Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 8 days after he enters Number 10 PM Johnson will face his

SystemSystem Posts: 12,171
edited July 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 8 days after he enters Number 10 PM Johnson will face his first CON by-election defence

In the week after Boris Johnson becomes Prime Minister he will face his first by-election defence in the Welsh constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. Looking through the records this appears to be unprecedented. There hasn’t in modern times been a by-election scheduled to take place so soon after a new PM takes office and, inevitably it is going to be seen as something of a verdict on him.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    It will be interesting to see if there is any kind of Boris bounce.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    Or not.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Nigelb said:

    It will be interesting to see if there is any kind of Boris bounce.

    It will be hard to tell since a bounce if it comes will come after he is elected, but postal ballots will be sent in before he is elected.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238

    Nigelb said:

    It will be interesting to see if there is any kind of Boris bounce.

    It will be hard to tell since a bounce if it comes will come after he is elected, but postal ballots will be sent in before he is elected.
    I don't think that much matters.

    Everyone is assuming he will be the new PM already. Of course it gets interesting if he fails to command a majority in the Commons.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    It will be interesting to see if there is any kind of Boris bounce.

    It will be hard to tell since a bounce if it comes will come after he is elected, but postal ballots will be sent in before he is elected.
    I don't think that much matters.

    Everyone is assuming he will be the new PM already. Of course it gets interesting if he fails to command a majority in the Commons.
    Everyone interested was assuming Brown would be the new PM after Blair too. Brown's bounce in the polls still came after he was elected not beforehand.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    I think there has to be a good chance of a Tory win. If so, if it calms down the HYUFD tendency by showing that the Brexit Party aren't about to eat their lunch it might be help get the Tories back to some sense.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.

    Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Always assuming Parliament has not already been dissolved by then...
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    I think there has to be a good chance of a Tory win. If so, if it calms down the HYUFD tendency by showing that the Brexit Party aren't about to eat their lunch it might be help get the Tories back to some sense.

    No, they will take it as a vindication of the become-Brexit-Party strategy.

    I think a Boris bounce should be large enough to see them second, but if the Lib Dems can't win this seat in the circumstances (Brexit, expenses, other parties standing aside, by-election) then reports of their resurrection will have been greatly exaggerated.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720

    I think there has to be a good chance of a Tory win. If so, if it calms down the HYUFD tendency by showing that the Brexit Party aren't about to eat their lunch it might be help get the Tories back to some sense.

    No, they will take it as a vindication of the become-Brexit-Party strategy.

    I think a Boris bounce should be large enough to see them second, but if the Lib Dems can't win this seat in the circumstances (Brexit, expenses, other parties standing aside, by-election) then reports of their resurrection will have been greatly exaggerated.
    The ideal result to demoralise the HYUFD tendency would be Lib Dems first, Brexit Party second.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Meanwhile back in the real world, Stephen Bush has just reminded me that far from being something to be rejected we should be signing the WDA as soon as we can get the lid off the biro in case the EU change their mind on a major concession to the UK.



  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Just as if we wish to trade with the USA we don't have American laws in the UK. Our exports may need to be FCC compliant but we don't have American laws at home.

    You don't think the US negotiating objectives for a trade deal will involve changing any laws in the UK?
    If the US decide they want to change laws we aren't happy to change we should not sign a deal with them. Simple.

    But the EU is worse than that. The vile deal the EU has proposed is that the EU would be able to change laws in the future and we would meekly have to follow those laws without a say.
    That's only during transition.
    No it is also during the backstop.

    If it was only during transition I'd have no problem with it.
    Only as it applies to Northern Ireland. The parts pertaining to the rest of the UK are standard customs union conditions and the EU has said we can withdraw unilaterally.
    "Only Northern Ireland" makes it OK?

    Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Unless or until they choose to leave the UK, that is too much.

    If in order to get a trade deal with the USA we were to let the USA effectively annex Scotland, granting the US Congress the right to change Scottish laws without any say of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish voters would that be acceptable? Should we shrug our shoulders and say "Its only Scotland"?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237

    I think there has to be a good chance of a Tory win. If so, if it calms down the HYUFD tendency by showing that the Brexit Party aren't about to eat their lunch it might be help get the Tories back to some sense.

    I'm on that at the 10 mark. Really like the bet.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    I think there has to be a good chance of a Tory win. If so, if it calms down the HYUFD tendency by showing that the Brexit Party aren't about to eat their lunch it might be help get the Tories back to some sense.

    No, they will take it as a vindication of the become-Brexit-Party strategy.

    I think a Boris bounce should be large enough to see them second, but if the Lib Dems can't win this seat in the circumstances (Brexit, expenses, other parties standing aside, by-election) then reports of their resurrection will have been greatly exaggerated.
    On reflection you are probably right.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Endillion said:

    Roger said:

    Jezz. You won't persuade the hoarde to stop talking about Corbyn and anti semitism while it is in their interest to do so. Most people will have made their minds up about him and for what it's worth I don't believe more than a tiny minority believe him to be racist. He's a poor politician badly advised which is why he's allowed the smear to waste so much of his time

    He's been told explicitly by numerous members of his own party what he has to do to stop the attacks coming. Why do you think he refuses to listen?


    OT. Because it is much more complicated than most people believe. Even when you speak to Jewish people who study the subject the relationship between Jews and Israel is a complex one. A lot of Jews are struggling and like politics it's not just left right pro or anti Israel anymore. It raises questions about who is a Jew for which there are several opinions. For Gentiles it's even more difficult. You can see well meaning people trying desperately to appear not anti semitic but without any idea of what or where the boundary is or what the term means.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.

    Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.

    Or it demonstrates that the fears for leaving and the uncertainty it is meant to be causing are overblown.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Any BoZo bonus last only until 1st November when he gets VONCed by the headbangers...

    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1151065348323647488
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,679
    They should respect our laws.

    Britain First fined £40,000 over multiple law breaches

    The far-right group has committed a "serious offence and shows disregard for the law", the Electoral Commission says.


    https://news.sky.com/story/britain-first-fined-40-000-for-multiple-law-breaches-11764112
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited July 2019

    The ideal result to demoralise the HYUFD tendency would be Lib Dems first, Brexit Party second.

    No, in that scenario they would simply draw the conclusion that the Conservatives need to become even more like the Brexit Party.

    Unfortunately the Tories have dug a massive trap for themselves and jumped into it, by not squashing the nonsense of the ERG early enough and thereby validating Farage. There's no way out of this trap. The more they struggle, the more they will get tangled up.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573
    Roger said:


    Endillion said:

    Roger said:

    Jezz. You won't persuade the hoarde to stop talking about Corbyn and anti semitism while it is in their interest to do so. Most people will have made their minds up about him and for what it's worth I don't believe more than a tiny minority believe him to be racist. He's a poor politician badly advised which is why he's allowed the smear to waste so much of his time

    He's been told explicitly by numerous members of his own party what he has to do to stop the attacks coming. Why do you think he refuses to listen?


