Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage plays his Trump card but Johnson surely shouldn’t be te

245678

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    talk about a leading question...
    The Tories: do they eat babies?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I really never got this NHS worship thing. Respecting doctors and medical staff? Sure.

    But when did a system of funding become an article of faith, what's so special about the NHS that makes it holy and sacred when compared to the German or Swiss models.

    This twitter thread and programme on Dispatches gives some idea of what is in store with Britain Trump doing a deal:

    https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188831701654482945?s=19
    Conversations about pricing happen, but that's not really my point. No other country has this fetish about public healthcare funding, it even made it into the opening of the London Olympics, it's frankly bizarre
    The NHS was a major reason people voted Brexit, and is central to the Tory party campaign.

    I am sure that you are right though, once they have their majority, the Tories will shaft the NHS and those CDE voters dependent on it.
    I don’t understand how we would pay more. Wasn’t it announced last year that negotiations had lead to previously unavailable drugs being made available as they now met cost benefit models.

    It doesn’t seem to make sense on a basic level. Can anyone explain why we would do this?
    Because what US Pharma wants out of a Trade Deal is removing that monopoly purchasing power that the DoH and NHS currently uses to keep down prices, and the end of NICE.

    Then there won’t be a trade deal.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718
    IanB2 said:

    Flanner said:

    all this reminds me of the Blair-Bush image the LibDems used to hit Labour in GE2005. .I dont think that it will change very much except fire up the usual party faithful

    In GE 2005. the LDs went from 50 seats to 60. But Labour still ruled Scotland, and the Tories didn't have UKIP/Brexit snapping at their heels. We had a 2.001 party system

    This year, 60 LD seats would destroy Johnson. It'd destroy any prospect of a no-deal Brexit, guarantee a new referendum, consign the lying sexpest to a future of after dinner speeches no-one pays to listen to and almost certainly ensures any kind of Brexit dies forever.

    The two roadblocks to a Bozo majority are:

    - LibDems capturing a raft of Tory seats in the S and SW
    - Corbyn’s campaign effectively defending his Northern and Midlands marginals

    At the moment the first looks more likely than the second; both are possible and neither happening is also possible.

    Ideally stopping a Bozo Brexit needs a bit of both.
    This Ian Dunt article is worth reading:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1190171171477708800?s=19
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,522

    Completely Off Topic but in real life just been getting the kids ready for school when heard a loud commotion upstairs - went up to check what was going on and found a black crow flapping around in our bedroom banging into the wardrobe and windows and walls.

    I'm not superstitious but that was freaky - to make it more freaky and more portentious the window was closed. I've checked every other window too, they're all closed. No chimney. I've got absolutely no idea how on earth a black crow has suddenly and without any open windows appeared in my bedroom . . .

    Managed to get it out by opening the window and it eventually found its way out but even without being superstitious that is strange and put me on edge, still got no idea where it came from . . .

    Not like last night was anything spe....oh.
    LOL!
    ydoethur said:

    Flew in earlier through an open door and was just sleeping peacefully until then, at a guess.

    That was my best guess but I've no idea how long birds sleep for. All windows were closed overnight so I'm guessing then we slept last night with the crow already in our house all night from yesterday . . .
    Well, you’re all still alive and have both eyes (unless you’ve missed out the really interesting part) so I shouldn’t worry too much.

    Of course, it might be your wife’s a witch and absent mindedly turned herself into a crow before she realised all exits were sealed. But I personally incline to the ‘flew in earlier’ hypothesis.

    Anyway, the sun is shining and as it’s my last day in Malta I’m off to enjoy myself. Have a good morning.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,788
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Last I checked we still had a deficit and it is going up again. We also have a PM and Chancellor promising additional spending left, right and centre. Tax cuts are obviously not going to happen. In fact under the Tories we will end up paying more tax (pension relief is a priority, except for those poor hard done by doctors of course), just not as much more as we would under Corbyn. Anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I really never got this NHS worship thing. Respecting doctors and medical staff? Sure.

    But when did a system of funding become an article of faith, what's so special about the NHS that makes it holy and sacred when compared to the German or Swiss models.

    This twitter thread and programme on Dispatches gives some idea of what is in store with Britain Trump doing a deal:

    https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188831701654482945?s=19
    Conversations about pricing happen, but that's not really my point. No other country has this fetish about public healthcare funding, it even made it into the opening of the London Olympics, it's frankly bizarre
    The NHS was a major reason people voted Brexit, and is central to the Tory party campaign.

    I am sure that you are right though, once they have their majority, the Tories will shaft the NHS and those CDE voters dependent on it.
    I don’t understand how we would pay more. Wasn’t it announced last year that negotiations had lead to previously unavailable drugs being made available as they now met cost benefit models.

    It doesn’t seem to make sense on a basic level. Can anyone explain why we would do this?
    Because what US Pharma wants out of a Trade Deal is removing that monopoly purchasing power that the DoH and NHS currently uses to keep down prices, and the end of NICE.

    Then there won’t be a trade deal.
    I don't expect there will be, and for other reasons too. Not least the length of time needed.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,695
    IanB2 said:

    "The two roadblocks to a Bozo majority are:

    - LibDems capturing a raft of Tory seats in the S and SW
    - Corbyn’s campaign effectively defending his Northern and Midlands marginals"

    There`s only one roadblock to a Tory majority: Nigel Farage`s ego.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Last I checked we still had a deficit and it is going up again. We also have a PM and Chancellor promising additional spending left, right and centre. Tax cuts are obviously not going to happen. In fact under the Tories we will end up paying more tax (pension relief is a priority, except for those poor hard done by doctors of course), just not as much more as we would under Corbyn. Anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.
    I agree that his promises are worthless.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    talk about a leading question...
    The Tories: do they eat babies?
    I think the correct formulation* is

    Tories: when did you stop eating babies?

    *as set down by Channel 4 News.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    Better in some ways, worse in others. I do not judge the quality of my life in purely financial terms.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,788

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    talk about a leading question...
    The Tories: do they eat babies?
    I think the correct formulation* is

    Tories: when did you stop eating babies?

    *as set down by Channel 4 News.
    To which the answer is presumably at the end of the BBQ season?
  • Mr. Thompson, you haven't recently angered a witch, have you?

    My 5 year old daughter was dressed as one yesterday but I don't recall angering her, does that count? :smiley:
  • Mr. Thompson, maybe it was her first familiar? :p
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
  • Mr. Thompson, maybe it was her first familiar? :p

    Any other warning signs to keep an eye out for? :wink:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    edited November 2019
    Of course Trump also criticised the Boris Deal with the EU as making it more difficult to do a US UK trade deal and while Farage was with Trump, Boris was cleverly visiting a hospital. Boris knows he needs to be seen as someone who can be trusted with the NHS and respectful of the President but not too close to him.

    Farage though wants to use Trump's support to get diehard Leavers behind him (with whom Trump polls better) and remember Farage was a supporter of Trump at a time Boris was dismissive of him before the presidential election, even speaking at a Trump rally in 2016.

