Can someone explain where the "Tory gammon" phraseology come from? Heard it a lot over past couple of weeks - but never heard it at all before then.
A subset of angry right-wingers are old men with blotchy red and white faces, which get redder when they shout nonsense at Question Time panellists. This gives them a somewhat bacony appearance.
I assume she meant until actually faced with the decision. The myth is that Truman took the decision without a second thought, but the reality is that there was a lot of thinking leading up to the decision, and it was largely driven by the reality of the cost of a land invasion. So the circumstances of the decision are key. Journo's like to simplify, but you cannot divorce this question from whatever is making it an issue.
Looks like that bet is for a flake of snow to fall on the Palace of Westminster on the 12th. I wonder which poor sod is being paid to stand out in the rain to adjudicate that? Poor odds for snow in London, but I think there's a fair chance of snow being observed at a polling station somewhere in the UK. Wondering where the highest elevation polling station in the UK will be now.
The annual average for number of days of snow falling (1981-2010) is less than 10 in central London and snow is more likely in January/February than mid-December.
The best bet on the mainland is somewhere like Tomintoul in the Cairngorms, otherwise Shetland.
Snow was pretty widespread across much of Northern England for a lot of December 2010. Granted, it's not very likely to happen but it's not unheard of in the last ten or so years.
Sure. It's more likely than in July, but it's not 12/1 likely in London on election day.
Implied odds of 7 days of winter snowfall in London. Slightly short. 18/1 more like it
Like it or not he is one of the most influential politicians of the last 50 years - there should be a recognition of the contribution he and UKIP/BXP have made to this country's future (even if you think that contribution is negative)
He is not the most influencial politician in the last 50 years. Thatcher and Blair have had much more influence on politics and peoples lives. Farage has never won a Westminster seat or been a member of the executive. Pressure groups and single issue parties have some influence but Thatcher for instance changed the whole economy for good or ill. Gin, you have become too focused on Brexit and it has warped your judgement!
I didn't say he was *THE* most significant politician of the past 50 years (that would obviously be Mrs Thatcher) I said he has been *ONE* of the most influential politicians of the past 50 years which is demonstrably true as without him Cameron would never have ceded the referendum which for good or ill has changed the direction of the country in a very dramatic way.
Every election rolls round and every time I am shocked at the people who seem to be willing to press the button.
I understand MAD theory is you should be seen to be willing to press the button, but seriously, no. Just because someone else would be willing to, doesn't mean you should. Someone else killing loads of civilians does not make it right to kill loads of civilians yourself.
Considering the time of year as well, that we are all concerned that someone wouldn't just go "well, if we're all going to die anyway, I might as well get in my share" is fucking horrendous.
My great nan lived through both wars, brought up her kids to survive the blitz when bombs fell on her house and in her neighbourhood. She died a few years ago at 102, and I had the benefit of a close relationship with her, seeing her pretty much weekly for almost 25 years. The horror of war made her a pacifist, she flinched at fireworks and would never buy her kids or grandkids toy guns. Alongside the young men whose lives were cut short by the stupidity of the ruling class, today I think of her.
People foaming angry at the thought that Corbyn wouldn't press the button in their blood lust can go do one.
There is not a single person on this earth 'foaming angry at the thought that Corbyn wouldn't press the button'. Nor is there a single person in this country who wants to use nuclear weapons because of 'blood lust'. Get a grip on yourself.
The complaint about Corbyn is simply his overwhelming hypocrisy. It's perfectly respectable, albeit naive, to say you'd never use nuclear weapons in any circumstances, as he has said in the past. It is rank hypocrisy, laced with lashings of cynicism, for a party to go into an election claiming that their leader, allegedly a man of principle, never said that. It's even worse when that same leader seems to have an awfully high tolerance of the use of murder against British citizens and our friends and allies.
Every election rolls round and every time I am shocked at the people who seem to be willing to press the button.
I understand MAD theory is you should be seen to be willing to press the button, but seriously, no. Just because someone else would be willing to, doesn't mean you should. Someone else killing loads of civilians does not make it right to kill loads of civilians yourself.
Considering the time of year as well, that we are all concerned that someone wouldn't just go "well, if we're all going to die anyway, I might as well get in my share" is fucking horrendous.
My great nan lived through both wars, brought up her kids to survive the blitz when bombs fell on her house and in her neighbourhood. She died a few years ago at 102, and I had the benefit of a close relationship with her, seeing her pretty much weekly for almost 25 years. The horror of war made her a pacifist, she flinched at fireworks and would never buy her kids or grandkids toy guns. Alongside the young men whose lives were cut short by the stupidity of the ruling class, today I think of her.
People foaming angry at the thought that Corbyn wouldn't press the button in their blood lust can go do one.
This is all very lovely, but the point of having a nuclear deterrent is that circumstances exist where you would be prepared to use it. Corbyn's personal position is consistent in that he wants to abolish Trident becuase he doesn't think it should ever be used: the official Labour position is to support renewing Trident, which means they must by definition be open to using it. If they can't confirm that, then they are in favour of spending tens of billions on something with zero utility.
Can someone explain where the "Tory gammon" phraseology come from? Heard it a lot over past couple of weeks - but never heard it at all before then.
A subset of angry right-wingers are old men with blotchy red and white faces, which get redder when they shout nonsense at Question Time panellists. This gives them a somewhat bacony appearance.
Is it possibly a racist definition?
Either way the party led by an old man who most looks gammony and turns red when he is angry is the Labour Party. Corbyn gets very bacony when he is angry.
Stringy bacon.
Turkey bacon surely?
He did vote for his electoral Christmas to come early, after all.
I think the BXT party pact with the Tories makes a Johnson overall majority almost certain. The most significant piece of news of GE2019 by far methinks.
PaulM said: "Are Brexit Party standing against Caroline Flint ?"
That`s a good point - I think that they are.
UKIP got 23.5% of the vote in 2015 in Don Valley.
I think Flint is likely to hold on.
I will laugh if she loses as she went against her principles in voting for the BJ deal because she was worried about TBP or the Tories defeating her! You either think Brexit is a good thing for the country or a bad thing...
Ronnie Campbell may pay for his support by losing Blyth Valley too
That'd be tricky as he's not standing there again. Campbell was hardly "voting against his principles" by voting for Brexit though. He's as anti-europe as Cash or Redwood.
I think Ronnie has decided to stand again.
