Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit: We wuz robbed but is Tony the one to stop it.

124»

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,552

    I am happy to take full responsibility. Just tell me what imaginary disaster we have caused. Until then stop moaning about nothing.
    +1
  • isamisam Posts: 41,329
    Scott_P said:

    That's a keeper :smile:
    So is this

    https://m.dreamteamfc.com/c/s3/dreamteamfc-prod/uploads/2017/02/shaw4-720x405.jpg
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,823

    I am happy to take full responsibility. Just tell me what imaginary disaster we have caused. Until then stop moaning about nothing.
    We're on the path to leave their beloved EU, that's the disaster for them. They don't care about this country, it's all pretence to defend the EU.

    In reality there is no disaster, brexit will be full of compromises but in the end we will leave and set the nation on a diverging path from the super state which they wish this country to be subsumed by.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited February 2017
    HYUFD said:

    The Tories are actually putting more
    This is the situation at my Trust. A £27million projected deficit this year, though unusually for the NHS this is slightly down on previous years.

    http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/leicester-s-hospitals-in-deficit-by-27-million/story-30147242-detail/story.html

    For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,772
    Con now in to 8.8 for Stoke.

    Labour drifting.

    Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,329
    edited February 2017
    This really is incredible, the tories are now 9.6 on Betfair having drifted to 140 from 8!!
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    dixiedean said:

    Seemed quite a good game on TV. But maybe I'm used to watching Everton.
    Ha!. I suppose I was looking for an Underdog victory. Sutton were ponderous, but they are part-timers. The Arse should have buried them. £30 a ticket, to boot, excessive.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    HYUFD said:

    If the LDs are good at anything it is pouring into their selected targets, as their council and Richmond Park by election wins show, they will go hard at the next election in a few selected Tory and Labour Remain seats they held sometime between 1997-2015
    "A few" being the operative term. I'm sceptical of the LDs getting very far at all; I've discussed this with others in the recent past who think they'll probably get back up into the low teens; if they can reach the twenty seats they managed in 1992 then they'll be doing very well indeed. Not enough to make much difference to the Parliamentary arithmetic, however, should Labour be clobbered anything like as badly as is anticipated.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,329
    Dixie said:

    Ha!. I suppose I was looking for an Underdog victory. Sutton were ponderous, but they are part-timers. The Arse should have buried them. £30 a ticket, to boot, excessive.
    You won't see many better value 1/7 shots. I thought we'd be 1/33 a la England in San Marino
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,035
    MaxPB said:

    Not really, I just tire of the same fucking bullshit day after day after day. When brexit turns out to be a middling compromise which is neither successful nor a failure I do hope everyone will just move on. Those who can't really should fuck off the Brussels with Mandy and Blair, some of your lot seem to have gone round the bend.
    Neither side has a monopoly on bullshit, the delusional guff the kippers come out with on here does my head in. Brexit is going to totally dominate UK politics for at least the next 10 years, it's a momentous decision which will have no end of repercussions and consequences, I think the chances of anyone moving on any time soon are remote.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MikeL said:

    Con now in to 8.8 for Stoke.

    Labour drifting.

    Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?

    It is my best outcome financially. they were only a few votes behind the kippers last time, and I think that the votes are going from Purple to Blue, Red and the various strands of Looney.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,823

    This is the situation at my Trust. A £27million projected deficit this year, though unusually for the NHS this is slightly down on previous years.

    http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/leicester-s-hospitals-in-deficit-by-27-million/story-30147242-detail/story.html

    For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.

    Sack 50% of the managers, when no one notices the difference sack 50% of the remaining ones. Keep doing it until someone notices then do it one more time for good measure.