    OT. Because it is much more complicated than most people believe. Even when you speak to Jewish people who study the subject the relationship between Jews and Israel is a complex one. A lot of Jews are struggling and like politics it's not just left right pro or anti Israel anymore. It raises questions about who is a Jew for which there are several opinions. For Gentiles it's even more difficult. You can see well meaning people trying desperately to appear not anti semitic but without any idea of what or where the boundary is or what the term means.
    Which is true of the whole subject of racism. Why and how, for example, should an elderly white pensioner living in the Scottish highlands know that 'people of colour' isn't racist but 'coloured people' is?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,217
    Yes, this is what happens when our politicians fail to pass the necessary gruel of the deal in front of them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    Yes, this is what happens when our politicians fail to pass the necessary gruel of the deal in front of them.
    When inflation is EXACTLY on target at 2.0% and exports are growing annually what exactly is the harm in having a more competitive exchange rate?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.

    Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.

    Or it demonstrates that the fears for leaving and the uncertainty it is meant to be causing are overblown.
    Not really. The main effect of the uncertainty so far has been on investment (in fact it might even have marginally helped the employment figures, as firms hire more staff rather than invest in new equipment and facilities). That doesn't bode well for the medium term.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720

    Just as if we wish to trade with the USA we don't have American laws in the UK. Our exports may need to be FCC compliant but we don't have American laws at home.

    You don't think the US negotiating objectives for a trade deal will involve changing any laws in the UK?
    If the US decide they want to change laws we aren't happy to change we should not sign a deal with them. Simple.

    But the EU is worse than that. The vile deal the EU has proposed is that the EU would be able to change laws in the future and we would meekly have to follow those laws without a say.
    That's only during transition.
    No it is also during the backstop.

    If it was only during transition I'd have no problem with it.
    Only as it applies to Northern Ireland. The parts pertaining to the rest of the UK are standard customs union conditions and the EU has said we can withdraw unilaterally.
    "Only Northern Ireland" makes it OK?

    Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Unless or until they choose to leave the UK, that is too much.

    If in order to get a trade deal with the USA we were to let the USA effectively annex Scotland, granting the US Congress the right to change Scottish laws without any say of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish voters would that be acceptable? Should we shrug our shoulders and say "Its only Scotland"?
    We only have a leasehold on Northern Ireland. As soon as a majority of people decide to reunify, sovereignty transfers to Ireland, and that deal was predicated on the economic integration facilitated by the single market and customs union.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,679
    Yesterday I attended a presentation about how bad a No Deal Brexit will be on the 31st of October.

    Quite simply there’s not the time to pass all the laws moving us over to WTO terms and collect tariffs. We need a trade bill which the commons library and Andrea Leadsom have both said we don’t have the time to pass, even if the summer break was cancelled and Parliament also sat at weekends

    The economy is going to take a hit and the government won’t be able to collect a lot of revenues it should.

    No Deal will particularly hit manufacturing, farming, fishing, and financial services in this instance.

    Presentation cited 22 examples of when Boris Johnson said no deal wouldn’t happen, including up to last year.

    A general election during no deal will see the Tories gubbed.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.

    Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.

    Or it demonstrates that the fears for leaving and the uncertainty it is meant to be causing are overblown.
    Not really. The main effect of the uncertainty so far has been on investment (in fact it might even have marginally helped the employment figures, as firms hire more staff rather than invest in new equipment and facilities). That doesn't bode well for the medium term.
    Can you show me any predictions before the referendum that a Brexit vote would mean record employment and wages growing faster than inflation?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,217

    Pulpstar said:

    Yes, this is what happens when our politicians fail to pass the necessary gruel of the deal in front of them.
    When inflation is EXACTLY on target at 2.0% and exports are growing annually what exactly is the harm in having a more competitive exchange rate?
    €1.40 as an exporter was hard work, €1.20 odd is competitive, having it sink lower isn't great tbh..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,217


    Presentation cited 22 examples of when Boris Johnson said no deal wouldn’t happen, including up to last year.

    I think May said around a hundred times we're leaving on the 29th March..
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Just as if we wish to trade with the USA we don't have American laws in the UK. Our exports may need to be FCC compliant but we don't have American laws at home.

    You don't think the US negotiating objectives for a trade deal will involve changing any laws in the UK?
    If the US decide they want to change laws we aren't happy to change we should not sign a deal with them. Simple.

    But the EU is worse than that. The vile deal the EU has proposed is that the EU would be able to change laws in the future and we would meekly have to follow those laws without a say.
    That's only during transition.
    No it is also during the backstop.

    If it was only during transition I'd have no problem with it.
    Only as it applies to Northern Ireland. The parts pertaining to the rest of the UK are standard customs union conditions and the EU has said we can withdraw unilaterally.
    "Only Northern Ireland" makes it OK?

    Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Unless or until they choose to leave the UK, that is too much.

    If in order to get a trade deal with the USA we were to let the USA effectively annex Scotland, granting the US Congress the right to change Scottish laws without any say of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish voters would that be acceptable? Should we shrug our shoulders and say "Its only Scotland"?
    We only have a leasehold on Northern Ireland. As soon as a majority of people decide to reunify, sovereignty transfers to Ireland, and that deal was predicated on the economic integration facilitated by the single market and customs union.
    Bullshit. Show me where leasehold is defined in law please.

    Northern Ireland is part of the UK and if a majority of people decide to leave the UK they can unify with Ireland so long as both North and South agree to that. They haven't yet, they are part of us and they have a right to determine their own laws not be slaves subjugated to follow someone else's laws without a say so.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Can you show me any predictions before the referendum that a Brexit vote would mean record employment and wages growing faster than inflation?

    No. Since Brexit hasn't happened yet, I'm not sure what point you are making.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Yes, this is what happens when our politicians fail to pass the necessary gruel of the deal in front of them.
    When inflation is EXACTLY on target at 2.0% and exports are growing annually what exactly is the harm in having a more competitive exchange rate?
    €1.40 as an exporter was hard work, €1.20 odd is competitive, having it sink lower isn't great tbh..
    Why? Where's the magic number and how come people weren't cheering when it was €1.20?

