Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A key GE19 battleground: The GE2017 Tories who voted Remain

12467

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,719
    Corbyn is like Stalin in one sense. Whatever Remainers think of him, we need to ally with him to defeat a greater threat.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    Are Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats like David Cameron's Conservatives, an indiction there is only a leader?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    edited November 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    His policy is a No Deal exit at the end of the transition period in December 2020, unless you believe that he can get an FTA agreed with the EU and implemented before then.

    That is what the likes of @DavidL and other Tories voting for Johnson are voting for. It is the same policy as that of the ERG and all the others who wanted a departure on 31/10, deal or no deal, just with the date changed.

    Quite why falling off a cliff into third country status is in the best interests of those people who fear chaos with Corbyn is unclear to me. It’s another form of chaos, though it has this to be said for it: all those companies and individuals who don’t what this hassle have a year to make plans to avoid it.

    Absolutely ridiculous, the 2020 cliff edge, I agree. Plus with a lot of sensible Cons leaving there is not safety net against no deal. That is a real risk. But I continue to believe that no British Prime Minister could leave without a deal and hence I see a fudge ahead if it comes to it, although I also think that there will be significant risks.

    Enough for me to cheer on a Labour government? Nope.
  • Mr. Mark, it's not necessarily a bad tactic, given how poorly rated both Johnson and Corbyn are.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,122
    edited November 2019
    Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly was talking with Julia when Sky News presenter Kay Burley cut to an empty chair, claiming he was refusing to come on the programme.

    @JuliaHB1 | @JamesCleverly | https://t.co/sv3MZUm41c https://t.co/3AxuUCHc2b

    Looks like Kay Burley may face an Ofcom enquiry just at the start of campaign
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Richard_Nabavi

    Yes. As my earlier posts indicated, there are still a few of us around. Actually, highlighted by this good header by OGH, there is a significant number.

    I performed my self/soul-searching recently and decided that any flavour of Corbyn would be worse than what the Conservatives are offering. I had said, when you and others were resigning from the Party, that I would wait even to resign to see what happened by October 31st. In case there might be another leadership election, or...

    As it turned out, I was amazed that the Cons let Boris off so lightly given he did as you pointed out from the very beginning he would do, by failing to honour his do or die pledge. So no leadership election, but a deal. Pretty much the same as May's as we all agree. Throws NI under the bus and I do not diminish the importance of the unionist community there, but if the people of NI are happy, I am happy, plus nominally they get to choose.

    And then we come to the real world. A world of Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson. Of course we are in febrile times and there is no reason why there shouldn't be swings of 30% plus constituency by constituency but the basic calculus is that it's Lab vs Cons. We can mess around at the edges with voting LD (and I respect very much those who are going to do so) but every time someone in Leadership of the Labour Party opens their mouth, it confirms me in my view that I will vote Conservative.

    The thread header talks about "those who have voted Conservative in the past"...

    There is perhaps a distinction to be made between moderate, but nonetheless almost reflexive Conservative voters like Richard (and perhaps yourself ?), and those who have voted Conservative before, but do not have that visceral attachment to 'conservatism' ?

    The former category might tip either way - as you and Richard demonstrate - but the latter is far less likely to vote Johnson for fear of Corbyn.
    That is true. Shall we call them pragmatists? In which case they might take a long hard look at the options on offer and indeed perhaps vote LD. But pragmatically? They are very likely to end up with Lab or Cons and that is the decision they must make. If they are politically involved enough and don't want to go off to buy a "Don't vote it only encourages them" t-shirt.
    As I said before, I think many do want to confront that choice and to actually vote. Which makes their deliberations all the more difficult.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 341

    Corbyn is like Stalin in one sense. Whatever Remainers think of him, we need to ally with him to defeat a greater threat.

    There is no greater threat!
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2019
    TOPPING said:

    That said, Labour have given us a get out of jail card. Take Jezza and his ridiculous statist policies out of the equation and we would have *real* soul searching to do.

    Exactly where I am, too.

    EDIT: Having re-read it, I'm actually closer to Richard's position than yours. Can't vote for the Kamikaze Tories and their acceptance of no deal following the inevitable failure to agree terms with the EU during transition. Reluctant yellow vote.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Remeber Yesterday when Warren was definetly going to lose To Trump etc etc?

    Good times, good times.

    https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1191823191825690626?s=19
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly was talking with Julia when Sky News presenter Kay Burley cut to an empty chair, claiming he was refusing to come on the programme.

    @JuliaHB1 | @JamesCleverly | https://t.co/sv3MZUm41c https://t.co/3AxuUCHc2b

    Looks like Kay Burley may face an Ofcom enquiry just at the start of campaign

    I assume LBC has a bigger reach than Sky News.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992

    As I said before, I think many do want to confront that choice and to actually vote. Which makes their deliberations all the more difficult.

    We will get a government and it will either be a Labour-led one or a Conservative-led one. If @AlastairMeeks votes Green then he imo will have opted out of the debate.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237

    My family includes their spouses/partners and their parents and family

    In truth some may well have considered some part of Corbyns offer but attack their propects of receiving part or all of their family's legacy it just bad politics

    You understand the 'political mind' of each and every member of your extended family to such an extent that you can say with great confidence that if Labour replace IHT with a tax on the recipient as income it will make a Labour vote utterly impossible even for those who are left leaning? - Impressive!
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Alistair said:

    Rand Paul looking at that Kentucky result and going YOLO

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1191888444890472448?s=19

    The whistleblowers identity is the worst kept secret in AmERICa
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Anorak said:

    TOPPING said:

    That said, Labour have given us a get out of jail card. Take Jezza and his ridiculous statist policies out of the equation and we would have *real* soul searching to do.

    Exactly where I am, too.

    EDIT: Having re-read it, I'm actually closer to Richard's position than yours. Can't vote for the Kamikaze Tories and their acceptance of no deal following the inevitable failure to agree terms with the EU during transition. Reluctant yellow vote.
    I understand. I continue to think we won't no deal in Dec 2020 but I accept that there is a huge risk.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,755

    On topic: Speaking as one of those Mike is talking about, I literally don't know. For the first time since 1964 (when I was a precocious 10 year old, who sent off for and carefully read the three main parties' manifestos), I don't know who to support. It's been the Conservatives every time since 1964, although obviously I couldn't actually vote until some years later, but now? Dunno.

    If the election had been one where Boris had been standing on a Jan 31st No Deal as an option, then it would have been completely unambiguous: there was no way on earth I was going to vote for that, I'd definitely have voted LibDem.

    Now that Boris seems to have belatedly come, or been forced, to his senses, it's less clear. I want to 'get Brexit done', for sure. But Boris has made, from my point of view, some spectacular errors since coming to his senses in late October. I will find it extremely hard, verging on impossible, to vote Tory now that the party has gone so bonkers that it doesn't have room for Ken Clarke, Phil Hammond, David Gauke and Amber Rudd, four politicians who epitomise exactly why I voted Tory in the first place. And I am extremely concerned by Boris repeating the same dumb mistake over an arbitrary date in respect of the extension of the transition: as Phil Hammond pointed out, what was the point of getting the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated to avoid No Deal, if you are then prepared to countenance No Deal months later? This is an absolute red line for me.

    I really don't like the LibDems for multiple reasons, not least their Revoke policy, and, like Boris, Jo Swinson keeps putting me off more. I want to vote for a grown-up, serious party, not one that tries to tack votes for children on a bill setting the date for an election in a few weeks time (and then doesn't vote for the election which they'd asked for two days earlier).

    I'm not particularly impressed by the 'vote Tory to keep Corbyn out' argument. Not letting the good be the enemy of the best is fine, indeed highly commendable. However, that does assume that the Tories are at least acceptable, which the present leadership are doing their best to tell me they are not. And in any case, a vote for the LibDems (depending on constituency) is not a vote which helps Corbyn.

    I might not vote at all, but that goes against all my principles: I strongly dislike the idea of not making a decision. 'To govern is to choose', and by extension, to have a vote is to choose.


    Excellent account of a dilemma common to many.
    It's easier for us in Scotland where stopping the SNP breaking up the country must always be the priority regardless of other considerations.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    TOPPING said:

    Anorak said:

    TOPPING said:

    That said, Labour have given us a get out of jail card. Take Jezza and his ridiculous statist policies out of the equation and we would have *real* soul searching to do.

    Exactly where I am, too.