    I think that should save the NHS enough money to keep up with rising health costs for a while at least.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221

    It is my best outcome financially. they were only a few votes behind the kippers last time, and I think that the votes are going from Purple to Blue, Red and the various strands of Looney.
    I'm often wrong, but no way at all.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,552
    HYUFD said:

    Remain voting Tory seats which used to have a LD MP like Bath, Kingston Upon Thames, Twickenham, Lewes, Guildford, Winchester, Harrogate as well as of course Richmond Park are all potential LD gains at the next election if they work them hard enough and for a party which only has 8 MPs every gain is significant
    Look what happened to Newbury after the LibDems won it in a by-election. Once lost again, it quickly moved out of reach for the LibDems. It is back being an ultra-safe Tory seat
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,035
    Scott_P said:

    That's a keeper :smile:
    Well worth holding on to for a couple of years!
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    isam said:

    You won't see many better value 1/7 shots. I thought we'd be 1/33 a la England in San Marino
    indeeed. I agee
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,035

    I am happy to take full responsibility. Just tell me what imaginary disaster we have caused. Until then stop moaning about nothing.
    Decline in the value of the pound hasn't affected anyone and was absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, no sireee!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    "A few" being the operative term. I'm sceptical of the LDs getting very far at all; I've discussed this with others in the recent past who think they'll probably get back up into the low teens; if they can reach the twenty seats they managed in 1992 then they'll be doing very well indeed. Not enough to make much difference to the Parliamentary arithmetic, however, should Labour be clobbered anything like as badly as is anticipated.
    I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055
    edited February 2017

    Look what happened to Newbury after the LibDems won it in a by-election. Once lost again, it quickly moved out of reach for the LibDems. It is back being an ultra-safe Tory seat
    What happened to Newbury after the LDs won it in a by election? They held it in 1997 and 2001. All the polls are showing the Tories have gained votes from C2DEs since the last general election but lost a few ABC1s, it is ABC1 Tory Remain seats the LDs will target most
  • isamisam Posts: 41,329
    edited February 2017
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,552
    MikeL said:

    Con now in to 8.8 for Stoke.

    Labour drifting.

    Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?

    It would have to be Inverness '92 all over again - with nothing between all four. I just don't see the Tories getting 28%, up from 22.5%.

    I mean, it's Stoke.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055

    This is the situation at my Trust. A £27million projected deficit this year, though unusually for the NHS this is slightly down on previous years.

    http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/leicester-s-hospitals-in-deficit-by-27-million/story-30147242-detail/story.html

    For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
    The NHS is getting £8 billion a year extra from this Tory government. Though as I said this morning what may be needed is to increase NIs for 50-67 year olds to pay for the NHS and Social Care
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,552
    isam said:
    Blair looks alarmingly like The Joker in that poster.....

    We should have known.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,823
    OllyT said:

    Decline in the value of the pound hasn't affected anyone and was absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, no sireee!
    4.2% industrial growth. Isn't that what Labour are supposed to stand for? Industrial workers? This year could be a banner year for UK industry with much of the growth based on a semi permanent weak currency and higher importation costs.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Dixie said:

    I'm often wrong, but no way at all.
    My best outcome financially is Tories to win, with kippers in 4th place (10/1 with Shadsy earlier today, and also under 20% at 8/1 also from Shadsy), though I am comfortably Green on everything appart from UKIP win. I expect a Labour win.

    In Copeland I am most up on Labour, preferably with the kippers below 10%.
  • isam said:

    You won't see many better value 1/7 shots. I thought we'd be 1/33 a la England in San Marino
    Out of interest what would England have been against Iceland last year?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055

    "A few" being the operative term. I'm sceptical of the LDs getting very far at all; I've discussed this with others in the recent past who think they'll probably get back up into the low teens; if they can reach the twenty seats they managed in 1992 then they'll be doing very well indeed. Not enough to make much difference to the Parliamentary arithmetic, however, should Labour be clobbered anything like as badly as is anticipated.
    For the LDs though 20 seats would be more than doubling their present representation
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,180

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/833795817186193409

    A helpful reminder that not all polities are alike: in France, voter support for the most Right-wing option goes DOWN with age.