    Remember too Trump does not want a Tory majority, Trump's ideal result is the Tories largest party in another hung parliament but reliant on Brexit Party MPs and Farage for confidence and supply, thus ensuring No Deal and a favourable US UK trade deal from his perspective. Hence Trump pushing a Boris and Farage Deal yesterday
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,788
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    Better in some ways, worse in others. I do not judge the quality of my life in purely financial terms.
    Better in what ways? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Venezuela

    The NHS is a national fetish but it can only survive in a working economy as Corbyn's inspiration in the Bolovarian revolution proved (yet again). Only 1 major party has policies that puts the NHS at serious risk and its not the Tories.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    IanB2 said:

    Flanner said:

    all this reminds me of the Blair-Bush image the LibDems used to hit Labour in GE2005. .I dont think that it will change very much except fire up the usual party faithful

    In GE 2005. the LDs went from 50 seats to 60. But Labour still ruled Scotland, and the Tories didn't have UKIP/Brexit snapping at their heels. We had a 2.001 party system

    This year, 60 LD seats would destroy Johnson. It'd destroy any prospect of a no-deal Brexit, guarantee a new referendum, consign the lying sexpest to a future of after dinner speeches no-one pays to listen to and almost certainly ensures any kind of Brexit dies forever.

    The two roadblocks to a Bozo majority are:

    - LibDems capturing a raft of Tory seats in the S and SW
    - Corbyn’s campaign effectively defending his Northern and Midlands marginals

    At the moment the first looks more likely than the second; both are possible and neither happening is also possible.

    Ideally stopping a Bozo Brexit needs a bit of both.
    I think both are likely because the second can also be summarised as 'Boris's campaign effectively targets northern labour seats'. I think he'll make progress but the labour vote is too stubborn there to offset losses in the south and Scotland.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,968
    edited November 2019
    Labour still a long way behind (>10% gap at the moment).

    If the Tories poll greater than 35% it's game over as far as Brexit is concerned. Boris' hard Brexit deal will proceed and we as a country will be truly f*cked.

    Still all to play for at this early stage but I am getting concerned.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    IanB2 said:

    Flanner said:

    all this reminds me of the Blair-Bush image the LibDems used to hit Labour in GE2005. .I dont think that it will change very much except fire up the usual party faithful

    In GE 2005. the LDs went from 50 seats to 60. But Labour still ruled Scotland, and the Tories didn't have UKIP/Brexit snapping at their heels. We had a 2.001 party system

    This year, 60 LD seats would destroy Johnson. It'd destroy any prospect of a no-deal Brexit, guarantee a new referendum, consign the lying sexpest to a future of after dinner speeches no-one pays to listen to and almost certainly ensures any kind of Brexit dies forever.

    The two roadblocks to a Bozo majority are:

    - LibDems capturing a raft of Tory seats in the S and SW
    - Corbyn’s campaign effectively defending his Northern and Midlands marginals

    At the moment the first looks more likely than the second; both are possible and neither happening is also possible.

    Ideally stopping a Bozo Brexit needs a bit of both.
    The former is unlikely as the SW in particular voted Leave, more likely the rising LD vote in London from Labour helps the Tories gain Labour marginals even as the LDs also pick up some London Tory and Labour seats
  • And how is it going for labour in the Midlands

    Bromsgrove South (Worcestershire) result:

    CON: 40.2% (-0.3)
    IND: 22.8% (+22.8)
    LDEM: 18.7% (+13.7)
    LAB: 18.3% (-32.2)

    Conservative GAIN from Labour.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
    Same in Totnes. LibDems might claim they have the MP here, but last time they were 7,000 votes behind Labour, who in turn were 13,000 behind the Conservatives. If stopping Brexit is so important, perhaps Dr. Sarah should stand down and let Labour have a crack at it?

    Yeah, right.....
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463

    Mr. Thompson, maybe it was her first familiar? :p

    Will you be voting for Andrea Jenkyns?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    Alistair said:

    Like, Switzerland healthcare is always a popular choice for the UK to adopt, that would require spending 90% more per head to achieve.

    It would also require Swiss style health insurance
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Flanner said:

    all this reminds me of the Blair-Bush image the LibDems used to hit Labour in GE2005. .I dont think that it will change very much except fire up the usual party faithful

    In GE 2005. the LDs went from 50 seats to 60. But Labour still ruled Scotland, and the Tories didn't have UKIP/Brexit snapping at their heels. We had a 2.001 party system

    This year, 60 LD seats would destroy Johnson. It'd destroy any prospect of a no-deal Brexit, guarantee a new referendum, consign the lying sexpest to a future of after dinner speeches no-one pays to listen to and almost certainly ensures any kind of Brexit dies forever.

    The two roadblocks to a Bozo majority are:

    - LibDems capturing a raft of Tory seats in the S and SW
    - Corbyn’s campaign effectively defending his Northern and Midlands marginals

    At the moment the first looks more likely than the second; both are possible and neither happening is also possible.

    Ideally stopping a Bozo Brexit needs a bit of both.
    This Ian Dunt article is worth reading:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1190171171477708800?s=19
    He makes some valid points about the changing shape of politics - but he makes the mistake a lot of commentators are making in thinking that the Tories need extra votes to secure a majority. They don't, if Labour loses enough votes in its marginals, and the LibDems don't come through in the South.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    murali_s said:

    Labour still a long way behind (>10% gap at the moment).

    If the Tories poll greater than 35% it's game over as far as Brexit is concerned. Boris' hard Brexit deal will proceed and we as a country will be truly f*cked.

    Still all to play for at this early stage but I am getting concerned.

    Not persuaded the public will vote tactically? Obviously you're right its early stages, but I just cannot see the gap being anywhere close to 10% anyway.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    Better in some ways, worse in others. I do not judge the quality of my life in purely financial terms.
    Better in what ways? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Venezuela

    The NHS is a national fetish but it can only survive in a working economy as Corbyn's inspiration in the Bolovarian revolution proved (yet again). Only 1 major party has policies that puts the NHS at serious risk and its not the Tories.
    Project Fear...

    I would expect some of Corbyns policies to slow the economy, and others to provide quite a stimulus, perhaps even a boom.

    I agree that the debt will be a problem for Corbyn in the medium term, but that goes for BoZo's tax cuts and spend policies too, especially when combined with a hard Brexit.

    If you want financial sanity, then vote LD, with the added advantage to a Scot of preserving the Union.
  • kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
    Same in Totnes. LibDems might claim they have the MP here, but last time they were 7,000 votes behind Labour, who in turn were 13,000 behind the Conservatives. If stopping Brexit is so important, perhaps Dr. Sarah should stand down and let Labour have a crack at it?

    Yeah, right.....
    You can't use GE17 as the baseline. That was then - this is now. Too much has happened since then and in elections this year the LDs have been far the most successful Westminster party.
  • Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    I imagine it's hard to convince somebody who has chosen to live in Dubai that there is more to life than money, but here goes. I have more money than I know what to do with but in every other respect my quality of life has gone down under this government. I can't get doctors appointments for my kids. The schools are visibly struggling under spending cuts. The pavements never get cleaned. There are homeless people everywhere. They have visited this Brexit nightmare on us that has disrupted the lives of friends and family and taken away rights to work and live in Europe that I considered my birthright. And all the Tories can offer is to cut my taxes, when more money is the one thing I don't need. And they're probably lying anyway! I don't know if Corbyn will succeed in improving things (I am sceptical) but at least he's offering to try.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,038



    JRM is a useful bogeyman for Labour, that picture of him lounging in HoC will be his legacy to British politics. The LDs are wasting time, money and effort if they are trying to unseat him from their starting, far more juicy targets sit just a few miles in either direction (Wells, Cheltenham etc)...I think a bit of expectation management is needed.

