One has to feel some sympathy for poor old HY. It must be terrible when all the top Conservatives are stabbing one another in the back. It makes it very difficult for him to stay on message. After all, he does not know who the next leader is going to be, who will be his minders and controllers, and what line they will want him to take.
To be fair, HYUFD has proved very adaptable, and I think he has all the qualities to prosper in modern politics.
And to be fair, HYUFD's behaviour is the norm -- Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband when he criticised the war in Iraq.
When asked why she was applauding a remark about the wrongness of the Iraq expedition when she had voted for it. Harman replied " I'm supporting my leader"
HYUFD is supporting his leader. He should surely enter Parliament in the next election, with all these defections and leaving MPs.
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see a vicious pendulum swingback - to the centre.
Britain is still a pragmatic, small c conservative country. We're having a civil war kinda moment, but this won't last for ever. History teaches us that a healing Charles II figure comes after a divisive Oliver Cromwell. After the Revolution, Restoration.
The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
The most recent election was for the EU Parliament. Where did Labour come then in this seat? And where did the Conservatives come? Must keep up, Mr Woolie.
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see a vicious pendulum swingback - to the centre.
Britain is still a pragmatic, small c conservative country. We're having a civil war kinda moment, but this won't last for ever. History teaches us that a healing Charles II figure comes after a divisive Oliver Cromwell. After the Revolution, Restoration.
The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
The most recent election was for the EU Parliament. Where did Labour come then in this seat? And where did the Conservatives come? Must keep up, Mr Woolie.
Polling was somewhat different then and it was a different election. I've said what I expect, time will reveal the truth
One has to feel some sympathy for poor old HY. It must be terrible when all the top Conservatives are stabbing one another in the back. It makes it very difficult for him to stay on message. After all, he does not know who the next leader is going to be, who will be his minders and controllers, and what line they will want him to take.
To be fair, HYUFD has proved very adaptable, and I think he has all the qualities to prosper in modern politics.
And to be fair, HYUFD's behaviour is the norm -- Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband when he criticised the war in Iraq.
When asked why she was applauding a remark about the wrongness of the Iraq expedition when she had voted for it. Harman replied " I'm supporting my leader"
HYUFD is supporting his leader. He should surely enter Parliament in the next election, with all these defections and leaving MPs.
I think if he did that, everybody here on PB would vote for him. If he got elected, we would have all the last-minutes of the very latest twists and turns from the very heart of the Conservative Party. I mean, thank to HY, we do at the moment, but if he were an MP, they would be even more twisty and turny and up to date.
He will run away regardless, he has always seeked power whilst running away from the responsibility and accountability.
I agree with that. Johnson won't run in Uxbridge.
I also don't think Rudd will make any impression -- she's a walking lost deposit.
Its ludicrously bitter. I rather hope she does indeed lose her deposit. Shes been given chance after chance in cabinet despite her blunders over windrush and the appalling universal credit. Now shes lashing out like a child because her buddies lost the whip.
RANGES * Con: Min 29%, Max 35% * Lab: Min 21%, Max 28% * Lib: Min 17%, Max 19% * BXP: Min 12%, Max 17% * Con lead: Min 3%, Max 14%
A=previous poll, B=this poll, C=change since last poll, D=Con lead
Note: * Dates are last day of fieldwork, not publication date * YouGov's last poll was on Sep 3, but its last poll for the Sunday Times was Aug 23 and may have been a better comparator * Any mistakes, please shout out
Fab service, thank you! Only addition I'd like would be sampling period for the latest polls. (Some people are never satisfied, eh?)
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bit in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraces a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends e of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
{{APPLAUSE}}
There is already massive resentment. I know Oxbridge grads from poorer backgrounds who, having worked incredibly hard to get the grades, know they will not be able to join a London middle-class which is now only on offer to those who come from money.
That is not really true though, I know Oxbridge and Russell Group grads not from wealthy backgrounds who joined city law firms, investment banks and tech firms with starting salaries of £50k plus rising to £100k plus after a decade or so and if they become partners more thsn that. They are all now comfortably middle-class, even in London and most now have bought a property
Mr. Fabricant is an example of why the remain side so consistently gets it wrong about Leave politicians. It is a major strategic error that has caused a more radical splintering amongst MPs. The consistent labelling of Leavers as some sort of quasi fascists means any rational rapprochement becomes impossible and has lead to more or less open political warfare. A short sighted approach has meant a very sharp win/lose debate with utter defeat for one side or the other. This mentality will not go away afterwards for a long time.
However these models ignore tactical voting which will be significant (and Baxter uses UNS which is questionable on large swings in share).
My own constituency model uses a mixture of 75% additive (UNS) and 25% multiplicative swings.
For tactical voting it assumes a switch of 2.5% from Green to Labour and 1.0% from Green to LD.
It assumes that if the LD vote in a constituency was less than 50% of the Labour vote in 2017, then 30% of the LD vote will transfer to Labour.
It also assumes that if the Labour vote in a constituency was less than the LD vote in 2017, then 50% of the Labour vote will transfer to Labour.
I've done sensitivity runs on all these assumptions and, for instance, if 70% of Labour voters switch to LD (instead of 50%) where Labour is behind LD, it gives the LDs 3 more seats and the Tories 3 less than the 50% assumptions.
The central case result, with tactical voting, is:
Con 298 Lab 234 LD 48 SNP 51 i.e. a minority Labour government.
Does your model assume no tactical voting from Tory/Brexit Party voters?
Yes. It assumes no tactical voting. It assumes that the Tory manifesto is to go for a deal and prepare for No Deal as now.
However if the Tories went all out for No Deal and Farage wound up the Brexit Party then my central assumptions (based on YouGov analysis of background of current BXP supporters) is that it would increase share of Tories by 6%, Labour by 3% and 3% (ex UKIP) wouldn't vote. The result would be:
One has to feel some sympathy for poor old HY. It must be terrible when all the top Conservatives are stabbing one another in the back. It makes it very difficult for him to stay on message. After all, he does not know who the next leader is going to be, who will be his minders and controllers, and what line they will want him to take.
To be fair, HYUFD has proved very adaptable, and I think he has all the qualities to prosper in modern politics.
And to be fair, HYUFD's behaviour is the norm -- Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband when he criticised the war in Iraq.
When asked why she was applauding a remark about the wrongness of the Iraq expedition when she had voted for it. Harman replied " I'm supporting my leader"
HYUFD is supporting his leader. He should surely enter Parliament in the next election, with all these defections and leaving MPs.
I have friends on the candidates list for Parliament (not just for the Tories) and was at university with Kevin Foster who is now MP for Torbay but have no plans to stand nationally at the moment, though am still on the candidates list for District Council.
Though it is true that often the best time to get into Parliament is in the first term of your party in opposition when there is less competition e.g. one Tony Blair was elected as a Labour MP for the first time in 1983 when Labour were trounced nationally. I wonder what happened to him?
Firstly, the reality is he's likely to hold on in an outer London seat which is traditionally conservative and given PMs tend to get a bounce in their own seat.
Secondly, it makes a nonsense of his "chicken" jibe at Corbyn. It's transparently ridiculous and stops him saying it at all really.
Thirdly, it immediately puts him on the back foot - he has to gain seats to get what he wants, and it would be an admission that a seat where the Tories won 50% of the vote in 2017 - a fairly comfortable 5000 majority - is at serious risk. We wouldn't hear the last of it throughout the campaign.
Finally, if he does blow a 5000 majority, the Tories just aren't winning the election anyway.
It's pretty well-established that tracker funds do no worse than active funds, with lower transaction costs. So a left-wing scheme that might be popular would be for the Government to offer a tracker fund scheme with minimal administrative charges which the employees of any given company could vote to opt into. That would almost certainly produce higher pensions with minimal costs for everyone, while being suitably grass-rooty and bottom-up.
