Yes me, I wrote you a post yesterday , saying I was busy and to send your gloating by PM. I have changed my name to Charlie by deed poll so any outstanding debts are null and void
chortle
an election for all malc
you get Mrs May in a coffin, I get Salmond
I have to say given that just about everybody - me included - called this election wrong I have to ask how much our collected PB wisdom is worth :-)
A lot to agree with there, but I do think has a proven capability of reaching across the divide. He won twice in London which was and still is a Labour city. Labour anger towards Boris stems from the £350m per week lie, if he delivers £350m per week to the NHS then a lot of that anger will disappear as it won't be a lie.
I'm personally not convinced by Boris, but I do think we need to take a gamble. If he brings in new talent (Kwarteng) and old (Gove, Osborne) then he could lead a strong government despite the fact that May fucked us with the minority.
I don't disagree that he can reach across the divide. There are voters he can reach that the others can't - 52%, including many Labour voters, says a lot about that. The problem is that he is also toxic to some other voters. (@JosiasJessop on here being one example!) To strong Remainers, and/or those who see him as a bumbling incompetent toff, he is very seriously offputting. I think you could get away with him as a campaigner supporting someone else, but not as the main proposition you're asking people to vote for. I don't think he'd carry London now after his role in the Leave campaign.
(I did suggest a few threads that if the Tories want to make a positive statement with a leadership change, rather than one that looks like a post-defeat retreat, they should consider putting making someone smart, fresh-faced and forward-looking like Kwasi PM! But in reality I think it needs to be someone experienced in political chicanery and deal-making in the Commons, and a big enough beast to command respect from the Tory MPs / negotiators in Brussels.)
Yes, he does have a way of putting some people off, but I think we'd win more than we'd lose, plus we'd win in key areas rather than build up votes in safe Labour seats.
Kwasi needs a big role next time around, so does Priti Patel. We need to bring through the next generation of Tories. Hammond, May, Davis and a few others need to be pensioned off.
'Mrs May you have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.'
Do you now understand why many Conservatives legitimately thought exactly the same thing about Osborne in the aftermath of the EU referendum disaster (those who saw it as a disaster, obviously)?
No.
May isn't fit to lick Osborne's boots.
Your master strategist has made the cockup of his career and isn't in parliament.
He thought getting a paper round was more important...
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
Fear on Boris is limited to the competence of his administration.
There is little to fear electorally now. Politician have a limited shelf life. Boris already looks a bit like yesterday's man. You normally get about 10 years in the limelight. Boris is on nine.
If anything he is perfectly placed to draw the final curtain on the project his mates started all that time ago.
But I don't think the Tories have much choice now.
The Tories are screwed. An election in the next two years and Jeremy will win. Change leader and there's even more chance that the government will fall. It'll be interesting to see the next lot of opinion polls. My guess is a collapse in Tory support and with Brexit that's unlikely to improve.
The voters massively reaffirmed that Brexit means Brexit. The only thing we learned last the specifics during the election was that if the EU offered us the shittiest of shitty deals and refused to budge an inch, Corbyn would still have taken it.
No, we also learned that voters agreed "no deal is better than a bad deal" was the jumped up bollocks we always knew it to be
Your vision of Brexit was put to the electorate, and they told you where to stick it
I think that's possibly true with some of the seats. But ultimately this election wasn't about that - even if the PM wanted it to be. What did for May (in terms of winning a majority) was daring to be honest about how she'd fund adult social care.
I now think the Tories should ditch May and tell the new leader to call another election. I think it's now inevitable that Labour will win the next election, so we might as well get on with it now.
I think the next election is highly unpredictable.
There is likely to be much more scrutiny on Corbyn’s plans. Even with the most dreadful campaign in living memory and a poor leader, the Tories did still manage to win.
Corbyn’s mistakes didn’t matter because no-one thought he’d do this well. Even Nick Palmer was predicting seat losses, as I recollect.
(This is not to take anything away from Corbyn’s achievement -- the Tories found out what Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Owen Smith know. He’s one helluva campaigner).
The Tories didn't "win".
Most votes, most seats, leader stayed PM. By any reasonable analysis, they won.
Certainly the idea of an election where nobody won is absurd. You can't draw an election.
Glad to see your capacity for being catastrophically wrong about all things Scottish Tory has not been diminished by the spectacular results.
Enjoying having a Tory MP?
Keep up the good work.
They will be same as Labour one, never seen for 5 years, they will just head for the trough and vote as ordered by the Great leader and her nutjob partners.
Yes, one of the biggest consequences of May's decision to call a premature election is that the Conservatives seem likely to have lost the ability to gerrymander the electoral boundaries based on flawed December 2015 registrations, from which we know there were swathes of people missing who were legitimately entitled to vote, as the Electoral Commission was at pains to point out. Furthermore, their other UK voter suppression proposals in the Conservative manifesto will fall by the wayside, since in the absence of a majority they cannot insist on overriding the House of Lords objections to them even if they get DU support.
Since the system is already gamed heavily in the Conservatives' failure (66 more seats than Labour despite a difference in the popular vote of only 2.4%) then 8th June 2017 appears to have been a very good day for democracy.
Three ways in which George Osborne damaged the Conservatives in this election:
1) The robbing of the young. Increased student tuition fees and subsidised house prices have caused a vast wealth shift from the middle class young to the old. The Conservative party should be associated with aspiration instead it inflicted despair upon the young. People who despair look for change.
2) Not leading by example. There was always extra money available for the vanity projects of Osborne (and Cameron) even when cuts were made on others. Believing that money was being taken from you to fund other things makes people angry. Osborne waltzing off and making millions for doing nothing then exposes the "we're all in it together" claim as a lie.
3) Trashing Project Fear. In 2016 we were given Project Fear - if Leave won there would be an immediate 'punishment budget', tax rises, pension cuts, interest rate rises, price rises, a recession, job losses, a world war and the end of Western Civilisation. A year on and they haven't happened. So why would people think all those things would happen now if they voted Labour ?
The Dementia Ta was a problem directly caused by the decision Cameron and Osborne took to play politics over social care in 2010 with the Death Tax.
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
Fear on Boris is limited to the competence of his administration.
There is little to fear electorally now. Politician have a limited shelf life. Boris already looks a bit like yesterday's man. You normally get about 10 years in the limelight. Boris is on nine.
If anything he is perfectly placed to draw the final curtain on the project his mates started all that time ago.
But I don't think the Tories have much choice now.
The Tories are screwed. An election in the next two years and Jeremy will win. Change leader and there's even more chance that the government will fall. It'll be interesting to see the next lot of opinion polls. My guess is a collapse in Tory support and with Brexit that's unlikely to improve.
Jeremy becoming PM, is the Tories quickest way back to a majority. If they cling on as a minority Gov, rather than letting Jez, make a complete balls of it, Labour could sweep to power in five years time, even if Barry Chuckle was their leader.