    According to HuffPost, the LibDems are deliberately trying to give the impression that they are winning everywhere, so as to push up their national share of the vote and give them a shot at becoming the second party to the Tories in vote share. This is, of course, antithetical to tactical voting (except in seats where they really do have a chance) - they feel it's more important than stopping Brexit, evidently.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,900

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
    Same in Totnes. LibDems might claim they have the MP here, but last time they were 7,000 votes behind Labour, who in turn were 13,000 behind the Conservatives. If stopping Brexit is so important, perhaps Dr. Sarah should stand down and let Labour have a crack at it?

    Yeah, right.....
    Why not?

    Dr Sarah could be the Labour candidate, and she would then have a full hand of political parties.

    How did the pre-existing Lib Dem candidate (Voaden ?) take it when she was dumped for Dr S. ?
  • HYUFD said:

    Of course Trump also criticised the Boris Deal with the EU as making it more difficult to do a US UK trade deal and while Farage was with Trump, Boris was cleverly visiting a hospital. Boris knows he needs to be seen as someone who can be trusted with the NHS and respectful of the President but not too close to him.

    Farage though wants to use Trump's support to get diehard Leavers behind him (with whom Trump polls better) and remember Farage was a supporter of Trump at a time Boris was dismissive of him before the presidential election, even speaking at a Trump rally in 2016.

    Remember too Trump does not want a Tory majority, Trump's ideal result is the Tories largest party in another hung parliament but reliant on Brexit Party MPs and Farage for confidence and supply, thus ensuring No Deal and a favourable US UK trade deal from his perspective. Hence Trump pushing a Boris and Farage Deal yesterday

    There won't be any Brexit party MPs unless there's an agreement with Johnson.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    edited November 2019
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Flanner said:

    all this reminds me of the Blair-Bush image the LibDems used to hit Labour in GE2005. .I dont think that it will change very much except fire up the usual party faithful

    In GE 2005. the LDs went from 50 seats to 60. But Labour still ruled Scotland, and the Tories didn't have UKIP/Brexit snapping at their heels. We had a 2.001 party system

    This year, 60 LD seats would destroy Johnson. It'd destroy any prospect of a no-deal Brexit, guarantee a new referendum, consign the lying sexpest to a future of after dinner speeches no-one pays to listen to and almost certainly ensures any kind of Brexit dies forever.

    The two roadblocks to a Bozo majority are:

    - LibDems capturing a raft of Tory seats in the S and SW
    - Corbyn’s campaign effectively defending his Northern and Midlands marginals

    At the moment the first looks more likely than the second; both are possible and neither happening is also possible.

    Ideally stopping a Bozo Brexit needs a bit of both.
    This Ian Dunt article is worth reading:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1190171171477708800?s=19
    He makes some valid points about the changing shape of politics - but he makes the mistake a lot of commentators are making in thinking that the Tories need extra votes to secure a majority. They don't, if Labour loses enough votes in its marginals, and the LibDems don't come through in the South.
    Yes, who will go backwards the least between the big two could win it . With BXP in play, and 9 years of government baggage, I'd say the tories on paper seem more likely, but the polls disagree unless Corbyn comes good again.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    I imagine it's hard to convince somebody who has chosen to live in Dubai that there is more to life than money, but here goes. I have more money than I know what to do with but in every other respect my quality of life has gone down under this government. I can't get doctors appointments for my kids. The schools are visibly struggling under spending cuts. The pavements never get cleaned. There are homeless people everywhere. They have visited this Brexit nightmare on us that has disrupted the lives of friends and family and taken away rights to work and live in Europe that I considered my birthright. And all the Tories can offer is to cut my taxes, when more money is the one thing I don't need. And they're probably lying anyway! I don't know if Corbyn will succeed in improving things (I am sceptical) but at least he's offering to try.
    Ha yes, given the only reason one would volunteer to live in Dubai is a preoccupation with money, I think you are probably fighting a losing battle —- but a very good effort anyway.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,846
    edited November 2019
    Mr. Thompson, if she starts asking for pet newts, I'd say no if I were you.

    Mr. Boy, worth recalling that a lot of the current problems are caused by the financial crisis* and trying to grapple with the enormous deficit (and our debt interest alone is tens of billions a year), and that PFI is continuing to cause massive costs which can't be stopped because of the watertight contracts.

    Edited extra bit: *implied, but, for clarity, including the massive recession that came with it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
    Same in Totnes. LibDems might claim they have the MP here, but last time they were 7,000 votes behind Labour, who in turn were 13,000 behind the Conservatives. If stopping Brexit is so important, perhaps Dr. Sarah should stand down and let Labour have a crack at it?

    Yeah, right.....
    You can't use GE17 as the baseline. That was then - this is now. Too much has happened since then and in elections this year the LDs have been far the most successful Westminster party.
    Further, the other side of the coin of the LibDem vote being the softest of the parties is that they have the greatest number of people who would consider voting for them, and can (theoretically at least) win seats from third that Labour can never win from second. Labour's vote, on the other hand, is resilient in bad times but has much less upside potential.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    HYUFD said:

    Of course Trump also criticised the Boris Deal with the EU as making it more difficult to do a US UK trade deal and while Farage was with Trump, Boris was cleverly visiting a hospital. Boris knows he needs to be seen as someone who can be trusted with the NHS and respectful of the President but not too close to him.

    Farage though wants to use Trump's support to get diehard Leavers behind him (with whom Trump polls better) and remember Farage was a supporter of Trump at a time Boris was dismissive of him before the presidential election, even speaking at a Trump rally in 2016.

    Remember too Trump does not want a Tory majority, Trump's ideal result is the Tories largest party in another hung parliament but reliant on Brexit Party MPs and Farage for confidence and supply, thus ensuring No Deal and a favourable US UK trade deal from his perspective. Hence Trump pushing a Boris and Farage Deal yesterday

    There won't be any Brexit party MPs unless there's an agreement with Johnson.
    What would Farage care about that? He only seems to care about winning Euro elections.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:



    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I really never got this NHS worship thing. Respecting doctors and medical staff? Sure.

    But when did a system of funding become an article of faith, what's so special about the NHS that makes it holy and sacred when compared to the German or Swiss models.

    This twitter thread and programme on Dispatches gives some idea of what is in store with Britain Trump doing a deal:

    https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188831701654482945?s=19
    The over use of “secret meeting” to cast suspicion really irritates me

    Civil servants meet pharma industry to discuss drug pricing. No shit. That sort of meeting happens in every industry with every government every day

    There is a difference between “private” and “secret”.

    U.K. drug pricing is a good system. Drug prices are among the lowest in the world. NICE has pioneered value based pricing which is widely copied. Some of the work on outcomes based pricing is cutting edge. The PPRS gives innovators flexibility on pricing

    I’m sure lobbists are going to push for higher pricing. That’s their job. Doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. In any event it’s a decision for the government. If it makes sense (eg increasing the cost of drugs to the NHS by £1bn per year creates £10bn pa of value to the economy) then fine. If the deal as a whole doesn’t make sense then they won’t approve it
    Says man who works in pharma...