    If we were suffering from inflation I'd agree sinking lower would be exacerbating our problems. Inflation is not our problem at the minute though.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Roger said:


    Endillion said:

    Roger said:

    Jezz. You won't persuade the hoarde to stop talking about Corbyn and anti semitism while it is in their interest to do so. Most people will have made their minds up about him and for what it's worth I don't believe more than a tiny minority believe him to be racist. He's a poor politician badly advised which is why he's allowed the smear to waste so much of his time

    He's been told explicitly by numerous members of his own party what he has to do to stop the attacks coming. Why do you think he refuses to listen?
    OT. Because it is much more complicated than most people believe. Even when you speak to Jewish people who study the subject the relationship between Jews and Israel is a complex one. A lot of Jews are struggling and like politics it's not just left right pro or anti Israel anymore. It raises questions about who is a Jew for which there are several opinions. For Gentiles it's even more difficult. You can see well meaning people trying desperately to appear not anti semitic but without any idea of what or where the boundary is or what the term means.
    This is lovely, but it has precisely nothing to do with his office interfering with what are supposed to be independent complaints procedures.

    By the way, it's really not that hard. Criticising the Israeli government is totally fine (it puts you on the same platform as a solid half of all Israelis for a start). Calling for the violent destruction of Israel (and defending/associating with those who do), clearly isn't. Ditto bringing up 1930s era conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the banks/media/everything else.

    Sure, there's a grey area in the middle, and it's difficult to find the precise line without getting into serious trouble, but a) there's been enough out of Labour members in recent years that's clearly over the line for this not to matter, and b) you have to ask yourself why Corbyn and his associates are so desperate to continue inhabiting the grey area, given how much trouble it's causing them.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720

    Just as if we wish to trade with the USA we don't have American laws in the UK. Our exports may need to be FCC compliant but we don't have American laws at home.

    You don't think the US negotiating objectives for a trade deal will involve changing any laws in the UK?
    If the US decide they want to change laws we aren't happy to change we should not sign a deal with them. Simple.

    But the EU is worse than that. The vile deal the EU has proposed is that the EU would be able to change laws in the future and we would meekly have to follow those laws without a say.
    That's only during transition.
    No it is also during the backstop.

    If it was only during transition I'd have no problem with it.
    Only as it applies to Northern Ireland. The parts pertaining to the rest of the UK are standard customs union conditions and the EU has said we can withdraw unilaterally.
    "Only Northern Ireland" makes it OK?

    Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Unless or until they choose to leave the UK, that is too much.

    If in order to get a trade deal with the USA we were to let the USA effectively annex Scotland, granting the US Congress the right to change Scottish laws without any say of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish voters would that be acceptable? Should we shrug our shoulders and say "Its only Scotland"?
    We only have a leasehold on Northern Ireland. As soon as a majority of people decide to reunify, sovereignty transfers to Ireland, and that deal was predicated on the economic integration facilitated by the single market and customs union.
    Bullshit. Show me where leasehold is defined in law please.

    Northern Ireland is part of the UK and if a majority of people decide to leave the UK they can unify with Ireland so long as both North and South agree to that. They haven't yet, they are part of us and they have a right to determine their own laws not be slaves subjugated to follow someone else's laws without a say so.
    Remind me how Northern Ireland voted in the referendum. If you were so bothered you would defer to them and to Scotland, and wait until all parts of the UK wanted to leave the EU before proceeding. It's contemptible hypocrisy to claim the backstop is unacceptable on democratic grounds.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Can you show me any predictions before the referendum that a Brexit vote would mean record employment and wages growing faster than inflation?

    No. Since Brexit hasn't happened yet, I'm not sure what point you are making.
    Brexit hasn't happened yet but the Brexit vote did three years ago and the forecast was that the uncertainty that would cause would lead to 500,000 unemployed BEFORE Brexit even occured. Instead we have record employment.

    Safe to say that some soothesayers don't know what they're talking about.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Yesterday I attended a presentation about how bad a No Deal Brexit will be on the 31st of October.

    Quite simply there’s not the time to pass all the laws moving us over to WTO terms and collect tariffs. We need a trade bill which the commons library and Andrea Leadsom have both said we don’t have the time to pass, even if the summer break was cancelled and Parliament also sat at weekends

    The economy is going to take a hit and the government won’t be able to collect a lot of revenues it should.

    No Deal will particularly hit manufacturing, farming, fishing, and financial services in this instance.

    Presentation cited 22 examples of when Boris Johnson said no deal wouldn’t happen, including up to last year.

    A general election during no deal will see the Tories gubbed.

    Yes, this is the weirdest thing. The October 31st commitment is completely brain-dead - even in a no-deal scenario. It beggars belief that Boris, and to a lesser extent even Hunt, have voluntarily set themselves up for an inevitable humiliating disaster, repeating the exact same mistake Theresa May made at the start of the year.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,617

    Very good jobs and wages figures just out. Real-term pay (adjusted for inflation) up 1.4% compared with a year ago,. Unemployment at 3.8% is best figure since 1974.

    Those are stonkingly good figures when you consider that both the UK economy and the world economies are not doing particularly well. It shows that the structural changes and sound economic management of the last 9 years have really brought benefits. A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away.

    "A pity that it's probably all going to be thrown away." Is that your quote from 3 years ago?

    At least there's now some doubt.....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,217


    Quite simply there’s not the time to pass all the laws moving us over to WTO terms and collect tariffs.

    We've had plenty of time to do this as a nation if we were so willing. That'll always be an argument against - but those against no deal will never pass the laws to facilitate it even though it would be the best possible way to "no deal".

    Politicians can never seem to do the whole 'we'll pass this law to alleviate x even if we disagree with it because y might do z which precipitates it'.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Remind me how Northern Ireland voted in the referendum. If you were so bothered you would defer to them and to Scotland, and wait until all parts of the UK wanted to leave the EU before proceeding. It's contemptible hypocrisy to claim the backstop is unacceptable on democratic grounds.

    Northern Ireland voted as part of the UK on the question of should the UK [which includes NI] leave the EU.

    NI haven't voted for the backstop. In fact the MPs they've elected after the referendum vehemently oppose it.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    Senior Tories that im in touch with have already written off Brecon and Radnor..
    More interestingly in the 8 days after BJs annoitment will be his cabinet appointees and the fall out from those he discards.
    All this nonsense abt tories not voting against its own govt in a VONC is incorrect. I hear that possibly 15 will.
    Brexit once again will prove bigger than anyone is prepared to acknowledge.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720

    Remind me how Northern Ireland voted in the referendum. If you were so bothered you would defer to them and to Scotland, and wait until all parts of the UK wanted to leave the EU before proceeding. It's contemptible hypocrisy to claim the backstop is unacceptable on democratic grounds.

    Northern Ireland voted as part of the UK on the question of should the UK [which includes NI] leave the EU.

    NI haven't voted for the backstop. In fact the MPs they've elected after the referendum vehemently oppose it.
    The only election since the backstop was agreed returned a majority of MEPs in favour of it.