Seeing as Jezza has been underestimated at every turn. By me as much as by anyone else. I suspect the strategy of giving him a go, as he will make a balls up, has a flaw in it.
Three ways in which George Osborne damaged the Conservatives in this election:
1) The robbing of the young. Increased student tuition fees and subsidised house prices have caused a vast wealth shift from the middle class young to the old. The Conservative party should be associated with aspiration instead it inflicted despair upon the young. People who despair look for change.
2) Not leading by example. There was always extra money available for the vanity projects of Osborne (and Cameron) even when cuts were made on others. Believing that money was being taken from you to fund other things makes people angry. Osborne waltzing off and making millions for doing nothing then exposes the "we're all in it together" claim as a lie.
3) Trashing Project Fear. In 2016 we were given Project Fear - if Leave won there would be an immediate 'punishment budget', tax rises, pension cuts, interest rate rises, price rises, a recession, job losses, a world war and the end of Western Civilisation. A year on and they haven't happened. So why would people think all those things would happen now if they voted Labour ?
The Dementia Ta was a problem directly caused by the decision Cameron and Osborne took to play politics over social care in 2010 with the Death Tax.
I think that's true. Don't expect Osborne fan boys on here to acknowledge it.
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
Fear on Boris is limited to the competence of his administration.
There is little to fear electorally now. Politician have a limited shelf life. Boris already looks a bit like yesterday's man. You normally get about 10 years in the limelight. Boris is on nine.
If anything he is perfectly placed to draw the final curtain on the project his mates started all that time ago.
But I don't think the Tories have much choice now.
The Tories are screwed. An election in the next two years and Jeremy will win. Change leader and there's even more chance that the government will fall. It'll be interesting to see the next lot of opinion polls. My guess is a collapse in Tory support and with Brexit that's unlikely to improve.
Yes, I think that is the verdict from the election. The public don't want the Conservatives to negotiate Brexit alone. We need to set up a cross party negotiation committee and invite Starmer to join as well as someone from the Lib Dems and, unfortunately someone from the SNP.
Just a thought: writing the next Labour election manifesto is going to be rather more challenging than writing the last one?
It is also going to get tested to destruction by opponents who next time see it stands a very real chance of being implemented.
Frankly, Labour's 2017 Manifesto got a free ride. Someone in Tory High Command obviously thought that it was a bit tacky, a bit putting the boot into a guy when he was down. They made EXACTLY the same mistake as those in Labour who nominated Corbyn. Only one thing to do with the Left - go for their throat: THEIR plans require YOUR money. How many of those middle class types who voted Labour because they liked the idea of somebody else paying their little darlings' tuition fees? Hint - it's actually you. And not just tuition fees - everything else in that Folio of Follies.
Plus, next time around, the Tory campaign cannot be that bad. It just can't. The complacency of "we've had bad campaigns before - and still they vote for us " has been torpedoed. Next time, no complacency over a single vote. And certainly no half-arsed policies that, however well intentioned they might have been, your opponents can paint as us punishing the voters.
(snip)
The Tories presented the worst of all worlds. They required Theresa May to lose face mid-campaign, explaining the the cap was always intended. Frankly, it didn't sound likely. This after May had inevitably lost face by calling an election she said she would not. Just by calling the election, her ratings were inevitably going to take a knock. The 20% leads were going to fall some. Perhaps quite a bit. She was there as a safe pair of hands. To get Brexit through. Not to burst into the casino and place all her political capital on black coming up....so she had a free hand on fixing care costs.
It still beggars belief how this campaign shaped up. I feel so sorry for some really good MPs who two months ago still thought they had 4 years to run. And probably many more. Now they are polishing up their CVs...
You are dramatically wrong in your earlier paragraphs. The currency of project fear-ing is significantly devalued after 2016 (and scotindy). The Tory attacks on Corbyn were already proving counter-productive and probably contributed to the Tory defeat, as people wondered why the incoming government had so little to say on its own account. And by not costing their own manifesto and abandoning their previously all-important deficit reduction plan the Tories took away the ammunition they might have used against Labour on the economy.
I didn’t post yesterday as having been up through the night I was utterly shattered.
Since the manifesto launch I cannot think of a day that I didn’t think this was heading for trouble. Theresa became robotic and made the fatal mistake of appealing to the 52% and not the 48%. Together with the social care policy, the results in London and the South were entirely predictable
About 8.00pm on election night I forecast that Theresa would lose her majority, that it would be a hung Parliament, and that Ruth Davidson would be the star of the night. I hoped I was wrong but I was not. The one really good feature of the election is the demise of Scottish Independence on the Scots vote of pro Union - 63% - SNP 37%
This morning a report from Katie Perrior said that that Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, together with Theresa have no children and they failed to emphasize with women and families. I think that is a very valid point.
The election has diminished Theresa and she will be replaced but for now she does need to continue as no matter how you do the maths there is no other Government available to the Country. However, she needs to reach out to the conservative remainer’s and more widely recognise that issues around nurses pay, police numbers, and education policy must be addressed.
I have little fear that Corbyn will become PM, as just as I think there is now a vast majority anti hard Brexit, I also think there is a vast majority against massive tax and corporation tax rises crippling business as we leave the EU.
I listened to Vince Cable just before the election and I was surprised that I agreed with almost everything he said and I hope he will become the Lib Dem treasury spokesman. The Conservatives, SNP, Lib Dems, DUP, and a good part of Labour do not support a large rise in corporation tax and therefore at any future election I think Corbyn will come under much more scrutiny on his free gifts for everyone policy.
We are where we are for now and when I asked my wife how she felt she said simply she was ‘sad’. I think a lot of us could agree with her, nor least of which to see how far Theresa has fallen
I think that PB owes itself a huge tick for the incredible political discussions over the last few weeks, and while some became over excited and angry, the level of debate has been extraordinary.
In the spirit of the times I wish absolutely everyone on here no matter whether we agree or disagree the very best and hope that we can continue to contribute to the Nation’s political discourse, and many congratulations to David Herdson for his accurate predictive posts, together with Arthur Meeks and many others.
Typical bloody Lib Dem - bringing people together.
Indeed. The DUP is toxifying the Tory brand hour by hour. Not to mention the damage being done to a NI situation where, don't forget, there's been no govt for months. Surely there must be some voices of sanity in the government? Ruth Davidson must be having kittens. She must have some leverage, seeing as she's delivered a dozen new MPs. Could she even threaten to resign?
Just a thought: writing the next Labour election manifesto is going to be rather more challenging than writing the last one?
It is also going to get tested to destruction by opponents who next time see it stands a very real chance of being implemented.
Frankly, Labour's 2017 Manifesto got a free ride. Someone in Tory High Command obviously thought that it was a bit tacky, a bit putting the boot into a guy when he was down. They made EXACTLY the same mistake as those in Labour who nominated Corbyn. Only one thing to do with the Left - go for their throat: THEIR plans require YOUR money. How many of those middle class types who voted Labour because they liked the idea of somebody else paying their little darlings' tuition fees? Hint - it's actually you. And not just tuition fees - everything else in that Folio of Follies.