He has revoked his original pledge to stand down.
Wikipedia has Susan Dungworth standing in Blyth for Lab
This is all very lovely, but the point of having a nuclear deterrent is that circumstances exist where you would be prepared to use it. Corbyn's personal position is consistent in that he wants to abolish Trident becuase he doesn't think it should ever be used: the official Labour position is to support renewing Trident, which means they must by definition be open to using it. If they can't confirm that, then they are in favour of spending tens of billions on something with zero utility.
To be fair to them, spending tens of billions on something with zero utility is a consistent feature of Labour policies in lots of areas.
Looks like that bet is for a flake of snow to fall on the Palace of Westminster on the 12th. I wonder which poor sod is being paid to stand out in the rain to adjudicate that? Poor odds for snow in London, but I think there's a fair chance of snow being observed at a polling station somewhere in the UK. Wondering where the highest elevation polling station in the UK will be now.
The annual average for number of days of snow falling (1981-2010) is less than 10 in central London and snow is more likely in January/February than mid-December.
The best bet on the mainland is somewhere like Tomintoul in the Cairngorms, otherwise Shetland.
Snow was pretty widespread across much of Northern England for a lot of December 2010. Granted, it's not very likely to happen but it's not unheard of in the last ten or so years.
Sure. It's more likely than in July, but it's not 12/1 likely in London on election day.
Implied odds of 7 days of winter snowfall in London. Slightly short. 18/1 more like it
PaulM said: "Are Brexit Party standing against Caroline Flint ?"
That`s a good point - I think that they are.
UKIP got 23.5% of the vote in 2015 in Don Valley.
I think Flint is likely to hold on.
I will laugh if she loses as she went against her principles in voting for the BJ deal because she was worried about TBP or the Tories defeating her! You either think Brexit is a good thing for the country or a bad thing...
Ronnie Campbell may pay for his support by losing Blyth Valley too
That'd be tricky as he's not standing there again. Campbell was hardly "voting against his principles" by voting for Brexit though. He's as anti-europe as Cash or Redwood.
I think Ronnie has decided to stand again.
He has revoked his original pledge to stand down.
Wikipedia has Susan Dungworth standing in Blyth for Lab
What is surprising to me is the low LD vote in University towns.
I think it would be necessary to see the breakdown of the sample to make a judgement. Of the university towns listed only Cambridge has any real LD strength and some like Huddersfield, Lancaster and Preston are positive LD wastelands. I suspect there is a myth about LDs and university towns based on Cambridge and very few other cases.
Every election rolls round and every time I am shocked at the people who seem to be willing to press the button.
I understand MAD theory is you should be seen to be willing to press the button, but seriously, no. Just because someone else would be willing to, doesn't mean you should. Someone else killing loads of civilians does not make it right to kill loads of civilians yourself.
Considering the time of year as well, that we are all concerned that someone wouldn't just go "well, if we're all going to die anyway, I might as well get in my share" is fucking horrendous.
My great nan lived through both wars, brought up her kids to survive the blitz when bombs fell on her house and in her neighbourhood. She died a few years ago at 102, and I had the benefit of a close relationship with her, seeing her pretty much weekly for almost 25 years. The horror of war made her a pacifist, she flinched at fireworks and would never buy her kids or grandkids toy guns. Alongside the young men whose lives were cut short by the stupidity of the ruling class, today I think of her.
People foaming angry at the thought that Corbyn wouldn't press the button in their blood lust can go do one.
There is not a single person on this earth 'foaming angry at the thought that Corbyn wouldn't press the button'. Nor is there a single person in this country who wants to use nuclear weapons because of 'blood lust'. Get a grip on yourself.
The complaint about Corbyn is simply his overwhelming hypocrisy. It's perfectly respectable, albeit naive, to say you'd never use nuclear weapons in any circumstances, as he has said in the past. It is rank hypocrisy, laced with lashings of cynicism, for a party to go into an election claiming that their leader, allegedly a man of principle, never said that. It's even worse when that same leader seems to have an awfully high tolerance of the use of murder against British citizens and our friends and allies.
At the last general election there were a number of people, especially in the QT audiences, who were apoplectic at the idea Corbyn wouldn't use nukes in any circumstance. I wait for many others to soon return to our television screens.
I enjoy your anecdotes from Labour's sole true heartland Liverpool. They definitely confirm every mental picture of the hardcore Labour hardcore leave vote I've got in my head though.
WE HATE THE TORIES! THEY EAT BABIES! THEY MURDER SCOUSERS!
For those slightly interested, Jade is/was one of the merry-go round candidate in Merseyside. She stood in Bootle in 2015, and then Sefton Central in 2017.
I believe she is local. Don't know if she's standing again in Merseyside in 2019, but she's in for another heavy kicking if she does.
Every election rolls round and every time I am shocked at the people who seem to be willing to press the button.
I understand MAD theory is you should be seen to be willing to press the button, but seriously, no. Just because someone else would be willing to, doesn't mean you should. Someone else killing loads of civilians does not make it right to kill loads of civilians yourself.
Considering the time of year as well, that we are all concerned that someone wouldn't just go "well, if we're all going to die anyway, I might as well get in my share" is fucking horrendous.
My great nan lived through both wars, brought up her kids to survive the blitz when bombs fell on her house and in her neighbourhood. She died a few years ago at 102, and I had the benefit of a close relationship with her, seeing her pretty much weekly for almost 25 years. The horror of war made her a pacifist, she flinched at fireworks and would never buy her kids or grandkids toy guns. Alongside the young men whose lives were cut short by the stupidity of the ruling class, today I think of her.
People foaming angry at the thought that Corbyn wouldn't press the button in their blood lust can go do one.
This is all very lovely, but the point of having a nuclear deterrent is that circumstances exist where you would be prepared to use it. Corbyn's personal position is consistent in that he wants to abolish Trident becuase he doesn't think it should ever be used: the official Labour position is to support renewing Trident, which means they must by definition be open to using it. If they can't confirm that, then they are in favour of spending tens of billions on something with zero utility.
I think the BXT party pact with the Tories makes a Johnson overall majority almost certain. The most significant piece of news of GE2019 by far methinks.
I think Lab now goes backwards compared to 2017.
Yes. My opening call was Con majority of 60. If anything I would move it higher now. A landslide is very possible. The markets have moved strongly in this direction too. Therefore good betting opportunities for those who take a different view.