    At the time of the 2017 election the DUP manifesto was heavy on respecting the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and avoiding a hard border. They are also being hypocritical.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited July 2019
    Pulpstar said:


    Quite simply there’s not the time to pass all the laws moving us over to WTO terms and collect tariffs.

    We've had plenty of time to do this as a nation if we were so willing. That'll always be an argument against - but those against no deal will never pass the laws to facilitate it even though it would be the best possible way to "no deal".

    Politicians can never seem to do the whole 'we'll pass this law to alleviate x even if we disagree with it because y might do z which precipitates it'.
    Exactly! Its been three and a half years now and if Parliament can't be bothered to sort it out yet then three more months or six more months won't change squat. We've already had a six month extension and what has Parliament passed in that time?

    Jump, deal with any issues and then sort it out. If we miss out on some tariffs at first who cares? Put them in afterwards. There are more important things to worry about than being tariff free for a bit longer.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Pulpstar said:


    Quite simply there’s not the time to pass all the laws moving us over to WTO terms and collect tariffs.

    We've had plenty of time to do this as a nation if we were so willing. That'll always be an argument against - but those against no deal will never pass the laws to facilitate it even though it would be the best possible way to "no deal".

    Politicians can never seem to do the whole 'we'll pass this law to alleviate x even if we disagree with it because y might do z which precipitates it'.
    The most coherent plan amongst the leadership candidates was that of Esther McVey, who proposed forgetting about trying to renegotiate and concentrating entirely on no-deal preparation. Admittedly it was a barmy plan, but it was at least an attempt to be coherent, although the timescales still don't work if we're fixated on October 31st.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,084
    The value bet in B&R is probably the Tories- its going well, but not *that* well for the Lib Dems. Unlikely to see huge majority.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,217
    edited July 2019


    Exactly! Its been three and a half years now and if Parliament can't be bothered to sort it out yet then three more months or six more months won't change squat. We've already had a six month extension and what has Parliament passed in that time?

    :) Whilst I'm against leaving without a deal, I'll point out rot on both sides
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    algarkirk said:

    Roger said:


    Endillion said:

    Roger said:

    Jezz. You won't persuade the hoarde to stop talking about Corbyn and anti semitism while it is in their interest to do so. Most people will have made their minds up about him and for what it's worth I don't believe more than a tiny minority believe him to be racist. He's a poor politician badly advised which is why he's allowed the smear to waste so much of his time

    He's been told explicitly by numerous members of his own party what he has to do to stop the attacks coming. Why do you think he refuses to listen?


    OT. Because it is much more complicated than most people believe. Even when you speak to Jewish people who study the subject the relationship between Jews and Israel is a complex one. A lot of Jews are struggling and like politics it's not just left right pro or anti Israel anymore. It raises questions about who is a Jew for which there are several opinions. For Gentiles it's even more difficult. You can see well meaning people trying desperately to appear not anti semitic but without any idea of what or where the boundary is or what the term means.
    Which is true of the whole subject of racism. Why and how, for example, should an elderly white pensioner living in the Scottish highlands know that 'people of colour' isn't racist but 'coloured people' is?

    Remember that Labour adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism before the Conservative Party, which did so only when it saw it could embarrass Labour on the subject. However, Labour did not adopt the whole definition, just the headline part without the examples.

    If you look at the IHRA definition, the main part says (paraphrasing wildly!) don't be nasty to Jews. It is the examples that cause the problems for Labour, because the examples say don't be nasty to Jews or Israel.

    And Jezza and his mates have spent the last 30 years condemning Israel (and it is all in the historical record to be brought up whenever convenient). So the leadership has that anti-Israel problem which gives cover to out-and-out anti-Jewish sentiment, not least from Militant types now readmitted in Liverpool.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293

    Can you show me any predictions before the referendum that a Brexit vote would mean record employment and wages growing faster than inflation?

    No. Since Brexit hasn't happened yet, I'm not sure what point you are making.
    Brexit hasn't happened yet but the Brexit vote did three years ago and the forecast was that the uncertainty that would cause would lead to 500,000 unemployed BEFORE Brexit even occured. Instead we have record employment.

    I don't think we're supposed to mention that. ;)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,217
    @Richard_Nabavi Plenty has been said and written about the ERG, but I genuinely question how many politicians on either side have actually put the national interest bearing in mind the probable votes of the rest of parliament first.

    Nick Boles is one but I have to exclude Lisa Nandy and Dominic Grieve for instance as they didn't vote to pass the WA.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,129

    https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1151066217161076737?s=21
    twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1151066620133027840?s=21
    twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1151066856884715520?s=21

    Spice shortages?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,679

    Yesterday I attended a presentation about how bad a No Deal Brexit will be on the 31st of October.

    Quite simply there’s not the time to pass all the laws moving us over to WTO terms and collect tariffs. We need a trade bill which the commons library and Andrea Leadsom have both said we don’t have the time to pass, even if the summer break was cancelled and Parliament also sat at weekends

    The economy is going to take a hit and the government won’t be able to collect a lot of revenues it should.

    No Deal will particularly hit manufacturing, farming, fishing, and financial services in this instance.

    Presentation cited 22 examples of when Boris Johnson said no deal wouldn’t happen, including up to last year.

    A general election during no deal will see the Tories gubbed.

    Yes, this is the weirdest thing. The October 31st commitment is completely brain-dead - even in a no-deal scenario. It beggars belief that Boris, and to a lesser extent even Hunt, have voluntarily set themselves up for an inevitable humiliating disaster, repeating the exact same mistake Theresa May made at the start of the year.
    There's about a dozen bills that need to be passed before the 31st of October, including a financial services bill, nothing to worry about.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,815
    Cicero said:

    The value bet in B&R is probably the Tories- its going well, but not *that* well for the Lib Dems. Unlikely to see huge majority.

    Do you have any feedback that you can share?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:

    Percentage of Brexit Party VI by vote behaviour last election:
    Conservatives 57%
    Labour 20%
    Some other party 11% (presumably mainly UKIP)
    Did not vote 7%
    Lib Dems 3%
    SNP 0.6%
    Plaid Cymru 0.3%

    This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily add Bxp + Con figures to come up with fantasy numbers for the Drive-over-the-cliff Party.

    Table 30, page 34

    https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Final-Tables-Sunday-Express-VI.pdf

    Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
    One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
    Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
    Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.

    If true (what do the other pollsters say?), it would mean that even if Boris succeeds in his key goal of winning back Brexit Party supporters, he will simultaneously piss off enough current Conservative supporters to negate any gains.

    I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,217

    Yesterday I attended a presentation about how bad a No Deal Brexit will be on the 31st of October.