    Is that not because France used to be a lot more left wing than it is now? They used to have a very strong communist party IIRC. I suspect in France it is the lefties who are dying out.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    isam said:
    The 1983 quote looks entirely plausible. Labour did campaign on such a platform that year, after all.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,329

    Out of interest what would England have been against Iceland last year?
    Can't remember but wouldn't have been anything like that. 1/2 maybe?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,581
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Classicists are more or less obliged to side with this guy, so that if anyone asks their opinion they can say they are Pro Milone.
    Hey, I actually got that one. Pb classics aficionados thank you.
  • It is my best outcome financially. they were only a few votes behind the kippers last time, and I think that the votes are going from Purple to Blue, Red and the various strands of Looney.
    My take on Mays visit is that the reds are hemorrhaging votes to LD, UKIP are not getting enough and they are switching to Cons. It's now a tight 4 way marginal and May's visit will either get the Tory vote out or frighten LDs back to Labour / get the Lab vote out to keep out the baby eating tories.

    Either way a gain or Lad victory is the best result for the tories.

    Personally i hope LDs squeak it.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited February 2017
    isam said:

    Is this kosher?

    ttps://twitter.com/ronin_grumpigit/status/833740127717511169 [snipped for space]

    Looks pukka.

    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=81860
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,850
    isam said:

    Is this kosher?

    Labour stood on a manifesto of leaving the EEC in 1983. Part of the longest suicide note in history.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    It would have to be Inverness '92 all over again - with nothing between all four. I just don't see the Tories getting 28%, up from 22.5%.

    I mean, it's Stoke.
    I still think May's visit today was more of a signal to next-door Newcastle under Lyme (where the Tories really do have a good chance at the next election) than it was about this byelection.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,329

    Looks pukka.

    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=81860
    What price TB for next kipper leader after another U-turn?!?
  • isam said:
    Almost certainly.

    'Blair's election literature in the 1983 UK general election endorsed left-wing policies that Labour advocated in the early 1980s.[citation needed] He called for Britain to leave the EEC[34] as early as the 1970s,[35] though he had told his selection conference that he personally favoured continuing membership[citation needed] and voted "Yes" in the 1975 referendum on the subject. He opposed the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in 1986 but supported the ERM by 1989.[36] He was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, despite never strongly being in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament.'
  • Ah, Don Brind. He can always be relied upon for the most ludicrously partisan of partisan spinning.

    He writes: I don’t trust Theresa May, now the zealous convert to Leave after being a virtually silent a Remain campaigner. So, again, I enjoyed Blair’s withering assault on her. “The Government are not masters of this situation. They’re not driving this bus. They’re being driven.”

    In reality, Tony Blair's 'withering assault' wasn't quite so withering:

    I make no personal criticism of the PM or the Government. I know the PM is someone who cares about our country, who is trying to do the right thing as she sees it, and I know how demanding the job of leadership is.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    HYUFD said:

    For the LDs though 20 seats would be more than doubling their present representation

    Oh indeed - I don't think they'll get that far, but even 14 or 15 would be a marked improvement, of course.

    I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.

    Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.

    In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,581

    My take on Mays visit is that the reds are hemorrhaging votes to LD, UKIP are not getting enough and they are switching to Cons. It's now a tight 4 way marginal
    Sounds like wishful thinking to me, for all a tight 4 way would be the most interesting and hilarious outcome. But there are plenty of reasons may might have visited, for instance trying to cement second place from ukip, even if first is out of their grasp.

    Call me a blinkered corbynista, I just cannot see Lab dropping enough in stoke to be vulnerable to the tories, and ukip not capitalising. By election lab voters seem willing to stick through despite the dear leader.,
  • ' Above all, the European Economic Community takes away Britain's freedom to follow the sort of economic policies we need.'
    Tony Blair, writing in his personal manifesto when standing for Parliament in Beaconsfield in 1982
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055
    edited February 2017

    Oh indeed - I don't think they'll get that far, but even 14 or 15 would be a marked improvement, of course. Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.

    In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
    Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
  • isamisam Posts: 41,329

    Almost certainly.