If successful, it would be bad news for existing funds seeking new customers, but if they're properly managed then their existing investments should cover all liabilities.
Not quite correct Nick.
Passive index funds return whatever the market does minus costs and any tracking error.
Active investing, and alpha generation, is a zero sum game which is why, once active ongoing costs and transaction costs are factored in, there is a tiny chance of any given active fund beating its benchmark over an extended period.
There are some that do of course but how do you select them ahead of time?
Retail investors would be far better served long term with a passive portfolio, asset allocation according to risk/volatility tolerance and globally diversified.
She looks exactly the same as the present one and met him the same way. An employee of his in a non existent job. At least something about him is consistent.
Boris definitely has a TYPE
Clever, tall, buxom women of a certain prettiness. Not great beauties, necessarily.
Firstly, the reality is he's likely to hold on in an outer London seat which is traditionally conservative and given PMs tend to get a bounce in their own seat.
Secondly, it makes a nonsense of his "chicken" jibe at Corbyn. It's transparently ridiculous and stops him saying it at all really.
Thirdly, it immediately puts him on the back foot - he has to gain seats to get what he wants, and it would be an admission that a seat where the Tories won 50% of the vote in 2017 - a fairly comfortable 5000 majority - is at serious risk. We wouldn't hear the last of it throughout the campaign.
Finally, if he does blow a 5000 majority, the Tories just aren't winning the election anyway.
To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.
All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.
For example, suppose the meltdown continues and the LibDems end up with 35 per cent of the vote and a 50 seat majority against Corby and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election
My bet is that the LibDems will suddenly see the great advantages of FPTP.
Yup, this is why FPTP is really hard to change. But hypothetically, what if you had a bunch on unexpectedly getting a temporary parliamentary majority?
Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to cut through and win an amazing surprise victory. Why?
1. just the bantz. What an incredible denouement that would be. All the writers of Britain, 2014-2019, a Docudrama would get Emmys
2. the Lib Dems would simply revoke. Yes this would come at a terrible cost, and it would roil the country in horrible ways, but.... then at least the paralysing political nightmare would be over. Done. Finished (yes yes I know this is glib - but I am talking about private fantasies).
3. It would be good for London property prices
Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them a look, they are turning into something new. Get rid of the sandalistas and let's see what they have to offer! Once idiots like Cable and co are out of the way and probably after Swinson they might just be the future
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see a vicious pendulum swingback - to the centre.
Britain is still a pragmatic, small c conservative country. We're having a civil war kinda moment, but this won't last for ever. History teaches us that a healing Charles II figure comes after a divisive Oliver Cromwell. After the Revolution, Restoration.
The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
In the European Parliament elections the LDs won Westminster with more votes than the Tories and Brexit Party combined and comfortably beat Labour so I think Chuka has a very good chance, especially if he gets Labour tactical votes
Firstly, the reality is he's likely to hold on in an outer London seat which is traditionally conservative and given PMs tend to get a bounce in their own seat.
Secondly, it makes a nonsense of his "chicken" jibe at Corbyn. It's transparently ridiculous and stops him saying it at all really.
Thirdly, it immediately puts him on the back foot - he has to gain seats to get what he wants, and it would be an admission that a seat where the Tories won 50% of the vote in 2017 - a fairly comfortable 5000 majority - is at serious risk. We wouldn't hear the last of it throughout the campaign.
Finally, if he does blow a 5000 majority, the Tories just aren't winning the election anyway.
He is not someone who thinks about whats good for the party, it is all about him, he doesnt want to lose his seat whilst leader. There are lots of nice cushy seats opening up with all the people he is kicking out the party, he will take one of those.
To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.
All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.
For example, suppose the meltdown continues and ty and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election
My bet is that the LibDems will suddenly see the great advantages of FPTP.
Yup, this is why FPTP is really hard to change. But hypothetically, what if you had a bunch on unexpectedly getting a temporary parliamentary majority?
Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to cut through and win an amazing surprise victory. Why?
1. just the bantz. What an incredible denouement that would be. All the writers of Britain, 2014-2019, a Docudrama would get Emmys
2. the Lib Dems would simply revoke. Yes this would come at a terrible cost, and it would roil the country in horrible ways, but.... then at least the paralysing political nightmare would be over. Done. Finished (yes yes I know this is glib - but I am talking about private fantasies).
3. It would be good for London property prices
Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them a look, they are turning into something new. Get rid of the sandalistas and let's see what they have to offer! Once idiots like Cable and co are out of the way and probably after Swinson they might just be the future
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see a vicious pendulum swingback - to the centre.
Britain is still a pragmatic, small c conservative country. We're having a civil war kinda moment, but this won't last for ever. History teaches us that a healing Charles II figure comes after a divisive Oliver Cromwell. After the Revolution, Restoration.
The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
In the European Parliament elections the LDs won Westminster with more votes than the Tories and Brexit Party combined and comfortably beat Labour so I think Chuka has a very good chance, especially if he gets Labour tactical votes
Labour supporters voting for a quitter? And labour are coming from 38% at the last GE, how do you convince them go tactically vote for someone 27% behind? That's why I said min 20%, that's half their vote disappearing
Firstly, the reality is he's likely to hold on in an outer London seat which is traditionally conservative and given PMs tend to get a bounce in their own seat.
Secondly, it makes a nonsense of his "chicken" jibe at Corbyn. It's transparently ridiculous and stops him saying it at all really.
Thirdly, it immediately puts him on the back foot - he has to gain seats to get what he wants, and it would be an admission that a seat where the Tories won 50% of the vote in 2017 - a fairly comfortable 5000 majority - is at serious risk. We wouldn't hear the last of it throughout the campaign.
Finally, if he does blow a 5000 majority, the Tories just aren't winning the election anyway.
Firstly, the reality is he's likely to hold on in an outer London seat which is traditionally conservative and given PMs tend to get a bounce in their own seat.
Secondly, it makes a nonsense of his "chicken" jibe at Corbyn. It's transparently ridiculous and stops him saying it at all really.
Thirdly, it immediately puts him on the back foot - he has to gain seats to get what he wants, and it would be an admission that a seat where the Tories won 50% of the vote in 2017 - a fairly comfortable 5000 majority - is at serious risk. We wouldn't hear the last of it throughout the campaign.
Finally, if he does blow a 5000 majority, the Tories just aren't winning the election anyway.
Firstly, the reality is he's likely to hold on in an outer London seat which is traditionally conservative and given PMs tend to get a bounce in their own seat.
Secondly, it makes a nonsense of his "chicken" jibe at Corbyn. It's transparently ridiculous and stops him saying it at all really.
Thirdly, it immediately puts him on the back foot - he has to gain seats to get what he wants, and it would be an admission that a seat where the Tories won 50% of the vote in 2017 - a fairly comfortable 5000 majority - is at serious risk. We wouldn't hear the last of it throughout the campaign.
Finally, if he does blow a 5000 majority, the Tories just aren't winning the election anyway.
He is not someone who thinks about whats good for the party, it is all about him, he doesnt want to lose his seat whilst leader. There are lots of nice cushy seats opening up with all the people he is kicking out the party, he will take one of those.
He'd DEFINITELY not take one of those seats. The optics would be terrible - literally as if he'd kicked them out to take their seat - and it'd provoke the defenestrated MP to stand against him on home turf.
Doubt he'll do it anyway but, if he did, it'd be in the seat of a retiring friend.
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand go.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
{{APPLAUSE}}
There is already massive resentment. I know Oxbridge grads from poorer backgrounds who, having worked incredibly hard to get the grades, know they will not be able to join a London middle-class which is now only on offer to those who come from money.
Poor diddums, tell the thickos to go outside London and enjoy a decent life.
Gardenwalker is right, though. For many people - clearly not you - the best life possible, in the UK, is in in London.