    Trump has always been clear, he wants other countries to pay more for US pharmaceuticals. That means us as currently the NHS negotiates very low prices.
    I don’t work in pharma, as it happens, but I’m glad you recognise my expertise...

    Which part of this do you disagree with?

    U.K. drug pricing is a good system. Drug prices are among the lowest in the world. NICE has pioneered value based pricing which is widely copied. Some of the work on outcomes based pricing is cutting edge. The PPRS gives innovators flexibility on pricing
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718



    JRM is a useful bogeyman for Labour, that picture of him lounging in HoC will be his legacy to British politics. The LDs are wasting time, money and effort if they are trying to unseat him from their starting, far more juicy targets sit just a few miles in either direction (Wells, Cheltenham etc)...I think a bit of expectation management is needed.

    According to HuffPost, the LibDems are deliberately trying to give the impression that they are winning everywhere, so as to push up their national share of the vote and give them a shot at becoming the second party to the Tories in vote share. This is, of course, antithetical to tactical voting (except in seats where they really do have a chance) - they feel it's more important than stopping Brexit, evidently.
    Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,038
    edited November 2019
    I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    EDIT: solved it using a THIRD browser that I've not used before for Politicalbetting. So it does seem to be a cache problem, but not a history one - do I need to clear cookies?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Foxy said:

    I really never got this NHS worship thing. Respecting doctors and medical staff? Sure.

    But when did a system of funding become an article of faith, what's so special about the NHS that makes it holy and sacred when compared to the German or Swiss models.

    This twitter thread and programme on Dispatches gives some idea of what is in store with Britain Trump doing a deal:

    https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188831701654482945?s=19
    Conversations about pricing happen, but that's not really my point. No other country has this fetish about public healthcare funding, it even made it into the opening of the London Olympics, it's frankly bizarre
    That is because you hate sick children and want them to die.

    This is why we should never have referendums about anything. Restore the death penalty? Let's take the n million a week we spend on lifers and give it to the NHS. English independence? Let's take the Barnett formula money... etc. Stupid, mawkish, fallacious and universally effective.
    NHS... the homeopathy of the U.K...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:



    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I really never got this NHS worship thing. Respecting doctors and medical staff? Sure.

    But when did a system of funding become an article of faith, what's so special about the NHS that makes it holy and sacred when compared to the German or Swiss models.

    This twitter thread and programme on Dispatches gives some idea of what is in store with Britain Trump doing a deal:

    https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188831701654482945?s=19
    The over use of “secret meeting” to cast suspicion really irritates me

    Civil servants meet pharma industry to discuss drug pricing. No shit. That sort of meeting happens in every industry with every government every day

    There is a difference between “private” and “secret”.

    U.K. drug pricing is a good system. Drug prices are among the lowest in the world. NICE has pioneered value based pricing which is widely copied. Some of the work on outcomes based pricing is cutting edge. The PPRS gives innovators flexibility on pricing

    I’m sure lobbists are going to push for higher pricing. That’s their job. Doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. In any event it’s a decision for the government. If it makes sense (eg increasing the cost of drugs to the NHS by £1bn per year creates £10bn pa of value to the economy) then fine. If the deal as a whole doesn’t make sense then they won’t approve it
    Says man who works in pharma...

    Trump has always been clear, he wants other countries to pay more for US pharmaceuticals. That means us as currently the NHS negotiates very low prices.
    I don’t work in pharma, as it happens, but I’m glad you recognise my expertise...

    Which part of this do you disagree with?

    U.K. drug pricing is a good system. Drug prices are among the lowest in the world. NICE has pioneered value based pricing which is widely copied. Some of the work on outcomes based pricing is cutting edge. The PPRS gives innovators flexibility on pricing
    I agree, which is why scrapping it is a bad idea, yet clearly what US pharma wants.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Foxy said:



    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I really never got this NHS worship thing. Respecting doctors and medical staff? Sure.

    But when did a system of funding become an article of faith, what's so special about the NHS that makes it holy and sacred when compared to the German or Swiss models.

    This twitter thread and programme on Dispatches gives some idea of what is in store with Britain Trump doing a deal:

    https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188831701654482945?s=19
    The over use of “secret meeting” to cast suspicion really irritates me

    Civil servants meet pharma industry to discuss drug pricing. No shit. That sort of meeting happens in every industry with every government every day

    There is a difference between “private” and “secret”.

    U.K. drug pricing is a good system. Drug prices are among the lowest in the world. NICE has pioneered value based pricing which is widely copied. Some of the work on outcomes based pricing is cutting edge. The PPRS gives innovators flexibility on pricing

    I’m sure lobbists are going to push for higher pricing. That’s their job. Doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. In any event it’s a decision for the government. If it makes sense (eg increasing the cost of drugs to the NHS by £1bn per year creates £10bn pa of value to the economy) then fine. If the deal as a whole doesn’t make sense then they won’t approve it
    Says man who works in pharma...

    Trump has always been clear, he wants other countries to pay more for US pharmaceuticals. That means us as currently the NHS negotiates very low prices.
    I'm puzzled by this talk, or at least suggestion, of a national negotiated price. In my day there were two sets of pricing arrangements. Pharmacists in the community (retail chemists) were paid according to a scale laid down in the Drug Tariff, and if they could do 'better' than the price laid down, they could keep the difference. The Department of Health was constantly enquiring to see what prices were being charged for what, and carving down the price they paid. Or, when prices world-wide had risen, grudgingly edging up what they paid.
    This of course gave a substantial advantage to the likes of Boots and is a significant part of the reason that 80+% of 'chemist shops" are now in the hands of multiples.
    Hospitals employed pharmaceutical staff to do a similar job, on both a local and a regional basis. So far as I was aware, and it only impinged on me when there were effects on patients, there were no national contracts.
    That’s still a pretty good description of category M at the pharmacy level

    The only “national pricing” is NICE value for money recommendations
  • The other thing about the NHS and a debate about funding via general taxation or private insurance is that the debate becomes more consequential when society is more unequal.

    If our society was more equal then the tax paid would be more equal and a debate about insurance vs taxation would be less fraught. Perhaps a reason why Tories might want to think about how to encourage the economy towards more equal outcomes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490



    JRM is a useful bogeyman for Labour, that picture of him lounging in HoC will be his legacy to British politics. The LDs are wasting time, money and effort if they are trying to unseat him from their starting, far more juicy targets sit just a few miles in either direction (Wells, Cheltenham etc)...I think a bit of expectation management is needed.

    According to HuffPost, the LibDems are deliberately trying to give the impression that they are winning everywhere, so as to push up their national share of the vote and give them a shot at becoming the second party to the Tories in vote share. This is, of course, antithetical to tactical voting (except in seats where they really do have a chance) - they feel it's more important than stopping Brexit, evidently.
    I tend to dislike the labour assumption that the LDs are there to back them up, but on remain it really is the case that in a lot of areas voting ld instead of labour will help Boris. That said there are places such as the SW where based on history and the euros the LDs really do have a better shot despite being a distant third.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    Man who set anti adultery laws flogged for adultery

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-50258727
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Of course Trump also criticised the Boris Deal with the EU as making it more difficult to do a US UK trade deal and while Farage was with Trump, Boris was cleverly visiting a hospital. Boris knows he needs to be seen as someone who can be trusted with the NHS and respectful of the President but not too close to him.