    EDIT: Having re-read it, I'm actually closer to Richard's position than yours. Can't vote for the Kamikaze Tories and their acceptance of no deal following the inevitable failure to agree terms with the EU during transition. Reluctant yellow vote.
    I understand. I continue to think we won't no deal in Dec 2020 but I accept that there is a huge risk.
    No No Deal in Dec 2020 is dependent on small regions within various EU countries.

    The odds of it occurring is probably far greater than you expect.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Richard_Nabavi

    Yes. As my earlier posts indicated, there are still a few of us around. Actually, highlighted by this good header by OGH, there is a significant number.

    I performed my self/soul-searching recently and decided that any flavour of Corbyn would be worse than what the Conservatives are offering. I had said, when you and others were resigning from the Party, that I would wait even to resign to see what happened by October 31st. In case there might be another leadership election, or...

    As it turned out, I was amazed that the Cons let Boris off so lightly given he did as you pointed out from the very beginning he would do, by failing to honour his do or die pledge. So no leadership election, but a deal. Pretty much the same as May's as we all agree. Throws NI under the bus and I do not diminish the importance of the unionist community there, but if the people of NI are happy, I am happy, plus nominally they get to choose.

    And then we come to the real world. A world of Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson. Of course we are in febrile times and there is no reason why there shouldn't be swings of 30% plus constituency by constituency but the basic calculus is that it's Lab vs Cons. We can mess around at the edges with voting LD (and I respect very much those who are going to do so) but every time someone in Leadership of the Labour Party opens their mouth, it confirms me in my view that I will vote Conservative.

    The thread header talks about "those who have voted Conservative in the past"...

    There is perhaps a distinction to be made between moderate, but nonetheless almost reflexive Conservative voters like Richard (and perhaps yourself ?), and those who have voted Conservative before, but do not have that visceral attachment to 'conservatism' ?

    The former category might tip either way - as you and Richard demonstrate - but the latter is far less likely to vote Johnson for fear of Corbyn.
    That is true. Shall we call them pragmatists? In which case they might take a long hard look at the options on offer and indeed perhaps vote LD. But pragmatically? They are very likely to end up with Lab or Cons and that is the decision they must make....
    The pragmatic decision, for those who have grown increasingly impatient with being the 'must make' a choice between two unpalatable options, is to vote for the party who are at least committed to bringing in PR, and would very likely make that part of the non-negotiable price of their support in a hung parliament.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,213
    Who are the most "moderate" members of the Tories seeking election in the forthcoming GE then ?

    Stephen Hammond and Greg Clark ?
  • In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    I think if you imagine it had instead been Con Maj 20 it would have been worse? The ERG would still have been the ERG, the opposition would still have opposed, and there wouldn't have been the votes to stop some maniac crashing out with No Deal.
    Yes, I think that is possible, and that is part of the calculation one has to make. One thing which worries me is that I'm not totally confident that the LibDems and SNP would support a Boris trade deal, if he comes back with one after a formal exit from the EU on Jan 31st. Would they play silly games again in such a scenario? If we had sensible journalists, they'd be pressing Ms Swinson on points like this.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Anorak said:

    TOPPING said:

    That said, Labour have given us a get out of jail card. Take Jezza and his ridiculous statist policies out of the equation and we would have *real* soul searching to do.

    Exactly where I am, too.

    EDIT: Having re-read it, I'm actually closer to Richard's position than yours. Can't vote for the Kamikaze Tories and their acceptance of no deal following the inevitable failure to agree terms with the EU during transition. Reluctant yellow vote.
    I understand. I continue to think we won't no deal in Dec 2020 but I accept that there is a huge risk.
    No No Deal in Dec 2020 is dependent on small regions within various EU countries.

    The odds of it occurring is probably far greater than you expect.
    I understand that also. I continue to believe, Panglossian as it may be, that the UK won't ever exit the EU without a deal.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,257
    edited November 2019
    nunu2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Boris lowering the temperature didn’t last long.

    Comparing any current British politician to Hitler or Stalin is wrong. It wrong when people do it on social media, it’s doubly wrong when politicians do it. When the PM does it, he sets a bad precedent and gives permission to every nutter and extremist out there.

    Oh please.....
    Interesting one. I think there is some mileage, and accuracy, in the comparison, but that it will not be made to stick politically by direct name-calling.

    Having as Head of the Disputes Panel ... where anti-Jewish allegations are investigated ... an individual who argued that such allegations were made to undermine Corbyn rather than because of real anti-Jewish racism sounds pretty damn Stalinist to me.

    The best demonstration of Corbyn's problem dealing with racism is his appearance on TV reading out his "we do care" flashcard every time another instance comes up like a slow 4 year old starting with "A is for Apple". Let the man dig his own hole.

    I would say that such a campaign element would need to be bottom-up eg by pointing out the names of racist candidates who continue to be selected, rather than by soundbite.

    Similarly with the 'hate the rich' stuff. True but better by revelation than simplistic allegation. In our neck of the woods we have a chap worth about 1.5 bn who privides 4000 engineering jobs worldwide. Which of those jobs will McDonnell want to get rid of by taking his assets away?

    Perhaps we need a pack of cards of the millionaires in Corbyn's team.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,003
    edited November 2019

    Corbyn is like Stalin in one sense. Whatever Remainers think of him, we need to ally with him to defeat a greater threat.

    So Remainers should be like 1940-45 period Churchill (commonly thought of as his finest years)?
  • Sky have appointed their Russian reporter to follow Corbyn on the campaign trail

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236

    Alistair said:

    Rand Paul looking at that Kentucky result and going YOLO

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1191888444890472448?s=19

    The whistleblowers identity is the worst kept secret in AmERICa
    Eric ratted out his Dad ?
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    It does look as if Trump is good at getting out the vote for the Dems:

    https://twitter.com/tbonier/status/1191894324025405441?s=19

    President Warren incoming...

    If the Democrats nominate Warren that guarantees Kentucky goes back to Trump and the GOP again
    Trump is going to win Kentucky (if he stands) whoever the Dems nominate.
    Yes. Its basically like a
    With most of the 21 standing, the new Parliament starts off with 21 more hard Brexiteers than the last one
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,213
    nunu2 said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    It does look as if Trump is good at getting out the vote for the Dems:

    https://twitter.com/tbonier/status/1191894324025405441?s=19

    President Warren incoming...

    If the Democrats nominate Warren that guarantees Kentucky goes back to Trump and the GOP again
    Trump is going to win Kentucky (if he stands) whoever the Dems nominate.
    Yes. Its basically like a
    With most of the 21 standing, the new Parliament starts off with 21 more hard Brexiteers than the last one
    Down to 2 aren't we ?

    Greg Clark and Stephen Hammond ?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    Rand Paul looking at that Kentucky result and going YOLO

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1191888444890472448?s=19

    The whistleblowers identity is the worst kept secret in AmERICa
    Eric ratted out his Dad ?
    Different eric ;)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited November 2019
    https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1192023555321614341?s=20

    One possibility is that politicians, journalists, canvassers, and ordinary citizens might talk to Labour-Leave voters and find that they are more likely defect to the Brexit Party than Conservative-Leave voters.

    But this doesn’t mean that the Brexit Party is more of a threat to Labour, because both of these things can be true at the same time:

    Labour-Leavers are more likely to defect to the Brexit Party than Conservative-Leavers.

    More Conservative voters are likely to defect to the Brexit Party than Labour voters.

    The reason that both of these things can be true at the same time is simply that there are lots more Conservative-Leave voters out there than Labour-Leave voters: the British Election Study data suggests the proportion of 2017 Labour voters who voted Leave was about 31% (and this doesn’t vary that much between constituencies), while about 73% of 2017 Conservatives voted Leave.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    edited November 2019
    Foxy said:

    I was worried about what Labour's plans might mean for me and my family, but since I am not an early twentieth century Russian peasant I think I will be ok.

    It is BoZo's Brexit that will destroy the British Kulak farmers, not Jezza.
    And not just the farmers.
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    His policy is a No Deal exit at the end of the transition period in December 2020, unless you believe that he can get an FTA agreed with the EU and implemented before then.

    That is what the likes of @DavidL and other Tories voting for Johnson are voting for. It is the same policy as that of the ERG and all the others who wanted a departure on 31/10, deal or no deal, just with the date changed.

    Quite why falling off a cliff into third country status is in the best interests of those people who fear chaos with Corbyn is unclear to me. It’s another form of chaos, though it has this to be said for it: all those companies and individuals who don’t what this hassle have a year to make plans to avoid it.