Plus, next time around, the Tory campaign cannot be that bad. It just can't. The complacency of "we've had bad campaigns before - and still they vote for us " has been torpedoed. Next time, no complacency over a single vote. And certainly no half-arsed policies that, however well intentioned they might have been, your opponents can paint as us punishing the voters.
I can't believe the care proposals weren't focus-grouped. If they were, fire whoever did the focus groups. If they weren't, fire whoever didn't focus group them. A policy like that needs months and months to bed in, for most people to realise that actually, it doesn't affect them. And for those affected to realise, it won't be anywhere near as bad as we first feared, because our exposure will be capped, and we can leave our little darlings with 200k instead of just 46k. I mean, it's just politics 1.01...
snip
It still beggars belief how this campaign shaped up. I feel so sorry for some really good MPs who two months ago still thought they had 4 years to run. And probably many more. Now they are polishing up their CVs...
It is difficult to put into words how awful this campaign was, as many of us on PB were saying throughout the process. It's the worst I've seen in my times - by a stretch.
Where was the attack on the economy? Where was the focus on Labour's policies? Where was the daily press conference pounding the opposition's key figures (Abbott etc)
I THINK the idea might have been to show a positive case for voting Conservative, not rely on knocking your opponent.
So basically overturning 3,000 years of experience of how you win under the democratic process.
Bold. And never to be repeated, anywhere on the plant. It was that bad.
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
Fear on Boris is limited to the competence of his administration.
There is little to fear electorally now. Politician have a limited shelf life. Boris already looks a bit like yesterday's man. You normally get about 10 years in the limelight. Boris is on nine.
If anything he is perfectly placed to draw the final curtain on the project his mates started all that time ago.
But I don't think the Tories have much choice now.
The Tories are screwed. An election in the next two years and Jeremy will win. Change leader and there's even more chance that the government will fall. It'll be interesting to see the next lot of opinion polls. My guess is a collapse in Tory support and with Brexit that's unlikely to improve.
The next leader needs to be a Remainer. A "good deal" isn't on offer for Brexit. "No deal is better than a bad deal" is nonsense. The least bad arrangement possible is what Brexit is about. "Better than nothing but worse than what we have now" is a big negotiating space and once you accept those as your parameters, a viable arrangement is achievable.
Leavers cannot accept those parameters. They literally cannot accept the reality because to do so recognises they sold the public a pup on Brexit. Either they themselves were deluded or they cheated the public. Remainers can plausibly say they are fulfilling a democratic mandate to leave the EU and are seeing to its conclusion a process that has already started - without having to worry about whether we end up worse off than we started.
Theresa May's selection as leader was sound on those grounds. She threw away her advantage by becoming the archest of all Leavers.
'Mrs May you have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.'
Do you now understand why many Conservatives legitimately thought exactly the same thing about Osborne in the aftermath of the EU referendum disaster (those who saw it as a disaster, obviously)?
No.
May isn't fit to lick Osborne's boots.
Your master strategist has made the cockup of his career and isn't in parliament.
He thought getting a paper round was more important...
I would respect the little shit a bit more if a serious newspaper baron had entrusted him with the serious business of running a paid for newspaper, rather than a giveaway rag from his Russian sugar daddy. He is Paris Hilton with bad tits.
But I am sure his little drolleries only cost us London seats, and ragging and sabotaging a member of the lower middle classes was always what the Buller spirit was about.
It is difficult to put into words how awful this campaign was, as many of us on PB were saying throughout the process. It's the worst I've seen in my times - by a stretch.
Where was the attack on the economy? Where was the focus on Labour's policies? Where was the daily press conference pounding the opposition's key figures (Abbott etc)
I still don't understand why May called a general election, I know about the polls and the Brexit timetable, but how can you call a general election without preparation? It makes no sense to me.
The campaign was equally inexplicable, some seriously ill-thought-out policies in the manifesto, and essentially no rebuttal of the nonsense Labour was spewing out daily. Labour gave the Tories dozens of things to shoot at, and never mind missing them the Tories barely ever fired the gun.
May needs to go as soon as is possible, she plainly isn't up to the job of being PM and managing Brexit.
Three ways in which George Osborne damaged the Conservatives in this election:
1) The robbing of the young. Increased student tuition fees and subsidised house prices have caused a vast wealth shift from the middle class young to the old. The Conservative party should be associated with aspiration instead it inflicted despair upon the young. People who despair look for change.
2) Not leading by example. There was always extra money available for the vanity projects of Osborne (and Cameron) even when cuts were made on others. Believing that money was being taken from you to fund other things makes people angry. Osborne waltzing off and making millions for doing nothing then exposes the "we're all in it together" claim as a lie.
3) Trashing Project Fear. In 2016 we were given Project Fear - if Leave won there would be an immediate 'punishment budget', tax rises, pension cuts, interest rate rises, price rises, a recession, job losses, a world war and the end of Western Civilisation. A year on and they haven't happened. So why would people think all those things would happen now if they voted Labour ?
The Dementia Ta was a problem directly caused by the decision Cameron and Osborne took to play politics over social care in 2010 with the Death Tax.
Indeed.
Osborne has always been a tactician - looking for short term gain even at the expenses of long term damage.
Now that might work to the benefit of a political career but it doesn't to the benefit of a country's well-being.
Glad to see your capacity for being catastrophically wrong about all things Scottish Tory has not been diminished by the spectacular results.
Enjoying having a Tory MP?
Keep up the good work.
They will be same as Labour one, never seen for 5 years, they will just head for the trough and vote as ordered by the Great leader and her nutjob partners.
Yes, I think that is the verdict from the election. The public don't want the Conservatives to negotiate Brexit alone. We need to set up a cross party negotiation committee and invite Starmer to join as well as someone from the Lib Dems and, unfortunately someone from the SNP.
Conservatives won't be alone in the Brexit negotiations. They will have the DUP alongside.
A lot to agree with there, but I do think has a proven capability of reaching across the divide. He won twice in London which was and still is a Labour city. Labour anger towards Boris stems from the £350m per week lie, if he delivers £350m per week to the NHS then a lot of that anger will disappear as it won't be a lie.
I'm personally not convinced by Boris, but I do think we need to take a gamble. If he brings in new talent (Kwarteng) and old (Gove, Osborne) then he could lead a strong government despite the fact that May fucked us with the minority.
I don't disagree that he can reach across the divide. There are voters he can reach that the others can't - 52%, including many Labour voters, says a lot about that. The problem is that he is also toxic to some other voters. (@JosiasJessop on here being one example!) To strong Remainers, and/or those who see him as a bumbling incompetent toff, he is very seriously offputting. I think you could get away with him as a campaigner supporting someone else, but not as the main proposition you're asking people to vote for. I don't think he'd carry London now after his role in the Leave campaign.
