what does that really mean?
Nor can we be sure he is utterly incompetent. He was not a terrible mayor of London - the Garden Bridge being the only real black mark against his record. Sure, he delegated everything, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing in a role which still lacks real power.
He has qualities, even. He is approachable, disarming, charismatic.
No, the fundamental problem with Boris is that he is not serious about anything except his own ambition. Everything is a jape.
This explains why he was perceived to be such a poor Foreign Secretary: one looks for gravitas, Boris just grins and tousles his fright wig. He has no command of detail, no policy. His lacks any real commitment to what we might call the constitutional fundamentals: democracy, the welfare of the people, the future of the nation:
The article is worth reading.
He was slapdash and constantly late, and awaited a great future. “I think he honestly believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else,” Johnson’s housemaster, Martin Hammond, wrote in the spring of 1982.
We can already see the lineaments and trajectory of a Boris premiership. The real government will he managed by various power brokers in Cabinet. Actual government (save one or two eye catching and expensive boondoggles) will take place at a certain remove from the public sphere, because Boris won’t be directing it, will not talk to policy.
The media will breathlessly report on a series of mishaps and pratfalls.
We will be amused, then charmed, then disappointed, then furious.
The only thing we cannot predict is the length of this cycle. It could be anything from 3 months to 5 years.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
It doesn’t qualify as thinking. It’s a story: a story that is contradicted by such evidence as we have.
No, its not. You were so convinced Remain would win you wrote a thread explaining why it was a value bet at 1/4. Now, three years after they lost, you are relying on the flawed pseudoscience of hypothetical opinion polls to convince yourself you were right.
Charles' analysis is broadly correct, as evidenced by UKIP winning the 2014 Euros, a party promising a referendum winning the 2015 election, Leave winning in the referendum in 2016, and The Brexit Party winning in May.
I’m not relying on polls at all, except to show that Charles has absolutely no evidence for his assertion that the public is ready for no deal. And nor have you. Voting to Leave cannot be equated with support for no deal.
Curiously, Charles is the poster most opposed to retesting public opinion in a referendum.
I am going to the East Midlands Swinson / Davey hustings this evening. What question should I ask?
Politics is, at times, a dirty business that requires hand-to-hand combat. In a fight, would either of them beat a honey badger? And if not, why aren't we electing a honey badger istead?
I am going to the East Midlands Swinson / Davey hustings this evening. What question should I ask?
Politics is, at times, a dirty business that requires hand-to-hand combat. In a fight, would either of them beat a honey badger? And if not, why aren't we electing a honey badger istead?
The Tories are going one better and electing a honey monster.
The leadership BF betting seems crazy to me. You can lay Boris at 1.21 or back one (or all) of the remaining candidates at 19 upwards.
One of the non-Boris remaining five will take the prize if Boris implodes.
If someone in the Tory Party wanted Boris to implode - and had the means to make it happen - then why wouldn't it have already happened? The Tory party can only suffer if Boris is PM-elect, only to have to withdraw form a stonking lead.
No, I think the Parliamentary Party has made its peace with the idea of PM Boris. Albeit, many of his colleagues will cross themselves in doing so.
It does not say much about the British press that I have yet to read a balanced account of Boris Johnson, the man likely to become our next Prime Minister.
It is easy to write off Boris as “racist”. As it happens, I don’t think he is, save that the odd flirtation with racially charged language is a price worth paying if he can get a laugh out of it.
I read often that he is a “bad man”, but apart from the Guppy recording (cowardice?) and of course the serial adultery (a sin practiced by at least a third of the population and de rigeur for French Presidents), what does that really mean?
Nor can we be sure he is utterly incompetent. He was not a terrible mayor of London - the Garden Bridge being the only real black mark against his record. Sure, he delegated everything, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing in a role which still lacks real power.
He has qualities, even. He is approachable, disarming, charismatic.
No, the fundamental problem with Boris is that he is not serious about anything except his own ambition. Everything is a jape.
This explains why he was perceived to be such a poor Foreign Secretary: one looks for gravitas, Boris just grins and tousles his fright wig. He has no command of detail, no policy. His lacks any real commitment to what we might call the constitutional fundamentals: democracy, the welfare of the people, the future of the nation:
The article is worth reading.