    Absolutely ridiculous, the 2020 cliff edge, I agree. Plus with a lot of sensible Cons leaving there is not safety net against no deal. That is a real risk. But I continue to believe that no British Prime Minister could leave without a deal and hence I see a fudge ahead if it comes to it, although I also think that there will be significant risks.

    Enough for me to cheer on a Labour government? Nope.
    While I admire your optimism I think, sadly, you are being naive. The party is now in the hands of those who believe in No Deal and they have the better long-term strategy.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052

    On topic: Speaking as one of those Mike is talking about, I literally don't know. For the first time since 1964 (when I was a precocious 10 year old, who sent off for and carefully read the three main parties' manifestos), I don't know who to support. It's been the Conservatives every time since 1964, although obviously I couldn't actually vote until some years later, but now? Dunno.

    If the election had been one where Boris had been standing on a Jan 31st No Deal as an option, then it would have been completely unambiguous: there was no way on earth I was going to vote for that, I'd definitely have voted LibDem.

    Now that Boris seems to have belatedly come, or been forced, to his senses, it's less clear. I want to 'get Brexit done', for sure. But Boris has made, from my point of view, some spectacular errors since coming to his senses in late October. I will find it extremely hard, verging on impossible, to vote Tory now that the party has gone so bonkers that it doesn't have room for Ken Clarke, Phil Hammond, David Gauke and Amber Rudd, four politicians who epitomise exactly why I voted Tory in the first place. And I am extremely concerned by Boris repeating the same dumb mistake over an arbitrary date in respect of the extension of the transition: as Phil Hammond pointed out, what was the point of getting the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated to avoid No Deal, if you are then prepared to countenance No Deal months later? This is an absolute red line for me.

    I really don't like the LibDems for multiple reasons, not least their Revoke policy, and, like Boris, Jo Swinson keeps putting me off more. I want to vote for a grown-up, serious party, not one that tries to tack votes for children on a bill setting the date for an election in a few weeks time (and then doesn't vote for the election which they'd asked for two days earlier).

    I'm not particularly impressed by the 'vote Tory to keep Corbyn out' argument. Not letting the good be the enemy of the best is fine, indeed highly commendable. However, that does assume that the Tories are at least acceptable, which the present leadership are doing their best to tell me they are not. And in any case, a vote for the LibDems (depending on constituency) is not a vote which helps Corbyn.

    I might not vote at all, but that goes against all my principles: I strongly dislike the idea of not making a decision. 'To govern is to choose', and by extension, to have a vote is to choose.


    Excellent account of a dilemma common to many.
    It's easier for us in Scotland where stopping the SNP breaking up the country must always be the priority regardless of other considerations.
    I don't see this. Eventually there'll be another referendum and you can campaign to remain. In the meantime, whether or not the SNP has 35, 45 or 55 MPs is of no consequence.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    edited November 2019
    Alistair said:

    Remeber Yesterday when Warren was definetly going to lose To Trump etc etc?

    Good times, good times.

    https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1191823191825690626?s=19

    I don't think general election polling for the US is particularly informative at this stage. Only once a nominee is actually chosen will it start to be meaningful.
    For now, its primary value lies in persuading Democrats that a particular candidate is "electable", or not.

    And the variation between pollsters is dramatic.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2019
    TOPPING said:

    Anorak said:

    TOPPING said:

    That said, Labour have given us a get out of jail card. Take Jezza and his ridiculous statist policies out of the equation and we would have *real* soul searching to do.

    Exactly where I am, too.

    EDIT: Having re-read it, I'm actually closer to Richard's position than yours. Can't vote for the Kamikaze Tories and their acceptance of no deal following the inevitable failure to agree terms with the EU during transition. Reluctant yellow vote.
    I understand. I continue to think we won't no deal in Dec 2020 but I accept that there is a huge risk.
    Perhaps, but promising it shows the same mistakes being re-made, and increases the chance of no deal (we can, of course, argue what it's an increase from and to).

    It's just not 'conservatism' as I have always understood it. Nationalism, hard or soft, is corrosive and polarising and I will not vote for it.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    True in the South, but from the Workington poll they were taking equally and if Farage targets Labour voters it is fair to say in a lot of Northern marginals they will help the Tories.

    Portsmouth South on the other hand...
  • kinabalu said:

    In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    Jo has taken your advice about her hair. Shorter now and with a soft wave.

    You must surely reciprocate by voting Lib Dem.
    I might, once she's paid my modest consultancy fee.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236

    In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    I think if you imagine it had instead been Con Maj 20 it would have been worse? The ERG would still have been the ERG, the opposition would still have opposed, and there wouldn't have been the votes to stop some maniac crashing out with No Deal.
    Yes, I think that is possible, and that is part of the calculation one has to make. One thing which worries me is that I'm not totally confident that the LibDems and SNP would support a Boris trade deal, if he comes back with one after a formal exit from the EU on Jan 31st. Would they play silly games again in such a scenario? If we had sensible journalists, they'd be pressing Ms Swinson on points like this.
    Are you totally confident that Tory backbenchers would all support a Boris trade deal ?
  • Thinking of Tory Remain voters, what do you all think the good citizens of Broxtowe will do? It seems to me it is now a 3-way marginal with the Tories, Labour and La Soubry all in with a chance. I suspect most Tories will abandon La Soubry but will enough Labour voters be attracted to her to stop Labour regaining it by the Tory vote being split?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Anorak said:

    TOPPING said:

    Anorak said:

    TOPPING said:

    That said, Labour have given us a get out of jail card. Take Jezza and his ridiculous statist policies out of the equation and we would have *real* soul searching to do.

    Exactly where I am, too.

    EDIT: Having re-read it, I'm actually closer to Richard's position than yours. Can't vote for the Kamikaze Tories and their acceptance of no deal following the inevitable failure to agree terms with the EU during transition. Reluctant yellow vote.
    I understand. I continue to think we won't no deal in Dec 2020 but I accept that there is a huge risk.
    Perhaps, but promising it shows the same mistakes being re-made, and increases the chance of no deal (we can, of course, argue what it's an increase from and to).

    It's just not 'conservatism' as I have always understood it. Nationalism, hard or soft, is corrosive and polarising and I will not vote for it.
    Surely the past three years is all about the same mistakes being re-made!

    But yes, I accept that we all have difficult decisions to make.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,719
    Anorak said:

    It's just not 'conservatism' as I have always understood it. Nationalism, hard or soft, is corrosive and polarising and I will not vote for it.

    Ultimately this is what will break the union. The most compelling argument for unionism was as an antidote to narrow nationalism, but Brexit turns the union into its own enemy. The only sustainable way to reconcile the different forces will probably be to dissolve the UK and for us to become individual member states of the EU. The big question is which path we take to get there.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236

    Nigelb said:

    Flanner said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour to lower inheritance tax threshold to £125 000 effectively, average UK house price £226 000. This could be Labour's dementia tax

    https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1191920338424213504?s=20

    Be careful. This is an old artic le

    You need to wait the announcement but if Corbyn/McDonnell confirm this it is beyond stupid and is a 'dementia tax' moment
    Really? We all risk getting dementia when we're old, and in middle age we all risk having a dementia affected parent.

    The delusion that a significant number of voters will be affected by the IHT threshold dropping to £125k merely shows how isolated from the real world are poshos like Dorries ( there's nothing special about having gone to a state school, and back in Liverpool, an MP's salary looks astronomically high) and people well-heeled enough to bet on politics as a hobby.
    My family are not poshos and just getting on with their life

    Labour would lose each and all of their votes if they put this in place
    How many might otherwise have voted Labour, Big_G ?
    (A genuine rather than rhetorical question.)
    My family includes their spouses/partners and their parents and family

    In truth some may well have considered some part of Corbyns offer but attack their propects of receiving part or all of their family's legacy it just bad politics
    That I understand, but it's hardly the same as saying he will lose "each and all of their votes".
    It seems a foolish policy to me, too. but I am far less certain about how many votes it will cost him out of those votes which he has not already lost.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,843

    In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    I think if you imagine it had instead been Con Maj 20 it would have been worse? The ERG would still have been the ERG, the opposition would still have opposed, and there wouldn't have been the votes to stop some maniac crashing out with No Deal.
    Yes, I think that is possible, and that is part of the calculation one has to make. One thing which worries me is that I'm not totally confident that the LibDems and SNP would support a Boris trade deal, if he comes back with one after a formal exit from the EU on Jan 31st. Would they play silly games again in such a scenario? If we had sensible journalists, they'd be pressing Ms Swinson on points like this.
    This is the party who staged a walkout of the HOC rather than vote in favour of their policy of a referendum on Lisbon, remember? Playing silly buggers over Europe is in their DNA.

