The YouGov numbers that HYUFD cites would deliver a 20-seat majority for a Hunt-led Conservative Party as well but the problem is, as the article suggests, the majority becomes possible only once Brexit is delivered not just on the promise of it being delivered.
In essence the majority is a chimera until and unless Brexit can be delivered - the Survation numbers the other day suggested both Johnson and Hunt as PM would leave the Conservatives on 26% (funny how those aren't widely mentioned). Ipsos-Mori suggests only 19% very likely to vote Conservative and 17% "fairly likely" to vote Conservative if Boris Johnson were PM. Imagining all of the 17% will turn up and put their cross in the blue corner is as fanciful as suggesting none of the 10,005 who signed the recall petition for Chris Davies were Conservative voters.
What the polls are actually telling us is Johnson and Hunt can only win if they deliver Brexit first. Going to the country without having delivered Brexit (whether on a Deal/No Deal guaranteed 31/10 exit or not) doesn't guarantee that majority.
Farage and TBP will throw the previous failures to deliver Brexit back at Johnson (or Hunt). Those wanting Brexit stopped or delayed will think they still have a chance so where does the majority come from and how does a Johnson-led Party remain united given we know there are some sitting Conservative MPs who are adamantly opposed to leaving without an agreed WA.
Would I expect a knock on the door if I did, I’m an engineer so such things go over my head.
Well Boris Johnson's use of a catamite got him sacked.
Boris Johnson has spoken of his regret on concocting a quote about King Edward II and the monarch’s gay lover, when he was a junior reporter at the Times in the late 1980s.
In a BBC documentary broadcast on Monday, the London mayor was asked about having to leave the paper because of the incident.
He was sacked for falsifying a quotation from his godfather, Colin Lucas, later vice-chancellor of Oxford University.
The Guardian documents that as a 23-year-old Times trainee Mr Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists’ discovery of Edward II’s 14th-century palace.
He quoted Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch “enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston” at the palace. Gaveston was indeed rumoured to have been the king’s lover – but was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.
Of the quote, Mr Johnson told filmmaker Michael Cockerell: “It was awful… I remember a deep, deep sense of shame and guilt… just not knowing how to sort it out… it was a bit of a bummer frankly.”
You might be best off with 'marisca' (a fig of inferior quality, when compared to the highly rated Chian fig which represents the catamite https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/priap/prp101.htm ), but there's no real equivalent.
Johnson did a relatively decent job as Mayor, within the confines of the role. And significantly better than Khan is managing. He also pursued some expensive disasters ("Boris" buses, Garden bridge, water cannon) and claimed credit for things that were really inherited from Livingstone.
However the idea that the success he had in the role (however limited) in any way qualifies him as PM is ludicrous. The Mayor is a role with almost complete executive power (limited only by what is not within its competence and where action is pursued in opposition to national government). The advisers and executive can be appointed completely outside of the legislature, the legislature has almost no power, there is almost no need to submit to scrutiny outside of the election period. The Mayor can delegate almost everything and spend the time being a figurehead.
The contrast with being PM couldn't be more stark. In fact I reckon he would have a better chance as US President (as Trump is proving).
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
Mayor of London isn't a vanity position. Boris did a decent job. Khan is doing ok, but he isn't making it look easy.
Did he? Are you able to point to any of his achievements? Please I would love to know. I keep asking HYUFD but he just keeps parroting optimistic predictions about what Boris will do when he is PM.
It is like someone being recommended for a job, but their only recommendation is that they are very good at winning interviews, and no one can point to anything of substance. I accept that it is highly unlikely I will vote for him (generally put off by liars) but I am one of those rare people that has a vote. It is either Hunt or abstention as choices for me at the moment. As a long term Conservative Party member I would love to be persuaded that Boris is not as hopeless as I think.
The proof that it's a non job is his claiming credit for the Olympics which had no imput from him. (Snip)
????
The Olympics were held in July/August 2012. The Olympics were awarded to London in 2005. Boris was MoL from 2008 to 2016. The preparation for the Olympics encompassed his entire first term.
True, the basic trend of the Olympics were set under Livingstone's tenure as MoL. However the idea that Boris was MoL for the four final years of the project and 'had no input' is slightly ridiculous.
The success of the 2012 Olympics can be put down to both Labour and Conservative; Livingstone and Johnson. They all could have mucked it up. None of them did.