London is a world city. Arguably the pre-eminent city on the planet. National Geographic thought so last year, despite Brexit
London has Britain's - sometimes Europe's, sometimes the world's - best restaurants, theatres, galleries, museums, concerts, sports, social spaces, palaces, markets, skyscrapers, science, colleges, bars, art, pubs, parties, clubs, elegant Georgian terraces and opportunities to meet fascinating people from across the globe.
Obviously, if what you want is clean air, no knife attacks, low rent, minimal traffic, access to wild countryside, and a sweet quiet life, then London is not for you. But it is the place, the goal, the ultimate career move, for lots of lots of people, often the young, smart and ambitious.
But now London is so successful it is closed off to the young in the UK, no matter how clever and driven. It is bad for them, and very bad for the country, when the capital city - or its nicer bits - becomes a kind of closed playground for global super-rich and a few lucky Brits (mainly those who have some link to London property ownership already).
The building resentment of London, and the way it has been quarantined from the rest of the country, was a huge, hidden driver of Brexit.
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
You don't have to totally live the life - few do. You just have to aspire to it, and think it conceivable you might live it, one day soon, if you work hard.
if London is so expensive you can't even live there, and never imagine living there, then that shuts the dream down.
However these models ignore tactical voting which will be significant (and Baxter uses UNS which is questionable on large swings in share).
My own constituency model uses a mixture of 75% additive (UNS) and 25% multiplicative swings.
For tactical voting it assumes a switch of 2.5% from Green to Labour and 1.0% from Green to LD.
It assumes that if the LD vote in a constituency was less than 50% of the Labour vote in 2017, then 30% of the LD vote will transfer to Labour.
It also assumes that if the Labour vote in a constituency was less than the LD vote in 2017, then 50% of the Labour vote will transfer to Labour.
I've done sensitivity runs on all these assumptions and, for instance, if 70% of Labour voters switch to LD (instead of 50%) where Labour is behind LD, it gives the LDs 3 more seats and the Tories 3 less than the 50% assumptions.
The central case result, with tactical voting, is:
Con 298 Lab 234 LD 48 SNP 51 i.e. a minority Labour government.
Does your model assume no tactical voting from Tory/Brexit Party voters?
Yes. It assumes no tactical voting. It assumes that the Tory manifesto is to go for a deal and prepare for No Deal as now.
However if the Tories went all out for No Deal and Farage wound up the Brexit Party then my central assumptions (based on YouGov analysis of background of current BXP supporters) is that it would increase share of Tories by 6%, Labour by 3% and 3% (ex UKIP) wouldn't vote. The result would be:
Con 310 Lab 232 LD 38 SNP 51
Can the Tories go "all out for No Deal" without losing some of their existing support directly to the opposition? Is it even clear the net effect would be to increase their lead?
Passive index funds return whatever the market does minus costs and any tracking error.
Active investing, and alpha generation, is a zero sum game which is why, once active ongoing costs and transaction costs are factored in, there is a tiny chance of any given active fund beating its benchmark over an extended period.
There are some that do of course but how do you select them ahead of time?
Retail investors would be far better served long term with a passive portfolio, asset allocation according to risk/volatility tolerance and globally diversified.
I just let my cat pick stocks then sit on them forever, he's pretty good and the only management fee I have to pay him is a new cardboard box for each quarter he outperforms the Nikkei.
RANGES * Con: Min 29%, Max 35% * Lab: Min 21%, Max 28% * Lib: Min 17%, Max 19% * BXP: Min 12%, Max 17% * Con lead: Min 3%, Max 14%
A=previous poll, B=this poll, C=change since last poll, D=Con lead
Note: * Dates are last day of fieldwork, not publication date * YouGov's last poll was on Sep 3, but its last poll for the Sunday Times was Aug 23 and may have been a better comparator * Any mistakes, please shout out
Thanks! Hard to get too clear a message out of that other than that Conservatives are ahead of Labour. It'll be interesting to see if the larger gap persists through the next few YouGovs
However these models ignore tactical voting which will be significant (and Baxter uses UNS which is questionable on large swings in share).
My own constituency model uses a mixture of 75% additive (UNS) and 25% multiplicative swings.
For tactical voting it assumes a switch of 2.5% from Green to Labour and 1.0% from Green to LD.
It assumes that if the LD vote in a constituency was less than 50% of the Labour vote in 2017, then 30% of the LD vote will transfer to Labour.
It also assumes that if the Labour vote in a constituency was less than the LD vote in 2017, then 50% of the Labour vote will transfer to Labour.
I've done sensitivity runs on all these assumptions and, for instance, if 70% of Labour voters switch to LD (instead of 50%) where Labour is behind LD, it gives the LDs 3 more seats and the Tories 3 less than the 50% assumptions.
The central case result, with tactical voting, is:
Con 298 Lab 234 LD 48 SNP 51 i.e. a minority Labour government.
Does your model assume no tactical voting from Tory/Brexit Party voters?
Yes. It assumes no tactical voting. It assumes that the Tory manifesto is to go for a deal and prepare for No Deal as now.
However if the Tories went all out for No Deal and Farage wound up the Brexit Party then my central assumptions (based on YouGov analysis of background of current BXP supporters) is that it would increase share of Tories by 6%, Labour by 3% and 3% (ex UKIP) wouldn't vote. The result would be:
Con 310 Lab 232 LD 38 SNP 51
Can the Tories go "all out for No Deal" without losing some of their existing support directly to the opposition? Is it even clear the net effect would be to increase their lead?
I think the Tories would lose share to the opposition in that case but I haven't time to model it just now as I am departing to a LibDem Party to welcome the avalanche of new members who have recently joined. Laters. If I'm sober enough.
Firstly, the reality is he's likely to hold on in an outer London seat which is traditionally conservative and given PMs tend to get a bounce in their own seat.
Secondly, it makes a nonsense of his "chicken" jibe at Corbyn. It's transparently ridiculous and stops him saying it at all really.
Thirdly, it immediately puts him on the back foot - he has to gain seats to get what he wants, and it would be an admission that a seat where the Tories won 50% of the vote in 2017 - a fairly comfortable 5000 majority - is at serious risk. We wouldn't hear the last of it throughout the campaign.
Finally, if he does blow a 5000 majority, the Tories just aren't winning the election anyway.
He is not someone who thinks about whats good for the party, it is all about him, he doesnt want to lose his seat whilst leader. There are lots of nice cushy seats opening up with all the people he is kicking out the party, he will take one of those.
He'd DEFINITELY not take one of those seats. The optics would be terrible - literally as if he'd kicked them out to take their seat - and it'd provoke the defenestrated MP to stand against him on home turf.
Doubt he'll do it anyway but, if he did, it'd be in the seat of a retiring friend.
However these models ignore tactical voting which will be significant (and Baxter uses UNS which is questionable on large swings in share).
My own constituency model uses a mixture of 75% additive (UNS) and 25% multiplicative swings.
For tactical voting it assumes a switch of 2.5% from Green to Labour and 1.0% from Green to LD.
It assumes that if the LD vote in a constituency was less than 50% of the Labour vote in 2017, then 30% of the LD vote will transfer to Labour.
It also assumes that if the Labour vote in a constituency was less than the LD vote in 2017, then 50% of the Labour vote will transfer to Labour.
I've done sensitivity runs on all these assumptions and, for instance, if 70% of Labour voters switch to LD (instead of 50%) where Labour is behind LD, it gives the LDs 3 more seats and the Tories 3 less than the 50% assumptions.
The central case result, with tactical voting, is:
Con 298 Lab 234 LD 48 SNP 51 i.e. a minority Labour government.
Does your model assume no tactical voting from Tory/Brexit Party voters?
Yes. It assumes no tactical voting. It assumes that the Tory manifesto is to go for a deal and prepare for No Deal as now.