    'Blair's election literature in the 1983 UK general election endorsed left-wing policies that Labour advocated in the early 1980s.[citation needed] He called for Britain to leave the EEC[34] as early as the 1970s,[35] though he had told his selection conference that he personally favoured continuing membership[citation needed] and voted "Yes" in the 1975 referendum on the subject. He opposed the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in 1986 but supported the ERM by 1989.[36] He was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, despite never strongly being in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament.'
    I don't think we can call him a conviction politician
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    RobD said:

    Yes, but it's a one-time thing.
    Why? Why wouldn't the UK negotiate a payment plan?
  • Labour stood on a manifesto of leaving the EEC in 1983. Part of the longest suicide note in history.
    Blair was ingratiating himself with Foot at the time. In correspondence with the then leader he explained how he'd come to Labour via Marx and Trotsky.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,180
    MaxPB said:

    Sack 50% of the managers, when no one notices the difference sack 50% of the remaining ones. Keep doing it until someone notices then do it one more time for good measure.

    I think that should save the NHS enough money to keep up with rising health costs for a while at least.
    But who would attend the meetings?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,519
    edited February 2017
    MikeL said:

    Con now in to 8.8 for Stoke.

    Labour drifting.

    Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?

    They used to say in Stoke only when hell froze over. I really really just can't see it, even given the Trump tribute act and Walter Mitty. Anti-Tory attitudes in Stoke are still massive, as remember the mines and pottery industries were incredibly hard hit by Thatcher, and since then things haven't exactly improved much.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,180

    Blair was ingratiating himself with Foot at the time. In correspondence with the then leader he explained how he'd come to Labour via Marx and Trotsky.
    You'd almost think he wasn't a pretty straight kind of guy after all, wouldn't you?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,180

    They used to say in Stoke only when hell froze over. I really really just can't see it, even given the Trump tribute act and Walter Mitty. Anti-Tory attitudes in Stoke are still massive, as remember the mines and pottery industries were incredibly hard hit by Thatcher, and since then things haven't exactly improved much.
    This is ridiculous. Even in the current febrile atmosphere for Labour there is not a chance in hell of the Tories taking Stoke.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited February 2017
    Re Swedish crime survey data.

    One problem with crime surveys generally (including UK) is how difficult it is getting hold of data from one of the most crime-afflicted subgroups in the country: poor immigrants who don't speak the language. This is believed to bias the UK results quite considerably.

    I'd be astonished if the number of "intra-community" crimes committed has stayed static but not astonished at all if it was largely missing from survey data. When you have Somali gangs blowing car bombs up at each other, your society has issues. And aside from immigrant-dominated poor suburbs, goodness knows how much crime is going on inside refugee centres - from all accounts I can gather, very masculine-dominated places where the strongest establish, enforce and profit from a pecking order much like occurs in prisons.

    On the other hand, the idea of nice middle-class white women in plush suburbs living in fear of being raped by swarthy newcomers is - as it ever is, anywhere in history where notable migration has occurred - overblown.

    I do wonder what the relevant counterfactual is for many of those immigrants who have discovered Sweden is not so peaceful and pleasant as they'd first hoped. Compared to the average Swede, they live lives plagued by poverty and a genuine threat of violence. But should their situation really be compared to the average Swede? Would it be more realistic to compare to the difficulties they would have experienced as a newly arrived migrant in Germany or England? And for Somalis, Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans, it's entirely conceivable they have a stabler and safer life even in the grottiest of Western Europe's ghettos to what they had in Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited February 2017
    DavidL said:

    But who would attend the meetings?
    The medical and nursing staff!

    Our SMT at Leicester are very good indeed, and have reduced the budget deficit, while under extreme financial pressure, dropped the in hosital mortality by 10% and eradicated both MRSA and C Diff. They have even met most clinical targets, though the 4 hour wait will still be excessive until our new emergency floor opens in April.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055
    DavidL said:

    But who would attend the meetings?
    The doctors when they should be seeing the patients, you still need some managers in the NHS
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    HYUFD said:

    Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
    Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055
    edited February 2017

    Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
    It would not do that beyond maybe some of the most prosperous inner city areas but it could pose a challenge to the Tories in their wealthier suburbs and in Cathedral cities in a way that Corbyn Labour cannot
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,359
    MTimT said:

    Why? Why wouldn't the UK negotiate a payment plan?
    I meant that there wouldn't be recurring membership fees.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
    It doesn't need to, just needs to develop coalition politics. multiple party politics works under FPTP where there is geographic delineation.