I was just going to say that we need an @AndyJS to crunch the constituencies.
The above supports my view but has evidently been arrived at with more than (my) gut feel.
I get the impression that Farage has been under enormous internal party pressure to not let Corbyn in and have Brexit cancelled. This is a big newsworthy moment that lets him say he is doing that, taking pressure off his back, while maintaining
Yes there are a lot of assumptions. I start from the premise that as 12th Dec gets nearer then party loyalties will be the strongest factor.
So in my mind a Labour Leaver will nevertheless still have leftish sympathies such as to make voting BXP, by any estimation a party of the right, problematic.
I'm never quite sure. Here in Scouseland, I once asked a staunch Evertonian.
Forced choice - Weekend - Liverpool and Everton both LOSE, or Liverpool and Everton both WIN. Without a seconds hesitation, he'd rather they both lost, his hatred of Liverpool all consuming.
Some Labour voters are very tribal, such that they hate the Tories so much they lose sight of what parties are on the left-right scale. Certainly, my brother, staunch 'Labour' supporter is going to vote for 'Nigel!'. He'll never vote Tory. They eat babies. But he'll vote Brexit Party, because they'll get Brexit 'sorted'.
The fact the Brexit Party is led by an ex-Conservative, and has no policies except Brexit completely passes him by. He hates the Tories more than anything, and can't vote for them... but Nigel is okay.
So, in summary. You could well be right. But there are some tribal Labour voters who lose sight of why they vote Labour and instead just become the 'anti-Tory' voters.
As an evertonian I agree with him. However the fact is for many working class Labour voters the fact that they feel Labour has deserted them has no relevance to their hatred of the tories. They would vote for whoever would beat them. If they support Brexit this would mean they would prefer BXP if there was a perception they could win. Remainers would go LibDem if the perception is they could win. The fact Labour would be the major opposition in many places would mean they will vote Labour in those places. Labour and Conservative traditional voting blocs are less certain than before but they are still the most likely to beat “the other lot” so they will still garner the overwhelming majority of seats. At least in England. The other nations obviously have very different mathematics.
The truly interesting thing about today’s news is if the tories do take over BXP it leaves an electoral space for a leftist anti-EU party.
On the subject of BXP, this probably helps the Conservative Party against the LibDems in Leavey seats, but not so much in Hard Core Remainia.
I suspect, and it's just a theory, that places like Richmond Park contain lots of Tory Remainers, and (by and large) they were previously willing to stick with the Conservatives because a Soft Brexit was OK. The risk for the Conservative Party is that they are now painted via "Brexit Party Deal" propaganda in these seats.
There are seats, however, where I think it will help the Conservatives. In much of the South West (from Yeovil to St Ives), the world is pretty Brexity, and the LDs relied on the Leave vote being split. Ditto Eastbourne and North Norfolk. It probably lowers the LDs chance of picking up Hazel Grove.
All-in-all, probably a wash for the LDs, with places like Richmond Park becoming a little easier for them.
I have inched up my LibDem seat prediction to 22-25 seats from the previous 21 seats, largely on the basis of (1) the LDs appearing to hold on to their 16% level with pretty much every pollsters, and (2) the regional splits that suggest the Tories are doing worse in areas wheret he LDs are the challengers and better where it's the Labour Party.
At the last general election there were a number of people, especially in the QT audiences, who were apoplectic at the idea Corbyn wouldn't use nukes in any circumstance. I wait for many others to soon return to our television screens.
Well, it is a very, very bizarre position of Corbyn's. Would he not use a nuclear weapon to prevent a nuclear attack on London, about to be launched from a remote unpopulated area?
But that isn't the point. The point is that, if that is his view, then he should have the courage and integrity to say so, as he has in the past. Is it his view or not? He gave a one-word answer previously. Has he changed his mind?
I enjoy your anecdotes from Labour's sole true heartland Liverpool. They definitely confirm every mental picture of the hardcore Labour hardcore leave vote I've got in my head though.
WE HATE THE TORIES! THEY EAT BABIES! THEY MURDER SCOUSERS!
For those slightly interested, Jade is/was one of the merry-go round candidate in Merseyside. She stood in Bootle in 2015, and then Sefton Central in 2017.
I believe she is local. Don't know if she's standing again in Merseyside in 2019, but she's in for another heavy kicking if she does.
Unsung hero of the democratic process. Introduce STV and give her a fighting chance.
I think the BXT party pact with the Tories makes a Johnson overall majority almost certain. The most significant piece of news of GE2019 by far methinks.
I think Lab now goes backwards compared to 2017.
Yes. My opening call was Con majority of 60. If anything I would move it higher now. A landslide is very possible. The markets have moved strongly in this direction too. Therefore good betting opportunities for those who take a different view.
I agree. Right now, I think Labour sub 160 is entirely possible. Add (round numbers) 50 for the SNP, 25 for the LDs, and you're looking at a pretty big Conservative majority.
This is all very lovely, but the point of having a nuclear deterrent is that circumstances exist where you would be prepared to use it. Corbyn's personal position is consistent in that he wants to abolish Trident becuase he doesn't think it should ever be used: the official Labour position is to support renewing Trident, which means they must by definition be open to using it. If they can't confirm that, then they are in favour of spending tens of billions on something with zero utility.
To be fair to them, spending tens of billions on something with zero utility is a consistent feature of Labour policies in lots of areas.
In this case Emily Thornberry is right. (Not often I think that). Ambiguity is the only real option. It's horrible to commit to using it, hopeless to commit to not using it. You have to guess. My guess is that TM, for example, would never have wanted to use it as a retaliatory measure. But the reason the PM's instructions for a doomsday scenario are secret is soundly based.
I think the BXT party pact with the Tories makes a Johnson overall majority almost certain. The most significant piece of news of GE2019 by far methinks.
I think Lab now goes backwards compared to 2017.
What has always made a Tory victory certain is Labour members’ insistence on having Jeremy Corbyn as their leader. He makes Labour unelectable.
PaulM said: "Are Brexit Party standing against Caroline Flint ?"
That`s a good point - I think that they are.
UKIP got 23.5% of the vote in 2015 in Don Valley.
I think Flint is likely to hold on.
I will laugh if she loses as she went against her principles in voting for the BJ deal because she was worried about TBP or the Tories defeating her! You either think Brexit is a good thing for the country or a bad thing...