However if the Tories went all out for No Deal and Farage wound up the Brexit Party then my central assumptions (based on YouGov analysis of background of current BXP supporters) is that it would increase share of Tories by 6%, Labour by 3% and 3% (ex UKIP) wouldn't vote. The result would be:
Con 310 Lab 232 LD 38 SNP 51
Can the Tories go "all out for No Deal" without losing some of their existing support directly to the opposition? Is it even clear the net effect would be to increase their lead?
The Tories won't go all out for No Deal as the endgame like the Brexit Party, if they back No Deal it will be to ensure Brexit is delivered and as a negotiating tool with the EU to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop they really want
As an aside, Margaret Thatcher only once got a majority above 10,000 in Finchley and that was in 1970. In every other election, while the seat was comfortably held the majority was below 10,000 and in October 1974 sub 4,000.
Blair took on Sedgefield in 1983 and won by 8,000 - curiously, the first time it had not been a straight Lab-Con fight since 1929.
Leaders rarely lose seats - Sinclair lost his when Liberal leader in 1945, Arthur Henderson lost his as Labour leader in the 1931 landslide and Balfour lost his in the 1906 landslide. Strangely, both Henderson and Balfour remained party leaders even after their defeats.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
What if your Labour candidate is a strong Corbyn sceptic? Or are you saying that you might vote Labour if you don't think he will end up in no10? (and how would you determine that?) Otherwise I would suggest you are being slightly disingenuous in saying that it is a difficult decision (assuming you are clear that you WILL vote, and WILL only vote for one of the two main parties). Because you are saying you will only vote Conservative or Labour, and then only Conservative. So whether you do so under protest or not, you are still doing so.
It depends on the constituency. If I was in a seat that voting lib dem could beat labour I would do so. But Aberconwy is a marginal and the labour candidate is a Corbynista so I will vote conservative, but with some dismay I have to do this
Am I correct in saying that Plaid has won the seat in the past for Assembly elections. You are clearly quite sympathetic to the SNP , so would a Plaid vote have any appeal to you?
The problem for Bozo is that his scorched earth policy has to be seen to a conclusion.
So he will continue to do what his Puppet Master Cummings says and will try and find more ways to trash UK democracy .
One wonders how much of his current unhinged behaviour might be noted by the Supreme Court and may effect how they rule on the suspension of parliament .
As an aside, Margaret Thatcher only once got a majority above 10,000 in Finchley and that was in 1970. In every other election, while the seat was comfortably held the majority was below 10,000 and in October 1974 sub 4,000.
Blair took on Sedgefield in 1983 and won by 8,000 - curiously, the first time it had not been a straight Lab-Con fight since 1929.
Leaders rarely lose seats - Sinclair lost his when Liberal leader in 1945, Arthur Henderson lost his as Labour leader in the 1931 landslide and Balfour lost his in the 1906 landslide. Strangely, both Henderson and Balfour remained party leaders even after their defeats.
True. Like Howard in 2005 adding 6k in the face of the (admittedly useless) lib dem decapitation strategy
However these models ignore tactical voting which will be significant (and Baxter uses UNS which is questionable on large swings in share).
My own constituency model uses a mixture of 75% additive (UNS) and 25% multiplicative swings.
For tactical voting it assumes a switch of 2.5% from Green to Labour and 1.0% from Green to LD.
It assumes that if the LD vote in a constituency was less than 50% of the Labour vote in 2017, then 30% of the LD vote will transfer to Labour.
It also assumes that if the Labour vote in a constituency was less than the LD vote in 2017, then 50% of the Labour vote will transfer to Labour.
I've done sensitivity runs on all these assumptions and, for instance, if 70% of Labour voters switch to LD (instead of 50%) where Labour is behind LD, it gives the LDs 3 more seats and the Tories 3 less than the 50% assumptions.
The central case result, with tactical voting, is:
Con 298 Lab 234 LD 48 SNP 51 i.e. a minority Labour government.
Does your model assume no tactical voting from Tory/Brexit Party voters?
Yes. It assumes no tactical voting. It assumes that the Tory manifesto is to go for a deal and prepare for No Deal as now.
However if the Tories went all out for No Deal and Farage wound up the Brexit Party then my central assumptions (based on YouGov analysis of background of current BXP supporters) is that it would increase share of Tories by 6%, Labour by 3% and 3% (ex UKIP) wouldn't vote. The result would be:
London has Britain's - sometimes Europe's, sometimes the world's - best restaurants, theatres, galleries, museums, concerts, sports, social spaces, palaces, markets, skyscrapers, science, colleges, bars, art, pubs, parties, clubs, elegant Georgian terraces and opportunities to meet fascinating people from across the globe.
Obviously, if what you want is clean air, no knife attacks, low rent, minimal traffic, access to wild countryside, and a sweet quiet life, then London is not for you. But it is the place, the goal, the ultimate career move, for lots of lots of people, often the young, smart and ambitious.
But now London is so successful it is closed off to the young in the UK, no matter how clever and driven. It is bad for them, and very bad for the country, when the capital city - or its nicer bits - becomes a kind of closed playground for global super-rich and a few lucky Brits (mainly those who have some link to London property ownership already).
The building resentment of London, and the way it has been quarantined from the rest of the country, was a huge, hidden driver of Brexit.
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
You don't have to totally live the life - few do. You just have to aspire to it, and think it conceivable you might live it, one day soon, if you work hard.
if London is so expensive you can't even live there, and never imagine living there, then that shuts the dream down.
But what happens when you accept you're not going to live it no matter how hard you work and how long you wait ?
And you realise that you're renting a room in Walthamstow while the people you grew up with have bought houses in your home town ?
Some bitterness and resentment perhaps and a desire to blame someone else ?
To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.
All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.
For example, suppose the meltdown continues and ty and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election
My bet is that the LibDems will suddenly see the great advantages of FPTP.
Yup, this is why FPTP is really hard to change. But hypothetically, what if you had a bunch on unexpectedly getting a temporary parliamentary majority?
Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to cut through and win an amazing surprise victory. Why?
1. just the bantz. What an incredible denouement that would be. All the writers of Britain, 2014-2019, a Docudrama would get Emmys
2. the Lib Dems would simply revoke. Yes this would come at a 3. It would be good for London property prices
Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them t be the future
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see a vicious pendulum swingback - to the centre.
Britain is still a pragmatic, small c conservative country. We're having a civil war kinda moment, but this won't last for ever. History teaches us that a healing Charles II figure comes after a divisive Oliver Cromwell. After the Revolution, Restoration.
The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
In the European Parliament elections the LDs won Westminster with more votes than the Tories and Brexit Party combined and comfortably beat Labour so I think Chuka has a very good chance, especially if he gets Labour tactical votes
Labour supporters voting for a quitter? And labour are coming from 38% at the last GE, how do you convince them go tactically vote for someone 27% behind? That's why I said min 20%, that's half their vote disappearing
Westminster European election results in May.
LDs 15805 Labour 9192 Brexit Party 7157 Conservatives 5198.
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The problem for Bozo is that his scorched earth policy has to be seen to a conclusion.
So he will continue to do what his Puppet Master Cummings says and will try and find more ways to trash UK democracy .
One wonders how much of his current unhinged behaviour might be noted by the Supreme Court and may effect how they rule on the suspension of parliament .
I don't see why it should make any difference to the interpretation of the law on proroguing Parliament. Surely the law is the same whether the Prime Minister is a model of integrity and fine judgement or... not.
To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.
All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.
For example, suppose the meltdown continues and ty and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election
My bet is that the LibDems will suddenly see the great advantages of FPTP.
Yup, this is why FPTP is really hard to change. But hypothetically, what if you had a bunch on unexpectedly getting a temporary parliamentary majority?
Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to cut through and win an amazing surprise victory. Why?