    Quite simply there’s not the time to pass all the laws moving us over to WTO terms and collect tariffs. We need a trade bill which the commons library and Andrea Leadsom have both said we don’t have the time to pass, even if the summer break was cancelled and Parliament also sat at weekends

    The economy is going to take a hit and the government won’t be able to collect a lot of revenues it should.

    No Deal will particularly hit manufacturing, farming, fishing, and financial services in this instance.

    Presentation cited 22 examples of when Boris Johnson said no deal wouldn’t happen, including up to last year.

    A general election during no deal will see the Tories gubbed.

    Yes, this is the weirdest thing. The October 31st commitment is completely brain-dead - even in a no-deal scenario. It beggars belief that Boris, and to a lesser extent even Hunt, have voluntarily set themselves up for an inevitable humiliating disaster, repeating the exact same mistake Theresa May made at the start of the year.
    There's about a dozen bills that need to be passed before the 31st of October, including a financial services bill, nothing to worry about.
    & Absolubtely no will in the house to pass them. Cooper got a bill through in about 2 days didn't she - if the house is willing there is time. They aren't, so there'll never be.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    If politicians treated the vote as a cry for help from these areas, then something might happen.

    But the most likely vehicle for that is a social democratic/moderate Labour government. Under Corbyn they are away with the fairies, chasing bonkers ideas about Israel and wasting money on middle class undergrads.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Pulpstar said:

    @Richard_Nabavi Plenty has been said and written about the ERG, but I genuinely question how many politicians on either side have actually put the national interest bearing in mind the probable votes of the rest of parliament first.

    Nick Boles is one but I have to exclude Lisa Nandy and Dominic Grieve for instance as they didn't vote to pass the WA.

    Very few. The SNP opposed the WA because they oppose everything and want to trigger independence. Labour opposed it for purely cynical party-political reasons. The DUP opposed it for reasons no-one can understand. The LibDems are just about the only party which opposed it for a sensible reason, and they have been fairly consistent.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,679
    edited July 2019
    Sucker. This is why the working classes shouldn't have a vote, only those with a high salary should be able to vote.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    kjh said:

    Cicero said:

    The value bet in B&R is probably the Tories- its going well, but not *that* well for the Lib Dems. Unlikely to see huge majority.

    Do you have any feedback that you can share?
    Yes, the feedback is that the Lib Dems have finally learnt the art of expectations management.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,914

    Pulpstar said:

    @Richard_Nabavi Plenty has been said and written about the ERG, but I genuinely question how many politicians on either side have actually put the national interest bearing in mind the probable votes of the rest of parliament first.

    Nick Boles is one but I have to exclude Lisa Nandy and Dominic Grieve for instance as they didn't vote to pass the WA.

    Very few. The SNP opposed the WA because they oppose everything and want to trigger independence. Labour opposed it for purely cynical party-political reasons. The DUP opposed it for reasons no-one can understand. The LibDems are just about the only party which opposed it for a sensible reason, and they have been fairly consistent.
    But surely the ERG are most to blame for the WA failing.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Sucker. This I the working classes shouldn't have a vote, only those with a high salary should be able to vote.
    Aye, yer a Tory right enough.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,617
    But in doing so, they are not Tories.....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:

    Percentage of Brexit Party VI by vote behaviour last election:
    Conservatives 57%
    Labour 20%
    Some other party 11% (presumably mainly UKIP)
    Did not vote 7%
    Lib Dems 3%
    SNP 0.6%
    Plaid Cymru 0.3%

    This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily add Bxp + Con figures to come up with fantasy numbers for the Drive-over-the-cliff Party.

    Table 30, page 34

    https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Final-Tables-Sunday-Express-VI.pdf

    Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
    One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
    Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
    Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.

    If true (what do the other pollsters say?), it would mean that even if Boris succeeds in his key goal of winning back Brexit Party supporters, he will simultaneously piss off enough current Conservative supporters to negate any gains.

    I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.
    YouGov have similar figures and also have 29% of people currently intending to vote Tory who believe Brexit was the wrong decision.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/o8pit1boew/TheTimes_190703_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:

    Percentage of Brexit Party VI by vote behaviour last election:
    Conservatives 57%
    Labour 20%
    Some other party 11% (presumably mainly UKIP)
    Did not vote 7%
    Lib Dems 3%
    SNP 0.6%
    Plaid Cymru 0.3%

    This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily add Bxp + Con figures to come up with fantasy numbers for the Drive-over-the-cliff Party.

    Table 30, page 34

    https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Final-Tables-Sunday-Express-VI.pdf

    Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
    One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
    Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
    Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.
    [snip]
    .
    I think you need to be a bit careful interpreting that data. There is a very important distinction between thinking that it would have been better to remain in the EU, and thinking that we should therefore not implement the decision of the referendum. A lot of people will think that the result of the referendum should be respected even if they think it was not the right decision.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Pulpstar said:

    @Richard_Nabavi Plenty has been said and written about the ERG, but I genuinely question how many politicians on either side have actually put the national interest bearing in mind the probable votes of the rest of parliament first.

    Nick Boles is one but I have to exclude Lisa Nandy and Dominic Grieve for instance as they didn't vote to pass the WA.

    Very few. The SNP opposed the WA because they oppose everything and want to trigger independence. Labour opposed it for purely cynical party-political reasons. The DUP opposed it for reasons no-one can understand. The LibDems are just about the only party which opposed it for a sensible reason, and they have been fairly consistent.
    But surely the ERG are most to blame for the WA failing.
    Yes, I think so, because they gave Labour MPs a wonderful excuse to oppose it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,679
    With guidance from the organisers, the 10 to 12 people in each group outlined the issues in their localities, and proposed changes to address them. They subsequently concentrated on four main solutions: providing young people who did not want to go to university with jobs and training; helping low-paid adults gain new skills; nurturing local businesses; and reviving high streets.


    These proposals suggest that, for people in deprived communities, their post-Brexit vision of a better future has little to do with matters that the EU has responsibility for: instead, the ideas raise big questions for domestic policymakers.


    I'll say it again plebs voting leave was like keying your own car.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,707

    Remember that Labour adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism before the Conservative Party, which did so only when it saw it could embarrass Labour on the subject. However, Labour did not adopt the whole definition, just the headline part without the examples.

    If you look at the IHRA definition, the main part says (paraphrasing wildly!) don't be nasty to Jews. It is the examples that cause the problems for Labour, because the examples say don't be nasty to Jews or Israel.

    And Jezza and his mates have spent the last 30 years condemning Israel (and it is all in the historical record to be brought up whenever convenient). So the leadership has that anti-Israel problem which gives cover to out-and-out anti-Jewish sentiment, not least from Militant types now readmitted in Liverpool.