Ronnie Campbell may pay for his support by losing Blyth Valley too
That'd be tricky as he's not standing there again. Campbell was hardly "voting against his principles" by voting for Brexit though. He's as anti-europe as Cash or Redwood.
I think Ronnie has decided to stand again.
He has revoked his original pledge to stand down.
Wikipedia has Susan Dungworth standing in Blyth for Lab
Interesting. Maybe Ronnie has revoked the revoke.
I'd guess wiki is right.
This morning, Wikipedia had a chap called 'John Dowd' standing in Bootle.
I think the BXT party pact with the Tories makes a Johnson overall majority almost certain. The most significant piece of news of GE2019 by far methinks.
I think Lab now goes backwards compared to 2017.
Yes. My opening call was Con majority of 60. If anything I would move it higher now. A landslide is very possible. The markets have moved strongly in this direction too. Therefore good betting opportunities for those who take a different view.
I agree. Right now, I think Labour sub 160 is entirely possible. Add (round numbers) 50 for the SNP, 25 for the LDs, and you're looking at a pretty big Conservative majority.
160 is possible but unlikely. Labour's GOTV is far better than anyone else because of Momentum and a huge membership.
"Well, in their latest poll, Deltapoll asked people how they'd vote without the Brexit Party (and also UKIP) standing in their constituency. The differences compared with the standard voting intention question were:
In this case Emily Thornberry is right. (Not often I think that). Ambiguity is the only real option. It's horrible to commit to using it, hopeless to commit to not using it. You have to guess. My guess is that TM, for example, would never have wanted to use it as a retaliatory measure. But the reason the PM's instructions for a doomsday scenario are secret is soundly based.
If Emily Thornberry were leader of the Labour Party this wouldn't be an issue.
Just received a letter threatening me with a £1,000 fine if I don't inform the council about who's eligible to vote in my household. When did this become a thing?
"Millennials are over sensitive snowflakes who need to toughen up"
"Saying Gammon is worse than racism"
"Saying Gammon is, by the definitions of the kind of people who tend to say it, racism. The people who say it are therefore hypocrites and should be ignored."
"Millennials are over sensitive snowflakes who need to toughen up"
"Saying Gammon is worse than racism"
The left shouldn't stop using the gammon term because it is dehumanising and ugly (though it is). They should stop it because it is massively counter productive.
Just received a letter threatening me with a £1,000 fine if I don't inform the council about who's eligible to vote in my household. When did this become a thing?
I wasn't aware that being on the electoral register was compulsory but apparently it is
What is surprising to me is the low LD vote in University towns.
I think it would be necessary to see the breakdown of the sample to make a judgement. Of the university towns listed only Cambridge has any real LD strength and some like Huddersfield, Lancaster and Preston are positive LD wastelands. I suspect there is a myth about LDs and university towns based on Cambridge and very few other cases.
Most of the smaller unis have, what, 10-20k students? Although they may have a higher than average propensity to vote LD, the same is - possibly more - true for Lab, and a not insignificant number will be Tory. And I suspect likelihood to vote is smaller than average.. especially in the week they break up for Christmas.
Sporting Index appear to be in a constant dither and have yet again suspended their GE seats market, meanwhile Spreadex remain open for trading with a record mid-spread high of 347 for the Tories, 200 for Labour and 35.5 for the LibDems, having peaked at 49 just a few short weeks ago.
I was just going to say that we need an @AndyJS to crunch the constituencies.
The above supports my view but has evidently been arrived at with more than (my) gut feel.
I get the impression that Farage has been under enormous internal party pressure to not let Corbyn in and have Brexit cancelled. This is a big newsworthy moment that lets him say he is doing that, taking pressure off his back, while maintaining significant leverage to negotiate further.
That said, I think it still helps the Tories a fair bit. Brexit party voters are about two thirds Tory and one third Labour. Let us make the (oversimplified but mainly accurate) view that the Tories are mainly hard right rural reactionaries and the Labour types are WWC Leave anti-Tories. I would imagine the first group mainly exist either in safe Tory seats or in Tory-Lib Dem marginals, which are currently mainly held by the Tories and were in danger of being lost to the Swinson surge. Farage has helped a lot there. The second group mainly exist innTory-Labour marginals, where the ones that matter are Labour held, and the BXP still standing slightly helps the Tories.
Of course this is just my loose analysis and I would like to see the PB Boffins crunch the numbers.
Yes there are a lot of assumptions. I start from the premise that as 12th Dec gets nearer then party loyalties will be the strongest factor.
So in my mind a Labour Leaver will nevertheless still have leftish sympathies such as to make voting BXP, by any estimation a party of the right, problematic.
I'm never quite sure. Here in Scouseland, I once asked a staunch Evertonian.
Forced choice - Weekend - Liverpool and Everton both LOSE, or Liverpool and Everton both WIN. Without a seconds hesitation, he'd rather they both lost, his hatred of Liverpool all consuming.
Some Labour voters are very tribal, such that they hate the Tories so much they lose sight of what parties are on the left-right scale. Certainly, my brother, staunch 'Labour' supporter is going to vote for 'Nigel!'. He'll never vote Tory. They eat babies. But he'll vote Brexit Party, because they'll get Brexit 'sorted'.
The fact the Brexit Party is led by an ex-Conservative, and has no policies except Brexit completely passes him by. He hates the Tories more than anything, and can't vote for them... but Nigel is okay.
So, in summary. You could well be right. But there are some tribal Labour voters who lose sight of why they vote Labour and instead just become the 'anti-Tory' voters.
Yes I agree there are such loyalties. My question therefore becomes surely if they are that tribal then they would vote Labour!
Have a funny feeling that Brexit not standing in the South and those wealthier areas of the North will satisfy those Rmeain leaning Con voters that it is safe to give the LDs a vote, believing the seat is Tory secure. What really happens in these seats isthen whewther the Labour vote will switch in very large numbers down to or below deposit level. PS on the face of things Lib Dems will lose Brecon.
"Well, in their latest poll, Deltapoll asked people how they'd vote without the Brexit Party (and also UKIP) standing in their constituency. The differences compared with the standard voting intention question were:
CON up 5 pts LAB up 1 pt"
When we start seeing the pollsters taking into account who is standing in individual constituencies from Friday we may see Con getting to 40% consistently.
Every election rolls round and every time I am shocked at the people who seem to be willing to press the button.