1. just the bantz. What an incredible denouement that would be. All the writers of Britain, 2014-2019, a Docudrama would get Emmys
2. the Lib Dems would simply revoke. Yes this would come at a 3. It would be good for London property prices
Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them t be the future
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see a vicious pendulum swingback - to try teaches us that a healing Charles II figure comes after a divisive Oliver Cromwell. After the Revolution, Restoration.
The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
In the European Parliament elections the LDs won Westminster with more votes than the Tories and Brexit Party combined and comfortably beat Labour so I think Chuka has a very good chance, especially if he gets Labour tactical votes
Labour supporters voting for a quitter? And labour are coming from 38% at the last GE, how do you convince them go tactically vote for someone 27% behind? That's why I said min 20%, that's half their vote disappearing
Westminster European election results in May.
LDs 15805 Labour 9192 Brexit Party 7157 Conservatives 5198.
London has Britain's - sometimes Europe's, sometimes the world's - best restaurants, theatres, galleries, museums, concerts, sports, social spaces, palaces, markets, skyscrapers, science, colleges, bars, art, pubs, parties, clubs, elegant Georgian terraces and opportunities to meet fascinating people from across the globe.
Obviously, if what you want is clean air, no knife attacks, low rent, minimal traffic, access to wild countryside, and a sweet quiet life, then London is not for you. But it is the place, the goal, the ultimate career move, for lots of lots of people, often the young, smart and ambitious.
But now London is so successful it is closed off to the young in the UK, no matter how clever and driven. It is bad for them, and very bad for the country, when the capital city - or its nicer bits - becomes a kind of closed playground for global super-rich and a few lucky Brits (mainly those who have some link to London property ownership already).
The building resentment of London, and the way it has been quarantined from the rest of the country, was a huge, hidden driver of Brexit.
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
You don't have to totally live the life - few do. You just have to aspire to it, and think it conceivable you might live it, one day soon, if you work hard.
if London is so expensive you can't even live there, and never imagine living there, then that shuts the dream down.
But what happens when you accept you're not going to live it no matter how hard you work and how long you wait ?
And you realise that you're renting a room in Walthamstow while the people you grew up with have bought houses in your home town ?
Some bitterness and resentment perhaps and a desire to blame someone else ?
Well unless you work in the city or for a tech firm and earn the big bucks move back to your home town then if you want to get on the property ladder
To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.
All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.
For example, suppose the meltdown continues and ty and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election
My bet is that the LibDems will suddenly see the great advantages of FPTP.
Yup, this is why FPTP is really hard to change. But hypothetically, what if you had a bunch on unexpectedly getting a temporary parliamentary majority?
Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to cut through and win an amazing surprise victory. Why?
1. just the bantz. What an incredible denouement that would be. All the writers of Britain, 2014-2019, a Docudrama would get Emmys
2. the Lib Dems would simply revoke. Yes this would come at a 3. It would be good for London property prices
Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them t be the future
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see lism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
In the European Parliament elections the LDs won Westminster with more votes than the Tories and Brexit Party combined and comfortably beat Labour so I think Chuka has a very good chance, especially if he gets Labour tactical votes
Labour supporters voting for a quitter? And labour are coming from 38% at the last GE, how do you convince them go tactically vote for someone 27% behind? That's why I said min 20%, that's half their vote disappearing
Westminster European election results in May.
LDs 15805 Labour 9192 Brexit Party 7157 Conservatives 5198.
So only the LDs beat the Tories and Brexit Party combined in Westminster, Labour did not
Lower turnout than GE and a different election, the euro election results arent going to transpose to a GE, it was a protest election
They largely will in Westminster which was overwhelmingly Remain and even now the LDs are well up on the last general election in the polls with the Tories and Labour well down
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
It's pretty well-established that tracker funds do no worse than active funds, with lower transaction costs. So a left-wing scheme that might be popular would be for the Government to offer a tracker fund scheme with minimal administrative charges which the employees of any given company could vote to opt into. That would almost certainly produce higher pensions with minimal costs for everyone, while being suitably grass-rooty and bottom-up.
If successful, it would be bad news for existing funds seeking new customers, but if they're properly managed then their existing investments should cover all liabilities.
Not quite correct Nick.
Passive index funds return whatever the market does minus costs and any tracking error.
Active investing, and alpha generation, is a zero sum game which is why, once active ongoing costs and transaction costs are factored in, there is a tiny chance of any given active fund beating its benchmark over an extended period.
There are some that do of course but how do you select them ahead of time?
Retail investors would be far better served long term with a passive portfolio, asset allocation according to risk/volatility tolerance and globally diversified.
Boring, off topic, wrong empirically (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/funds/definitive-way-invest-every-major-market/) and wrong in principle. The "zero sum game" argument is spectacularly wrong because it is about the result obtained by the market as a whole, and no one is seeking to maximise the return to the market as a whole, they want to maximise return to one minuscule part of it (i.e. themselves). So it's like saying to an individual Premier League club: look, don't waste all that money on buying and then training players, because PL placings overall over the season are a zero sum game and for every team that goes up there is one that goes down, so the overall position at the end of each season is a net standstill.* To which the obvious and true answer is: I don't want to maximise returns for the PL, I want to maximise returns for Chelsea.
I am not a wealth manager nor a stooge for wealth managers, but I think in principle that monumental fallacies should be exposed.
*You have to include candidates for promotion to the PL as well, strictly speaking.
To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.
All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.
For example, suppose the meltdown continues and ty and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election
My bet is that the LibDems will suddenly see the great advantages of FPTP.
Y majority?
Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to cut through and win an amazing surprise victory. Why?
1. just the bantz. What an incredible denouement that would be. All the writers of Britain, 2014-2019, a Docudrama would get Emmys
2. the Lib Dems would simply revoke. Yes this would come at a 3. It would be good for London property prices
Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them t be the future
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see lism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
In the European Parliament elections the LDs won Westminster with more votes than the Tories and Brexit Party combined and comfortably beat Labour so I think Chuka has a very good chance, especially if he gets Labour tactical votes
Labour supporters voting for a quitter? And labour are coming from 38% at the last GE, how do you convince them go tactically vote for someone 27% behind? That's why I said min 20%, that's half their vote disappearing
Westminster European election results in May.
LDs 15805 Labour 9192 Brexit Party 7157 Conservatives 5198.
So only the LDs beat the Tories and Brexit Party combined in Westminster, Labour did not
Lower turnout than GE and a different election, the euro election results arent going to transpose to a GE, it was a protest election
They largely will in Westminster which was overwhelmingly Remain and even now the LDs are well up on the last general election in the polls with the Tories and Labour well down
If you think Chuka can pull off a 17% swing against the Tories AND a 14% swing against Labour in one heave then good luck with that. If he wins then the LD are taking most of London
The problem for Bozo is that his scorched earth policy has to be seen to a conclusion.
So he will continue to do what his Puppet Master Cummings says and will try and find more ways to trash UK democracy .
One wonders how much of his current unhinged behaviour might be noted by the Supreme Court and may effect how they rule on the suspension of parliament .
I don't see why it should make any difference to the interpretation of the law on proroguing Parliament. Surely the law is the same whether the Prime Minister is a model of integrity and fine judgement or... not.
Because it’s like a character witness . His current actions show him to be unreliable and shed further doubt on his reasons for the suspension .
The Tories won't go all out for No Deal as the endgame like the Brexit Party, if they back No Deal it will be as a negotiating tool to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop they really want
That's going to look increasingly irrelevant as we approach 31/10 though I suppose if A.N Other achieves an extension it will still be in play.
The Rudd resignation suggests the talk about an agreed WA is just that - it would be ideal for Johnson if Macron facilitated our exit on 31/10 but on the assumption he will be slapped down by Merkel, I think we can assume the EU will offer another extension on 17/10.
Boris cannot and will not accept that.
The problem is polls like last night's YouGov paradoxically don't help. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and a 14-point for the Conservatives isn't, despite what happened in 2017, going to encourage non-Conservatives to head for the hustings.