(I did suggest a few threads that if the Tories want to make a positive statement with a leadership change, rather than one that looks like a post-defeat retreat, they should consider putting making someone smart, fresh-faced and forward-looking like Kwasi PM! But in reality I think it needs to be someone experienced in political chicanery and deal-making in the Commons, and a big enough beast to command respect from the Tory MPs / negotiators in Brussels.)
I wouldn't say I think he's 'toxic': I quite like him as a person. But we have the advantage of looking at his time as London Mayor, and he wasn't exactly stellar in the role.
I fear Boris has several attributes that make him unsuitable to be PM: he likes the sound of his own voice too much, he does not listen to others, is a very poor manager, and worst of all, he wants the job too much.
On the other hand, he has a certain attractiveness (a bit like Livingstone before him). Yet we need PMs who can make good decisions in the proper manner. He isn't someone who can do that.
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
Fear on Boris is limited to the competence of his administration.
There is little to fear electorally now. Politician have a limited shelf life. Boris already looks a bit like yesterday's man. You normally get about 10 years in the limelight. Boris is on nine.
If anything he is perfectly placed to draw the final curtain on the project his mates started all that time ago.
But I don't think the Tories have much choice now.
The Tories are screwed. An election in the next two years and Jeremy will win. Change leader and there's even more chance that the government will fall. It'll be interesting to see the next lot of opinion polls. My guess is a collapse in Tory support and with Brexit that's unlikely to improve.
I am utterly confused. This is exactly the same as the Tory plan. If there is no FOM, there is no EEA, therefore there needs to be a deal outside of the SM and Customs Union. Which is what May is doing.
This all sounds wonderful, apart from the bit where the EU foist unreasonable conditions that make such a deal impossible.
There is simply NO point in going on about how there 'has' to be a deal when the only way to assure a 'deal' is to accept terms that are potentially completely unreasonable.
Indeed. The DUP is toxifying the Tory brand hour by hour. Not to mention the damage being done to a NI situation where, don't forget, there's been no govt for months. Surely there must be some voices of sanity in the government? Ruth Davidson must be having kittens. She must have some leverage, seeing as she's delivered a dozen new MPs. Could she even threaten to resign?
The problem with using DUP at this point is that London is supposed to be studiedly neutral in all matters NI, between what are to all intents and purposes, still two sides. This was pointed out by someone on Newsnight last night - I forget who - ones of those experts we don't listen to anymore.
The next leader needs to be a Remainer. A "good deal" isn't on offer for Brexit. "No deal is better than a bad deal" is nonsense. The least bad arrangement possible is what Brexit is about. "Better than nothing but worse than what we have now" is a big negotiating space and once you accept those as your parameters, an acceptable arrangement is achievable.
Leavers cannot accept those parameters. They literally cannot accept the reality because to do so recognises they sold the public a pup on Brexit. Either they themselves were deluded or they cheated the public. Remainers can plausibly say they are fulfilling a democratic mandate to leave the EU and are seeing to its conclusion a process that has already started - without having to worry about whether we end up worse than we started.
Theresa May's selection as leader was sound on those grounds. She threw away her advantage by becoming the archest of all Leavers.
I get the logic, but as May's shown, it's very difficult for someone to pursue a policy they disagree with. Cameron didn't try. May justified it to herself as an act of duty. But the hypocrisy eats at you.
Mr. Abode, it's ridiculous. There's no need for the DUP to be involved. The deal should be cancelled.
If they had a vote on abortion limits, the DUP wouldn't even be eligible for it under EVFEL.
The optics are terrible. Years of de-toxification undone.
My god, I'm turning into TSE
My anger is growing not subsiding at Mrs May.
Because of that moron good people like Edward Timpson have been screwed by that failed Turing Test that is Mrs May.
Lol my own 'failed Turing Test' is becoming a meme! It wasn't copied from anywhere (although inspired by references to the MayBot) and I am seeing it here and there on the internet!
It's amazing how election results aren't relevant in this country. Two identical scenarios lead to completely different reactions based on circumstance.
I think an EFTA referendum in the autumn would be good idea, I think that could get cross party support, and easily be won. It won't keep the europhobes or europhiles happy, but 80% of the county would be happy with a looser relationship with the EU mainly focused on trade. Some kind of immigration tax or fee might be needed on top if possible. The country is split in half on this issue, neither continuing EU membership or hard Brexit are going to prove palatable.
I am utterly confused. This is exactly the same as the Tory plan. If there is no FOM, there is no EEA, therefore there needs to be a deal outside of the SM and Customs Union. Which is what May is doing.
This all sounds wonderful, apart from the bit where the EU foist unreasonable conditions that make such a deal impossible.
There is simply NO point in going on about how there 'has' to be a deal when the only way to assure a 'deal' is to accept terms that are potentially completely unreasonable.
The next leader needs to be a Remainer. A "good deal" isn't on offer for Brexit. "No deal is better than a bad deal" is nonsense. The least bad arrangement possible is what Brexit is about. "Better than nothing but worse than what we have now" is a big negotiating space and once you accept those as your parameters, an acceptable arrangement is achievable.
Leavers cannot accept those parameters. They literally cannot accept the reality because to do so recognises they sold the public a pup on Brexit. Either they themselves were deluded or they cheated the public. Remainers can plausibly say they are fulfilling a democratic mandate to leave the EU and are seeing to its conclusion a process that has already started - without having to worry about whether we end up worse than we started.
Theresa May's selection as leader was sound on those grounds. She threw away her advantage by becoming the archest of all Leavers.
I get the logic, but as May's shown, it's very difficult for someone to pursue a policy they disagree with. Cameron didn't try. May justified it to herself as an act of duty. But the hypocrisy eats at you.
That's why, although we can't see the path right now, I believe all roads lead back to a second referendum. It is becoming, and will increasingly become, obvious that we are heading down the wrong path, and whilst the referendum vote is now holed by the GE, it can only be abandoned after another vote.
Mr. Abode, it's ridiculous. There's no need for the DUP to be involved. The deal should be cancelled.
If they had a vote on abortion limits, the DUP wouldn't even be eligible for it under EVFEL.
The optics are terrible. Years of de-toxification undone.
My god, I'm turning into TSE
My anger is growing not subsiding at Mrs May.
Because of that moron good people like Edward Timpson have been screwed by that failed Turing Test that is Mrs May.
Lol my own 'failed Turing Test' is becoming a meme! It wasn't copied from anywhere (although inspired by references to the MayBot) and I am seeing it here and there on the internet!
Labour only got as close as it did because it accepted Brexit was going to happen. It baffles me that some people are trying to make out that the Election result says Brexit should be shelved. The only party still moaning about it got 7%. As you say a cross party arrangement would be fine, we just need to get on with it. Any old deal will do, the next government can always rearrange the parts it dilikes.