I understand MAD theory is you should be seen to be willing to press the button, but seriously, no. Just because someone else would be willing to, doesn't mean you should. Someone else killing loads of civilians does not make it right to kill loads of civilians yourself.
Considering the time of year as well, that we are all concerned that someone wouldn't just go "well, if we're all going to die anyway, I might as well get in my share" is fucking horrendous.
My great nan lived through both wars, brought up her kids to survive the blitz when bombs fell on her house and in her neighbourhood. She died a few years ago at 102, and I had the benefit of a close relationship with her, seeing her pretty much weekly for almost 25 years. The horror of war made her a pacifist, she flinched at fireworks and would never buy her kids or grandkids toy guns. Alongside the young men whose lives were cut short by the stupidity of the ruling class, today I think of her.
People foaming angry at the thought that Corbyn wouldn't press the button in their blood lust can go do one.
There is not a single person on this earth 'foaming angry at the thought that Corbyn wouldn't press the button'. Nor is there a single person in this country who wants to use nuclear weapons because of 'blood lust'. Get a grip on yourself.
The complaint about Corbyn is simply his overwhelming hypocrisy. It's perfectly respectable, albeit naive, to say you'd never use nuclear weapons in any circumstances, as he has said in the past. It is rank hypocrisy, laced with lashings of cynicism, for a party to go into an election claiming that their leader, allegedly a man of principle, never said that. It's even worse when that same leader seems to have an awfully high tolerance of the use of murder against British citizens and our friends and allies.
We have all been so busy with Brexit we have almost forgotten the defence questions. Corbyn is obviously a lifelong anti-nukes campaigner, who would not use them. Nothing wrong with that.
It is beyond belief that Labour are trying to pretend otherwise.
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
This is all very lovely, but the point of having a nuclear deterrent is that circumstances exist where you would be prepared to use it. Corbyn's personal position is consistent in that he wants to abolish Trident becuase he doesn't think it should ever be used: the official Labour position is to support renewing Trident, which means they must by definition be open to using it. If they can't confirm that, then they are in favour of spending tens of billions on something with zero utility.
To be fair to them, spending tens of billions on something with zero utility is a consistent feature of Labour policies in lots of areas.
In this case Emily Thornberry is right. (Not often I think that). Ambiguity is the only real option. It's horrible to commit to using it, hopeless to commit to not using it. You have to guess. My guess is that TM, for example, would never have wanted to use it as a retaliatory measure. But the reason the PM's instructions for a doomsday scenario are secret is soundly based.
She's not standing to be PM. Corbyn is. He isn't ambiguous if Morgan is to be believed. He has said he wouldn't use them and it seems obvious what the instructions would be to submarine commanders.
It is pretty amusing. We've got people happy with a pact upset at a sort of opposing pact, and people furious at an opposing pact happy with their own. If only there was a word for it..
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
The Conservatives will have been in power for 14 years come 2024 (latest date for next general election) so I can easily see them losing office then as "time for a change" will work strongly for the Opposition but it really depends whether Labour comes to their senses and gets a leader that's actually electable.
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
You have a bit of a blind spot as in amongst Tory triumphalists multiple people immediately thought the plan bodes very Ill for the tories .
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
No. A new bogeyman will be found so that the blame can be deflected elsewhere. As long as the Bread & Circuses keep rolling out, the voters might never notice.
As long as Boris is PM, there will be no damage too great, no hardship too burdensome for the rest of us to endure.
Can someone explain where the "Tory gammon" phraseology come from? Heard it a lot over past couple of weeks - but never heard it at all before then.
A subset of angry right-wingers are old men with blotchy red and white faces, which get redder when they shout nonsense at Question Time panellists. This gives them a somewhat bacony appearance.
This is all very lovely, but the point of having a nuclear deterrent is that circumstances exist where you would be prepared to use it. Corbyn's personal position is consistent in that he wants to abolish Trident becuase he doesn't think it should ever be used: the official Labour position is to support renewing Trident, which means they must by definition be open to using it. If they can't confirm that, then they are in favour of spending tens of billions on something with zero utility.
To be fair to them, spending tens of billions on something with zero utility is a consistent feature of Labour policies in lots of areas.
In this case Emily Thornberry is right. (Not often I think that). Ambiguity is the only real option. It's horrible to commit to using it, hopeless to commit to not using it. You have to guess. My guess is that TM, for example, would never have wanted to use it as a retaliatory measure. But the reason the PM's instructions for a doomsday scenario are secret is soundly based.
She's not standing to be PM. Corbyn is. He isn't ambiguous if Morgan is to be believed. He has said he wouldn't use them and it seems obvious what the instructions would be to submarine commanders.
The problem for the Lib Dems is that Labour voters may be unwilling to back them in any circumstance because of their alliance with the Tories in the Coalition government. I am hearing this on the doorstep and a shiny new leader does not change this fact. Furthermore the revoke policy is seen as undemocratic by some voters. Tactical voting may not be a factor in this election after all.
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
We have no leverage with the EU. However, with a big majority, I think he will choose Tory party management problems over exiting on WTO terms. I predict an extended Transition and (eventually) a closely aligned Future Relationship.
Yes I agree there are such loyalties. My question therefore becomes surely if they are that tribal then they would vote Labour!
It's degrees of tribal voting. Those who will vote Labour, no matter what. My in-laws. They vote Labour. Forget the rest. Labour. "Adolf Hitler - Labour Party candidate [X]"
Then those who might abstain (my wife). Labour 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005 etc... then in 2017 went 'Abstain' across the ballot paper (she really needs to learn to draw a cock and balls).
Then those who are usually Labour, but are prepared to flirt! Especially Labour leavers! My brother. Nigel's flirting with him. He'll vote BXP this time (he voted UKIP in 2015 too). They won't vote Conservative however. They wouldn't vote Conservative if the Conservatives were led by Keir Hardie and had a manifesto that mirrored the Labour party manifesto. They don't vote Tory.
Shades of tribalism. Its very interesting, if it weren't so damn infuriating.
What is surprising to me is the low LD vote in University towns.
I think it would be necessary to see the breakdown of the sample to make a judgement. Of the university towns listed only Cambridge has any real LD strength and some like Huddersfield, Lancaster and Preston are positive LD wastelands. I suspect there is a myth about LDs and university towns based on Cambridge and very few other cases.