Unfortunately for Boris, while he has the polling numbers, he doesn't have the parliamentary numbers to force a GE under the FTPA. He does have the advantage of being head of Government and as we both know the EU negotiates with the Government not with the Commons so the only option for the Opposition is to table a successful VoNC in the current Government and put together an alternative Government which will command a majority and the leader of that Government goes to the EU as head of the UK Government.
The interesting part is how the EU will respond to the change in Government - it shouldn't make any difference but I have a suspicion it will if they see any prospect of getting A50 revoked or pushed into the distance (2022).
The other question is whether once in power, the anti-No Deal Government might quite like the idea of staying in Government. They have a powerful incentive in keeping Boris and the No Dealers on the outside so there may be more strength, cohesion and popularity than some suppose.
It could even go on until 2022 by which time the 2016 Referendum will look like ancient history.
To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.
All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.
For example, suppose the meltdown continues and ty and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election
Yup, this is why FPTP is really hard to change. But hypothetically, what if you had a bunch on unexpectedly getting a temporary parliamentary majority?
Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the Lib Dems to cut through and win an amazing surprise victory. Why?
1. just the bantz. What an incredible denouement that would be. All the writers of Britain, 2014-2019, a Docudrama would get Emmys
2. the Lib Dems would simply revoke. Yes this would come at a 3. It would be good for London property prices
Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them t be the future
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might see a vicious pendulum swingback - to the centre.
Britain is still a pragmatic, small c conservative country. We're having a civil war kinda moment, but this won't last for ever. History teaches us that a healing Charles II figure comes after a divisive Oliver Cromwell. After the Revolution, Restoration.
The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
In the European Parliament elections the LDs won Westminster with more votes than the Tories and Brexit Party combined and comfortably beat Labour so I think Chuka has a very good chance, especially if he gets Labour tactical votes
Labour supporters voting for a quitter? And labour are coming from 38% at the last GE, how do you convince them go tactically vote for someone 27% behind? That's why I said min 20%, that's half their vote disappearing
Westminster European election results in May.
LDs 15805 Labour 9192 Brexit Party 7157 Conservatives 5198.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
Because he needs the no dealers to believe he really really doesnt want an election despite asking for one! And it is working, they simultaneous believe we should just get on with it and Corbyn is being anti democratic by not going for an election at a time of the PMs choosing.
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The Act requires the Prime Minister to request an extension. This is international diplomacy which is a Preoragitive matter, effectively the PM's powers derive from the Prerogative, not Parliament. So you could argue that Parliament does not have the vires to 8bsteuct the Monarch in matters of diplumacy.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
As far as I can see he doesn't just want an election. He wants an election which he can spin as the people vs parliament, with him on the side of the people and parliament blocking Brexit. In that respect his opponents have played into his hands.
I note that France's Foreign Minister is being reported as saying they will not allow a further Article 50 extension "in the current circumstances". Unless that changes, the only way the anti-no-deal MPs can block no deal is to vote for the deal, something many of them have refused to do.
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The Act requires the Prime Minister to request an extension. This is international diplomacy which is a Prerogitive matter, effectively the PM's powers derive from the Prerogative, not Parliament. So you could argue that Parliament does not have the vires to 8bsteuct the Monarch in matters of diplomacy.
er... instruct the Monarch, I was relying rather too much on autocorrect there
Gardenwalker is right, though. For many people - clearly not you - the best life possible, in the UK, is in in London.
London is a world city. Arguably the pre-eminent city on the planet. National Geographic thought so last year, despite Brexit.
But now London is so successful it is closed off to the young in the UK, no matter how clever and driven. It is bad for them, and very bad for the country, when the capital city - or its nicer bits - becomes a kind of closed playground for global super-rich and a few lucky Brits (mainly those who have some link to London property ownership already).
The building resentment of London, and the way it has been quarantined from the rest of the country, was a huge, hidden driver of Brexit.
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
You don't have to totally live the life - few do. You just have to aspire to it, and think it conceivable you might live it, one day soon, if you work hard.
if London is so expensive you can't even live there, and never imagine living there, then that shuts the dream down.
But what happens when you accept you're not going to live it no matter how hard you work and how long you wait ?
And you realise that you're renting a room in Walthamstow while the people you grew up with have bought houses in your home town ?
Some bitterness and resentment perhaps and a desire to blame someone else ?
Well unless you work in the city or for a tech firm and earn the big bucks move back to your home town then if you want to get on the property ladder
Its not necessarily a good thing if the 'London aspiration' becomes unobtainable to few beyond the extremely talented and richly privileged.
Especially as government is concentrated in the same location.
That's without mentioning the resentment of the 'tried London and failed' people.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
All the media focus on Dominic Cummings has drowned out the normal speculation on the power balance within the Cabinet.
Though it's not helpful for your initialism, Javid does not have the air of being part of the inner circle. I'm not even sure there is one beyond Cummings himself.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
Good question. 2 answers I have.
1. He needed the election to be forced. The public don't like unnecessary elections by seeking to be blocked first it shows why he needs a majority.
2. He needed to clear out the irreconcilable rebels. There's no point winning a majority only to be hamstrung because your own MPs oppose you. By flushing out the rebels he can replace them and if he wins a majority is can actually be a working majority.
Wouldn’t it be better for Corbyn to have a caretaker PM ask for the extension rather than him doing it.
It is better for Corbyn to ask himself.
Because Corbyn (of all people) has a reasonably plausible motivation.
He wants to re-negotiate with new red lines. So, he does actually need an extension so the charade can begin again!
I disagree . The Tories are going to attack him as the person who got the extension . The EU will grant an extension on the premise for a general election or referendum .
A caretaker PM can take the flak of the extension.
A caretaker will not be a labour MP, Corbyn cant go into a campaign saying I'm not trustworthy to be the labour choice for PM but vote for me! So any caretaker would, I think, have to come from the independents pool
It would be lovely for it to be Nick Soames....and quite fitting that his grandfather was a the last leader of a national unity Govt that sort to define the UK's place in Europe.
Even better would be to see Soames stay on for a short period to negotiate the deal that would be put back to a referendum....
I find it amusing that Soames is flavour of the month now, when only a few years back he was being slammed as an arrogant buffoon over the quad bike incident.
To change the present electoral system, you have to win under FPTP.
All parties that win under FPTP become enamoured of its great merits.
For example, suppose the meltdown continues and ty and Boris on 25 per cent each at the next election
Yup, this is why FPTP is really hard to change. But hypothetically, what if you had a bunch on unexpectedly getting a temporary parliamentary majority?
Terrible confession. A little bit of me wants the erty prices
Once Brexit is sorted one way or the other I'll give them t be the future
After Brexit is done, however it is done, I wonder if we might ion, Restoration.
The Lib Dems could benefit greatly if we all decide to be sensible and centrist after our dalliance with radicalism.
If Chuka wins Westminster for the LDs and beats Mark Field could he be Charles II to Boris' Cromwell?
Field rumored to be standing down, but Chuka wont win from third imo, labour will get 20% min, Tories should get 40
In the European Parliament elections the LDs won Westminster with cal votes
Labour supporters voting for a quitter? And labour are coming from 38% at the last GE, how do you convince them go tactically vote for someone 27% behind? That's why I said min 20%, that's half their vote disappearing
Westminster European election results in May.
LDs 15805 Labour 9192 Brexit Party 7157 Conservatives 5198.
So only the LDs beat the Tories and Brexit Party combined in Westminster, Labour did not
Euro elections mean Sweet FA. UKIP also won the Euros. Look what happened to them.
The Tories were on 24% in the 2014 Euros, just 3% behind UKIP the Tories got just 9% in the 2019 Euros, 22% behind the Brexit Party. Had they not elected Boris on a Deal or No Deal Brexit ticket the Brexit Party could well have overtaken them.