    "And Jezza and his mates have spent the last 30 years condemning Israel"

    And herein lies a significant problem. The situation in the Middle East is complex, both contemporarily and historically. Few - if any - major actors in the region come out with much credit. This needs to be recognised by anyone genuinely pursuing peace.

    People who routinely condemn Israel, yet are best buds with the Palestinian extremist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are not interested in peace - they are interested in the Palestinians 'winning' over the Israelis. And when those groups are vehemently not only anti-Israeli, but anti-Jew, then it's an easy step to anti-Semitism. IMV this is the trap Corbyn has fallen into.

    By his friends, he will be judged (this also applies to all politicians, e.g. Boris).

    The sad thing is that it's the 'ordinary' citizens of the ME who suffer. Whether it's a Jewish housewife in Haifa, a Palestinian farmer in the West bank, or a Palestinian child in a refugee camp in one of the surrounding countries. They are all being let down by their politicians, regardless of religion, culture or race. And they, not the politicians, are the ones who matter.

    Corbyn doesn't appear to understand or care about this - and this is why he appears (at best) anti-Israeli, and at worst actively anti-Semitic.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Pulpstar said:


    Quite simply there’s not the time to pass all the laws moving us over to WTO terms and collect tariffs.

    We've had plenty of time to do this as a nation if we were so willing. That'll always be an argument against - but those against no deal will never pass the laws to facilitate it even though it would be the best possible way to "no deal".

    Politicians can never seem to do the whole 'we'll pass this law to alleviate x even if we disagree with it because y might do z which precipitates it'.
    The most coherent plan amongst the leadership candidates was that of Esther McVey, who proposed forgetting about trying to renegotiate and concentrating entirely on no-deal preparation. Admittedly it was a barmy plan, but it was at least an attempt to be coherent, although the timescales still don't work if we're fixated on October 31st.
    Yes it does. Not for perfection, but we don't need perfection. Life isn't perfect.

    We need to avoid any disasters, sort out what needs sorting out as an emergency and then deal with whatever else crops up afterwards. Parliament won't let us do anything else so we will have to do the best that we can and live with that.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:

    Percentage of Brexit Party VI by vote behaviour last election:
    Conservatives 57%
    Labour 20%
    Some other party 11% (presumably mainly UKIP)
    Did not vote 7%
    Lib Dems 3%
    SNP 0.6%
    Plaid Cymru 0.3%

    This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily add Bxp + Con figures to come up with fantasy numbers for the Drive-over-the-cliff Party.

    Table 30, page 34

    https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Final-Tables-Sunday-Express-VI.pdf

    Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
    One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
    Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
    Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.

    If true (what do the other pollsters say?), it would mean that even if Boris succeeds in his key goal of winning back Brexit Party supporters, he will simultaneously piss off enough current Conservative supporters to negate any gains.

    I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.
    There are loads of middle class Tories in the South of England who are worried (probably correctly) that Brexit will result in job losses for them or their family members, reductions in house prices, difficulties in retiring abroad, more complications on European holidays, etc. There probably aren't many Tory voters who are actively in favour of the EU; it's more a question of whether leaving is worth the hassle. Which is pretty much what the position was before the referendum - now it's a case of balancing the need to respect the result with the pre-existing doubts, plus the difficulties that have been revealed during the negotiations. 65:35 feels about right, given the smallish proportion who were dead set against the EU from the beginning.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,572
    I still hold out a vague hope that Tory members will see sense and it will not be Boris. But I realise this is probably unrealistic.

    That said I think the idea that an election a few days after Boris is elected, where many of the votes will have been cast even before his own result was known and where the Tory candidate is tainted - a decision Boris had no part in - is any reflection on him as leader is really stretching it.

    Whatever those of us who oppose him might think, this really isn't going to be an issue for him at all in terms of the PR. The only issue will be the more fundamental one of having his tenuous majority in Parliament further reduced.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Pulpstar said:

    @Richard_Nabavi Plenty has been said and written about the ERG, but I genuinely question how many politicians on either side have actually put the national interest bearing in mind the probable votes of the rest of parliament first.

    Nick Boles is one but I have to exclude Lisa Nandy and Dominic Grieve for instance as they didn't vote to pass the WA.

    Very few. The SNP opposed the WA because they oppose everything and want to trigger independence. Labour opposed it for purely cynical party-political reasons. The DUP opposed it for reasons no-one can understand. The LibDems are just about the only party which opposed it for a sensible reason, and they have been fairly consistent.
    But surely the ERG are most to blame for the WA failing.
    The ERG didn't want the WA to pass. The ERG wanted No Deal seeing it as the best interests of the nation.

    Labour opposed it to oppose the Tories. That is party before country.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    £44k fine for Britain First for breaking basically all the rules.

    These fines are so ridiculously small. If they want to do serious enforcement the system should be:
    1) Fines equal say 3x or 5x the total amount raised/spent
    2) During the campaign the parties should have to carry insurance against the possibility that they'll later be fined
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    I still hold out a vague hope that Tory members will see sense and it will not be Boris. But I realise this is probably unrealistic.

    That said I think the idea that an election a few days after Boris is elected, where many of the votes will have been cast even before his own result was known and where the Tory candidate is tainted - a decision Boris had no part in - is any reflection on him as leader is really stretching it.

    Whatever those of us who oppose him might think, this really isn't going to be an issue for him at all in terms of the PR. The only issue will be the more fundamental one of having his tenuous majority in Parliament further reduced.

    Anyone with bets on the other guy with bookmakers should check cash-out terms which are surprisingly generous (unless they've seen Boris's cardiology report).
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Pulpstar said:

    @Richard_Nabavi Plenty has been said and written about the ERG, but I genuinely question how many politicians on either side have actually put the national interest bearing in mind the probable votes of the rest of parliament first.

    Nick Boles is one but I have to exclude Lisa Nandy and Dominic Grieve for instance as they didn't vote to pass the WA.

    Very few. The SNP opposed the WA because they oppose everything and want to trigger independence. Labour opposed it for purely cynical party-political reasons. The DUP opposed it for reasons no-one can understand. The LibDems are just about the only party which opposed it for a sensible reason, and they have been fairly consistent.
    A tad bitter Richard. The Scottish National Party have been even more consistent than the Liberal Democrats. We opposed David Cameron’s daft referendum legislation. The Lib Dems didn’t.

    We are the most consistently pro-EU party.

    Of course we want to trigger independence. We are not exactly shy in emphasising that issue. But we hardly “oppose everything”. We have been in government for twelve years. As a government you only survive and thrive if you implement a consistently positive legislative programme. The c40% support shows that a lot of Scots appreciate our work. And a big thank you to the Greens for giving us the essential parliamentary support, particularly at Budget time.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    timmo said:

    Senior Tories that im in touch with have already written off Brecon and Radnor..
    More interestingly in the 8 days after BJs annoitment will be his cabinet appointees and the fall out from those he discards.
    All this nonsense abt tories not voting against its own govt in a VONC is incorrect. I hear that possibly 15 will.
    Brexit once again will prove bigger than anyone is prepared to acknowledge.