    Farage though wants to use Trump's support to get diehard Leavers behind him (with whom Trump polls better) and remember Farage was a supporter of Trump at a time Boris was dismissive of him before the presidential election, even speaking at a Trump rally in 2016.

    Remember too Trump does not want a Tory majority, Trump's ideal result is the Tories largest party in another hung parliament but reliant on Brexit Party MPs and Farage for confidence and supply, thus ensuring No Deal and a favourable US UK trade deal from his perspective. Hence Trump pushing a Boris and Farage Deal yesterday

    There won't be any Brexit party MPs unless there's an agreement with Johnson.
    What would Farage care about that? He only seems to care about winning Euro elections.
    Hmm, There may be a problem for him coming. Perhaps he could get German citizenship and stand for the AfD.
  • I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    edited November 2019
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    Better in some ways, worse in others. I do not judge the quality of my life in purely financial terms.
    Let's face it will be better - for those that have the means to leave the country.

    The peope who suffer under Labour Govts. are always the poorest. As the economy inevitably tanks, they get the poorer services first, they lose their jobs first. Worth remembering that every Labour Govt. has left office with fewer people in work than they inherited.

    The economy inevitably tanks because their business model is broken. The public sector they build cannot be sustained by the level of taxation they require of the private sector.

    Now, if only they'd encourage a few thousand more billionaires to settle here.... But with Labour class warfare trumps savvy management of the economy, every time. And in spades under Corbyn.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,038
    Foxy said:



    Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.

    That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    edited November 2019
    Trump moves his permanent home from Trump Tower in New York to his estate at Mar a Lago in Florida.

    In 2016 New York voted for Hillary and Florida voted for Trump (plus no doubt the sunnier winter weather in Florida makes a change from DC)


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50258078
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    I imagine it's hard to convince somebody who has chosen to live in Dubai that there is more to life than money, but here goes. I have more money than I know what to do with but in every other respect my quality of life has gone down under this government. I can't get doctors appointments for my kids. The schools are visibly struggling under spending cuts. The pavements never get cleaned. There are homeless people everywhere. They have visited this Brexit nightmare on us that has disrupted the lives of friends and family and taken away rights to work and live in Europe that I considered my birthright. And all the Tories can offer is to cut my taxes, when more money is the one thing I don't need. And they're probably lying anyway! I don't know if Corbyn will succeed in improving things (I am sceptical) but at least he's offering to try.
    Ha yes, given the only reason one would volunteer to live in Dubai is a preoccupation with money, I think you are probably fighting a losing battle —- but a very good effort anyway.
    Money and sun I would assume
  • I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
    Had same problem. Clear your cache or use Firefox
  • Surely the key bit of the Trump interview was this: “We want to do trade with the UK but to be honest with you, this deal, under certain aspects of the deal, you can’t do it. You can’t trade. We can’t make a trade deal with the UK."

    You see that Get Brexit Done, where in reality its just transition into trade negotiations where the UK gets a better deal from countries like America than we already have? Here is Johnson's mate Farage doing a De Gaulle and saying no...

    Farage, instead of his offputting ranting, has dropped back into considered criticism. He's been saying for weeks that the Johnson deal is a disaster and now he has copper bottomed support for that position. There is no way that he will offer to pull back BXP candidates because to do so is to endorse an EU deal that prevents free trade. So they will all stand, and that will be that for the Tory landslide.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,038

    I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
    See my edit below - it really does seem to work if you use a browser you've not used before for PB (Chrome in this case). But I don't really want to work with two browsers...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    l

    I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
    Empty your cache. Press Ctrl + Alt + Delete to bring up the menu. But you will have to rebuild your favourites an put in all your passowrds when you go into sites again for the first time. It is a pain.....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,345
    edited November 2019

    I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
    Had same problem. Clear your cache or use Firefox
    Thanks but I have done both but can only access it on vanilla
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718

    Foxy said:



    Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.

    That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
    There are some exceptions, particularly in the golden SW of London and adjacent seats.

    Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a golden corridor of seats stretching from Putney to Portsmouth, Twickenham to Taunton? o:)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,900
    edited November 2019
    kle4 said:



    That said there are places such as the SW where based on history and the euros the LDs really do have a better shot despite being a distant third.

    There is no evidence that such is the case. I think in many seats in the S and SW, it is very unclear who you should vote for tactically.

    Also, many people don't want to vote tactically -- they want to vote for a party they believe in.

    Even in hopeless seats, e.g., the Tories in the South Walian valleys, there are still people who want to vote Tory.

    This is why I think tactical voting is likely to be very inefficient in the GE.
  • I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    EDIT: solved it using a THIRD browser that I've not used before for Politicalbetting. So it does seem to be a cache problem, but not a history one - do I need to clear cookies?

    I abandoned all hope of non Vanilla access to this site a good while back
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    Surely the key bit of the Trump interview was this: “We want to do trade with the UK but to be honest with you, this deal, under certain aspects of the deal, you can’t do it. You can’t trade. We can’t make a trade deal with the UK."

    You see that Get Brexit Done, where in reality its just transition into trade negotiations where the UK gets a better deal from countries like America than we already have? Here is Johnson's mate Farage doing a De Gaulle and saying no...

    Farage, instead of his offputting ranting, has dropped back into considered criticism. He's been saying for weeks that the Johnson deal is a disaster and now he has copper bottomed support for that position. There is no way that he will offer to pull back BXP candidates because to do so is to endorse an EU deal that prevents free trade. So they will all stand, and that will be that for the Tory landslide.

    We shall soon find out but I think you might be right. He genuinely would not seem to mind remaining and continuing to fight rather than accept the only two brexits on offer. Most of the candidates will follow his instruction. Boris will need to cut down the BXP share even to win.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
    Same in Totnes. LibDems might claim they have the MP here, but last time they were 7,000 votes behind Labour, who in turn were 13,000 behind the Conservatives. If stopping Brexit is so important, perhaps Dr. Sarah should stand down and let Labour have a crack at it?

    Yeah, right.....
    You can't use GE17 as the baseline. That was then - this is now. Too much has happened since then and in elections this year the LDs have been far the most successful Westminster party.
    The issue as I see it Mike is how their Dems fight so many seats. As we know they are always good at fighting g individual byelection but in all outs they have not been as clever.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,490
    edited November 2019



    JRM is a useful bogeyman for Labour, that picture of him lounging in HoC will be his legacy to British politics. The LDs are wasting time, money and effort if they are trying to unseat him from their starting, far more juicy targets sit just a few miles in either direction (Wells, Cheltenham etc)...I think a bit of expectation management is needed.

    According to HuffPost, the LibDems are deliberately trying to give the impression that they are winning everywhere, so as to push up their national share of the vote and give them a shot at becoming the second party to the Tories in vote share. This is, of course, antithetical to tactical voting (except in seats where they really do have a chance) - they feel it's more important than stopping Brexit, evidently.

    Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.