    An interesting counterfactual to consider what might have been if they had forced a referendum on Lisbon. Perhaps we might have ended up halfway out. Perthe ratchet mechanism would have ground to a halt. Perhaps UKIP might have remained a fringe party.
  • I see the "Swampy brigade" have won their case against the Metropolitan police. I wish them and their wee Norwegian pal would go and take their protests to the streets of Moscow, Bejing, Washington, Brasilia and New Dehli being the capital cities of the countries where the bulk of the world's global warming is being created
  • Nigelb said:

    In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    I think if you imagine it had instead been Con Maj 20 it would have been worse? The ERG would still have been the ERG, the opposition would still have opposed, and there wouldn't have been the votes to stop some maniac crashing out with No Deal.
    Yes, I think that is possible, and that is part of the calculation one has to make. One thing which worries me is that I'm not totally confident that the LibDems and SNP would support a Boris trade deal, if he comes back with one after a formal exit from the EU on Jan 31st. Would they play silly games again in such a scenario? If we had sensible journalists, they'd be pressing Ms Swinson on points like this.
    Are you totally confident that Tory backbenchers would all support a Boris trade deal ?
    No, I'm certain the nuttier ones won't. So either Boris is going to need a large majority to get it through (and to be able to ask for the extensions he's currently do-or-dying he won't do), or he's going to need opposition MPs to accept that we'll have left the EU and they should support a trade deal, even a Boris trade deal, as the best way of mitigating the damage. Will they? Not on the evidence of the unlamented parliament we've just had.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,213
    edited November 2019

    Thinking of Tory Remain voters, what do you all think the good citizens of Broxtowe will do? It seems to me it is now a 3-way marginal with the Tories, Labour and La Soubry all in with a chance. I suspect most Tories will abandon La Soubry but will enough Labour voters be attracted to her to stop Labour regaining it by the Tory vote being split?

    Individuals that have built a brand outwith a party - Sylvia Hermon, Claire Wright, Jason Zadrozny all have a chance at the next GE. Obviously for Sylvia it's a great chance being the incumbent.

    Dominic Grieve, Anne Milton and Anna Soubry all got elected on the Tory rosette. Their odds of being elected are MUCH MUCH longer.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    I see the "Swampy brigade" have won their case against the Metropolitan police. I wish them and their wee Norwegian pal would go and take their protests to the streets of Moscow, Bejing, Washington, Brasilia and New Dehli being the capital cities of the countries where the bulk of the world's global warming is being created

    A-HA!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,129
    edited November 2019
    Re burley empty chair...another day, results in another fake video doing the rounds...and not a russian troll farm required. Along with another fake poll last night tweeted out by a load of people.

    Putin must be pissing himself at how the twatterati do his work for him.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Nigelb said:

    In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    I think if you imagine it had instead been Con Maj 20 it would have been worse? The ERG would still have been the ERG, the opposition would still have opposed, and there wouldn't have been the votes to stop some maniac crashing out with No Deal.
    Yes, I think that is possible, and that is part of the calculation one has to make. One thing which worries me is that I'm not totally confident that the LibDems and SNP would support a Boris trade deal, if he comes back with one after a formal exit from the EU on Jan 31st. Would they play silly games again in such a scenario? If we had sensible journalists, they'd be pressing Ms Swinson on points like this.
    Are you totally confident that Tory backbenchers would all support a Boris trade deal ?
    No, I'm certain the nuttier ones won't. So either Boris is going to need a large majority to get it through (and to be able to ask for the extensions he's currently do-or-dying he won't do), or he's going to need opposition MPs to accept that we'll have left the EU and they should support a trade deal, even a Boris trade deal, as the best way of mitigating the damage. Will they? Not on the evidence of the unlamented parliament we've just had.
    One mitigating factor re opposition might be that in a Tory majority situation there will be no option of a Benn Act replay. Vote against the trade deal and you are voting for no deal
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Dura_Ace said:

    I see the "Swampy brigade" have won their case against the Metropolitan police. I wish them and their wee Norwegian pal would go and take their protests to the streets of Moscow, Bejing, Washington, Brasilia and New Dehli being the capital cities of the countries where the bulk of the world's global warming is being created

    A-HA!
    Are Norwegian. Greta isn't.
  • I see the "Swampy brigade" have won their case against the Metropolitan police. I wish them and their wee Norwegian pal would go and take their protests to the streets of Moscow, Bejing, Washington, Brasilia and New Dehli being the capital cities of the countries where the bulk of the world's global warming is being created

    Greta is Swedish if that's who you're referring to.
    You'll be calling Andy Murray English next.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,122
    edited November 2019
    Expert on NHS medication purchases from the US says only accounts for 9% of the whole UK supply

    I did not realise that 91% of our drugs source outside the US
  • More compelling evidence that anyone associated with Trump is contractually obliged to look like a weird fcuker.

    https://twitter.com/FuzzyWuzzyTO/status/1191830659968491520?s=20
  • Expert on NHS medication purchases from the US says only accounts for 9% of the whole UK supply

    I did not realise that 91% of our drugs source outside the US

    It's because most of the drugs the NHS uses are generics. It will be the on-patent, more expensive stuff that mainly comes from the US

  • I see the "Swampy brigade" have won their case against the Metropolitan police. I wish them and their wee Norwegian pal would go and take their protests to the streets of Moscow, Bejing, Washington, Brasilia and New Dehli being the capital cities of the countries where the bulk of the world's global warming is being created

    Greta is Swedish if that's who you're referring to.
    You'll be calling Andy Murray English next.
    Now Andy's body is buggered he is definitely scottish.
  • Ok so Greta "Greetin-face" is Swedish. Frankly I couldn't care less. She should be in school studying instead of lecturing world leaders in friendly nations where with the exception of the USA they have already "got" the message about global warming. Personally I would have water cannoned the swampy brigade into the Thames and see how good they are at swimming.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,122
    edited November 2019
    Greens just announced £100 billion a year for the next 10 years for the climate change policies paid for by borrowing £91 billion per annum an £9 billion from corporation tax
  • Greens just announced £100 billion a year for the next 10 years paid for by borrowing £91 billion per annum an £9 billion from corporation tax

    Trying to out loony the labour party.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,696

    In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    The 2010-2015 hung parliament following a 22% LD vote was surely a better parliament than either of the two parliaments, hung or otherwise, that have followed, which tends to undermine your argument

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    edited November 2019
    Stocky said:

    Foxy said "In such a parliament, Lab could form a minority government and get support for individual Bill's, but without a formal arrangement. That is as far as it would go."

    In the scenario that the Tories win most seats but fail to get a majority (and can`t form any coalitions) is it possible that a Labour minority government can arise?

    I think that it is possible, in this scenario, for the Tories (as incumbents) to limp on as a minority government but I`m noit sure that Labour to claim to the Queen that they can do this without a coalition or C&S from other parties to command a majority.

    Maybe I`m wrong - can someone clarify this? Specifically, if the Tories win most seats can Labour take charge as a minority government with fewer MPs than theTories and with no agreements with other parties.

    The process AFAIK is this:

    1. If someone has an overall majority the Queen says congrats, you're the government.
    2. If nobody does, Johnson is entitled to try to struggle on until he runs into a VONC.
    3. If he quits or a VONC is passed, the Queen rakes soundings on whether someone else might be able to govern without a VONC (I believe they would need a vote of confidence, but not necessarily with an overall majority voting for it). That includes a minority government surviving through the lack of a VONC - as we've had in the recent weeks.
    4. If so, they get invited to have a try. They too can be brought down by a VONC.
    5. If not, we get a new election. What joy.

    In this situation, the LibDems would have clear choices in the event that they had enough seats to enable either Tory or Labour+SNP+Plaid to outvote the other:

    1. Refuse to support a VONC in Johnson and enable him to continue in office.
    2. Vote to remove Johnson, but don't support a VONC in Corbyn, enabling him to be PM.
    3. Vote against both and force another election.

    There is no realistic fourth option - demanding that other parties change their leaders to someone Swinson likes is not serious.. Swinson is avoiding having to choose by saying she wouldn't vote FOR Corbyn (abstention is not discussed), though she seems more reticent about Johnson. That is not a complete answer.
  • You can't judge people by how they look.

    In my first week or two at university, a few people remarked I looked like a serial killer/psychopath.