    Certainly. Europe is one of very, very few issues that transcends Party loyalty in British politics. It was the driving force behind the Labour/SDP split in the early 1980s. The Tories have forgotten the lessons of those years and now they are in the process of relearning them. Whether they will survive the experience is very much an open question.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,381
    At an emotional level, Grieve has long since ceased to be a Conservative.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    £44k fine for Britain First for breaking basically all the rules.

    These fines are so ridiculously small. If they want to do serious enforcement the system should be:
    1) Fines equal say 3x or 5x the total amount raised/spent
    2) During the campaign the parties should have to carry insurance against the possibility that they'll later be fined

    If the insurance company pays, then the effective fine which you say is too low will reduce to near-zero. The insurance premium will just be like a tax on the cost of campaigning.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,337

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:

    Percentage of Brexit Party VI by vote behaviour last election:
    Conservatives 57%
    Labour 20%
    Some other party 11% (presumably mainly UKIP)
    Did not vote 7%
    Lib Dems 3%
    SNP 0.6%
    Plaid Cymru 0.3%

    This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily add Bxp + Con figures to come up with fantasy numbers for the Drive-over-the-cliff Party.

    Table 30, page 34

    https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Final-Tables-Sunday-Express-VI.pdf

    Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
    One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
    Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
    Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.
    [snip]
    .
    I think you need to be a bit careful interpreting that data. There is a very important distinction between thinking that it would have been better to remain in the EU, and thinking that we should therefore not implement the decision of the referendum. A lot of people will think that the result of the referendum should be respected even if they think it was not the right decision.
    I agree most of them have probably been in the "respect the result" camp. But it's quite a jump to believe that many would be at all tolerant of a WTO exit. Most probably consider the WA stretches the boundaries of their expectations.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    But in doing so, they are not Tories.....
    The Tories are not the same party they were even a few years ago. I used to be a member and vote for them because I thought they were best on the economy, defence, projecting UK power on the world stage etc. But Brexit threatens the economy and I cannot vote for that! If you think pulling up the drawbridge from voters like me is going to help the Tories, you are in for a nasty surprise!
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454

    £44k fine for Britain First for breaking basically all the rules.

    These fines are so ridiculously small. If they want to do serious enforcement the system should be:
    1) Fines equal say 3x or 5x the total amount raised/spent
    2) During the campaign the parties should have to carry insurance against the possibility that they'll later be fined

    What are Britain First's resources like? What are you comparing £44k against?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    £44k fine for Britain First for breaking basically all the rules.

    These fines are so ridiculously small. If they want to do serious enforcement the system should be:
    1) Fines equal say 3x or 5x the total amount raised/spent
    2) During the campaign the parties should have to carry insurance against the possibility that they'll later be fined

    A daft cousin of mine was forever sharing Britain First front sites on FB. They were tremendously successful. The low level of that fine is quite shocking.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708


    I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.

    Boris has won elections before so I'm sure he knows how to count votes and position himself where he needs to be to maximize his chances.

    Accordingly don't assume that what he's been saying to impress the Tory membership will bear any relation to what he does when he needs to avoid getting no-confidenced or win a general election.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:

    Percentage of Brexit Party VI by vote behaviour last election:
    Conservatives 57%
    Labour 20%
    Some other party 11% (presumably mainly UKIP)
    Did not vote 7%
    Lib Dems 3%
    SNP 0.6%
    Plaid Cymru 0.3%

    This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily add Bxp + Con figures to come up with fantasy numbers for the Drive-over-the-cliff Party.

    Table 30, page 34

    https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Final-Tables-Sunday-Express-VI.pdf

    Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
    One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
    Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
    Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.

    If true (what do the other pollsters say?), it would mean that even if Boris succeeds in his key goal of winning back Brexit Party supporters, he will simultaneously piss off enough current Conservative supporters to negate any gains.

    I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.
    How about a norway model that means for pretty much all people there will be very little change, but we are out. Such an obvious solution. A pro immigration Boris could do it...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,217
    Endillion said:

    ... who are actively in favour of the EU; it's more a question of whether leaving is worth the hassle.

    Hah, you found me out.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,337

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:

    Percentage of Brexit Party VI by vote behaviour last election:
    Conservatives 57%
    Labour 20%
    Some other party 11% (presumably mainly UKIP)
    Did not vote 7%
    Lib Dems 3%
    SNP 0.6%
    Plaid Cymru 0.3%

    This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily add Bxp + Con figures to come up with fantasy numbers for the Drive-over-the-cliff Party.

    Table 30, page 34

    https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Final-Tables-Sunday-Express-VI.pdf

    Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
    One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
    Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
    Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.

    If true (what do the other pollsters say?), it would mean that even if Boris succeeds in his key goal of winning back Brexit Party supporters, he will simultaneously piss off enough current Conservative supporters to negate any gains.

    I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.
    YouGov have similar figures and also have 29% of people currently intending to vote Tory who believe Brexit was the wrong decision.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/o8pit1boew/TheTimes_190703_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
    I do occasionally wonder whether Boris is on an all-out mission to say anything he needs to get 160k party members on-side, before a screeching handbrake turn to appeal to the wider Tory electorate (and more) thereafter. But Farage would have him for breakfast in the current climate.

    I'm glad I'm not involved in charting the Tories' long-term future. I'm not sure I see many routes out of this which don't involve severe holing in the vicinity of the water line.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    £44k fine for Britain First for breaking basically all the rules.

    These fines are so ridiculously small. If they want to do serious enforcement the system should be:
    1) Fines equal say 3x or 5x the total amount raised/spent
    2) During the campaign the parties should have to carry insurance against the possibility that they'll later be fined

    If the insurance company pays, then the effective fine which you say is too low will reduce to near-zero. The insurance premium will just be like a tax on the cost of campaigning.
    If you're following the rules the premium will be near-zero. If you're flagrantly breaking them then it'll equal the likely fine.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    Remember that Labour adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism before the Conservative Party, which did so only when it saw it could embarrass Labour on the subject. However, Labour did not adopt the whole definition, just the headline part without the examples.

    If you look at the IHRA definition, the main part says (paraphrasing wildly!) don't be nasty to Jews. It is the examples that cause the problems for Labour, because the examples say don't be nasty to Jews or Israel.

    And Jezza and his mates have spent the last 30 years condemning Israel (and it is all in the historical record to be brought up whenever convenient). So the leadership has that anti-Israel problem which gives cover to out-and-out anti-Jewish sentiment, not least from Militant types now readmitted in Liverpool.