    There are plenty like me who will vote LD in a Labour seat as the lesses of 2 evils.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
    TSE said clear your cache IIRC
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582

    I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
    Had same problem. Clear your cache or use Firefox
    Thanks but I have done both but can only access it on vanilla
    Same here... clearing the cache hasn't worked for me.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,623
    Celebrity endorsement is always a tricky business. You have to choose carefully and hope your celebrity behaves themselves

    JWT after much research chose Oliver Reed to be the face of Bacardi. Delighted with their choice they took him to the Bahamas to shoot a series of commercials. The night before the shoot with the paperazzi following him around he got into a fist fight and ended up in a Bahamian jail.

    After hurried late night phone calls the Bacardi client agreed with the agency that it wouldn't do their product any harm. In fact it might even do them some good. They wanted to give Bacardi a more hard edged image and that was just Oliver Reed doing what Oliver Reed did!

    It couldn't have worked out better. A British Redtop had got hold of it. Photos of Oliver Reed lounging in a Bahamian jail glass in hand toasting his jailers!' The next morning delighted with their night's work the agency got Oliver to the first location and just as they were about to turn over they got a call from Bacardi. "It's off! The shoots off".........

    Someone at Bacardi had read the article and under the photo there it was....

    'Oliver Reid sitting in a Bahamas jail with his favourite tipple... Scotch and soda......'

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582

    I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    EDIT: solved it using a THIRD browser that I've not used before for Politicalbetting. So it does seem to be a cache problem, but not a history one - do I need to clear cookies?

    I abandoned all hope of non Vanilla access to this site a good while back
    Was working fine for me until yesterday
  • Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    Better in some ways, worse in others. I do not judge the quality of my life in purely financial terms.
    Let's face it will be better - for those that have the means to leave the country.

    The peope who suffer under Labour Govts. are always the poorest. As the economy inevitably tanks, they get the poorer services first, they lose their jobs first. Worth remembering that every Labour Govt. has left office with fewer people in work than they inherited.

    The economy inevitably tanks because their business model is broken. The public sector they build cannot be sustained by the level of taxation they require of the private sector.

    Now, if only they'd encourage a few thousand more billionaires to settle here.... But with Labour class warfare trumps savvy management of the economy, every time. And in spades under Corbyn.
    "Every Labour Govt has left office with fewer people in work than they inherited"...
    UK employment Q2 1997 26.5mn
    UK employment Q2 2010 29.2mn.
    The one verifiable fact in your argument is demonstrably false. The rest is just unsupported right wing talking points.
  • I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
    What is wrong with using Vanilla? I much prefer being able to read the comments in the right order rather than having to scroll to the bottom and then slowly up again.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    I imagine it's hard to convince somebody who has chosen to live in Dubai that there is more to life than money, but here goes. I have more money than I know what to do with but in every other respect my quality of life has gone down under this government. I can't get doctors appointments for my kids. The schools are visibly struggling under spending cuts. The pavements never get cleaned. There are homeless people everywhere. They have visited this Brexit nightmare on us that has disrupted the lives of friends and family and taken away rights to work and live in Europe that I considered my birthright. And all the Tories can offer is to cut my taxes, when more money is the one thing I don't need. And they're probably lying anyway! I don't know if Corbyn will succeed in improving things (I am sceptical) but at least he's offering to try.
    Ha yes, given the only reason one would volunteer to live in Dubai is a preoccupation with money, I think you are probably fighting a losing battle —- but a very good effort anyway.
    Money and sun I would assume
    I think Sandpit also is stuck because Mrs Sandpit falls foul of Home Office rules for residency.

    One positive for him about a Jezza government is a relaxation of those rules...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    I really never got this NHS worship thing. Respecting doctors and medical staff? Sure.

    But when did a system of funding become an article of faith, what's so special about the NHS that makes it holy and sacred when compared to the German or Swiss models.

    This twitter thread and programme on Dispatches gives some idea of what is in store with Britain Trump doing a deal:

    https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188831701654482945?s=19
    The over use of “secret meeting” to cast suspicion really irritates me

    Civil servants meet pharma industry to discuss drug pricing. No shit. That sort of meeting happens in every industry with every government every day

    There is a difference between “private” and “secret”.

    U.K. drug pricing is a good system. Drug prices are among the lowest in the world. NICE has pioneered value based pricing which is widely copied. Some of the work on outcomes based pricing is cutting edge. The PPRS gives innovators flexibility on pricing

    I’m sure lobbists are going to push for higher pricing. That’s their job. Doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. In any event it’s a decision for the government. If it makes sense (eg increasing the cost of drugs to the NHS by £1bn per year creates £10bn pa of value to the economy) then fine. If the deal as a whole doesn’t make sense then they won’t approve it
    You used to think there was no need to choose between the union and Brexit, but we’ve ended up with a government planning to implement an internal customs border. When something is sufficiently totemic, all sorts of things can get trampled over in its pursuit, even if it doesn’t make sense.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    edited November 2019

    I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
    Had same problem. Clear your cache or use Firefox
    Thanks but I have done both but can only access it on vanilla
    Same here... clearing the cache hasn't worked for me.
    I use Firefox and had this problem. Clear all history worked for me.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
    Same in Totnes. LibDems might claim they have the MP here, but last time they were 7,000 votes behind Labour, who in turn were 13,000 behind the Conservatives. If stopping Brexit is so important, perhaps Dr. Sarah should stand down and let Labour have a crack at it?

    Yeah, right.....
    Why not?

    Dr Sarah could be the Labour candidate, and she would then have a full hand of political parties.

    How did the pre-existing Lib Dem candidate (Voaden ?) take it when she was dumped for Dr S. ?
    I gather there was some grumpiness.... Whether any LibDems have stopped working for her I don't know. From what I'm seeing, she doesn't seem to have taken Tory activists with her.

    Nor voters.....
  • I've only made an initial examination, but the Best for Britain MRP suggests that Labour is hanging onto more Leavers than the Tories are hanging onto Remainers.

    The Tories win a big majority because the Remain vote is split.

    I'd suggest that this makes the Lib Dems the biggest threat to the Tories because they are most likely to unite the Remain vote in Tory-held seats that voted Remain.

    I think that makes sense of the head-to-head debates with Corbyn.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,296

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
    Same in Totnes. LibDems might claim they have the MP here, but last time they were 7,000 votes behind Labour, who in turn were 13,000 behind the Conservatives. If stopping Brexit is so important, perhaps Dr. Sarah should stand down and let Labour have a crack at it?

    Yeah, right.....
    You can't use GE17 as the baseline. That was then - this is now. Too much has happened since then and in elections this year the LDs have been far the most successful Westminster party.
    This used to be a close Tory / Libdem seat until 2015.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totnes_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    Interestingly it’s second MP in 1366 was called John Prescott
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    HYUFD said:

    Of course Trump also criticised the Boris Deal with the EU as making it more difficult to do a US UK trade deal and while Farage was with Trump, Boris was cleverly visiting a hospital. Boris knows he needs to be seen as someone who can be trusted with the NHS and respectful of the President but not too close to him.

    Farage though wants to use Trump's support to get diehard Leavers behind him (with whom Trump polls better) and remember Farage was a supporter of Trump at a time Boris was dismissive of him before the presidential election, even speaking at a Trump rally in 2016.