    ....
  • Nigelb said:

    In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    I think if you imagine it had instead been Con Maj 20 it would have been worse? The ERG would still have been the ERG, the opposition would still have opposed, and there wouldn't have been the votes to stop some maniac crashing out with No Deal.
    Yes, I think that is possible, and that is part of the calculation one has to make. One thing which worries me is that I'm not totally confident that the LibDems and SNP would support a Boris trade deal, if he comes back with one after a formal exit from the EU on Jan 31st. Would they play silly games again in such a scenario? If we had sensible journalists, they'd be pressing Ms Swinson on points like this.
    Are you totally confident that Tory backbenchers would all support a Boris trade deal ?
    No, I'm certain the nuttier ones won't. So either Boris is going to need a large majority to get it through (and to be able to ask for the extensions he's currently do-or-dying he won't do), or he's going to need opposition MPs to accept that we'll have left the EU and they should support a trade deal, even a Boris trade deal, as the best way of mitigating the damage. Will they? Not on the evidence of the unlamented parliament we've just had.

    There is not going to be a trade deal by July, though! And the next intake of Tory MPs is going to be much more ERG-oriented than the current one. The big issue is going to be the extension of the transition - and I just do not see the new Conservative Party allowing Johnson to break his solemn promise on not having one.

  • Expert on NHS medication purchases from the US says only accounts for 9% of the whole UK supply

    I did not realise that 91% of our drugs source outside the US

    It's because most of the drugs the NHS uses are generics. It will be the on-patent, more expensive stuff that mainly comes from the US

    Thanks but it does seem low
  • I am one of that 29%. I will vote AGAINST both Conservative and Labour because they are both overly influenced by their extremes. NO political party uniquely has the “best” way forward.

    We need a better politics that seeks consensus. Under our present system the only way to force this on these pathetically tribal politicians is to repeatedly produce hung parliaments until they get the message, accept that some form of proportionality of representation is the future and start behaving like grown ups. Visible, cross party collaboration in major matters is the evidence we need to see, not the childish confrontation we get now. Much of parliamentary “debate” ought to be considered deeply embarrassing in a modern country. Their divisive idea that a group who happen to be largest, but never actually represent a majority of those who voted, let alone the population, should just be laughed out of the way.

    This will infuriate many - but it is OUR fault. We, the electorate behave on the whole in a similar mindless tribal way. You can see it writ large in this and other forums. Until more of us engage in actual thoughtful, evidence based debate to achieve consensus and throw out politicians who won’t behave like that we will get what we deserve. And we won’t solve any of our pressing social, economic and other problems either.

    If one bothers to read what they say there is a remarkable overlap in broad goals. But rather than using this as a basis for negotiation the nit pick over differences and generate confrontational messages.

    All we have to do is take a minimum of 100 seats off the Con/Lab block. Looks pretty clear the SNP will cover half of that, so we need to aim for another 50 at least - 75 would be better.

    Get over your tribalism, consider the long term interest of our country and planet and make the objective diluting the factional poison in our politics.
  • Expert on NHS medication purchases from the US says only accounts for 9% of the whole UK supply

    I did not realise that 91% of our drugs source outside the US

    It's because most of the drugs the NHS uses are generics. It will be the on-patent, more expensive stuff that mainly comes from the US

    Thanks but it does seem low

    Not really when you consider that most people who use the NHS are being treated for maladies for which there have long been solutions. However, one of the US objectives in any trade deal will be to increase the percentage.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,696

    Expert on NHS medication purchases from the US says only accounts for 9% of the whole UK supply

    I did not realise that 91% of our drugs source outside the US

    Surpised you're surprised Big_G.

    I'd assume something like 40% from UK, 40% from other EU countries, 10% from US, 10% from elsewhere. No idea if that's correct though.
  • You can't judge people by how they look.

    In my first week or two at university, a few people remarked I looked like a serial killer/psychopath.

    ....

    so they summed you up perfectly :) it is years since you visited me in Easter Ross. Hope you are still churning out the old written word.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2019

    Expert on NHS medication purchases from the US says only accounts for 9% of the whole UK supply

    I did not realise that 91% of our drugs source outside the US

    It's because most of the drugs the NHS uses are generics. It will be the on-patent, more expensive stuff that mainly comes from the US

    Thanks but it does seem low
    It makes sense to me. America sets itself against cheap generics so generics can be found cheaper elsewhere.
  • Stocky said:

    Foxy said "In such a parliament, Lab could form a minority government and get support for individual Bill's, but without a formal arrangement. That is as far as it would go."

    In the scenario that the Tories win most seats but fail to get a majority (and can`t form any coalitions) is it possible that a Labour minority government can arise?

    I think that it is possible, in this scenario, for the Tories (as incumbents) to limp on as a minority government but I`m noit sure that Labour to claim to the Queen that they can do this without a coalition or C&S from other parties to command a majority.

    Maybe I`m wrong - can someone clarify this? Specifically, if the Tories win most seats can Labour take charge as a minority government with fewer MPs than theTories and with no agreements with other parties.

    The process AFAIK is this:

    1. If someone has an overall majority the Queen says congrats, you're the government.
    2. If nobody does, Johnson is entitled to try to struggle on until he runs into a VONC.
    3. If he quits or a VONC is passed, the Queen rakes soundings on whether someone else might be able to govern without a VONC (I believe they would need a vote of confidence, but not necessarily with an overall majority voting for it). That includes a minority government surviving through the lack of a VONC - as we've had in the recent weeks.
    4. If so, they get invited to have a try. They too can be brought down by a VONC.
    5. If not, we get a new election. What joy.

    In this situation, the LibDems would have clear choices in the event that they had enough seats to enable either Tory or Labour+SNP+Plaid to outvote the other:

    1. Refuse to support a VONC in Johnson and enable him to continue in office.
    2. Vote to remove Johnson, but don't support a VONC in Corbyn, enabling him to be PM.
    3. Vote against both and force another election.

    There is no realistic fourth option - demanding that other parties change their leaders to someone Swinson likes is not serious.. Swinson is avoiding having to choose by saying she wouldn't vote FOR Corbyn (abstention is not discussed), though she seems more reticent about Johnson. That is not a complete answer.
    Labour was willing in 2010 to ditch Gordon Brown to get Lib Dem support. Why not do the same in 2019?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,696

    I am one of that 29%. I will vote AGAINST both Conservative and Labour because they are both overly influenced by their extremes. NO political party uniquely has the “best” way forward.

    We need a better politics that seeks consensus. Under our present system the only way to force this on these pathetically tribal politicians is to repeatedly produce hung parliaments until they get the message, accept that some form of proportionality of representation is the future and start behaving like grown ups. Visible, cross party collaboration in major matters is the evidence we need to see, not the childish confrontation we get now. Much of parliamentary “debate” ought to be considered deeply embarrassing in a modern country. Their divisive idea that a group who happen to be largest, but never actually represent a majority of those who voted, let alone the population, should just be laughed out of the way.

    This will infuriate many - but it is OUR fault. We, the electorate behave on the whole in a similar mindless tribal way. You can see it writ large in this and other forums. Until more of us engage in actual thoughtful, evidence based debate to achieve consensus and throw out politicians who won’t behave like that we will get what we deserve. And we won’t solve any of our pressing social, economic and other problems either.

    If one bothers to read what they say there is a remarkable overlap in broad goals. But rather than using this as a basis for negotiation the nit pick over differences and generate confrontational messages.

    All we have to do is take a minimum of 100 seats off the Con/Lab block. Looks pretty clear the SNP will cover half of that, so we need to aim for another 50 at least - 75 would be better.

    Get over your tribalism, consider the long term interest of our country and planet and make the objective diluting the factional poison in our politics.

    Welcome to PB - Good first post!

    I think many people look at the tribal behaviour in the HoC and are disgusted by it... hence the 'sack the lot of them' sentiment.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2019

    Greens just announced £100 billion a year for the next 10 years for the climate change policies paid for by borrowing £91 billion per annum an £9 billion from corporation tax

    Lets borrow a trillion pounds over the next decade . . . for our chidren's sake.

    There isn't a Facepalm big enough. 🤦‍♂️
  • Pulpstar said:


    Individuals that have built a brand outwith a party - Sylvia Hermon, Claire Wright, Jason Zadrozny all have a chance at the next GE. Obviously for Sylvia it's a great chance being the incumbent.

    Dominic Grieve, Anne Milton and Anna Soubry all got elected on the Tory rosette. Their odds of being elected are MUCH MUCH longer.