Where was the attack on the economy? Where was the focus on Labour's policies? Where was the daily press conference pounding the opposition's key figures (Abbott etc)
They bet the farm on Corbyn's past being a killer AND on his being useless on the campaign trail - there was a quite explicit decision to stay off the airwaves and "let him hang himself", even some gloating comments to journos that they were complaining to the BBC that he wasn't getting enough airtime. Quibbling about the manifesto was seen as a distraction from the main job of rubbishing him. The Tory strategists were cheerily cynical about it all and precisely deserve what they got.
'Mrs May you have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.'
Do you now understand why many Conservatives legitimately thought exactly the same thing about Osborne in the aftermath of the EU referendum disaster (those who saw it as a disaster, obviously)?
No.
May isn't fit to lick Osborne's boots.
TSE
I know you like Osborne personally (in-person we are often told he is far more likeable than his public persona!), you agree with his economic and political philosophy and the direction he wanted the Tory party to move in, and you also think he's talented on the strategic side.
Do you think he would have been able to "front" the party and win an election as Prime Minister? Or could he only have done the business as a right-hand man?
The guy is the face of austerity and is hated, viscerally, by many people the party could do with attracting (public sector workers, people on benefits or with disabled family members etc) while his metropolitanism may not have enthused shire Tories. There's a reason he was booed at the Olympics. There are people I know who are potential Tory voters but detest him with a fervour even worse than what I've seen for other political hate figures.
Do you think he could have detoxed himself with these voters, that they might have warmed to him if they saw more of his natural personality? (I know he was having a go, and the haircut was an improvement, but it takes a bit more than that!) Or that they would in the end have voted for perceived competence even if they didn't like him personally? Or that you'd have to sacrifice these votes, but would make gains elsewhere under Osborne (e.g. if the Northern Powerhouse attracted northern voters)?
For me, I struggle to see how he could have won as PM, but then my view is clouded - Osborne was the main reason that I didn't consider voting Conservative even back in 2010, and several people I know were likewise. (I seem to recall Tim late of this parish thought that Cameron might have won a majority in 2010 if he had had a more palatable shadow chancellor - I don't know whether that's true, but I'm sure it would have shifted some votes.) I don't hate Osborne like many people I know do. But I still may not be seeing the positive qualities in him as others in the country do.
The dementia tax was unpopular because of the impact on a man's ability to leave his house to his issue.
I think May, Hill and Timothy are all childless. Coincidence?
Bit of a moot point at this stage, but I have to say I am confused about the dementia tax and why it was worse than the current system. Right now, people already have to sell their homes to pay for care if they can't pay for it out of income or savings: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/
Labour only got as close as it did because it accepted Brexit was going to happen. It baffles me that some people are trying to make out that the Election result says Brexit should be shelved.
Has anyone said that? It's more a case of the election result making Brexit impossible to deliver.
Yes me, I wrote you a post yesterday , saying I was busy and to send your gloating by PM. I have changed my name to Charlie by deed poll so any outstanding debts are null and void
chortle
an election for all malc
you get Mrs May in a coffin, I get Salmond
I have to say given that just about everybody - me included - called this election wrong I have to ask how much our collected PB wisdom is worth :-)
My only consolation Alan. I have the wife ironing my hair shirt.
The dementia tax was unpopular because of the impact on a man's ability to leave his house to his issue.
I think May, Hill and Timothy are all childless. Coincidence?
Bit of a moot point at this stage, but I have to say I am confused about the dementia tax and why it was worse than the current system. Right now, people already have to sell their homes to pay for care if they can't pay for it out of income or savings: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/
The substance and direction of the policy was probably right, that's the tragedy for the Tories. The handling, timing and presentation were utterly wrong.
Mr. Eagles, although we're not quite in the same boat politically, I agree with you.
May's needless gamble hasn't only wrecked careers as you say, it's emboldened and strengthened the far left. The stupid and unnecessary DUP deal is going to retoxify the Conservatives.
And in 2022 or sooner we may have a terrorist-sympathising, unilateralist, to the left of Michael Foot wretch who marches under Stalin banners and wouldn't drone strike terrorists if given the chance.
Any chance a Conservative in a safe seat might be persuaded to jump off the cliff to get Osborne into Parliament?
Gove's clever but I don't think he has wide enough support. Boris is a charismatic jester. Rudd's majority is too small.
Yes, I think that is the verdict from the election. The public don't want the Conservatives to negotiate Brexit alone. We need to set up a cross party negotiation committee and invite Starmer to join as well as someone from the Lib Dems and, unfortunately someone from the SNP.
Conservatives won't be alone in the Brexit negotiations. They will have the DUP alongside.
'Mrs May you have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.'
Do you now understand why many Conservatives legitimately thought exactly the same thing about Osborne in the aftermath of the EU referendum disaster (those who saw it as a disaster, obviously)?
No.
May isn't fit to lick Osborne's boots.
TSE
I know you like Osborne personally (in-person we are often told he is far more likeable than his public persona!), you agree with his economic and political philosophy and the direction he wanted the Tory party to move in, and you also think he's talented on the strategic side.
Do you think he would have been able to "front" the party and win an election as Prime Minister? Or could he only have done the business as a right-hand man?
The guy is the face of austerity and is hated, viscerally, by many people the party could do with attracting (public sector workers, people on benefits or with disabled family members etc) while his metropolitanism may not have enthused shire Tories. There's a reason he was booed at the Olympics. There are people I know who are potential Tory voters but detest him with a fervour even worse than what I've seen for other political hate figures.
Do you think he could have detoxed himself with these voters, that they might have warmed to him if they saw more of his natural personality? (I know he was having a go, and the haircut was an improvement, but it takes a bit more than that!) Or that they would in the end have voted for perceived competence even if they didn't like him personally? Or that you'd have to sacrifice these votes, but would make gains elsewhere under Osborne (e.g. if the Northern Powerhouse attracted northern voters)?
For me, I struggle to see how he could have won as PM, but then my view is clouded - Osborne was the main reason that I didn't consider voting Conservative even back in 2010, and several people I know were likewise. (I seem to recall Tim late of this parish thought that Cameron might have won a majority in 2010 if he had had a more palatable shadow chancellor - I don't know whether that's true, but I'm sure it would have shifted some votes.) I don't hate Osborne like many people I know do. But I still may not be seeing the positive qualities in him as others in the country do.
+1. Politics, unlike most endeavours, is unusually cruel in that it is impossible to "re-invent" yourself. Politicians are stuck with the image they earn, and cannot change it however hard they try. Cf. one newly unemployed former MP from Sheffield.
A lot to agree with there, but I do think has a proven capability of reaching across the divide. He won twice in London which was and still is a Labour city. Labour anger towards Boris stems from the £350m per week lie, if he delivers £350m per week to the NHS then a lot of that anger will disappear as it won't be a lie.