    A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters.

    Tories count a lot of unhatched chickens for a party with a wafer thin majority.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,233
    Tories down to 9.8 to lay.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters

    No
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,180
    HYUFD said:

    The doctors when they should be seeing the patients, you still need some managers in the NHS
    Of course you do but certainly in Scotland it is doubtful you need as many as you have now. England may have squeezed more of the excess out already (at considerable cost) with the reforms in the last Parliament.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055

    It doesn't need to, just needs to develop coalition politics. multiple party politics works under FPTP where there is geographic delineation.

    A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters.

    Tories count a lot of unhatched chickens for a party with a wafer thin majority.
    Not under Corbynism it won't
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055
    DavidL said:

    Of course you do but certainly in Scotland it is doubtful you need as many as you have now. England may have squeezed more of the excess out already (at considerable cost) with the reforms in the last Parliament.
    Yes in England I think management levels in the NHS are about right
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    Not under Corbynism it won't
    Farron should be leader - or Salmond ;-)
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,772
    Almost every Lords speech is anti-Brexit.

    Starting to wonder - even if Lab frontbench does back down when the Commons reverses Lords amendments, is there a chance Govt could still lose, ie:

    LDs + Crossbench + Con rebels + some Lab backbench will outvote Con.

    I think it could happen - at least once. The thing is that I then expect the Government to go for all nighter - eg reverse in Commons at midnight, back to Lords 1am; if Lords overturn again then back to Commons 2am, back to Lords 3am etc - and the Lords would then ultimately cave in.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    HYUFD said:

    It would not do that beyond maybe some of the most prosperous inner city areas but it could pose a challenge to the Tories in their wealthier suburbs in a way that Corbyn Labour cannot

    Again maybe, but any centrist alternative to the Tories is always going to suffer from the following problems if it can't prove itself strong enough to win a Parliamentary majority on its own, namely:

    1. Contagion from the Far Left: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the rump of Labour and therefore vulnerable to being pulled in a direction that Tory defectors really wouldn't like
    2. Contagion from Scottish Nationalism: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the SNP, bringing both the West Lothian Question and the possibility of Scottish public services being hosed down with (even more) English taxpayers' cash into sharp focus

    Given that it's unlikely that the SNP is going anywhere anytime soon, it's simply essential that any plausible alternative to Labour be able to demonstrate that it can win outright without recourse to Scottish votes. Given that the Conservatives also have a pretty high floor to their vote, that means that the successor party needs to be able to destroy Labour.

    Tory-leaning voters won't back a centrist party if it's an obvious Trojan horse for a coalition of Scottish special pleading and loopy socialism.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055
    edited February 2017

    Farron should be leader - or Salmond ;-)
    Labour will support neither becoming PM although this is all hypothetical as on present polling the Tories will increase their majority
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MikeL said:

    Almost every Lords speech is anti-Brexit.

    Starting to wonder - even if Lab frontbench does back down when the Commons reverses Lords amendments, is there a chance Govt could still lose, ie:

    LDs + Crossbench + Con rebels + some Lab backbench will outvote Con.

    I think it could happen - at least once. The thing is that I then expect the Government to go for all nighter - eg reverse in Commons at midnight, back to Lords 1am; if Lords overturn again then back to Commons 2am, back to Lords 3am etc - and the Lords would then ultimately cave in.

    What is the point of a revising chamber if its revisions are not even considered?

    I have long been in favour of abolition of the Lords, but it would be ironic if the Tories added that policy from Labours "suicide note" 83 manifesto!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055
    edited February 2017

    Again maybe, but any centrist alternative to the Tories is always going to suffer from the following problems if it can't prove itself strong enough to win a Parliamentary majority on its own, namely:

    1. Contagion from the Far Left: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the rump of Labour and therefore vulnerable to being pulled in a direction that Tory defectors really wouldn't like
    2. Contagion from Scottish Nationalism: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the SNP, bringing both the West Lothian Question and the possibility of Scottish public services being hosed down with (even more) English taxpayers' cash into sharp focus

    Given that it's unlikely that the SNP is going anywhere anytime soon, it's simply essential that any plausible alternative to Labour be able to demonstrate that it can win outright without recourse to Scottish votes. Given that the Conservatives also have a pretty high floor to their vote, that means that the successor party needs to be able to destroy Labour.