Most of the smaller unis have, what, 10-20k students? Although they may have a higher than average propensity to vote LD, the same is - possibly more - true for Lab, and a not insignificant number will be Tory. And I suspect likelihood to vote is smaller than average.. especially in the week they break up for Christmas.
I don't claim any special knowledge or understanding of the student vote, other than to observe that (a) fads and fashions come and go more quickly than in the general population and (b) students who voted in 2017 are almost entirely different individuals from those who might vote next month. Even first-years from 2017 will by now have entered the world of work. My guess is that the current crop will break much more strongly for the Green Party and this will allow comfortable Tory wins in seats like Canterbury and Warwick & Leamington.
A bit of a disagreement at the moment on the spreads. As at now, Con Seats are:
338-344 Sporting Index 343-351 SpreadEx
I expect that will change soon.
I backed the Tories at 324 on Spread Ex couple of weeks back. I also sold LIB Dem seats at 44.
Both trades sitting in healthy profit currently.
My initial Tory seats projection was 349 and Lib Dems at 29.
Greed and fear in sharp focus now but its tempting to take the Tory trade off the table and bank some very nice profits.
Good punting. It's always hard to know when to trade out (I did so far too early last time), but I agree with you that of the two positions you have, the LibDem one is the one to keep open at the moment. But DYOR, as they say!
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
No. A new bogeyman will be found so that the blame can be deflected elsewhere. As long as the Bread & Circuses keep rolling out, the voters might never notice.
As long as Boris is PM, there will be no damage too great, no hardship too burdensome for the rest of us to endure.
I disagree. The reality of Brexit - a diminished, poorer UK, and less individual freedoms for UK citizens than now - are not things that can be swept under the carpet.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
You seem to view leaving without a deal as far less disastrous than most other people.
Personally I expect Boris will pay whatever the EU demands with a few token changes...
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
This is all very lovely, but the point of having a nuclear deterrent is that circumstances exist where you would be prepared to use it. Corbyn's personal position is consistent in that he wants to abolish Trident becuase he doesn't think it should ever be used: the official Labour position is to support renewing Trident, which means they must by definition be open to using it. If they can't confirm that, then they are in favour of spending tens of billions on something with zero utility.
To be fair to them, spending tens of billions on something with zero utility is a consistent feature of Labour policies in lots of areas.
In this case Emily Thornberry is right. (Not often I think that). Ambiguity is the only real option. It's horrible to commit to using it, hopeless to commit to not using it. You have to guess. My guess is that TM, for example, would never have wanted to use it as a retaliatory measure. But the reason the PM's instructions for a doomsday scenario are secret is soundly based.
She's not standing to be PM. Corbyn is. He isn't ambiguous if Morgan is to be believed. He has said he wouldn't use them and it seems obvious what the instructions would be to submarine commanders.
I enjoy your anecdotes from Labour's sole true heartland Liverpool. They definitely confirm every mental picture of the hardcore Labour hardcore leave vote I've got in my head though.
WE HATE THE TORIES! THEY EAT BABIES! THEY MURDER SCOUSERS!
If they really hated the Tories, that wouldn't be paint, but shit.....
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
The idea that we will threaten to leave the transition period is for the birds. At least for 4-5 years. The difference now is that the government has got that time to replicate and extend non-EU trade agreements so that we're ready to do a minimal deal with the EU should they have unreasonable demands for a wider ranging one.
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
We have no leverage with the EU. However, with a big majority, I think he will choose Tory party management problems over exiting on WTO terms. I predict an extended Transition and (eventually) a closely aligned Future Relationship.
Kinabalu I enjoy your analysis and I think here you are dead right.
People assume Boris is a Brexit Ultra. He is not. He is simply in hock to them.
380 Seats gives him wriggle room to do as you predict.
Unlike you, I am not as bullish (as a bettor, i appreciate, not as a fair minded citizen) on the Tories.
Yes I agree there are such loyalties. My question therefore becomes surely if they are that tribal then they would vote Labour!
It's degrees of tribal voting. Those who will vote Labour, no matter what. My in-laws. They vote Labour. Forget the rest. Labour. "Adolf Hitler - Labour Party candidate [X]"
Then those who might abstain (my wife). Labour 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005 etc... then in 2017 went 'Abstain' across the ballot paper (she really needs to learn to draw a cock and balls).
Then those who are usually Labour, but are prepared to flirt! Especially Labour leavers! My brother. Nigel's flirting with him. He'll vote BXP this time (he voted UKIP in 2015 too). They won't vote Conservative however. They wouldn't vote Conservative if the Conservatives were led by Keir Hardie and had a manifesto that mirrored the Labour party manifesto. They don't vote Tory.
Shades of tribalism. Its very interesting, if it weren't so damn infuriating.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
You seem to view leaving without a deal as far less disastrous than most other people.
Personally I expect Boris will pay whatever the EU demands with a few token changes...
I have consistently viewed it as both less disastrous and less likely than most other people.
Johnson got the changes he wanted to both the PD and WA despite the fact we had been assured it was impossible, despite the Benn Act and despite being hamstrung by a Remainer Parliament.
If we get a healthy majority I expect a sensible mutually respectful deal to be rapidly agreed because it is in the interest of all parties to agree it.
We are essentially getting back to where we should have been before the Tories made the atrocious mistake of making May our PM and then her throwing away the majority.
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Not here Stodge. I hope it sees Boris beat Corbyn but not triumphant just will be pleased to get on with other things
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
They’ve got the money they wanted from us. It’s in the Withdrawal Agreement. If we want an extension we’ll have to pay more. That’s not leverage, it’s a fact of life. If we don’t want to pay more, we’ll not extend and we’ll have a bare bones WTO agreement that, now the Irish have what they want on Northern Ireland, will hurt us a whole lot more than every EU member state.
The idea that we will threaten to leave the transition period is for the birds. At least for 4-5 years. The difference now is that the government has got that time to replicate and extend non-EU trade agreements so that we're ready to do a minimal deal with the EU should they have unreasonable demands for a wider ranging one.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
They’ve got the money they wanted from us. It’s in the Withdrawal Agreement. If we want an extension we’ll have to pay more. That’s not leverage, it’s a fact of life. If we don’t want to pay more, we’ll not extend and we’ll have a bare bones WTO agreement that, now the Irish have what they want on Northern Ireland, will hurt us a whole lot more than every EU member state.