I'm personally not convinced by Boris, but I do think we need to take a gamble. If he brings in new talent (Kwarteng) and old (Gove, Osborne) then he could lead a strong government despite the fact that May fucked us with the minority.
I don't disagree that he can reach across the divide. There are voters he can reach that the others can't - 52%, including many Labour voters, says a lot about that. The problem is that he is also toxic to some other voters. (@JosiasJessop on here being one example!) To strong Remainers, and/or those who see him as a bumbling incompetent toff, he is very seriously offputting. I think you could get away with him as a campaigner supporting someone else, but not as the main proposition you're asking people to vote for. I don't think he'd carry London now after his role in the Leave campaign.
(I did suggest a few threads that if the Tories want to make a positive statement with a leadership change, rather than one that looks like a post-defeat retreat, they should consider putting making someone smart, fresh-faced and forward-looking like Kwasi PM! But in reality I think it needs to be someone experienced in political chicanery and deal-making in the Commons, and a big enough beast to command respect from the Tory MPs / negotiators in Brussels.)
A new leader will have to be selected when there is a contest. On Yes Minister Sir Humphrey said there were 100 government officers and just over 300 MPs. 100 were too old, 100 just plain bonkers so that leaves 100 for 100 government places. Of these 100 50 are incapable of being PM. So to answer you point David there are about 50 potential candidates. There is the time to choose wisely.
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
Fear on Boris is limited to the competence of his administration.
There is little to fear electorally now. Politician have a limited shelf life. Boris already looks a bit like yesterday's man. You normally get about 10 years in the limelight. Boris is on nine.
If anything he is perfectly placed to draw the final curtain on the project his mates started all that time ago.
But I don't think the Tories have much choice now.
The Tories are screwed. An election in the next two years and Jeremy will win. Change leader and there's even more chance that the government will fall. It'll be interesting to see the next lot of opinion polls. My guess is a collapse in Tory support and with Brexit that's unlikely to improve.
Although they did think Labour would win Kensington by 36 rather than the 20 votes they did.
Yep, polls that were widely derided on here
YouGov apparently scaled down the responses of the politically engaged.. so easy in hindsight, and it was an untested theory, but that should have woken me up
Where was the attack on the economy? Where was the focus on Labour's policies? Where was the daily press conference pounding the opposition's key figures (Abbott etc)
They bet the farm on Corbyn's past being a killer AND on his being useless on the campaign trail - there was a quite explicit decision to stay off the airwaves and "let him hang himself", even some gloating comments to journos that they were complaining to the BBC that he wasn't getting enough airtime. Quibbling about the manifesto was seen as a distraction from the main job of rubbishing him. The Tory strategists were cheerily cynical about it all and precisely deserve what they got.
It was woeful frankly. And deeply cynical.
Presumably the Tories also need a thorough review of their canvassing and data processes and internal focus grouping. Surely some of the swing back from them was being picked up and they would have changed tactics.
Or did it all happen in the last 24 hours?
I have no idea, although as I said yesterday, a family member told me that the mood at his West Midlands medium-sized business changed markedly the day after she failed to turn up to the main TV debate.
The next leader needs to be a Remainer. A "good deal" isn't on offer for Brexit. "No deal is better than a bad deal" is nonsense. The least bad arrangement possible is what Brexit is about. "Better than nothing but worse than what we have now" is a big negotiating space and once you accept those as your parameters, an acceptable arrangement is achievable.
Leavers cannot accept those parameters. They literally cannot accept the reality because to do so recognises they sold the public a pup on Brexit. Either they themselves were deluded or they cheated the public. Remainers can plausibly say they are fulfilling a democratic mandate to leave the EU and are seeing to its conclusion a process that has already started - without having to worry about whether we end up worse than we started.
Theresa May's selection as leader was sound on those grounds. She threw away her advantage by becoming the archest of all Leavers.
I get the logic, but as May's shown, it's very difficult for someone to pursue a policy they disagree with. Cameron didn't try. May justified it to herself as an act of duty. But the hypocrisy eats at you.
Brexit is catharsis, not synthesis; we just need to get it out of our system.
Ultimately the only possible resolution will come from former Leavers recanting and advocating further integration with Europe.
A lot to agree with there, but I do think has a proven capability of reaching across the divide. He won twice in London which was and still is a Labour city. Labour anger towards Boris stems from the £350m per week lie, if he delivers £350m per week to the NHS then a lot of that anger will disappear as it won't be a lie.
I'm personally not convinced by Boris, but I do think we need to take a gamble. If he brings in new talent (Kwarteng) and old (Gove, Osborne) then he could lead a strong government despite the fact that May fucked us with the minority.
And what's the talented George Osborne going to do ?
I keep asking the George Osborne cheerleaders this question but I never receive a reply.
Reconnect the party with urban liberals that we've lost. Win back seats like Enfield Southgate, Croydon Central. Advance in Ealing, Enfield North. Win back seats like Leamington.
You might loathe Osborne but he represents a part of the party and support base that we need to win. The current leadership abandoned them to chase Blue Labour voters and we lost our majority. I think a period of silence from your lot would do us all some good.
Perhaps you could explain why the Conservatives worst results in 2015 were in London then ?
Lets take a look:
Enfield Southgate 2010 Con maj 17.2% 2015 Con maj 10.4%
Croydon Central 2010 Con maj 5.9% 2015 Con maj 0.3%
Ealing Central 2010 Con maj 7.9% 2015 Lab maj 0.5%
Enfield North 2010 Con maj 3.8% 2015 Lab maj 2.4%
Ilford North 2010 Con maj 11.5% 2015 Lab maj 1.2%
And it is Osborne's policies of increasing student tuition fees and increasing house prices which have so damaged the Conservatives among the young voters who are proportionally so important in London. Or indeed in places like Leamington.
The facts destroy your cheerleading.
Meanwhile it is those 'Blue Labour' voters who have kept the Conservatives in government. Perhaps you'd would be happy to lose them - too working class or too Northern for your taste maybe ? - and seats such as Stoke S, Walsall N, Mansfield, Derbyshire NE, Copeland, Middlesbrough S. Plus all the other seats dependent upon working class votes for the Conservatives.
And please do not include me in whoever you think 'your lot' refers to.
The next leader needs to be a Remainer. A "good deal" isn't on offer for Brexit. "No deal is better than a bad deal" is nonsense. The least bad arrangement possible is what Brexit is about. "Better than nothing but worse than what we have now" is a big negotiating space and once you accept those as your parameters, an acceptable arrangement is achievable.
Leavers cannot accept those parameters. They literally cannot accept the reality because to do so recognises they sold the public a pup on Brexit. Either they themselves were deluded or they cheated the public. Remainers can plausibly say they are fulfilling a democratic mandate to leave the EU and are seeing to its conclusion a process that has already started - without having to worry about whether we end up worse than we started.
