Johnson - This obviously would undercut the Get Brexit Done mantra, but I think they would stick quite strongly to "of course we would get a deal done" so it would depend on whether the public would find that credible. He did, of course, manage to pull a deal out of a hat pretty quickly quite recently. But what sort of deal could he do very quickly?
Nobody really gave a fuck when Boris missed his Oct 31 deadline so if, à Dieu ne plaise, he gets his majority he won't be in a rush to do anything.
It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
I think it's the relative strength of the Lib Dems. Historically when the Lib Dems have done well it's been harder for the Tories to win.
2010 - 7.2% vote share lead - Lib Dems on 23.6% - Tories 20 short of a majority. 2015 - 6.6% vote share lead - Lib Dems on 8.1% - Tory majority of 10. 2017 - 2.5% vote share lead - Lib Dems on 7.6% - Tories 9 short of a majority.
Of course the Brexit realignment might break this pattern and see the Tories home with a much larger majority, but I assume this is the sort of effect at play in various seat models.
Tories on 10% plus lead [better than any of those examples] and Lib Dems in the teens [worse than 2010] it seems very intuitive to think it wouldn't be a landslide.
If by this time next week, Labour hasn't shown a clear improvement, they're in trouble.
Everyone's being very cautious about saying the Tories might win a majority with a 10% lead at this stage in the campaign, and in a way that's understandable after what happened in 2017.
Strange that, as a 10 per cent lead in 2017 would have given a big majority. The question in 2019 is whether they will get a lead close that.
IMO there's no reason to believe the gap will close much this time. It did so in 2017 because a lot of Remainers thought that voting for Corbyn would somehow make Brexit less likely despite the fact that he's always been a Eurosceptic, but most voters weren't familiar enough with his political history to be aware of that. That scenario is unlikely to happen again this time.
If by this time next week, Labour hasn't shown a clear improvement, they're in trouble.
Everyone's being very cautious about saying the Tories might win a majority with a 10% lead at this stage in the campaign, and in a way that's understandable after what happened in 2017.
Strange that, as a 10 per cent lead in 2017 would have given a big majority. The question in 2019 is whether they will get a lead close that.
Think the weekend will show Labour reducing the lead and it'll be squeaky bum time for the Tories until polling day. Amusingly Fraser Nelson on the latest Spectator podcast totally shat himself when told John Curtice had said the chances of a Labour majority were "close to 0%" (or similar). It's what people said about certain outcomes before Brexit, the Trump election, the Cameron majority and the Boris deal....They've prepared a 'Corbyn Wins' Christmas cover.
This election is very different from any in modern history. Apart from the minor issue of Brexit the main opposition party has been taken over by a clique that is quasi Marxist and more fanatical than any group that has ever had a serious chance of forming the government. The Labour brand is very strong and I know a number of people who may well be voting for them as they haven't grasped the astonishing situation in which we find ourselves.
Um, the same people were in charge of Labour in 2017? So I guess you meant it's different from any election in modern history except the last one?
Fair point, what I meant was that the clique are now coming in to plain sight. The last LP manifesto was economically reckless but just about within European social democratic norms. McDonell has been boasting that they will be more radical this time and I suspect they will try a more explicitly radical program. If they win the election they will try to implement measures that are designed as a stepping stone to the socialist transformation of society but they will do so without deep majority support in the population and without a revolutionary party just the momentum activists. Would the result be tragedy or farce? Personally I'd rather not find out.
It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
I disagree, hopefully Labour get smashed into the dust both to convince them to ditch the loony tunes and to ensure the Tory loony tunes can be ignored. A small minority will leave Labour potentially thinking one more heave with the loony tunes [maybe one with less antisemitic baggage than Corbyn] would be enough, while also potentially allowing blocs like the ERG to hold the government to ransom.
Yes, in an ideal world one would like to see the Labour Party cut to ribbons (although it's most unlikely to happen: their core vote seems to be somewhere not far short of 30% and they have an awful lot of Albanian majorities to fall back on in the urban cores.)
The long-term objective has to be the forcing of Labour to come back to its senses through repeated defeats, or its replacement as the main party of opposition in England. If we are lucky enough to regain a sensible alternative to the Tories then we can sigh with relief and vote them out at will; until that time, the Conservative Party, however flawed, is the essential defence against the utter lunacy of the other lot.
FWIW my view has always been that we will get another hung Parliament. Labour are not to be under-rated, the Tories are far too hubristic and the Lib Dems seem to be misfiring somehow.
But, hey, this is based on no knowledge or canvassing whatsoever. So what do I know.
The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.
Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any premium rate they need to offer will apply only to the new borrowing. But they will also require new borrowing to fund the general deficit (before these nationalisations) and will need to refinance in excess of £600bn of gilts maturing during the next parliament. A 100 point premium (1%) caused by these plans, applied to these sums and assuming 10 year gilts, would cause an additional cost of circa £100bn over the 10 year lifetime of the gilts.
And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.
That’s assuming they can borrow at all. Why would foreigners lend money to a British government which confiscates their assets?
International lawyers will be making a mint of money out of all the legal cases there will be. So an ill wind etc.....
International institutions, lawyers and the financial markets didn't do much to stop Comrades Chavez and Maduro.
I dislike the idea of relying on a multi-national court, and I suspect many others do too. I think the last year or two has shown the need for a more codified constitution with higher barriers to amending it than a simple majority (not sure how you achieve the latter within our system though to be honest).
If you have a constitution/basic law then it assumes a personality of its own, and can contain any number of provisions to limit the powers of the institutions that are established under it. The US constitution, for example, can't be altered at the whim of the majority in Congress. Super-majorities at both federal and state level are required in order for any proposed amendment to pass.
In our system there are no fully effective checks against the will of any simple majority in the Commons that can be found to back a Government and then pass legislation - except for the royal veto, which no monarch since Queen Anne has elected to use.
Comrades Chavez and Maduro demonstrate what happens when the financial markets do punish a country. You get hyperinflation and huge unemployment. The markets did their job.
Suggestions from the Guardian that several motions passed by Labour at the conference will be watered down.
The timing of the manifesto release will be interesting , do they have this out on Monday before the debate .
The debates are surely going to be watched by more people than the launches so that stage would be a good place to highlight those pledges but of course that’s also risky .
One thing that’s likely to stay in the manifesto is on the inclusive ownership fund , shares for employees in companies with over 250 employees . This policy isn’t that radical although will be heavily criticized by the Tories.
The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.
Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any premium rate they need to offer will apply only to the new borrowing. But they will also require new borrowing to fund the general deficit (before these nationalisations) and will need to refinance in excess of £600bn of gilts maturing during the next parliament. A 100 point premium (1%) caused by these plans, applied to these sums and assuming 10 year gilts, would cause an additional cost of circa £100bn over the 10 year lifetime of the gilts.
And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.
That’s assuming they can borrow at all. Why would foreigners lend money to a British government which confiscates their assets?
International lawyers will be making a mint of money out of all the legal cases there will be. So an ill wind etc.....
Foreigners did lend even to Greece at its worst moments, but the coupon rate reached 36% at its worst.
Greece wasn’t confiscating assets, though.
Which is an adverse factor. Are you suggesting a rate above 36%?
It would not stack up as an argument, but I feel a cynical tory out there would suggest that means Tories have an interest in making places richer, while Labour have an interest in making them poorer!
It would not stack up as an argument, but I feel a cynical tory out there would suggest that means Tories have an interest in making places richer, while Labour have an interest in making them poorer!
It's an argument I've seen all too often. A more solid argument would be Conservatives have an interest in allowing inequality to persist and Labour have an interest in closing it. Which broadly fits the party philosophies.
It would not stack up as an argument, but I feel a cynical tory out there would suggest that means Tories have an interest in making places richer, while Labour have an interest in making them poorer!
It's an argument I've seen all too often. A more solid argument would be Conservatives have an interest in allowing inequality to persist and Labour have an interest in closing it. Which broadly fits the party philosophies.
A very partisan view. For the opposite partisan view, the Tories want a rising tide to lift all, whereas Labour seek to remove inequality by subtraction from the top.
Comments
It's interesting at times but he repeatedly gets facts wrong ... is he meant to be an expert?!
He does say that we need a written constitution PDQ. I agree.
The long-term objective has to be the forcing of Labour to come back to its senses through repeated defeats, or its replacement as the main party of opposition in England. If we are lucky enough to regain a sensible alternative to the Tories then we can sigh with relief and vote them out at will; until that time, the Conservative Party, however flawed, is the essential defence against the utter lunacy of the other lot.
But, hey, this is based on no knowledge or canvassing whatsoever. So what do I know.
The timing of the manifesto release will be interesting , do they have this out on Monday before the debate .
The debates are surely going to be watched by more people than the launches so that stage would be a good place to highlight those pledges but of course that’s also risky .
One thing that’s likely to stay in the manifesto is on the inclusive ownership fund , shares for employees in companies with over 250 employees . This policy isn’t that radical although will be heavily criticized by the Tories.
https://twitter.com/TomBoadle/status/1193108798220754944
stood down
A more solid argument would be Conservatives have an interest in allowing inequality to persist and Labour have an interest in closing it. Which broadly fits the party philosophies.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1195433348304388098