He was slapdash and constantly late, and awaited a great future. “I think he honestly believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else,” Johnson’s housemaster, Martin Hammond, wrote in the spring of 1982.
We can already see the lineaments and trajectory of a Boris premiership. The real government will he managed by various power brokers in Cabinet. Actual government (save one or two eye catching and expensive boondoggles) will take place at a certain remove from the public sphere, because Boris won’t be directing it, will not talk to policy.
The media will breathlessly report on a series of mishaps and pratfalls.
We will be amused, then charmed, then disappointed, then furious.
The only thing we cannot predict is the length of this cycle. It could be anything from 3 months to 5 years.
As we have Cabinet government in this country, the idea of Boris letting the big beasts of Cabinet get on with it seems quite a good state of affairs to me.
Sadly, that will probably mean people like Raab and Mogg, but you can't have everything.
I am going to the East Midlands Swinson / Davey hustings this evening. What question should I ask?
Politics is, at times, a dirty business that requires hand-to-hand combat. In a fight, would either of them beat a honey badger? And if not, why aren't we electing a honey badger istead?
The Tories are going one better and electing a honey monster.
True story: I once went on a blind date with a tiny lass who was one of the people who was inside the Honey Monster costume in the ads. But there was somebody else who also got the gig. This caused uproar. So I was regaled with the story of the War of the Honey Monsters.....
It does not say much about the British press that I have yet to read a balanced account of Boris Johnson, the man likely to become our next Prime Minister.
It is easy to write off Boris as “racist”. As it happens, I don’t think he is, save that the odd flirtation with racially charged language is a price worth paying if he can get a laugh out of it.
I read often that he is a “bad man”, but apart from the Guppy recording (cowardice?) and of course the serial adultery (a sin practiced by at least a third of the population and de rigeur for French Presidents), what does that really mean?
Nor can we be sure he is utterly incompetent. He was not a terrible mayor of London - the Garden Bridge being the only real black mark against his record. Sure, he delegated everything, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing in a role which still lacks real power.
He has qualities, even. He is approachable, disarming, charismatic.
No, the fundamental problem with Boris is that he is not serious about anything except his own ambition. Everything is a jape.
This explains why he was perceived to be such a poor Foreign Secretary: one looks for gravitas, Boris just grins and tousles his fright wig. He has no command of detail, no policy. His lacks any real commitment to what we might call the constitutional fundamentals: democracy, the welfare of the people, the future of the nation:
The article is worth reading.
He was slapdash and constantly late, and awaited a great future. “I think he honestly believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else,” Johnson’s housemaster, Martin Hammond, wrote in the spring of 1982.
We can already see the lineaments and trajectory of a Boris premiership. The real government will he managed by various power brokers in Cabinet. Actual government (save one or two eye catching and expensive boondoggles) will take place at a certain remove from the public sphere, because Boris won’t be directing it, will not talk to policy.
The media will breathlessly report on a series of mishaps and pratfalls.
We will be amused, then charmed, then disappointed, then furious.
The only thing we cannot predict is the length of this cycle. It could be anything from 3 months to 5 years.
As we have Cabinet government in this country, the idea of Boris letting the big beasts of Cabinet get on with it seems quite a good state of affairs to me.
Sadly, that will probably mean people like Raab and Mogg, but you can't have everything.
Whoever is Chancellor in a Johnson administration has the potential to the most powerful in our history: a Cheney to Johnson’s Bush.
The opinion polls that got the 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Elections completely wrong? I’d prefer an intelligent persons opinion over that quackery
.
They are as accurate as horoscopes. Desperate, gullible people believe in them too.
Opinion polls tell you something. What they tell you is limited but it is not nothing.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
I don’t only disregard the ones that show scenarios I dislike, it’s petty if you to insinuate that I do.
But that’s literally what you are doing here. Charles asserted that the “ordinary voters” are ready for no deal. You like that, so you agree. I point out a clear line of evidence that the people on balance do not think Brexit is a good idea. You choose to ignore that and rely on the voices in Charles’s head because you like the sound of those better.
It’s literally not, because Charles isn’t an opinion poll.
You are preferring his evidence-free assertions over s long and consistent line of opinion poll results from a variety of pollsters,
I agree with his line of thinking, that’s not the same as swallowing a flawed process that passes itself off as ‘science’ with a track record as a reverse indicator
It doesn’t qualify as thinking. It’s a story: a story that is contradicted by such evidence as we have.