    Dominic Grieve has built up a considerable political brand of his own, and must have a strong personal vote. I expect he'll get a reasonably large vote (helped by the LibDems not standing). Who knows, he might even hold the seat.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468

    Greens just announced £100 billion a year for the next 10 years for the climate change policies paid for by borrowing £91 billion per annum an £9 billion from corporation tax

    Lets borrow a trillion pounds over the next decade . . . for our chidren's sake.

    There isn't a Facepalm big enough. 🤦‍♂️
    I mean, your party is planning to borrow loads too.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    TOPPING said:

    I understand that also. I continue to believe, Panglossian as it may be, that the UK won't ever exit the EU without a deal.

    I agree with you. I will be laying that again if it makes a comeback.
  • In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    The 2010-2015 hung parliament following a 22% LD vote was surely a better parliament than either of the two parliaments, hung or otherwise, that have followed, which tends to undermine your argument

    Oh, yes, certainly, but that was a coalition between two sane parties. There's not going to be a coalition this time.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,257
    Pulpstar said:

    Thinking of Tory Remain voters, what do you all think the good citizens of Broxtowe will do? It seems to me it is now a 3-way marginal with the Tories, Labour and La Soubry all in with a chance. I suspect most Tories will abandon La Soubry but will enough Labour voters be attracted to her to stop Labour regaining it by the Tory vote being split?

    Individuals that have built a brand outwith a party - Sylvia Hermon, Claire Wright, Jason Zadrozny all have a chance at the next GE. Obviously for Sylvia it's a great chance being the incumbent.

    Dominic Grieve, Anne Milton and Anna Soubry all got elected on the Tory rosette. Their odds of being elected are MUCH MUCH longer.
    Last time I looked Zadrozzle was favourite and 8-11 (?). His position on Brexit is "FFS Get on with It", but you can still see a bit of underlying LD in the technique.

    https://www.facebook.com/ashfieldindependents/videos/2428947384061186/

    https://www.facebook.com/ashfieldindependents/videos/2709190229102219/

  • Greens just announced £100 billion a year for the next 10 years for the climate change policies paid for by borrowing £91 billion per annum an £9 billion from corporation tax

    Lets borrow a trillion pounds over the next decade . . . for our chidren's sake.

    There isn't a Facepalm big enough. 🤦‍♂️
    I mean, your party is planning to borrow loads too.
    [Citation Needed]

    And that's a trillion pounds on just one policy. That doesn't include their expenditure plans on other subjects.
  • Expert on NHS medication purchases from the US says only accounts for 9% of the whole UK supply

    I did not realise that 91% of our drugs source outside the US

    Surpised you're surprised Big_G.

    I'd assume something like 40% from UK, 40% from other EU countries, 10% from US, 10% from elsewhere. No idea if that's correct though.
    I am surprised and to listen to Corbyn you would think we only buy drugs from wicked pharmaceutical US companies
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,503

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said "In such a parliament, Lab could form a minority government and get support for individual Bill's, but without a formal arrangement. That is as far as it would go."

    In the scenario that the Tories win most seats but fail to get a majority (and can`t form any coalitions) is it possible that a Labour minority government can arise?

    I think that it is possible, in this scenario, for the Tories (as incumbents) to limp on as a minority government but I`m noit sure that Labour to claim to the Queen that they can do this without a coalition or C&S from other parties to command a majority.

    Maybe I`m wrong - can someone clarify this? Specifically, if the Tories win most seats can Labour take charge as a minority government with fewer MPs than theTories and with no agreements with other parties.

    The process AFAIK is this:

    1. If someone has an overall majority the Queen says congrats, you're the government.
    2. If nobody does, Johnson is entitled to try to struggle on until he runs into a VONC.
    3. If he quits or a VONC is passed, the Queen rakes soundings on whether someone else might be able to govern without a VONC (I believe they would need a vote of confidence, but not necessarily with an overall majority voting for it). That includes a minority government surviving through the lack of a VONC - as we've had in the recent weeks.
    4. If so, they get invited to have a try. They too can be brought down by a VONC.
    5. If not, we get a new election. What joy.

    In this situation, the LibDems would have clear choices in the event that they had enough seats to enable either Tory or Labour+SNP+Plaid to outvote the other:

    1. Refuse to support a VONC in Johnson and enable him to continue in office.
    2. Vote to remove Johnson, but don't support a VONC in Corbyn, enabling him to be PM.
    3. Vote against both and force another election.

    There is no realistic fourth option - demanding that other parties change their leaders to someone Swinson likes is not serious.. Swinson is avoiding having to choose by saying she wouldn't vote FOR Corbyn (abstention is not discussed), though she seems more reticent about Johnson. That is not a complete answer.
    Labour was willing in 2010 to ditch Gordon Brown to get Lib Dem support. Why not do the same in 2019?
    Labour was a more sane Party in 2010.
  • Stocky said:

    Foxy said "In such a parliament, Lab could form a minority government and get support for individual Bill's, but without a formal arrangement. That is as far as it would go."

    In the scenario that the Tories win most seats but fail to get a majority (and can`t form any coalitions) is it possible that a Labour minority government can arise?

    I think that it is possible, in this scenario, for the Tories (as incumbents) to limp on as a minority government but I`m noit sure that Labour to claim to the Queen that they can do this without a coalition or C&S from other parties to command a majority.

    Maybe I`m wrong - can someone clarify this? Specifically, if the Tories win most seats can Labour take charge as a minority government with fewer MPs than theTories and with no agreements with other parties.

    The process AFAIK is this:

    1. If someone has an overall majority the Queen says congrats, you're the government.
    2. If nobody does, Johnson is entitled to try to struggle on until he runs into a VONC.
    3. If he quits or a VONC is passed, the Queen rakes soundings on whether someone else might be able to govern without a VONC (I believe they would need a vote of confidence, but not necessarily with an overall majority voting for it). That includes a minority government surviving through the lack of a VONC - as we've had in the recent weeks.
    4. If so, they get invited to have a try. They too can be brought down by a VONC.
    5. If not, we get a new election. What joy.

    In this situation, the LibDems would have clear choices in the event that they had enough seats to enable either Tory or Labour+SNP+Plaid to outvote the other:

    1. Refuse to support a VONC in Johnson and enable him to continue in office.
    2. Vote to remove Johnson, but don't support a VONC in Corbyn, enabling him to be PM.
    3. Vote against both and force another election.

    There is no realistic fourth option - demanding that other parties change their leaders to someone Swinson likes is not serious.. Swinson is avoiding having to choose by saying she wouldn't vote FOR Corbyn (abstention is not discussed), though she seems more reticent about Johnson. That is not a complete answer.
    Labour was willing in 2010 to ditch Gordon Brown to get Lib Dem support. Why not do the same in 2019?
    In this scenario wouldn’t Corbyn have had to overturn a massive Tory poll lead and make significant gains in seats though? At that point he’d presumably have a larger (and more loyal - also due to moderates standing down) PLP.

    It’s never easy to put yourself in the shoes of someone else but in those circumstances, if I was one of them, I think I’d play hardball. Worst case I’d be thinking “one more heave”.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    One Nation Tories are abandoning the former Conservative and Unionist Party as it becomes the party of Bridgen, Francois, Rees Mogg, Patel and Raab. Yep, they will win this coming election thanks to Mr Corbyn, but beyond that what do they have? There is no talent anywhere to be seen, just dull, leaden, hard right, English nationalist, empathy-free, automatons. Those sitting next to and behind Johnson in the next parliament will tell the story of what the Tories now are. The post-December future looks extremely bleak for them - and for the country.

    Brexit has brought about a huge shift in voting patterns and the upcoming Tory majority is nailed on thanks to Corbyn.

    But that majority is not going to be made up in the way Tory Governments are normally made up, one-nation, remain Tories will be hollowed out being replaced by ex-Labour leavers and ex-Kippers.

    What intrigues me is how does the party of Bozo, Rees-Mogg, Patel, Raab and the ERG go about holding onto to seats like Workington, Stoke and Grimsby once the dust of the Brexit battle dies down?

    Once Brexit is over there seems to me to be a huge disconnect between the ideology of the new Conservative Party and many of the people that are going to give it its majority in the north and midlands and Wales.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said "In such a parliament, Lab could form a minority government and get support for individual Bill's, but without a formal arrangement. That is as far as it would go."

    In the scenario that the Tories win most seats but fail to get a majority (and can`t form any coalitions) is it possible that a Labour minority government can arise?