Johnson did a relatively decent job as Mayor, within the confines of the role. And significantly better than Khan is managing. He also pursued some expensive disasters ("Boris" buses, Garden bridge, water cannon) and claimed credit for things that were really inherited from Livingstone.
However the idea that the success he had in the role (however limited) in any way qualifies him as PM is ludicrous. The Mayor is a role with almost complete executive power (limited only by what is not within its competence and where action is pursued in opposition to national government). The advisers and executive can be appointed completely outside of the legislature, the legislature has almost no power, there is almost no need to submit to scrutiny outside of the election period. The Mayor can delegate almost everything and spend the time being a figurehead.
The contrast with being PM couldn't be more stark. In fact I reckon he would have a better chance as US President (as Trump is proving).
I like the "Johnson did a relatively decent job as Mayor," followed by a list of his expensive disasters! What would you say were the successes to compensate for those disasters?
The YouGov numbers that HYUFD cites would deliver a 20-seat majority for a Hunt-led Conservative Party as well but the problem is, as the article suggests, the majority becomes possible only once Brexit is delivered not just on the promise of it being delivered.
In essence the majority is a chimera until and unless Brexit can be delivered - the Survation numbers the other day suggested both Johnson and Hunt as PM would leave the Conservatives on 26% (funny how those aren't widely mentioned). Ipsos-Mori suggests only 19% very likely to vote Conservative and 17% "fairly likely" to vote Conservative if Boris Johnson were PM. Imagining all of the 17% will turn up and put their cross in the blue corner is as fanciful as suggesting none of the 10,005 who signed the recall petition for Chris Davies were Conservative voters.
What the polls are actually telling us is Johnson and Hunt can only win if they deliver Brexit first. Going to the country without having delivered Brexit (whether on a Deal/No Deal guaranteed 31/10 exit or not) doesn't guarantee that majority.
Farage and TBP will throw the previous failures to deliver Brexit back at Johnson (or Hunt). Those wanting Brexit stopped or delayed will think they still have a chance so where does the majority come from and how does a Johnson-led Party remain united given we know there are some sitting Conservative MPs who are adamantly opposed to leaving without an agreed WA.
Boris will win a majority large enough to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal if the Commons as is likely backs a VONC in him as PM to stop the possibility of No Deal (which Boris does not want anyway, he wants a GB FTA but would still leave in the table).
If Boris wins a big majority he then has the mandate and numbers he needs to get the Withdrawal Agreement through and move to a Canada style FTA with the EU and ignore the diehard ERG and diehard Remain Tory MPs and the DUP
Would I expect a knock on the door if I did, I’m an engineer so such things go over my head.
Well Boris Johnson's use of a catamite got him sacked.
Boris Johnson has spoken of his regret on concocting a quote about King Edward II and the monarch’s gay lover, when he was a junior reporter at the Times in the late 1980s.
In a BBC documentary broadcast on Monday, the London mayor was asked about having to leave the paper because of the incident.
He was sacked for falsifying a quotation from his godfather, Colin Lucas, later vice-chancellor of Oxford University.
The Guardian documents that as a 23-year-old Times trainee Mr Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists’ discovery of Edward II’s 14th-century palace.
He quoted Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch “enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston” at the palace. Gaveston was indeed rumoured to have been the king’s lover – but was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.
Of the quote, Mr Johnson told filmmaker Michael Cockerell: “It was awful… I remember a deep, deep sense of shame and guilt… just not knowing how to sort it out… it was a bit of a bummer frankly.”
You might be best off with 'marisca' (a fig of inferior quality, when compared to the highly rated Chian fig which represents the catamite https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/priap/prp101.htm ), but there's no real equivalent.
Johnson did a relatively decent job as Mayor, within the confines of the role. And significantly better than Khan is managing. He also pursued some expensive disasters ("Boris" buses, Garden bridge, water cannon) and claimed credit for things that were really inherited from Livingstone.
However the idea that the success he had in the role (however limited) in any way qualifies him as PM is ludicrous. The Mayor is a role with almost complete executive power (limited only by what is not within its competence and where action is pursued in opposition to national government). The advisers and executive can be appointed completely outside of the legislature, the legislature has almost no power, there is almost no need to submit to scrutiny outside of the election period. The Mayor can delegate almost everything and spend the time being a figurehead.
The contrast with being PM couldn't be more stark. In fact I reckon he would have a better chance as US President (as Trump is proving).