Theresa May's selection as leader was sound on those grounds. She threw away her advantage by becoming the archest of all Leavers.
I get the logic, but as May's shown, it's very difficult for someone to pursue a policy they disagree with. Cameron didn't try. May justified it to herself as an act of duty. But the hypocrisy eats at you.
They agree the democratic decision was made to leave the EU and that their job is to see that through with the smallest damage possible.
Mr. Eagles, although we're not quite in the same boat politically, I agree with you.
May's needless gamble hasn't only wrecked careers as you say, it's emboldened and strengthened the far left. The stupid and unnecessary DUP deal is going to retoxify the Conservatives.
And in 2022 or sooner we may have a terrorist-sympathising, unilateralist, to the left of Michael Foot wretch who marches under Stalin banners and wouldn't drone strike terrorists if given the chance.
Any chance a Conservative in a safe seat might be persuaded to jump off the cliff to get Osborne into Parliament?
Gove's clever but I don't think he has wide enough support. Boris is a charismatic jester. Rudd's majority is too small.
The DUP deal is completely neccesary in order to form a government, unfortunately for the Tories.
The dementia tax was unpopular because of the impact on a man's ability to leave his house to his issue.
I think May, Hill and Timothy are all childless. Coincidence?
Bit of a moot point at this stage, but I have to say I am confused about the dementia tax and why it was worse than the current system. Right now, people already have to sell their homes to pay for care if they can't pay for it out of income or savings: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/
The current system was to be exyteded to care at home - albeit with the £23,000 floor increased to £100,000 and the existing proposed £72,000 ceiling on contributions being re-considered.
A lot to agree with there, but I do think has a proven capability of reaching across the divide. He won twice in London which was and still is a Labour city. Labour anger towards Boris stems from the £350m per week lie, if he delivers £350m per week to the NHS then a lot of that anger will disappear as it won't be a lie.
I'm personally not convinced by Boris, but I do think we need to take a gamble. If he brings in new talent (Kwarteng) and old (Gove, Osborne) then he could lead a strong government despite the fact that May fucked us with the minority.
And what's the talented George Osborne going to do ?
I keep asking the George Osborne cheerleaders this question but I never receive a reply.
Reconnect the party with urban liberals that we've lost. Win back seats like Enfield Southgate, Croydon Central. Advance in Ealing, Enfield North. Win back seats like Leamington.
You might loathe Osborne but he represents a part of the party and support base that we need to win. The current leadership abandoned them to chase Blue Labour voters and we lost our majority. I think a period of silence from your lot would do us all some good.
Perhaps you could explain why the Conservatives worst results in 2015 were in London then ?
Lets take a look:
Enfield Southgate 2010 Con maj 17.2% 2015 Con maj 10.4%
Croydon Central 2010 Con maj 5.9% 2015 Con maj 0.3%
Ealing Central 2010 Con maj 7.9% 2015 Lab maj 0.5%
Enfield North 2010 Con maj 3.8% 2015 Lab maj 2.4%
Ilford North 2010 Con maj 11.5% 2015 Lab maj 1.2%
And its exactly Osborne's policies of increasing student tuition fees and increasing house prices which has so damaged the Conservatives among the young voters who are proportionally so important in London. Or indeed in places like Leamington.
The facts destroy your cheerleading.
Meanwhile it is those 'Blue Labour' voters who have kept the Conservatives in government. Perhaps you'd would be happy to lose them - too working class or too Northern for your taste maybe ? - and seats such as Stoke S, Walsall N, Mansfield, Derbyshire NE, Copeland, Middlesbrough S. Plus all the other seats dependent upon working class votes for the Conservatives.
And please do not include me in whoever you think 'your lot' refers to.
But we still held on in enough seats to win a majority last time around. This time we lost seats and lost our majority. You need to face up to that, we won a majority you lost it.
Labour only got as close as it did because it accepted Brexit was going to happen. It baffles me that some people are trying to make out that the Election result says Brexit should be shelved. The only party still moaning about it got 7%. As you say a cross party arrangement would be fine, we just need to get on with it. Any old deal will do, the next government can always rearrange the parts it dilikes.
Quite. As long as the Man/Schoolboy Boris is nowhere near it, I think we can find enough grown-ups on both sides of the house to make the best of a bad job.
Yes, I think that is the verdict from the election. The public don't want the Conservatives to negotiate Brexit alone. We need to set up a cross party negotiation committee and invite Starmer to join as well as someone from the Lib Dems and, unfortunately someone from the SNP.
Spot on. In general terms, there's also an upside to this from the Conservative side - if Brexit goes wrong, they can say the other parties were involved too.
I worry that this won't happen, because May is too deeply committed to a Brexit strategy she thought she'd have the numbers to implement. The only way we're doing it like this is if they knife May and draft in Davis.
I am now fully of the opinion that they need to get rid of May, and soon. I feel very sorry for May on a personal level because I do think she's a decent person with a sense of duty and this result is a personal tragedy for her. However, politics is a tough game and she's just demonstrated that she can't bring the country in sufficient numbers with her. We all need to take stock now, realise the arithmetic is impossible to carry on 'as you were' and aim for some genuine bipartisanship in UK politics.
Labour only got as close as it did because it accepted Brexit was going to happen. It baffles me that some people are trying to make out that the Election result says Brexit should be shelved. The only party still moaning about it got 7%. As you say a cross party arrangement would be fine, we just need to get on with it. Any old deal will do, the next government can always rearrange the parts it dilikes.
"Brexit will have to be negotiated in consensus with the opposition. Essentially the Conservatives implement the Labour plan and can then see off any opposition within its own ranks. Because of this need to work with Labour, however informally, the Conservatives will also need to avoid any other contentious legislation that could derail it."
To see what sort of Brexit we are going to have, just read the Labour manifesto.
I can't see the Tories calling another election but I can see them changing leader this year. It needs to be someone who can a) lead b) negotiate and c) most importantly, work across party lines. May can't do these things. Neither can Boris.
The only two candidates who can are Hammond and Davis.
Hammond has the advantage of being a soft brexiteer and a diplomat. Davis has the advantage of being knowledgeable and clubbable. Both could pick up the Brexit negotiations and run with it, while simultaneously consulting with Corbyn's team on the content, and dropping the point scoring in the Commons.
The choice between Hammond and Davis has to be made by the Tory membership. Their choice needs to be restricted to those two.
This abortion nonsense if true shows the DUP is wagging the Tory dog.
It's absolutely ridiculous. Fine bung them some infrastructure money - but you don't open an issue like abortion up like this... I really think this could be toxic for the Tories whenever the next election comes.
Labour only got as close as it did because it accepted Brexit was going to happen. It baffles me that some people are trying to make out that the Election result says Brexit should be shelved.
Has anyone said that? It's more a case of the election result making Brexit impossible to deliver.
they will just head for the trough and vote as ordered by the Great leader and her nutjob partners.