    I think that it is possible, in this scenario, for the Tories (as incumbents) to limp on as a minority government but I`m noit sure that Labour to claim to the Queen that they can do this without a coalition or C&S from other parties to command a majority.

    Maybe I`m wrong - can someone clarify this? Specifically, if the Tories win most seats can Labour take charge as a minority government with fewer MPs than theTories and with no agreements with other parties.

    The process AFAIK is this:

    1. If someone has an overall majority the Queen says congrats, you're the government.
    2. If nobody does, Johnson is entitled to try to struggle on until he runs into a VONC.
    3. If he quits or a VONC is passed, the Queen rakes soundings on whether someone else might be able to govern without a VONC (I believe they would need a vote of confidence, but not necessarily with an overall majority voting for it). That includes a minority government surviving through the lack of a VONC - as we've had in the recent weeks.
    4. If so, they get invited to have a try. They too can be brought down by a VONC.
    5. If not, we get a new election. What joy.

    In this situation, the LibDems would have clear choices in the event that they had enough seats to enable either Tory or Labour+SNP+Plaid to outvote the other:

    1. Refuse to support a VONC in Johnson and enable him to continue in office.
    2. Vote to remove Johnson, but don't support a VONC in Corbyn, enabling him to be PM.
    3. Vote against both and force another election.

    There is no realistic fourth option - demanding that other parties change their leaders to someone Swinson likes is not serious.. Swinson is avoiding having to choose by saying she wouldn't vote FOR Corbyn (abstention is not discussed), though she seems more reticent about Johnson. That is not a complete answer.
    May in 2017, Cameron in 2010 and Wilson in 1974 all had healthy majorities over the second party but not an absolute majority. This made it clear who should be prime minister and form the government, the question of Coalition/C&S/minority government could be sorted out in the following days and weeks.

    In the event of no clear majority, what should happen is this.
    Mr Johnson and the current cabinet/junior secretaries carry on in their current roles to keep the country running on cruise control.
    In the mean time all parties start banging their heads together to find a way to form a coalition or C&S government. even if that takes six months.
  • Stocky said:

    Foxy said "In such a parliament, Lab could form a minority government and get support for individual Bill's, but without a formal arrangement. That is as far as it would go."

    In the scenario that the Tories win most seats but fail to get a majority (and can`t form any coalitions) is it possible that a Labour minority government can arise?

    I think that it is possible, in this scenario, for the Tories (as incumbents) to limp on as a minority government but I`m noit sure that Labour to claim to the Queen that they can do this without a coalition or C&S from other parties to com
    mand a majority.

    Maybe I`m wrong - can someone clarify this? Specifically, if the Tories win most seats can Labour take charge as a minority government with fewer MPs than theTories and with no agreements with other parties.

    The process AFAIK is this:

    1. If someone has an overall majority the Queen says congrats, you're the government.
    2. If nobody does, Johnson is entitled to try to struggle on until he runs into a VONC.
    3. If he quits or a VONC is passed, the Queen rakes soundings on whether someone else might be able to govern without a VONC (I believe they would need a vote of confidence, but not necessarily with an overall majority voting for it). That includes a minority government surviving through the lack of a VONC - as we've had in the recent weeks.
    4. If so, they get invited to have a try. They too can be brought down by a VONC.
    5. If not, we get a new election. What joy.

    In this situation, the LibDems would have clear choices in the event that they had enough seats to enable either Tory or Labour+SNP+Plaid to outvote the other:

    1. Refuse to support a VONC in Johnson and enable him to continue in office.
    2. Vote to remove Johnson, but don't support a VONC in Corbyn, enabling him to be PM.
    3. Vote against both and force another election.

    There is no realistic fourth option - demanding that other parties change their leaders to someone Swinson likes is not serious.. Swinson is avoiding having to choose by saying she wouldn't vote FOR Corbyn (abstention is not discussed), though she seems more reticent about Johnson. That is not a complete answer.
    Labour was willing in 2010 to ditch Gordon Brown to get Lib Dem support. Why not do the same in 2019?
    Labour was a more sane Party in 2010.
    Plus Corbynites believe they won the election in 2017. Imagine how they'll react if they get even close to largest party in 2019? It Lab+SNP+LD > Tory+DUP they will 100% insist they've won the election.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Nigelb said:

    In themselves perhaps not, but a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung parliament, and the one we've just had has not exactly been a triumph of principled, sensible decision-making, on Brexit or on anything else.

    I think if you imagine it had instead been Con Maj 20 it would have been worse? The ERG would still have been the ERG, the opposition would still have opposed, and there wouldn't have been the votes to stop some maniac crashing out with No Deal.
    Yes, I think that is possible, and that is part of the calculation one has to make. One thing which worries me is that I'm not totally confident that the LibDems and SNP would support a Boris trade deal, if he comes back with one after a formal exit from the EU on Jan 31st. Would they play silly games again in such a scenario? If we had sensible journalists, they'd be pressing Ms Swinson on points like this.
    Are you totally confident that Tory backbenchers would all support a Boris trade deal ?
    No, I'm certain the nuttier ones won't. So either Boris is going to need a large majority to get it through (and to be able to ask for the extensions he's currently do-or-dying he won't do), or he's going to need opposition MPs to accept that we'll have left the EU and they should support a trade deal, even a Boris trade deal, as the best way of mitigating the damage. Will they? Not on the evidence of the unlamented parliament we've just had.

    There is not going to be a trade deal by July, though! And the next intake of Tory MPs is going to be much more ERG-oriented than the current one. The big issue is going to be the extension of the transition - and I just do not see the new Conservative Party allowing Johnson to break his solemn promise on not having one.

    Then it is clearly an attempt at conning the people into awarding Johnson a majority for achieving an amazing deal which he knows he will never really deliver. Once we have left he knows there is no way of getting the ongoing relationship sorted in five months and with the new no deal Tory party in place that becomes the default. They just hope they can sort the ‘Bumps in the road’ out by May 2024.
  • OllyT said:

    One Nation Tories are abandoning the former Conservative and Unionist Party as it becomes the party of Bridgen, Francois, Rees Mogg, Patel and Raab. Yep, they will win this coming election thanks to Mr Corbyn, but beyond that what do they have? There is no talent anywhere to be seen, just dull, leaden, hard right, English nationalist, empathy-free, automatons. Those sitting next to and behind Johnson in the next parliament will tell the story of what the Tories now are. The post-December future looks extremely bleak for them - and for the country.

    Brexit has brought about a huge shift in voting patterns and the upcoming Tory majority is nailed on thanks to Corbyn.

    But that majority is not going to be made up in the way Tory Governments are normally made up, one-nation, remain Tories will be hollowed out being replaced by ex-Labour leavers and ex-Kippers.

    What intrigues me is how does the party of Bozo, Rees-Mogg, Patel, Raab and the ERG go about holding onto to seats like Workington, Stoke and Grimsby once the dust of the Brexit battle dies down?

    Once Brexit is over there seems to me to be a huge disconnect between the ideology of the new Conservative Party and many of the people that are going to give it its majority in the north and midlands and Wales.
    I worry the answer to you question is social conservatism and nationalist populism. Become republicans, in other words (in the US sense).
  • Expert on NHS medication purchases from the US says only accounts for 9% of the whole UK supply

    I did not realise that 91% of our drugs source outside the US

    Surpised you're surprised Big_G.

    I'd assume something like 40% from UK, 40% from other EU countries, 10% from US, 10% from elsewhere. No idea if that's correct though.
    I am surprised and to listen to Corbyn you would think we only buy drugs from wicked pharmaceutical US companies
    And when the messiah gets elected in a few weeks he is just going ignore international patents, form the British Leyland of drug companies and produce knock off versions.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,129
    edited November 2019
    Im shocked... absolutely shocked....Bercow isnt a fan of brexit, who knew.

  • The process AFAIK is this:

    1. If someone has an overall majority the Queen says congrats, you're the government.
    2. If nobody does, Johnson is entitled to try to struggle on until he runs into a VONC.
    3. If he quits or a VONC is passed, the Queen rakes soundings on whether someone else might be able to govern without a VONC (I believe they would need a vote of confidence, but not necessarily with an overall majority voting for it). That includes a minority government surviving through the lack of a VONC - as we've had in the recent weeks.
    4. If so, they get invited to have a try. They too can be brought down by a VONC.
    5. If not, we get a new election. What joy.