I like the "Johnson did a relatively decent job as Mayor," followed by a list of his expensive disasters! What would you say were the successes to compensate for those disasters?
I don't know, kept Council tax precept down, maintained funding levels for TfL and associated investment, reasonable record in combatting crime, oversaw successful Olympics, promoted green transport.
Johnson did a relatively decent job as Mayor, within the confines of the role. And significantly better than Khan is managing. He also pursued some expensive disasters ("Boris" buses, Garden bridge, water cannon) and claimed credit for things that were really inherited from Livingstone.
However the idea that the success he had in the role (however limited) in any way qualifies him as PM is ludicrous. The Mayor is a role with almost complete executive power (limited only by what is not within its competence and where action is pursued in opposition to national government). The advisers and executive can be appointed completely outside of the legislature, the legislature has almost no power, there is almost no need to submit to scrutiny outside of the election period. The Mayor can delegate almost everything and spend the time being a figurehead.
The contrast with being PM couldn't be more stark. In fact I reckon he would have a better chance as US President (as Trump is proving).
I like the "Johnson did a relatively decent job as Mayor," followed by a list of his expensive disasters! What would you say were the successes to compensate for those disasters?
I don't know, kept Council tax precept down, maintained funding levels for TfL and associated investment, reasonable record in combatting crime, oversaw successful Olympics, promoted green transport.
So he didn't do much, just kept things going on at an even keel?
I'd say that was fair, Not disastrous, bit not brilliant either.
Just one local by-election today. It's in Mansfield where a Lab councillor has resigned following election as executive Mayor. Expect a close fight with the Mansfield Independent.
Blimey, I've only just seen the Mansfield Mayoral result - Labour won by 7,930 to 7,928 over the Independent, after second preferences were taken into account - but less than 30% of the eliminated candidates' votes had a usable second preference, and 546 votes were completely void for uncertainty. A bit of a shambles.
Comments
The YouGov numbers that HYUFD cites would deliver a 20-seat majority for a Hunt-led Conservative Party as well but the problem is, as the article suggests, the majority becomes possible only once Brexit is delivered not just on the promise of it being delivered.
In essence the majority is a chimera until and unless Brexit can be delivered - the Survation numbers the other day suggested both Johnson and Hunt as PM would leave the Conservatives on 26% (funny how those aren't widely mentioned). Ipsos-Mori suggests only 19% very likely to vote Conservative and 17% "fairly likely" to vote Conservative if Boris Johnson were PM. Imagining all of the 17% will turn up and put their cross in the blue corner is as fanciful as suggesting none of the 10,005 who signed the recall petition for Chris Davies were Conservative voters.
What the polls are actually telling us is Johnson and Hunt can only win if they deliver Brexit first. Going to the country without having delivered Brexit (whether on a Deal/No Deal guaranteed 31/10 exit or not) doesn't guarantee that majority.
Farage and TBP will throw the previous failures to deliver Brexit back at Johnson (or Hunt). Those wanting Brexit stopped or delayed will think they still have a chance so where does the majority come from and how does a Johnson-led Party remain united given we know there are some sitting Conservative MPs who are adamantly opposed to leaving without an agreed WA.
However the idea that the success he had in the role (however limited) in any way qualifies him as PM is ludicrous. The Mayor is a role with almost complete executive power (limited only by what is not within its competence and where action is pursued in opposition to national government). The advisers and executive can be appointed completely outside of the legislature, the legislature has almost no power, there is almost no need to submit to scrutiny outside of the election period. The Mayor can delegate almost everything and spend the time being a figurehead.
The contrast with being PM couldn't be more stark. In fact I reckon he would have a better chance as US President (as Trump is proving).
The Olympics were held in July/August 2012. The Olympics were awarded to London in 2005. Boris was MoL from 2008 to 2016. The preparation for the Olympics encompassed his entire first term.
True, the basic trend of the Olympics were set under Livingstone's tenure as MoL. However the idea that Boris was MoL for the four final years of the project and 'had no input' is slightly ridiculous.
The success of the 2012 Olympics can be put down to both Labour and Conservative; Livingstone and Johnson. They all could have mucked it up. None of them did.
If Boris wins a big majority he then has the mandate and numbers he needs to get the Withdrawal Agreement through and move to a Canada style FTA with the EU and ignore the diehard ERG and diehard Remain Tory MPs and the DUP
NEW THREAD
I'd say that was fair, Not disastrous, bit not brilliant either.
http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=10778&p=0