Didn’t they want 100bn or some ludicrous sum like that? Instead, it is a lot less, and payable over thirty years.
I enjoy your anecdotes from Labour's sole true heartland Liverpool. They definitely confirm every mental picture of the hardcore Labour hardcore leave vote I've got in my head though.
WE HATE THE TORIES! THEY EAT BABIES! THEY MURDER SCOUSERS!
If they really hated the Tories, that wouldn't be paint, but shit.....
A bit of a disagreement at the moment on the spreads. As at now, Con Seats are:
338-344 Sporting Index 343-351 SpreadEx
I expect that will change soon.
I backed the Tories at 324 on Spread Ex couple of weeks back. I also sold LIB Dem seats at 44.
Both trades sitting in healthy profit currently.
My initial Tory seats projection was 349 and Lib Dems at 29.
Greed and fear in sharp focus now but its tempting to take the Tory trade off the table and bank some very nice profits.
Tempting to see what the effect of the Brexit Party standing down in so many seats dos to the polling. Or at least, see how many candidates they have actually put up when nominations close. There is a likelihood that the spreads will over-react to their absence.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
They’ve got the money they wanted from us. It’s in the Withdrawal Agreement. If we want an extension we’ll have to pay more. That’s not leverage, it’s a fact of life. If we don’t want to pay more, we’ll not extend and we’ll have a bare bones WTO agreement that, now the Irish have what they want on Northern Ireland, will hurt us a whole lot more than every EU member state.
They've got some of the money they wanted from us. If we weren't leaving we'd have been paying £10bn+ per annum not £39bn over decades.
They'll always want more money if they can get it but they're not due another penny from us besides that which is agreed already. That gives leverage if they want to get any more.
See Lib Dems have started their legal action against ITV. Should be good fun. By not including Swinson on the grounds she cannot be PM they have given her extra publicity in Court which could end up in her being classed as such a candidate. From ITVs point of view would be a pretty pointless e xercise.Re. Balance of Probabilities, would not like to say who is goinbg to win. Will it be allowed to go to a full hearing., If so that really will be fun. Lib Dems asking for more money this week from members, to cover legal cvosts?
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
You seem to view leaving without a deal as far less disastrous than most other people.
Personally I expect Boris will pay whatever the EU demands with a few token changes...
I have consistently viewed it as both less disastrous and less likely than most other people.
Johnson got the changes he wanted to both the PD and WA despite the fact we had been assured it was impossible, despite the Benn Act and despite being hamstrung by a Remainer Parliament.
If we get a healthy majority I expect a sensible mutually respectful deal to be rapidly agreed because it is in the interest of all parties to agree it.
We are essentially getting back to where we should have been before the Tories made the atrocious mistake of making May our PM and then her throwing away the majority.
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
See Lib Dems have started their legal action against ITV. Should be good fun. By not including Swinson on the grounds she cannot be PM they have given her extra publicity in Court which could end up in her being classed as such a candidate. From ITVs point of view would be a pretty pointless e xercise.Re. Balance of Probabilities, would not like to say who is goinbg to win. Will it be allowed to go to a full hearing., If so that really will be fun. Lib Dems asking for more money this week from members, to cover legal cvosts?
Dangerous case for the Lib Dems. If ITV win the case then that's it expect them to be excluded from now on quite consistently until polls or results give a reason for the media to start including them again.
I've closed my Tory seats buy (324) trade at 343 on Spread Ex. Have let my Lib Dem seats sell at 44 ride.
My initial Tory projection was 349 so may have left some on the table, especially as my view now is the Tories may well do better than my initial view.
But the rise in Tory seats has been rapid, and I'm not going to baulk at some substantial risk free profit I think when thee are still a number of uncertainties in a campaign with over a month to run and other fixed odds bets on Tory majority still running.
The question now is whether some other attractive opportunities reveal themselves.
This is all very lovely, but the point of having a nuclear deterrent is that circumstances exist where you would be prepared to use it. Corbyn's personal position is consistent in that he wants to abolish Trident becuase he doesn't think it should ever be used: the official Labour position is to support renewing Trident, which means they must by definition be open to using it. If they can't confirm that, then they are in favour of spending tens of billions on something with zero utility.
To be fair to them, spending tens of billions on something with zero utility is a consistent feature of Labour policies in lots of areas.
In this case Emily Thornberry is right. (Not often I think that). Ambiguity is the only real option. It's horrible to commit to using it, hopeless to commit to not using it. You have to guess. My guess is that TM, for example, would never have wanted to use it as a retaliatory measure. But the reason the PM's instructions for a doomsday scenario are secret is soundly based.
She's not standing to be PM. Corbyn is. He isn't ambiguous if Morgan is to be believed. He has said he wouldn't use them and it seems obvious what the instructions would be to submarine commanders.
See Lib Dems have started their legal action against ITV. Should be good fun. By not including Swinson on the grounds she cannot be PM they have given her extra publicity in Court which could end up in her being classed as such a candidate. From ITVs point of view would be a pretty pointless e xercise.Re. Balance of Probabilities, would not like to say who is goinbg to win. Will it be allowed to go to a full hearing., If so that really will be fun. Lib Dems asking for more money this week from members, to cover legal cvosts?
Have similar proceedings in the past led to a candidate being added? I can’t think of any precedent.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
You seem to view leaving without a deal as far less disastrous than most other people.
Personally I expect Boris will pay whatever the EU demands with a few token changes...
I have consistently viewed it as both less disastrous and less likely than most other people.
Johnson got the changes he wanted to both the PD and WA despite the fact we had been assured it was impossible, despite the Benn Act and despite being hamstrung by a Remainer Parliament.
If we get a healthy majority I expect a sensible mutually respectful deal to be rapidly agreed because it is in the interest of all parties to agree it.
We are essentially getting back to where we should have been before the Tories made the atrocious mistake of making May our PM and then her throwing away the majority.
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
I think he can. I always expected a deal to be available without a backstop and now that's been done I see no reason a trade deal can't be done.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
They’ve got the money they wanted from us. It’s in the Withdrawal Agreement. If we want an extension we’ll have to pay more. That’s not leverage, it’s a fact of life. If we don’t want to pay more, we’ll not extend and we’ll have a bare bones WTO agreement that, now the Irish have what they want on Northern Ireland, will hurt us a whole lot more than every EU member state.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
They’ve got the money they wanted from us. It’s in the Withdrawal Agreement. If we want an extension we’ll have to pay more. That’s not leverage, it’s a fact of life. If we don’t want to pay more, we’ll not extend and we’ll have a bare bones WTO agreement that, now the Irish have what they want on Northern Ireland, will hurt us a whole lot more than every EU member state.