    Remember too Trump does not want a Tory majority, Trump's ideal result is the Tories largest party in another hung parliament but reliant on Brexit Party MPs and Farage for confidence and supply, thus ensuring No Deal and a favourable US UK trade deal from his perspective. Hence Trump pushing a Boris and Farage Deal yesterday

    Thanks very much. We need as much analysis into the workings and machinations of President Trump and his intentions as possible.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    kle4 said:



    That said there are places such as the SW where based on history and the euros the LDs really do have a better shot despite being a distant third.

    There is no evidence that such is the case. I think in many seats in the S and SW, it is very unclear who you should vote for tactically.

    Also, many people don't want to vote tactically -- they want to vote for a party they believe in.

    Even in hopeless seats, e.g., the Tories in the South Walian valleys, there are still people who want to vote Tory.

    This is why I think tactical voting is likely to be very inefficient in the GE.
    Not no evidence, its circumstantial evidence. Unless the area has undergone a seismic shift the LDs have a higher possibility on many of the seats round here as historical and euro strength is not irrelevant, nor local council strength.

    Of course people should vote for who they want even if hopeless, I'd prefer no one vote tactically ever, but a lot of people do and if they want to remain they have to.

    I agree its unclear because labour are in second in many seats now, it makes the ld job harder to argue, but there are reasons for the argument.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,046

    Completely Off Topic but in real life just been getting the kids ready for school when heard a loud commotion upstairs - went up to check what was going on and found a black crow flapping around in our bedroom banging into the wardrobe and windows and walls.

    I'm not superstitious but that was freaky - to make it more freaky and apparently more portentous the window was closed. I've checked every other window too, they're all closed. No chimney. I've got absolutely no idea how on earth a black crow has suddenly and without any open windows appeared in my bedroom . . .

    Managed to get it out by opening the window and it eventually found its way out but even without being superstitious that is strange and put me on edge, still got no idea where it came from . . .

    Bloody Tory canvassers get everywhere....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    I imagine it's hard to convince somebody who has chosen to live in Dubai that there is more to life than money, but here goes. I have more money than I know what to do with but in every other respect my quality of life has gone down under this government. I can't get doctors appointments for my kids. The schools are visibly struggling under spending cuts. The pavements never get cleaned. There are homeless people everywhere. They have visited this Brexit nightmare on us that has disrupted the lives of friends and family and taken away rights to work and live in Europe that I considered my birthright. And all the Tories can offer is to cut my taxes, when more money is the one thing I don't need. And they're probably lying anyway! I don't know if Corbyn will succeed in improving things (I am sceptical) but at least he's offering to try.
    Ha yes, given the only reason one would volunteer to live in Dubai is a preoccupation with money, I think you are probably fighting a losing battle —- but a very good effort anyway.
    To be fair to @Sandpit he wants to live in the U.K. but the Home Office won’t grant his Ukrainian(?) wife a visa
  • HYUFD said:
    That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
    Same in Totnes. LibDems might claim they have the MP here, but last time they were 7,000 votes behind Labour, who in turn were 13,000 behind the Conservatives. If stopping Brexit is so important, perhaps Dr. Sarah should stand down and let Labour have a crack at it?

    Yeah, right.....
    Yep. There’s lots of places in the south of England where ‘tactical’ voters won’t know who to vote for. There’s no chance of Labour overtaking the Tories, but the LDs were a distant third last time out. Places like Wokingham were also mentioned yesterday, where there’s a large Con majority and a split opposition.

    The risk for the LDs is that they spread their resources too thin on the ground, missing target seats by trying to get large numbers of tactical votes for second place in safe Tory seats.
  • Foxy said:



    Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.

    That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
    Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582
    PeterC said:

    I'm having problems displaying comments below the line again except with Vanilla (since last night). I've cleared the cache history and tried a different browser - no luck. Any ideas?

    I cannot get PB on my tablet or mobile and can only access it through vanilla.

    It is now 36 hours. No idea why but it is not optimal
    Had same problem. Clear your cache or use Firefox
    Thanks but I have done both but can only access it on vanilla
    Same here... clearing the cache hasn't worked for me.
    I use Firefox and had this problem. Clear all history worked for me.
    I'm loathe to clear all history... Mrs P might think I've been going to some dodgy sites :wink:
  • Surely the key bit of the Trump interview was this: “We want to do trade with the UK but to be honest with you, this deal, under certain aspects of the deal, you can’t do it. You can’t trade. We can’t make a trade deal with the UK."

    You see that Get Brexit Done, where in reality its just transition into trade negotiations where the UK gets a better deal from countries like America than we already have? Here is Johnson's mate Farage doing a De Gaulle and saying no...

    Farage, instead of his offputting ranting, has dropped back into considered criticism. He's been saying for weeks that the Johnson deal is a disaster and now he has copper bottomed support for that position. There is no way that he will offer to pull back BXP candidates because to do so is to endorse an EU deal that prevents free trade. So they will all stand, and that will be that for the Tory landslide.

    Trump chooses to endorse Farage's position on Brexit, in a contrived interview coinciding with the eve of the Brexit Party's campaign launch. The consequence is that you are now willing to take what Trump says at face value, whereas before you didn't believe a word he said.
  • Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    I imagine it's hard to convince somebody who has chosen to live in Dubai that there is more to life than money, but here goes. I have more money than I know what to do with but in every other respect my quality of life has gone down under this government. I can't get doctors appointments for my kids. The schools are visibly struggling under spending cuts. The pavements never get cleaned. There are homeless people everywhere. They have visited this Brexit nightmare on us that has disrupted the lives of friends and family and taken away rights to work and live in Europe that I considered my birthright. And all the Tories can offer is to cut my taxes, when more money is the one thing I don't need. And they're probably lying anyway! I don't know if Corbyn will succeed in improving things (I am sceptical) but at least he's offering to try.
    Ha yes, given the only reason one would volunteer to live in Dubai is a preoccupation with money, I think you are probably fighting a losing battle —- but a very good effort anyway.
    To be fair to @Sandpit he wants to live in the U.K. but the Home Office won’t grant his Ukrainian(?) wife a visa
    I feel for him then. Of all the nasty things this govt has done the financial threshold for spouse visas is the most disgusting - from the self-appointed party of the family too.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    kle4 said:

    Surely the key bit of the Trump interview was this: “We want to do trade with the UK but to be honest with you, this deal, under certain aspects of the deal, you can’t do it. You can’t trade. We can’t make a trade deal with the UK."

    You see that Get Brexit Done, where in reality its just transition into trade negotiations where the UK gets a better deal from countries like America than we already have? Here is Johnson's mate Farage doing a De Gaulle and saying no...

    Farage, instead of his offputting ranting, has dropped back into considered criticism. He's been saying for weeks that the Johnson deal is a disaster and now he has copper bottomed support for that position. There is no way that he will offer to pull back BXP candidates because to do so is to endorse an EU deal that prevents free trade. So they will all stand, and that will be that for the Tory landslide.