No, its not. You were so convinced Remain would win you wrote a thread explaining why it was a value bet at 1/4. Now, three years after they lost, you are relying on the flawed pseudoscience of hypothetical opinion polls to convince yourself you were right.
Charles' analysis is broadly correct, as evidenced by UKIP winning the 2014 Euros, a party promising a referendum winning the 2015 election, Leave winning in the referendum in 2016, and The Brexit Party winning in May.
I’m not relying on polls at all, except to show that Charles has absolutely no evidence for his assertion that the public is ready for no deal. And nor have you. Voting to Leave cannot be equated with support for no deal.
Curiously, Charles is the poster most opposed to retesting public opinion in a referendum.
"Bring 'em on! I'd prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around!"
It does not say much about the British press that I have yet to read a balanced account of Boris Johnson, the man likely to become our next Prime Minister.
It is easy to write off Boris as “racist”. As it happens, I don’t think he is, save that the odd flirtation with racially charged language is a price worth paying if he can get a laugh out of it.
I read often that he is a “bad man”, but apart from the Guppy recording (cowardice?) and of course the serial adultery (a sin practiced by at least a third of the population and de rigeur for French Presidents), what does that really mean?
Nor can we be sure he is utterly incompetent. He was not a terrible mayor of London - the Garden Bridge being the only real black mark against his record. Sure, he delegated everything, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing in a role which still lacks real power.
He has qualities, even. He is approachable, disarming, charismatic.
No, the fundamental problem with Boris is that he is not serious about anything except his own ambition. Everything is a jape.
This explains why he was perceived to be such a poor Foreign Secretary: one looks for gravitas, Boris just grins and tousles his fright wig. He has no command of detail, no policy. His lacks any real commitment to what we might call the constitutional fundamentals: democracy, the welfare of the people, the future of the nation:
The article is worth reading.
He was slapdash and constantly late, and awaited a great future. “I think he honestly believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else,” Johnson’s housemaster, Martin Hammond, wrote in the spring of 1982.
snip
The media will breathlessly report on a series of mishaps and pratfalls.
We will be amused, then charmed, then disappointed, then furious.
The only thing we cannot predict is the length of this cycle. It could be anything from 3 months to 5 years.
As we have Cabinet government in this country, the idea of Boris letting the big beasts of Cabinet get on with it seems quite a good state of affairs to me.
Sadly, that will probably mean people like Raab and Mogg, but you can't have everything.
Whoever is Chancellor in a Johnson administration has the potential to the most powerful in our history: a Cheney to Johnson’s Bush.
I have a couple of quid on Truss for CoE.
Just praying it isn't Mogg. We would be on the gold standard, imperial preference and issuing guineas by end of first week.
The UK is unlikely to leave the EU on the 1st November. At most, path will be set by that date where the UK leaves a few months later.
Bruno Waterford, Times correspondent in Brussels reckons, the EU will move to a three month preparation for No Deal at that point, refusing to negotiate during that period.
That would suit Boris by giving time for a general election on the theme of the dastardly Brussels bureaucrats, while avoiding his being blamed for a disastrous crash-out at the end of October.
And just exactly how many Tory MPs would ou expect to be left in the House after such an election?
In their heads, a Boris-led anti-EU campaign would sideline Farage, and leave Remain voters split between Labour and the LibDems; a landslide for the Conservative Party.
And in one sense they might have a point because electoral prospects after Brexit will be a good deal worse after the paper cuts of 700 (per Cyclefree) lost deals.
In HYUFD's head, maybe, but PB's own Professor Pangloss does not represent the entirety of Conservative thinking on the subject and is becoming increasingly detached from reality with each passing day. Sensible Tories, and there are plenty of them on here in addition to the widely respected voices of DH and RichardN, can see what's coming next.
Widely respected voices told us for two years that Boris couldn’t become Conservative leader, and to lay him at 5/1 and bigger, while @HYUFD was lampooned for disagreeing.