They've got some of the money they wanted from us. If we weren't leaving we'd have been paying £10bn+ per annum not £39bn over decades.
They'll always want more money if they can get it but they're not due another penny from us besides that which is agreed already. That gives leverage if they want to get any more.
We’ll give you more money if you let us extend is not leverage. But if you want to think it is, so be it. And as for the £10 billion a year, let’s see what leaving costs us in lower investment, productivity and tax take before we start talking about savings.
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
Comments
https://www.centrefortowns.org/blog/38-how-do-our-towns-currently-intend-to-vote
What is surprising to me is the low LD vote in University towns.
The complaint about Corbyn is simply his overwhelming hypocrisy. It's perfectly respectable, albeit naive, to say you'd never use nuclear weapons in any circumstances, as he has said in the past. It is rank hypocrisy, laced with lashings of cynicism, for a party to go into an election claiming that their leader, allegedly a man of principle, never said that. It's even worse when that same leader seems to have an awfully high tolerance of the use of murder against British citizens and our friends and allies.
He did vote for his electoral Christmas to come early, after all.
I think Lab now goes backwards compared to 2017.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/averages/maps/uk/8110_1km/SnowFall_Average_1981-2010_12.gif
1-2 days is the value for central London, but you'd expect it to be a bit less likely now than in the 80s.
18/1 could still be skinny, though November has been at the cold end of the seasonal forecast. This winter might be another surprise in the making.
I'd guess wiki is right.
https://twitter.com/cllrangusforbes/status/1193816195478241280?s=20
I believe she is local. Don't know if she's standing again in Merseyside in 2019, but she's in for another heavy kicking if she does.
"Saying Gammon is worse than racism"
Labour and Conservative traditional voting blocs are less certain than before but they are still the most likely to beat “the other lot” so they will still garner the overwhelming majority of seats. At least in England. The other nations obviously have very different mathematics.
The truly interesting thing about today’s news is if the tories do take over BXP it leaves an electoral space for a leftist anti-EU party.
I suspect, and it's just a theory, that places like Richmond Park contain lots of Tory Remainers, and (by and large) they were previously willing to stick with the Conservatives because a Soft Brexit was OK. The risk for the Conservative Party is that they are now painted via "Brexit Party Deal" propaganda in these seats.
There are seats, however, where I think it will help the Conservatives. In much of the South West (from Yeovil to St Ives), the world is pretty Brexity, and the LDs relied on the Leave vote being split. Ditto Eastbourne and North Norfolk. It probably lowers the LDs chance of picking up Hazel Grove.
All-in-all, probably a wash for the LDs, with places like Richmond Park becoming a little easier for them.
I have inched up my LibDem seat prediction to 22-25 seats from the previous 21 seats, largely on the basis of (1) the LDs appearing to hold on to their 16% level with pretty much every pollsters, and (2) the regional splits that suggest the Tories are doing worse in areas wheret he LDs are the challengers and better where it's the Labour Party.
But that isn't the point. The point is that, if that is his view, then he should have the courage and integrity to say so, as he has in the past. Is it his view or not? He gave a one-word answer previously. Has he changed his mind?
Bacon's delightful. It's never once claimed to be a friend of Hamas.
I have corrected it, but it made me mad!
CON up 5 pts
LAB up 1 pt"
https://www.gov.uk/electoral-register
PS on the face of things Lib Dems will lose Brecon.
It is beyond belief that Labour are trying to pretend otherwise.
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
As long as Boris is PM, there will be no damage too great, no hardship too burdensome for the rest of us to endure.
338-344 Sporting Index
343-351 SpreadEx
I expect that will change soon.
Both trades sitting in healthy profit currently.
My initial Tory seats projection was 349 and Lib Dems at 29.
Greed and fear in sharp focus now but its tempting to take the Tory trade off the table and bank some very nice profits.
My in-laws. They vote Labour. Forget the rest. Labour.
"Adolf Hitler - Labour Party candidate [X]"
Then those who might abstain (my wife). Labour 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005 etc... then in 2017 went 'Abstain' across the ballot paper (she really needs to learn to draw a cock and balls).
Then those who are usually Labour, but are prepared to flirt! Especially Labour leavers! My brother. Nigel's flirting with him. He'll vote BXP this time (he voted UKIP in 2015 too). They won't vote Conservative however. They wouldn't vote Conservative if the Conservatives were led by Keir Hardie and had a manifesto that mirrored the Labour party manifesto. They don't vote Tory.
Shades of tribalism. Its very interesting, if it weren't so damn infuriating.
Personally I expect Boris will pay whatever the EU demands with a few token changes...
People assume Boris is a Brexit Ultra. He is not. He is simply in hock to them.
380 Seats gives him wriggle room to do as you predict.
Unlike you, I am not as bullish (as a bettor, i appreciate, not as a fair minded citizen) on the Tories.
Johnson got the changes he wanted to both the PD and WA despite the fact we had been assured it was impossible, despite the Benn Act and despite being hamstrung by a Remainer Parliament.
If we get a healthy majority I expect a sensible mutually respectful deal to be rapidly agreed because it is in the interest of all parties to agree it.
We are essentially getting back to where we should have been before the Tories made the atrocious mistake of making May our PM and then her throwing away the majority.
Ah, my coat.
They'll always want more money if they can get it but they're not due another penny from us besides that which is agreed already. That gives leverage if they want to get any more.
By not including Swinson on the grounds she cannot be PM they have given her extra publicity in Court which could end up in her being classed as such a candidate. From ITVs point of view would be a pretty pointless e xercise.Re. Balance of Probabilities, would not like to say who is goinbg to win. Will it be allowed to go to a full hearing., If so that really will be fun.
Lib Dems asking for more money this week from members, to cover legal cvosts?
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
My initial Tory projection was 349 so may have left some on the table, especially as my view now is the Tories may well do better than my initial view.
But the rise in Tory seats has been rapid, and I'm not going to baulk at some substantial risk free profit I think when thee are still a number of uncertainties in a campaign with over a month to run and other fixed odds bets on Tory majority still running.
The question now is whether some other attractive opportunities reveal themselves.