    We shall soon find out but I think you might be right. He genuinely would not seem to mind remaining and continuing to fight rather than accept the only two brexits on offer. Most of the candidates will follow his instruction. Boris will need to cut down the BXP share even to win.
    I sometimes get the sense from Farage that he would be perfectly happy with the EU if only British politicians were more honest (with themselves) about it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    edited November 2019

    HYUFD said:
    That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
    Greens not standing in a lot of places I imagine. And young people not being self defeating by voting green in a marginal if they do stand.
  • For acute life-threatening illness or injury, the NHS are brilliant as I found out myself in 2013. For long-term chronic ailments it is barely fit for purpose and the linkage with social care isn't joined up. The GP service is over used and abused.

    I don't know what the answer to the problem. Yes it needs to be properly funded, but chucking money at it without addressing the issues does very little in securing long term sustainability.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    edited November 2019

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    I imagine it's hard to convince somebody who has chosen to live in Dubai that there is more to life than money, but here goes. I have more money than I know what to do with but in every other respect my quality of life has gone down under this government. I can't get doctors appointments for my kids. The schools are visibly struggling under spending cuts. The pavements never get cleaned. There are homeless people everywhere. They have visited this Brexit nightmare on us that has disrupted the lives of friends and family and taken away rights to work and live in Europe that I considered my birthright. And all the Tories can offer is to cut my taxes, when more money is the one thing I don't need. And they're probably lying anyway! I don't know if Corbyn will succeed in improving things (I am sceptical) but at least he's offering to try.
    Corbyn’s mob are offering almost unlimited unskilled immigration for a start, which will make every one of the issues you’ve identified materially worse.

    The government currently spends around 3% more than it receives, how do you propose changing the government’s income and expenditure to solve your identified issues?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The LDs apparently want Labour to stand down in Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in NE Somerset. The problem is why would Labour stand down when the result last time was Con 54%, Lab 35%, LD 8%.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634195/Lib-Dems-WONT-stand-against-ex-Cabinet-minister-Dominic-Grieve.html

    Same situation in a lot of seats, especially in the SW . The failure to recover in 2017 makes the tactical argument harder.
    Same in Totnes. LibDems might claim they have the MP here, but last time they were 7,000 votes behind Labour, who in turn were 13,000 behind the Conservatives. If stopping Brexit is so important, perhaps Dr. Sarah should stand down and let Labour have a crack at it?

    Yeah, right.....
    Yep. There’s lots of places in the south of England where ‘tactical’ voters won’t know who to vote for. There’s no chance of Labour overtaking the Tories, but the LDs were a distant third last time out. Places like Wokingham were also mentioned yesterday, where there’s a large Con majority and a split opposition.

    The risk for the LDs is that they spread their resources too thin on the ground, missing target seats by trying to get large numbers of tactical votes for second place in safe Tory seats.
    I expect LDs will have 30-35 seats, and hundreds of second places, but that will be a much better starting place for GE 2024. It is very possible that with a hung parliament that we may get another GE in short order, so those second places matter.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Completely Off Topic but in real life just been getting the kids ready for school when heard a loud commotion upstairs - went up to check what was going on and found a black crow flapping around in our bedroom banging into the wardrobe and windows and walls.

    I'm not superstitious but that was freaky - to make it more freaky and apparently more portentous the window was closed. I've checked every other window too, they're all closed. No chimney. I've got absolutely no idea how on earth a black crow has suddenly and without any open windows appeared in my bedroom . . .

    Managed to get it out by opening the window and it eventually found its way out but even without being superstitious that is strange and put me on edge, still got no idea where it came from . . .

    The only explanation is that someone opened the window for a short time and it got in during that time.
  • Completely Off Topic but in real life just been getting the kids ready for school when heard a loud commotion upstairs - went up to check what was going on and found a black crow flapping around in our bedroom banging into the wardrobe and windows and walls.

    I'm not superstitious but that was freaky - to make it more freaky and apparently more portentous the window was closed. I've checked every other window too, they're all closed. No chimney. I've got absolutely no idea how on earth a black crow has suddenly and without any open windows appeared in my bedroom . . .

    Managed to get it out by opening the window and it eventually found its way out but even without being superstitious that is strange and put me on edge, still got no idea where it came from . . .

    Could have been worse. Might have been a black swan.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582

    For acute life-threatening illness or injury, the NHS are brilliant as I found out myself in 2013. For long-term chronic ailments it is barely fit for purpose and the linkage with social care isn't joined up. The GP service is over used and abused.

    I don't know what the answer to the problem. Yes it needs to be properly funded, but chucking money at it without addressing the issues does very little in securing long term sustainability.

    More funding alone isn't enough but more funding is a prerequisite.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    Better in some ways, worse in others. I do not judge the quality of my life in purely financial terms.
    Let's face it will be better - for those that have the means to leave the country.

    The peope who suffer under Labour Govts. are always the poorest. As the economy inevitably tanks, they get the poorer services first, they lose their jobs first. Worth remembering that every Labour Govt. has left office with fewer people in work than they inherited.

    The economy inevitably tanks because their business model is broken. The public sector they build cannot be sustained by the level of taxation they require of the private sector.

    Now, if only they'd encourage a few thousand more billionaires to settle here.... But with Labour class warfare trumps savvy management of the economy, every time. And in spades under Corbyn.
    "Every Labour Govt has left office with fewer people in work than they inherited"...
    UK employment Q2 1997 26.5mn
    UK employment Q2 2010 29.2mn.
    The one verifiable fact in your argument is demonstrably false. The rest is just unsupported right wing talking points.
    OK, so Tony Blair let 3m into the country.

    Try unemployment. 1997 6.8%. 2010 7.9%
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Even the Beeb are criticising Corbyn’s campaign slogans as lies, although they do rather pull their punches in the conclusion:

    General election 2019: Have the Conservatives 'slashed taxes for the richest'?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50249909

    During the Osborne years I lost my PA, my CB and paid a higher rate on a greater proportion of my income. I didn't complain (much). The country clearly needed the money to reduce the deficit and people like me fortunate enough to have a good income had to take the strain. But this "slashing taxes for the rich" meme is just irritating.
    That is BoZo's plan though. He promised* in his leadership campaign to raise the threshold for higher rate tax to £80,000.

    *yes, I know what his promises are worth!
    Do you think that, after five years of a Corbyn government, life will be better or worse for someone on a £100k salary, with a £1m pension pot and £1m in property and other investments?
    I imagine it's hard to convince somebody who has chosen to live in Dubai that there is more to life than money, but here goes. I have more money than I know what to do with but in every other respect my quality of life has gone down under this government. I can't get doctors appointments for my kids. The schools are visibly struggling under spending cuts. The pavements never get cleaned. There are homeless people everywhere. They have visited this Brexit nightmare on us that has disrupted the lives of friends and family and taken away rights to work and live in Europe that I considered my birthright. And all the Tories can offer is to cut my taxes, when more money is the one thing I don't need. And they're probably lying anyway! I don't know if Corbyn will succeed in improving things (I am sceptical) but at least he's offering to try.
    Ha yes, given the only reason one would volunteer to live in Dubai is a preoccupation with money, I think you are probably fighting a losing battle —- but a very good effort anyway.
    LOL, way more to do with love than money but hey ho.

    (Nice avatar by he way, I have quite the collection of those).
  • kinabalu said:
    I don't disagree with him but Farage is his puppet and Trump is Trump
This discussion has been closed.