    In this situation, the LibDems would have clear choices in the event that they had enough seats to enable either Tory or Labour+SNP+Plaid to outvote the other:

    1. Refuse to support a VONC in Johnson and enable him to continue in office.
    2. Vote to remove Johnson, but don't support a VONC in Corbyn, enabling him to be PM.
    3. Vote against both and force another election.

    There is no realistic fourth option - demanding that other parties change their leaders to someone Swinson likes is not serious.. Swinson is avoiding having to choose by saying she wouldn't vote FOR Corbyn (abstention is not discussed), though she seems more reticent about Johnson. That is not a complete answer.

    Labour was willing in 2010 to ditch Gordon Brown to get Lib Dem support. Why not do the same in 2019?
    In this scenario wouldn’t Corbyn have had to overturn a massive Tory poll lead and make significant gains in seats though? At that point he’d presumably have a larger (and more loyal - also due to moderates standing down) PLP.

    It’s never easy to put yourself in the shoes of someone else but in those circumstances, if I was one of them, I think I’d play hardball. Worst case I’d be thinking “one more heave”.
    Actually no. If the Lib Dems are crucial to Labour forming a government, Labour will have gone backwards in the seat count.

  • There is not going to be a trade deal by July, though! And the next intake of Tory MPs is going to be much more ERG-oriented than the current one. The big issue is going to be the extension of the transition - and I just do not see the new Conservative Party allowing Johnson to break his solemn promise on not having one.

    Absolutely, although I suppose a glimmer of hope is that they didn't seem to mind him breaking his solemn promise that we'd leave on October 31st, or his pledge that he'd never accept customs controls between NI and GB, or his promise to renegotiate the whole WA.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    edited November 2019
    Is there any polling evidence to justify rebranding the Lib-Dems "Jo Swinson's Liberal Demorcrats" ?

    Last time I saw a poll with personal ratings (MORI?) Swinson wasn't exactly miss popular with the electorate?
  • Hardly news. It confirms his utter bias as speaker
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Greens just announced £100 billion a year for the next 10 years for the climate change policies paid for by borrowing £91 billion per annum an £9 billion from corporation tax

    Lets borrow a trillion pounds over the next decade . . . for our chidren's sake.

    There isn't a Facepalm big enough. 🤦‍♂️
    Borrowing money and using it to improve outcomes is called capitalism. If you go back over your notes you will probably find you are meant to be in favour of it. You may or may not agree with the Green theisis about climate change but that is an entirely separate point.
  • alb1onalb1on Posts: 698

    Alistair said:

    Rand Paul looking at that Kentucky result and going YOLO

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1191888444890472448?s=19

    The whistleblowers identity is the worst kept secret in AmERICa
    No. Rand Paul's insanity is the worst kept secret.

  • The process AFAIK is this:

    1. If someone has an overall majority the Queen says congrats, you're the government.
    2. If nobody does, Johnson is entitled to try to struggle on until he runs into a VONC.
    3. If he quits or a VONC is passed, the Queen rakes soundings on whether someone else might be able to govern without a VONC (I believe they would need a vote of confidence, but not necessarily with an overall majority voting for it). That includes a minority government surviving through the lack of a VONC - as we've had in the recent weeks.
    4. If so, they get invited to have a try. They too can be brought down by a VONC.
    5. If not, we get a new election. What joy.

    In this situation, the LibDems would have clear choices in the event that they had enough seats to enable either Tory or Labour+SNP+Plaid to outvote the other:

    1. Refuse to support a VONC in Johnson and enable him to continue in office.
    2. Vote to remove Johnson, but don't support a VONC in Corbyn, enabling him to be PM.
    3. Vote against both and force another election.

    There is no realistic fourth option - demanding that other parties change their leaders to someone Swinson likes is not serious.. Swinson is avoiding having to choose by saying she wouldn't vote FOR Corbyn (abstention is not discussed), though she seems more reticent about Johnson. That is not a complete answer.

    Labour was willing in 2010 to ditch Gordon Brown to get Lib Dem support. Why not do the same in 2019?
    In this scenario wouldn’t Corbyn have had to overturn a massive Tory poll lead and make significant gains in seats though? At that point he’d presumably have a larger (and more loyal - also due to moderates standing down) PLP.

    It’s never easy to put yourself in the shoes of someone else but in those circumstances, if I was one of them, I think I’d play hardball. Worst case I’d be thinking “one more heave”.
    Actually no. If the Lib Dems are crucial to Labour forming a government, Labour will have gone backwards in the seat count.
    Really? Isn’t this a scenario in which Labour keeps what it has and snatches a few more urban Tory seats (e.g. Telford to be topical), while the LibDems hollow out the Tories where they can’t reach?
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613

    Pulpstar said:


    Individuals that have built a brand outwith a party - Sylvia Hermon, Claire Wright, Jason Zadrozny all have a chance at the next GE. Obviously for Sylvia it's a great chance being the incumbent.

    Dominic Grieve, Anne Milton and Anna Soubry all got elected on the Tory rosette. Their odds of being elected are MUCH MUCH longer.

    Dominic Grieve has built up a considerable political brand of his own, and must have a strong personal vote. I expect he'll get a reasonably large vote (helped by the LibDems not standing). Who knows, he might even hold the seat.
    Also if I was a Beaconsfield Tory remainer, I would be more confident that Grieve wouldn't put Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street than I would with a generic Lib Dem candidate, despite Jo Swinson's protestations.
  • alb1onalb1on Posts: 698
    Very sensible. Better to deploy someone who can say absolutely nothing at astonishing length rather than Jacob or Bridgen, who can drop themselves in it faster than Boris can sack a dissident.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,213
    edited November 2019

    Pulpstar said:


    Individuals that have built a brand outwith a party - Sylvia Hermon, Claire Wright, Jason Zadrozny all have a chance at the next GE. Obviously for Sylvia it's a great chance being the incumbent.

    Dominic Grieve, Anne Milton and Anna Soubry all got elected on the Tory rosette. Their odds of being elected are MUCH MUCH longer.

    Dominic Grieve has built up a considerable political brand of his own, and must have a strong personal vote. I expect he'll get a reasonably large vote (helped by the LibDems not standing). Who knows, he might even hold the seat.
    I've backed the Tories in Beaconsfield. He might do very well indeed and get ~ 10,000 votes there...
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    GIN1138 said:

    Is there any polling evidence to justify rebranding the Lib-Dems "Jo Swinson's Liberal Demorcrats" ?

    Last time I saw a poll with personal ratings (MORI?) Swinson wasn't exactly miss popular with the electorate?
    Personally I find it and her rather disturbingly 'mumsnet/schoolgate warrior' but I guess theyve done their research?
  • OllyT said:

    One Nation Tories are abandoning the former Conservative and Unionist Party as it becomes the party of Bridgen, Francois, Rees Mogg, Patel and Raab. Yep, they will win this coming election thanks to Mr Corbyn, but beyond that what do they have? There is no talent anywhere to be seen, just dull, leaden, hard right, English nationalist, empathy-free, automatons. Those sitting next to and behind Johnson in the next parliament will tell the story of what the Tories now are. The post-December future looks extremely bleak for them - and for the country.

    Brexit has brought about a huge shift in voting patterns and the upcoming Tory majority is nailed on thanks to Corbyn.

    But that majority is not going to be made up in the way Tory Governments are normally made up, one-nation, remain Tories will be hollowed out being replaced by ex-Labour leavers and ex-Kippers.

    What intrigues me is how does the party of Bozo, Rees-Mogg, Patel, Raab and the ERG go about holding onto to seats like Workington, Stoke and Grimsby once the dust of the Brexit battle dies down?

    Once Brexit is over there seems to me to be a huge disconnect between the ideology of the new Conservative Party and many of the people that are going to give it its majority in the north and midlands and Wales.
    So long as Labour have by that time come to their senses and elected a more moderate leader I would suggest the result of the next election is pretty much a foregone conclusion. That is unless Johnson surprises us all by drifting back to his more liberal Mayoral persona. But I am not holding my breath.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    TOPPING said:

    This is the point @AlastairMeeks was making to me. Let's look at 1) domestic policies; and 2) Brexit.

    On 1) I much prefer the Tories' policies, compared with those of Labour. On 2) well what exactly do Labour want? I'm not sure. We know Jezza is an unreconstructed Leaver, but we also know that the Lab Brexit plan is ludicrous, while on the Cons side we have a deal and a basis to move forward. That is fine for me.

    I want you to stop saying this. That Labour's Brexit plan is ludicrous.

    I have a clip of Jeremy explaining it which I will share shortly.
This discussion has been closed.