    Tory-leaning voters won't back a centrist party if it's an obvious Trojan horse for a coalition of Scottish special pleading and loopy socialism.
    Such a centrist party could well go into coalition with the Tories as well as Labour if the alternative is a Labour SNP pact and as I said may well contain some Cameroons too. However it will only conceivably happen if Labour lose the next election but Corbyn or a Corbynista retains the leadership
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,850

    Again maybe, but any centrist alternative to the Tories is always going to suffer from the following problems if it can't prove itself strong enough to win a Parliamentary majority on its own, namely:

    1. Contagion from the Far Left: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the rump of Labour and therefore vulnerable to being pulled in a direction that Tory defectors really wouldn't like
    2. Contagion from Scottish Nationalism: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the SNP, bringing both the West Lothian Question and the possibility of Scottish public services being hosed down with (even more) English taxpayers' cash into sharp focus

    Given that it's unlikely that the SNP is going anywhere anytime soon, it's simply essential that any plausible alternative to Labour be able to demonstrate that it can win outright without recourse to Scottish votes. Given that the Conservatives also have a pretty high floor to their vote, that means that the successor party needs to be able to destroy Labour.

    Tory-leaning voters won't back a centrist party if it's an obvious Trojan horse for a coalition of Scottish special pleading and loopy socialism.
    What if the coalition were openly pro independence? That would deal with the suspicion that the government would pay any price to maintain the union.
  • OllyT said:

    Decline in the value of the pound hasn't affected anyone and was absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, no sireee!
    Decline in the pound has been good for the economy. It was something good that many were wanting whether we voted for Brexit or not..
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320

    It doesn't need to, just needs to develop coalition politics. multiple party politics works under FPTP where there is geographic delineation.

    A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters.

    Tories count a lot of unhatched chickens for a party with a wafer thin majority.
    "A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters."

    I well remember being one of the first PB Tories to post about just how relaxed I would be if the chances of a Lab+SNP coalition in the event of a Hung Parliament gathered momentum before the last GE. ;)
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    What is the point of a revising chamber if its revisions are not even considered?

    I have long been in favour of abolition of the Lords, but it would be ironic if the Tories added that policy from Labours "suicide note" 83 manifesto!
    Not really because that House of Lords doesn't exist. What we have now is a Blairite fudge of a second chamber.
  • What is the point of a revising chamber if its revisions are not even considered?

    I have long been in favour of abolition of the Lords, but it would be ironic if the Tories added that policy from Labours "suicide note" 83 manifesto!
    The Lords is far too big to be a revising chamber. It's the world's only Upper House with more members than its respective Lower House.
  • HYUFD said:

    Such a centrist party could well go into coalition with the Tories as well as Labour if the alternative is a Labour SNP pact and as I said may well contain some Cameroons too. However it will only conceivably happen if Labour lose the next election but Corbyn or a Corbynista retains the leadership
    I think the situation is a bit more fluid than that. What if Tony Blair keeps pushing, the economy worsens and polls start showing that a consistent majority would vote to stop Brexit? Surely then the pro-EU part of the PLP would split off? How could they stay part of a party that by virtue of the spread of different areas that it represents can form no better response to Brexit than to go limp?

    You'd end up with a centrist party built around stopping Brexit, just as the Liberals were built around supporting free trade. If it built up a head of steam I think the SNP could be smashed and the Labour Party reduced to a pro-Brexit Northern rump.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Nigelb said:

    Quite clearly evidence of a coverup.

    Sexual assault in Sweden staying steady despite the broad definition of what counts ad Sexual assault in Sweden. Basically the alt right live in an alt universe. Are there gang problems? Yes. Is Sweden turning into Iraq? No. Not by a long shot.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    DavidL said:

    This is ridiculous. Even in the current febrile atmosphere for Labour there is not a chance in hell of the Tories taking Stoke.