The LDs got just 7% in the 2014 Euro elections and Labour got 25%, in May's European Parliament elections the LDs got 20% and Labour got just 14%.
The LDs are far more a threat to Corbyn Labour now than they were to Ed Miliband's Labour in 2015
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The Act requires the Prime Minister to request an extension. This is international diplomacy which is a Preoragitive matter, effectively the PM's powers derive from the Prerogative, not Parliament. So you could argue that Parliament does not have the vires to 8bsteuct the Monarch in matters of diplumacy.
A Perogative power can’t be used to remove rights of citizens . That’s why Gina Miller won her case . Normal foreign policy decisions don’t remove rights . Triggering Article 50 would and now no deal would . MPs have clearly expressed they currently refuse to sanction no deal .
Whilst the right wing press were shouting betrayal the decision in GM protected all citizens but many Leavers to be blunt seem unable to grasp how important the GM case was and were led like sheep to be moaning about a decision which saved us from our rights being trashed at the stroke of a pen by an out of control government .
Wouldn’t it be better for Corbyn to have a caretaker PM ask for the extension rather than him doing it.
It is better for Corbyn to ask himself.
Because Corbyn (of all people) has a reasonably plausible motivation.
He wants to re-negotiate with new red lines. So, he does actually need an extension so the charade can begin again!
I disagree . The Tories are going to attack him as the person who got the extension . The EU will grant an extension on the premise for a general election or referendum .
A caretaker PM can take the flak of the extension.
A caretaker will not be a labour MP, Corbyn cant go into a campaign saying I'm not trustworthy to be the labour choice for PM but vote for me! So any caretaker would, I think, have to come from the independents pool
It would be lovely for it to be Nick Soames....and quite fitting that his grandfather was a the last leader of a national unity Govt that sort to define the UK's place in Europe.
Even better would be to see Soames stay on for a short period to negotiate the deal that would be put back to a referendum....
I find it amusing that Soames is flavour of the month now, when only a few years back he was being slammed as an arrogant buffoon over the quad bike incident.
But he would be our buffoon as opposed to toxic buffoon we have now.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
All the media focus on Dominic Cummings has drowned out the normal speculation on the power balance within the Cabinet.
Though it's not helpful for your initialism, Javid does not have the air of being part of the inner circle. I'm not even sure there is one beyond Cummings himself.
I don't think Javid is tightly embraced in the inner circle (though Gove definitely is). But Sajid is probably the only Cabinet minister Boris can't sack.
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The Act requires the Prime Minister to request an extension. This is international diplomacy which is a Prerogitive matter, effectively the PM's powers derive from the Prerogative, not Parliament. So you could argue that Parliament does not have the vires to 8bsteuct the Monarch in matters of diplomacy.
er... instruct the Monarch, I was relying rather too much on autocorrect there
The Act is a statute, not a resolution of the HoC, and therefore made by the Crown in Parliament, so it isn't really a Parliament vs Monarch situation, it's Monarch vs Monarch.
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
I think that's probably correct. Corbyn's instinct was probably just "bring it on!" but McDonnell has a more subtle mind and putting Johnson into this dilemma was I suspect his idea.
It's pretty well-established that tracker funds do no worse than active funds, with lower transaction costs. So a left-wing scheme that might be popular would be for the Government to offer a tracker fund scheme with minimal administrative charges which the employees of any given company could vote to opt into. That would almost certainly produce higher pensions with minimal costs for everyone, while being suitably grass-rooty and bottom-up.
If successful, it would be bad news for existing funds seeking new customers, but if they're properly managed then their existing investments should cover all liabilities.
Not quite correct Nick.
Passive index funds return whatever the market does minus costs and any tracking error.
Active investing, and alpha generation, is a zero sum game which is why, once active ongoing costs and transaction costs are factored in, there is a tiny chance of any given active fund beating its benchmark over an extended period.
There are some that do of course but how do you select them ahead of time?
Retail investors would be far better served long term with a passive portfolio, asset allocation according to risk/volatility tolerance and globally diversified.
Boring, off topic, wrong empirically (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/funds/definitive-way-invest-every-major-market/) and wrong in principle. The "zero sum game" argument is spectacularly wrong because it is about the result obtained by the market as a whole, and no one is seeking to maximise the return to the market as a whole, they want to maximise return to one minuscule part of it (i.e. themselves). So it's like saying to an individual Premier League club: look, don't waste all that money on buying and then training players, because PL placings overall over the season are a zero sum game and for every team that goes up there is one that goes down, so the overall position at the end of each season is a net standstill.* To which the obvious and true answer is: I don't want to maximise returns for the PL, I want to maximise returns for Chelsea.
I am not a wealth manager nor a stooge for wealth managers, but I think in principle that monumental fallacies should be exposed.
*You have to include candidates for promotion to the PL as well, strictly speaking.
But that's irrelevant in this context isn't it? Nick was talking about the government offering some sort of scheme to get people investing (I think?). So they world be trying to maximise the returns of large numbers of people, presumably requiring multiple funds if they were investing actively. At that point the fact that market residuals are zero-sum becomes relevant
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
The big attraction of London is there are a gazillion things to do. This is very important if you are the type of dynamo who likes to do a lot of things - and it is even more important if you aren't.
Re the super-rich, that's a fenced off enclave which 'ordinary Londoners' do not get to see much. If they did, I agree with you - the resentment would be great and possibly potent enough to have an impact. That is something I would like to see.
Yes, you were the one predicting Bozza would call an election at the very first opportunity, IIRC.
Wonder why he did not do that. Would surely have been smarter than what he has actually done.
Why did he prefer the advice of a dodgy character like 'Dom' Cummings over a solid citizen with a clue like you?
It would have been viable if the Tories had done a "coronation" of Boris. That would have freed up July for an election but instead he had to spend weeks doing hustings and didn't become leader until the end of July.
Calling an election then would have meant spending August campaigning with loads of unhappy MPs and grumpy journalists all having to give up their Summer holidays.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Rawnsley today sets out the mistakes very clearly:
Has anyone seen anything suggesting on what basis the Government thinks the Act might be challenged? It looks quite straightforward to me. I hate it, but the law is the law and there’s little scope for any doubt in it. If Parliament isn’t content, he has to ask for an extension, and if offered he must accept.
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
The Act requires the Prime Minister to request an extension. This is international diplomacy which is a Preoragitive matter, effectively the PM's powers derive from the Prerogative, not Parliament. So you could argue that Parliament does not have the vires to 8bsteuct the Monarch in matters of diplumacy.
Of course, that's precisely the point of the Queen's Consent requirement for some laws involving the royal prerogative. But that was ruled not to apply in this case.
I can't see Boris chicken running but if he was going to, he could simply move next door to Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which has now been freed up.
BXP - CON and CON - LD are the most likely swings from last week. If the election is soon it will come down to how much tactical voting there is, if not much or remain and leave cancel each other out Tory majority, otherwise hung parliament.
If the election is some way off things really are in so much flux than anything can still happen including PM Farage or Swinson.
Comments
And to be fair, HYUFD's behaviour is the norm -- Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband when he criticised the war in Iraq.
When asked why she was applauding a remark about the wrongness of the Iraq expedition when she had voted for it. Harman replied " I'm supporting my leader"
HYUFD is supporting his leader. He should surely enter Parliament in the next election, with all these defections and leaving MPs.
I also don't think Rudd will make any impression -- she's a walking lost deposit.
He’s not really a test batsman, though.
The consistent labelling of Leavers as some sort of quasi fascists means any rational rapprochement becomes impossible and has lead to more or less open political warfare.
A short sighted approach has meant a very sharp win/lose debate with utter defeat for one side or the other.
This mentality will not go away afterwards for a long time.