    "And Jezza and his mates have spent the last 30 years condemning Israel"

    And herein lies a significant problem. The situation in the Middle East is complex, both contemporarily and historically. Few - if any - major actors in the region come out with much credit. This needs to be recognised by anyone genuinely pursuing peace.

    People who routinely condemn Israel, yet are best buds with the Palestinian extremist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are not interested in peace - they are interested in the Palestinians 'winning' over the Israelis. And when those groups are vehemently not only anti-Israeli, but anti-Jew, then it's an easy step to anti-Semitism. IMV this is the trap Corbyn has fallen into.

    By his friends, he will be judged (this also applies to all politicians, e.g. Boris).

    The sad thing is that it's the 'ordinary' citizens of the ME who suffer. Whether it's a Jewish housewife in Haifa, a Palestinian farmer in the West bank, or a Palestinian child in a refugee camp in one of the surrounding countries. They are all being let down by their politicians, regardless of religion, culture or race. And they, not the politicians, are the ones who matter.

    Corbyn doesn't appear to understand or care about this - and this is why he appears (at best) anti-Israeli, and at worst actively anti-Semitic.
    Not to disagree with anything you've said, but the real issue lies one step up, with foreign states using the Palestinian cause to fight a proxy war against Israel (or possibly the US). This is turn makes it almost impossible for Israel to negotiate seriously with them (not that the current government has much interest in doing so in any case).

    Corbyn claiming to want to help the Palestinian people while supporting the Iranians is one of those ironies he presumably would understand, being properly British and all.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited July 2019
    Scott_P said:
    Osborne is as unprincipled as his protege Hancock. They are only interested in their own careers and disinterested in the bigger National interest. I never thought I would say this but I think Boris will be even worse than May!
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    But in doing so, they are not Tories.....
    The Tories are not the same party they were even a few years ago. I used to be a member and vote for them because I thought they were best on the economy, defence, projecting UK power on the world stage etc. But Brexit threatens the economy and I cannot vote for that! If you think pulling up the drawbridge from voters like me is going to help the Tories, you are in for a nasty surprise!
    I remember that Tory party. They were bloody formidable, and I respected them as powerful opponents. Obviously, in Scotland, they have largely been a sideshow since approx the Perth by-election (that one where the young Douglas Alexander gave Roseanna a fright), but they were still a coherent opponent.

    Now they are so weak that one almost feels sorry for them. Almost.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406

    £44k fine for Britain First for breaking basically all the rules.

    These fines are so ridiculously small. If they want to do serious enforcement the system should be:
    1) Fines equal say 3x or 5x the total amount raised/spent
    2) During the campaign the parties should have to carry insurance against the possibility that they'll later be fined

    If the insurance company pays, then the effective fine which you say is too low will reduce to near-zero. The insurance premium will just be like a tax on the cost of campaigning.
    Yep - it's the wrong approach - responsibility needs to be passed to identified leaders and secured against their personal assets.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    The Taxman, query: are you now pro-independence?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,572

    Scott_P said:
    Osborne is as unprincipled as his protege Hancock. They are only interested in their own careers and disinterested in the bigger National interest. I never thought I would say this but I think Boris will be even worse than May!
    I think he will be equally bad but in a different way. May was, to my mind, the worst PM since WW2. She was unfit for high office because she lacked any of the skills, empathy or understanding necessary for success. I believe she was a generally nasty piece of work and just as self centred in her way as Boris.

    Boris does have understanding and is far more the politician. But a combination of laziness and incompetence will be his undoing. My only hope is that it is not our undoing as well.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Just been digging through the ComRes tables. Fascinating to see how few Brexit Party supporters are former Conservative voters:

    Percentage of Brexit Party VI by vote behaviour last election:
    Conservatives 57%
    Labour 20%
    Some other party 11% (presumably mainly UKIP)
    Did not vote 7%
    Lib Dems 3%
    SNP 0.6%
    Plaid Cymru 0.3%

    This should be remembered every time posters (eg HYUFD) lazily add Bxp + Con figures to come up with fantasy numbers for the Drive-over-the-cliff Party.

    Table 30, page 34

    https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Final-Tables-Sunday-Express-VI.pdf

    Interesting - what really surprises me is the low non-voter % for BXP. That suggests real mainstream inroads, rather than the sort of "for two pins I'd vote for a change" type who sometimes gave UKIP high ratings. Basically, as your figures show, they are mostly taking a chunk of regular Tory voters. Whether that remains true is likely to decide the election if it's any time soon.
    One of the false assumptions of 2017, common on PB, was that the Kippers would all go Tory. The same may well be true of the BXP.
    Also worth noting that current Conservative supporters are only 65:35 to Leave, and that's going by their 2016 vote rather than current opinion. There are a lot of Tory remainers there to lose.
    Wow. That is an amazing statistic. Are 35% of current Conservative supporters still in favour of Remaining members of the EU? That is huge, and actually hard to believe in the current bonkers climate.
    [snip]
    .
    I think you need to be a bit careful interpreting that data. There is a very important distinction between thinking that it would have been better to remain in the EU, and thinking that we should therefore not implement the decision of the referendum. A lot of people will think that the result of the referendum should be respected even if they think it was not the right decision.
    And there is also a distinction between thinking we should implement the decision, and being insouciant about any negative consequences which they might experience.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,653
    Scott_P said:
    This would be hilarious.

    It would also be by far the best option from here. On the back of that, I think Johnson could call and win a GE.

  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591


    I’d hate to be a smart Tory analyst trying to explain this to The Clown. I just don’t think he is the type of personality to appreciate being shown that there are errors in his homework.

    Boris has won elections before so I'm sure he knows how to count votes and position himself where he needs to be to maximize his chances.

    Accordingly don't assume that what he's been saying to impress the Tory membership will bear any relation to what he does when he needs to avoid getting no-confidenced or win a general election.
    Boris won very easy elections before - in 2008 just after the financial crisis when the Tories were at least 15 points ahead in the polls and in 2012 when Labour were silly enough to put forward a candidate who was well past his sell-by date and whom many Labour supporters were dubious about. It's not at all clear he could stand up to the scrutiny of a general election campaign if his interview with Andrew Neill is anything to go by. Must rank as the least convincing performance by a (potential) PM ever. Even Brown could have done better.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821


    I agree most of them have probably been in the "respect the result" camp. But it's quite a jump to believe that many would be at all tolerant of a WTO exit. Most probably consider the WA stretches the boundaries of their expectations.

    Yes, certainly, that is right.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    With great reluctance I've concluded along with others on here that the Conservatives are unlikely to get my vote at the next election unless the trajectory changes dramatically. It would be the first time ever for me.
This discussion has been closed.