    The SNP overturned a Labour majority of 43.7% in the Glasgow East by-election in July 2008 on what was a high turnout in that seat for a by-election, and with Gordon Brown as PM. And while Labour then regained both Glasgow East and the Fife seat they lost to William Rennie of the Libdems in an earlier be-election at the 2010 GE, they subsequently went onto lose both seats to the SNP in the 2015 GE. Now there is no such thing as a safe Labour heartland Westminster seat in Scotland, even when the Conservatives are in Government.

    Huff Post Politics - Jeremy Corbyn Warns Stoke And Copeland ‘On A Knife-Edge’, Attacks The Media For New Huge Tory Poll Lead

    "The latest poll marked a record low for Labour under Corbyn. According to ICM’s Martin Boon, only three other comparable polls have given the Tories a higher lead over Labour since 1983.

    Two of those polls were just before the 1983 general election, when Margaret Thatcher crushed Michael Foot, and the other was in June 2008, when Gordon Brown’s was at his most unpopular."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,055
    edited February 2017

    I think the situation is a bit more fluid than that. What if Tony Blair keeps pushing, the economy worsens and polls start showing that a consistent majority would vote to stop Brexit? Surely then the pro-EU part of the PLP would split off? How could they stay part of a party that by virtue of the spread of different areas that it represents can form no better response to Brexit than to go limp?

    You'd end up with a centrist party built around stopping Brexit, just as the Liberals were built around supporting free trade. If it built up a head of steam I think the SNP could be smashed and the Labour Party reduced to a pro-Brexit Northern rump.
    I can't see a stop Brexit party winning the next general election, voters don't want to be told they were wrong given they voted to leave the EU, though the LDs may try. A party campaigning on a platform of returning to the EEA rather than the full EU though may have a chance in 2025
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,359
    nunu said:

    Sexual assault in Sweden staying steady despite the broad definition of what counts ad Sexual assault in Sweden. Basically the alt right live in an alt universe. Are there gang problems? Yes. Is Sweden turning into Iraq? No. Not by a long shot.
    Except that graph doesn't cover the relevant period.

    https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/Facts-and-statistics-/Statistics.html
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,291
    MaxPB said:

    Your version of engagement is "the EU is great, the UK is shit". As I said since you seem to love the EU so very much you should think about fucking off there and not looking back, since you seem to loathe the UK so much or at least think so little of our great nation.
    You live in Switzerland, Max.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,359
    viewcode said:

    You live in Switzerland, Max.

    Distance makes the heart grow fonder :p
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,291

    ...The Lords is far too big to be a revising chamber....

    I'm sorry: there's a maximum size beyond which they lose the power to revise? Gravitational pull? Their hands get all tangled up? They turn into zombies? What?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,359
    New thread!
  • VinnyVinny Posts: 48
    Mendacity, Mr Brind? Well we have had lies, disinformation, fake renegotiations and more from purveyors of 'Europe' over a 45-year period; my whole working life in fact. And had the 48% actually won, their own 'mendacity' would have been irrelevant. I also take exception to your praise for Blair. A great Labour leader maybe, but that doesn't mean much. And he did more damage to my Country than did Nazi Germany.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    What made the British and American v Iraqi tank battles so one sided were the following

    The Challenger and Abrams M1 tanks were superior to the Iraqi tanks because

    1) They were better protected

    2) Had a longer firing distance

    3) Had GPS, which was brilliant for desert warfare

    4) Had better trained troops

    5) Had better air support (aircraft and attack helicopter)

    6) Iraqis used tanks as effectively self propelled howitzers

    7) Also we had better night vision equipment.

    8) The Iraqis were shellshocked, i) from weeks of bombing ii) Half an hour before the main ground war offensive the Anglo-American artillery line fired 11,000 artillery rounds and 600,00 RPGs at the Iraqis

    At 73 Easting all those advantages clicked into place for a perfect storm as were The Battle of Medina Ridge and The Battle of Norfolk
    I heard a story once, don't know if its true, that the US intelligence was so good they were texting individual Iraqis just before they blew their tanks up to warn them to get out of them.

This discussion has been closed.