TBF @HYUFD is lampooned because of his unreflected fondness for polls, not because of his conclusions per se
Although he does also reach some wacky conclusions
He has been telling us of Boris's popularity among supporters of UK''s third party for some time, for sure. But during the same period he has also advanced various far fetched scenarios for Boris's ascent to power that never came to pass. Even now, once we get beyond his now probable selection, HY is back off into flights of fancy.
A bit unfair. Though he does seem a little Aspergery at times his predictions/conclusions are unerringly correct. I know because I've spent several years hoping they were wrong. None more so than his certain victory for Boris. If we still had a PB 'predictor of the year' (POTY!) award he would definitely get my vote
I am going to the East Midlands Swinson / Davey hustings this evening. What question should I ask?
Politics is, at times, a dirty business that requires hand-to-hand combat. In a fight, would either of them beat a honey badger? And if not, why aren't we electing a honey badger istead?
The Tories are going one better and electing a honey monster.
It does not say much about the British press that I have yet to read a balanced account of Boris Johnson, the man likely to become our next Prime Minister.
It is easy to write off Boris as “racist”. As it happens, I don’t think he is, save that the odd flirtation with racially charged language is a price worth paying if he can get a laugh out of it.
I read often that he is a “bad man”, but apart from the Guppy recording (cowardice?) and of course the serial adultery (a sin practiced by at least a third of the population and de rigeur for French Presidents), what does that really mean?
Nor can we be sure he is utterly incompetent. He was not a terrible mayor of London - the Garden Bridge being the only real black mark against his record. Sure, he delegated everything, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing in a role which still lacks real power.
He has qualities, even. He is approachable, disarming, charismatic.
No, the fundamental problem with Boris is that he is not serious about anything except his own ambition. Everything is a jape.
This explains why he was perceived to be such a poor Foreign Secretary: one looks for gravitas, Boris just grins and tousles his fright wig. He has no command of detail, no policy. His lacks any real commitment to what we might call the constitutional fundamentals: democracy, the welfare of the people, the future of the nation:
The article is worth reading.
He was slapdash and constantly late, and awaited a great future. “I think he honestly believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else,” Johnson’s housemaster, Martin Hammond, wrote in the spring of 1982.
snip
The media will breathlessly report on a series of mishaps and pratfalls.
We will be amused, then charmed, then disappointed, then furious.
The only thing we cannot predict is the length of this cycle. It could be anything from 3 months to 5 years.
As we have Cabinet government in this country, the idea of Boris letting the big beasts of Cabinet get on with it seems quite a good state of affairs to me.
Sadly, that will probably mean people like Raab and Mogg, but you can't have everything.
Whoever is Chancellor in a Johnson administration has the potential to the most powerful in our history: a Cheney to Johnson’s Bush.
I have a couple of quid on Truss for CoE.
Just praying it isn't Mogg. We would be on the gold standard, imperial preference and issuing guineas by end of first week.
It does not say much about the British press that I have yet to read a balanced account of Boris Johnson, the man likely to become our next Prime Minister.
It is easy to write off Boris as “racist”. As it happens, I don’t think he is, save that the odd flirtation with racially charged language is a price worth paying if he can get a laugh out of it.
I read often that he is a “bad man”, but apart from the Guppy recording (cowardice?) and of course the serial adultery (a sin practiced by at least a third of the population and de rigeur for French Presidents), what does that really mean?
Nor can we be sure he is utterly incompetent. He was not a terrible mayor of London - the Garden Bridge being the only real black mark against his record. Sure, he delegated everything, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing in a role which still lacks real power.
He has qualities, even. He is approachable, disarming, charismatic.
No, the fundamental problem with Boris is that he is not serious about anything except his own ambition. Everything is a jape.
This explains why he was perceived to be such a poor Foreign Secretary: one looks for gravitas, Boris just grins and tousles his fright wig. He has no command of detail, no policy. His lacks any real commitment to what we might call the constitutional fundamentals: democracy, the welfare of the people, the future of the nation:
The article is worth reading.
He was slapdash and constantly late, and awaited a great future. “I think he honestly believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else,” Johnson’s housemaster, Martin Hammond, wrote in the spring of 1982.
snip
The media will breathlessly report on a series of mishaps and pratfalls.
We will be amused, then charmed, then disappointed, then furious.
The only thing we cannot predict is the length of this cycle. It could be anything from 3 months to 5 years.