However if the Tories went all out for No Deal and Farage wound up the Brexit Party then my central assumptions (based on YouGov analysis of background of current BXP supporters) is that it would increase share of Tories by 6%, Labour by 3% and 3% (ex UKIP) wouldn't vote. The result would be:
Con 310
Lab 232
LD 38
SNP 51
Must have been chatting on the doorsteps this weekend
Though it is true that often the best time to get into Parliament is in the first term of your party in opposition when there is less competition e.g. one Tony Blair was elected as a Labour MP for the first time in 1983 when Labour were trounced nationally. I wonder what happened to him?
Firstly, the reality is he's likely to hold on in an outer London seat which is traditionally conservative and given PMs tend to get a bounce in their own seat.
Secondly, it makes a nonsense of his "chicken" jibe at Corbyn. It's transparently ridiculous and stops him saying it at all really.
Thirdly, it immediately puts him on the back foot - he has to gain seats to get what he wants, and it would be an admission that a seat where the Tories won 50% of the vote in 2017 - a fairly comfortable 5000 majority - is at serious risk. We wouldn't hear the last of it throughout the campaign.
Finally, if he does blow a 5000 majority, the Tories just aren't winning the election anyway.
Passive index funds return whatever the market does minus costs and any tracking error.
Active investing, and alpha generation, is a zero sum game which is why, once active ongoing costs and transaction costs are factored in, there is a tiny chance of any given active fund beating its benchmark over an extended period.
There are some that do of course but how do you select them ahead of time?
Retail investors would be far better served long term with a passive portfolio, asset allocation according to risk/volatility tolerance and globally diversified.
Clever, tall, buxom women of a certain prettiness. Not great beauties, necessarily.
That's why I said min 20%, that's half their vote disappearing
Aussies through to the tail already. We'll be lucky to get to lunch at this rate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160905-are-swarms-of-jellyfish-taking-over-the-ocean
Surely not.
Doubt he'll do it anyway but, if he did, it'd be in the seat of a retiring friend.
if London is so expensive you can't even live there, and never imagine living there, then that shuts the dream down.
https://twitter.com/edmundedgar/status/943002367602999297
You reduce it to numbers, I merely point out that he doesn't go for absolute beauties (like Trump does - Melania was/is a stunner)
Carrie Symonds seems rather nice, bur she's def not a supermodel.
As an aside, Margaret Thatcher only once got a majority above 10,000 in Finchley and that was in 1970. In every other election, while the seat was comfortably held the majority was below 10,000 and in October 1974 sub 4,000.
Blair took on Sedgefield in 1983 and won by 8,000 - curiously, the first time it had not been a straight Lab-Con fight since 1929.
Leaders rarely lose seats - Sinclair lost his when Liberal leader in 1945, Arthur Henderson lost his as Labour leader in the 1931 landslide and Balfour lost his in the 1906 landslide. Strangely, both Henderson and Balfour remained party leaders even after their defeats.
They are laughably pathetic therefore!
So he will continue to do what his Puppet Master Cummings says and will try and find more ways to trash UK democracy .
One wonders how much of his current unhinged behaviour might be noted by the Supreme Court and may effect how they rule on the suspension of parliament .
In the Ashes, of course.
And you realise that you're renting a room in Walthamstow while the people you grew up with have bought houses in your home town ?
Some bitterness and resentment perhaps and a desire to blame someone else ?
LDs 15805 Labour 9192 Brexit Party 7157 Conservatives 5198.
https://www.westminster.gov.uk/sites/default/files/westminster_statement_of_local_totals.pdf
So only the LDs beat the Tories and Brexit Party combined in Westminster, Labour did not
I presume someone somewhere thinks Parliament doesn’t have the vires required. But that doesn’t work for me, since Parliament can do what it wants. Well I suppose, ironically it can’t do much about the limitations imposed by the European treaties without first leaving, but I don’t see those being relevant here.
As discussed at length, he can chose to resign first, but these articles seem to imply someone thinks there might be a legal basis on which to not send a letter. I don’t see it. All I can picture is the unpleasant stuff in a side letter (“p.s. you stink, we’ll veto everything forever and pull British troops out of Eastern Europe if you offer to extend, and I’d like to formally notify you that we find Spain in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht and we will be declaring war”).
Look out you (as we were) ladies "of a certain prettiness but not beauties", PM Boris Johnson is about!
Skin deep, though, as they say. I think I've heard them say that anyway.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
I am not a wealth manager nor a stooge for wealth managers, but I think in principle that monumental fallacies should be exposed.
*You have to include candidates for promotion to the PL as well, strictly speaking.
Our Dad still lives in zone 3, but then he's owned a house in London since the Callaghan ministry.
The Rudd resignation suggests the talk about an agreed WA is just that - it would be ideal for Johnson if Macron facilitated our exit on 31/10 but on the assumption he will be slapped down by Merkel, I think we can assume the EU will offer another extension on 17/10.
Boris cannot and will not accept that.
The problem is polls like last night's YouGov paradoxically don't help. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and a 14-point for the Conservatives isn't, despite what happened in 2017, going to encourage non-Conservatives to head for the hustings.
Unfortunately for Boris, while he has the polling numbers, he doesn't have the parliamentary numbers to force a GE under the FTPA. He does have the advantage of being head of Government and as we both know the EU negotiates with the Government not with the Commons so the only option for the Opposition is to table a successful VoNC in the current Government and put together an alternative Government which will command a majority and the leader of that Government goes to the EU as head of the UK Government.
The interesting part is how the EU will respond to the change in Government - it shouldn't make any difference but I have a suspicion it will if they see any prospect of getting A50 revoked or pushed into the distance (2022).
The other question is whether once in power, the anti-No Deal Government might quite like the idea of staying in Government. They have a powerful incentive in keeping Boris and the No Dealers on the outside so there may be more strength, cohesion and popularity than some suppose.
It could even go on until 2022 by which time the 2016 Referendum will look like ancient history.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Wonder why he did not do that. Would surely have been smarter than what he has actually done.
Why did he prefer the advice of a dodgy character like 'Dom' Cummings over a solid citizen with a clue like you?
I note that France's Foreign Minister is being reported as saying they will not allow a further Article 50 extension "in the current circumstances". Unless that changes, the only way the anti-no-deal MPs can block no deal is to vote for the deal, something many of them have refused to do.
Especially as government is concentrated in the same location.
That's without mentioning the resentment of the 'tried London and failed' people.
Though it's not helpful for your initialism, Javid does not have the air of being part of the inner circle. I'm not even sure there is one beyond Cummings himself.
1. He needed the election to be forced. The public don't like unnecessary elections by seeking to be blocked first it shows why he needs a majority.
2. He needed to clear out the irreconcilable rebels. There's no point winning a majority only to be hamstrung because your own MPs oppose you. By flushing out the rebels he can replace them and if he wins a majority is can actually be a working majority.
The LDs got just 7% in the 2014 Euro elections and Labour got 25%, in May's European Parliament elections the LDs got 20% and Labour got just 14%.
The LDs are far more a threat to Corbyn Labour now than they were to Ed Miliband's Labour in 2015
Whilst the right wing press were shouting betrayal the decision in GM protected all citizens but many Leavers to be blunt seem unable to grasp how important the GM case was and were led like sheep to be moaning about a decision which saved us from our rights being trashed at the stroke of a pen by an out of control government .
Re the super-rich, that's a fenced off enclave which 'ordinary Londoners' do not get to see much. If they did, I agree with you - the resentment would be great and possibly potent enough to have an impact. That is something I would like to see.
Brexit Party to LD swing confirmed.
Calling an election then would have meant spending August campaigning with loads of unhappy MPs and grumpy journalists all having to give up their Summer holidays.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/08/like-macbeth-johnson-too-steeped-in-blood-to-turn-back-what-next
If the election is some way off things really are in so much flux than anything can still happen including PM Farage or Swinson.
The exact timing is in the governments gift I think?