As we have Cabinet government in this country, the idea of Boris letting the big beasts of Cabinet get on with it seems quite a good state of affairs to me.
Whoever is Chancellor in a Johnson administration has the potential to the most powerful in our history: a Cheney to Johnson’s Bush.
I have a couple of quid on Truss for CoE.
Just praying it isn't Mogg. We would be on the gold standard, imperial preference and issuing guineas by end of first week.
The first would be a disaster the second couldn’t afford the pay cut, could Johnson for that matter?
We are not going to get "no deal". Whoever is Tory leader will get another 2 years (at least) of status quo. He will be able to say we are out of the EU - the nutters will moan but most will say thats all OK the sky hasn't fallen in after all.
Of course in the longer term will be a mess -we will be rule takers with no influence but that will be the result of a badly thought out referendum.
Ultimately correct in my view, but there could be a lot of mess in the meantime. Also I don't think people realise what rule taking means. We will be denied an opinion on what happens to us. Despite the rhetoric that's not the situation now.
People certainly realise what rule taking means as its how they have to live their lives.
And it is what the UK has had to do while it has been in the EU.
I am going to the East Midlands Swinson / Davey hustings this evening. What question should I ask?
I hope it's a good evening for all concerned. I'm not going myself but I know one or two people who are. I've already made up my mind who to vote for - but having said that I'll actually be equally happy if the other candidate wins.
Mr. Roger, Corbyn habitually sides against the UK, regardless of whether others agree (in this case, perhaps) or almost no-one does (the novichok poisoning).
How we won the Cold War is a bit of a mystery. Much of Europe's population was anti-US back then, as well.
Also presumably a mystery why the middle east is such a monumental, largely US led clustefuck, given much of Europe's population is anti-US in that regard. Perhaps the take away is that the US does what it wants regardless of support or opposition (though we might retain an iota of self respect by not going all poodly at the sound of our master's voice).
Of course the locals bear absolutely no responsibility for their regional troubles. It’s all the result of manipulation by the Americans. I think more highly of the Arab population than you do I suppose
'The Arab population'
I'm sure they're all very grateful for your hugely generalised good opinion. Any encouraging words for Arameans, Assyrians, Baloch, Berbers, Copts, Druze, Jews, Kurds, Lurs, Mandaeans, Persians, Samaritans, Shabaks, Tats, and Zazas?
Nice diversion from removing all agency from the local population generally by focusing on terminology to ignore the point. Kudos
Given that it’s a reign of many countries with competing political and religious morivati9ns and ideologies, “the Arab population” is absurdly reductive in several respects. Moreover, you can hardly argue that the populace have the leaders that they have chosen in most of the region.
And ‘manipulation’ is something of a euphemism for frequent direct intervention.
Comments
I'm sure they're all very grateful for your hugely generalised good opinion. Any encouraging words for Arameans, Assyrians, Baloch, Berbers, Copts, Druze, Jews, Kurds, Lurs, Mandaeans, Persians, Samaritans, Shabaks, Tats, and Zazas?
Yes, its hard to see how he gets past the next ballot and he has gotten carried away. I still dont see how that speaks to the interestingness or not of his campaign. I wasnt saying he would win or that one must like his campaign.
Disregarding them completely because they tell you something you don’t like is as nuts as putting your faith in them uncritically.
They are in no position to criticise Corbyn’s Labour for a lack of patriotism or economic lunacy.
My daughter runs her own business, employing 4 people. It is currently profitable - though margins are tight and she has to work extremely hard. Some of her customers are in the farming sector which will be hit very hard by a No Deal exit. That could mean the end of her business. It is one of those small businesses a long long way away from the sorts of places people like Boris and Raab and Gove inhabit. There are not many 24 year olds who decide to learn about business the hard way and do something in and for their local community.
The Tories are saying to her and many many others: “Fuck business.”
Well, “Fuck the Tories”.
Boris has no plan for how to exit and no plan for what happens next. Anyone with eyes to see can see he is not fit for purpose. If he calls a GE I hope he loses. It will serve him and the Tories right. A hung Parliament with, I hope, increased Lib Dem representation is the best I could hope for.
Oh, and thank you @david_herdson for a good article.
He has been telling us of Boris's popularity among supporters of UK''s third party for some time, for sure. But during the same period he has also advanced various far fetched scenarios for Boris's ascent to power that never came to pass. Even now, once we get beyond his now probable selection, HY is back off into flights of fancy.
Of course in the longer term will be a mess -we will be rule takers with no influence but that will be the result of a badly thought out referendum.
Charles' analysis is broadly correct, as evidenced by UKIP winning the 2014 Euros, a party promising a referendum winning the 2015 election, Leave winning in the referendum in 2016, and The Brexit Party winning in May.
Curiously, Charles is the poster most opposed to retesting public opinion in a referendum.
Just in case.
There will be no coalition of the willing. Only a coalition of the willingly credulous.
Your point about Boris got me to check my own book. At one point on 15-Jul-18 (Chequers?), he was 16/1. That gave me a point to level my book out a bit on him, because I would have been about -£100 on him, which is relatively big money for me.
His path to today has been a great example of "panic button" thinking within the party, and a useful exercise for other contests. Who, do we think, is Labour's panic button if they fall 12pts behind (and actually get rid of Corbs)?
Boris = a man who has never worked in business and has been sacked from a number of jobs he has held for unethical behaviour
Preposterous wibbling = stuff you disagree with. Other senior business people have stated how dangerous a No Deal exit is and how unprepared for it Britain is; see the director of the port of Immingham, senior people in the pharmaceuticals sector and the SMMT in recent days.
Sotto voce = it’s been heard loud and clear in this country and elsewhere.
The calculation only improves the No Deal parties by 2-3% anyway.
“We will be denied an opinion on what happens to us.” = Taking Back Control
Voters, eh.
I am not saying May is Chamberlain and Boris is Churchill and Hunt is Halifax as such but it is true that the 2 greatest Tory PMs of the last century, Churchill and Thatcher, were both deeply distrusted by 'widely respected voices' within the party establishment until they firmly stamped their mark on the party and the country
Still stand by that?
The New Yorker piece comes closest:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/24/the-empty-promise-of-boris-johnson
It is easy to write off Boris as “racist”.
As it happens, I don’t think he is, save that the odd flirtation with racially charged language is a price worth paying if he can get a laugh out of it.
I read often that he is a “bad man”, but apart from the Guppy recording (cowardice?) and of course the serial adultery (a sin practiced by at least a third of the population and de rigeur for French Presidents), what does that really mean?
Nor can we be sure he is utterly incompetent. He was not a terrible mayor of London - the Garden Bridge being the only real black mark against his record. Sure, he delegated everything, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing in a role which still lacks real power.
He has qualities, even. He is approachable, disarming, charismatic.
No, the fundamental problem with Boris is that he is not serious about anything except his own ambition. Everything is a jape.
This explains why he was perceived to be such a poor Foreign Secretary: one looks for gravitas, Boris just grins and tousles his fright wig. He has no command of detail, no policy. His lacks any real commitment to what we might call the constitutional fundamentals: democracy, the welfare of the people, the future of the nation:
The article is worth reading.
He was slapdash and constantly late, and awaited a great future. “I think he honestly believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else,” Johnson’s housemaster, Martin Hammond, wrote in the spring of 1982.
We can already see the lineaments and trajectory of a Boris premiership. The real government will he managed by various power brokers in Cabinet. Actual government (save one or two eye catching and expensive boondoggles) will take place at a certain remove from the public sphere, because Boris won’t be directing it, will not talk to policy.
The media will breathlessly report on a series of mishaps and pratfalls.
We will be amused, then charmed, then disappointed, then furious.
The only thing we cannot predict is the length of this cycle. It could be anything from 3 months to 5 years.
One of the non-Boris remaining five will take the prize if Boris implodes.
No, I think the Parliamentary Party has made its peace with the idea of PM Boris. Albeit, many of his colleagues will cross themselves in doing so.
Sadly, that will probably mean people like Raab and Mogg, but you can't have everything.
Just praying it isn't Mogg. We would be on the gold standard, imperial preference and issuing guineas by end of first week.
And it is what the UK has had to do while it has been in the EU.
'You're a nasty piece of work, aren't you?'
And ‘manipulation’ is something of a euphemism for frequent direct intervention.
https://order-order.com/2019/06/15/actual-channel-4-news-question-boris-johnson-homphobe-misogynist-feel-charge/