Your SNP MP was defeated Malky, they can no longer " just head for the trough and vote as ordered by the Great leader"
And the expenses should be lower...
No chance a Tory will be milking less , that is a certainty. Expenses will rise back above even Labour's record now they have the troughers extrodinaire en route. Will be interesting to see if the Tories complain about their troughers using the non existing first class air tickets they complained SNP used or will they get the bus down.
A lot to agree with there, but I do think has a proven capability of reaching across the divide. He won twice in London which was and still is a Labour city. Labour anger towards Boris stems from the £350m per week lie, if he delivers £350m per week to the NHS then a lot of that anger will disappear as it won't be a lie.
I'm personally not convinced by Boris, but I do think we need to take a gamble. If he brings in new talent (Kwarteng) and old (Gove, Osborne) then he could lead a strong government despite the fact that May fucked us with the minority.
I don't disagree that he can reach across the divide. There are voters he can reach that the others can't - 52%, including many Labour voters, says a lot about that. The problem is that he is also toxic to some other voters. (@JosiasJessop on here being one example!) To strong Remainers, and/or those who see him as a bumbling incompetent toff, he is very seriously offputting. I think you could get away with him as a campaigner supporting someone else, but not as the main proposition you're asking people to vote for. I don't think he'd carry London now after his role in the Leave campaign.
(I did suggest a few threads that if the Tories want to make a positive statement with a leadership change, rather than one that looks like a post-defeat retreat, they should consider putting making someone smart, fresh-faced and forward-looking like Kwasi PM! But in reality I think it needs to be someone experienced in political chicanery and deal-making in the Commons, and a big enough beast to command respect from the Tory MPs / negotiators in Brussels.)
Yes, he does have a way of putting some people off, but I think we'd win more than we'd lose, plus we'd win in key areas rather than build up votes in safe Labour seats.
Kwasi needs a big role next time around, so does Priti Patel. We need to bring through the next generation of Tories. Hammond, May, Davis and a few others need to be pensioned off.
Priti is superficially attractive (don't mean it that way) and I'm sure would give a lot of red meat to the Tory right. But I don't think she'll go down well with swing voters, once they've had a full blast from her. She has some very robust views e.g. on the death penalty, that don't just put people off because they think she might implement them (overall no Tory platform is going to bring back hanging and flogging, the party has moved way too far on) but because it makes people doubt her judgment, values and/or intelligence for believing them.
The dementia tax was unpopular because of the impact on a man's ability to leave his house to his issue.
I think May, Hill and Timothy are all childless. Coincidence?
Bit of a moot point at this stage, but I have to say I am confused about the dementia tax and why it was worse than the current system. Right now, people already have to sell their homes to pay for care if they can't pay for it out of income or savings: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/
The current system was to be exyteded to care at home - albeit with the £23,000 floor increased to £100,000 and the existing proposed £72,000 ceiling on contributions being re-considered.
As May is in office (i hesitate to use the word 'power'), the Tory manifesto presumable stands as government policy now. So there will be a green paper and a change to £100K floor and house costs included for care in the home.
The cap was made up on the campaign trail and does not appear in the manifesto.
Given the lack of majority then God alone knows what the green paper can come up with that will command support.
She could leave alone and the cap of £72K would come in as before in 2020.
I don't think Osborne could be leader post the EU Referendum, but say he was Deputy PM/Chancellor/Foreign Secretary in Dave's successor's government, he would have been a great adviser.
He knows first hand how much damage a mandateless PM calling a snap election (or thinking about it) can cause.
He is loyal to the Tory party, anyone watching ITV's coverage the other night saw how pained he was every time a Tory lost.
The pasty tax never cost the Tories an election or an MP their job, the dementia tax has made it very likely that Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM in the next five years.
Mrs May will be spoken in the same bracket as Neville Chamberlain.
Given Labour's manifesto of free money and kittens didn't get them to power this time, one wonders what they'll dream up for the next election..... do the Corbynites have other ideas?
There has been plenty of speculation about what could be put on the table by the DUP during negotiations over its support for Theresa May's minority Government with a particular focus on the party's stance on issues like gay marriage and abortion.
Conservative former Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't see many major social issues coming up in the next parliament.
"You might get a debate I suppose on further reduction of abortion times as medical science advances.
"But the stuff you mention like gay rights and all that, which you're probably referring to, that is all devolved.
"It's not only a free vote issue, most of this, but it's nearly all devolved and that's down to the politicians in Northern Ireland to resolve."
Mr. Abode, it's ridiculous. There's no need for the DUP to be involved. The deal should be cancelled.
If they had a vote on abortion limits, the DUP wouldn't even be eligible for it under EVFEL.
The optics are terrible. Years of de-toxification undone.
My god, I'm turning into TSE
My anger is growing not subsiding at Mrs May.
Because of that moron good people like Edward Timpson have been screwed by that failed Turing Test that is Mrs May.
Morning all.
Like many of you, I'm coming to the conclusion that the longer May stays, the worse this looks for the Tories. And the deal with the DUP is utterly toxic.
The argument is that Corbyn is so dangerous he can't be allowed near the levers of power, but the longer this goes on, the more it looks like when an election is called, Labour will win with a majority of 100 rather than a majority of 10 (or a rainbow coalition).
Better to stand aside now than to send the party into a toxic spiral for the next five years that results in a 1997 style landslide for Labour.
Here's what I think should happen.
May should announce she is standing aside as leader but will continue as caretaker PM.
During this time the Tories should have a long leadership campaign. Months if necessary. Time to find a leader who actually stands FOR something, can set out some kind of positive vision, beyond the thin gruel of austerity so far promised.
And the big one. In the interim, Corbyn, and one or two other Labour people (Kier Starmer?) should be invited into the cabinet as part of a national unity government to last until Brexit negotiations are completed. A GE to happen the day after that.
You heard that right. Get Corbyn in the cabinet. Now. National unity government. It's the least toxic way forward for the Tories. Make the next two years all about Brexit. Everything else on hold.
If Corbyn refuses, he looks small minded and his legions of fans will be unable to understand why, when offered the chance to enter government, he refuses.
If he and other Labour people enter, they can be managed the way Clegg and others in Lib Dems were managed in coalition.
Cauterise the wound, now. Things will only get worse from here otherwise.
Where was the attack on the economy? Where was the focus on Labour's policies? Where was the daily press conference pounding the opposition's key figures (Abbott etc)
They bet the farm on Corbyn's past being a killer AND on his being useless on the campaign trail - there was a quite explicit decision to stay off the airwaves and "let him hang himself", even some gloating comments to journos that they were complaining to the BBC that he wasn't getting enough airtime. Quibbling about the manifesto was seen as a distraction from the main job of rubbishing him. The Tory strategists were cheerily cynical about it all and precisely deserve what they got.
It was woeful frankly. And deeply cynical.
Presumably the Tories also need a thorough review of their canvassing and data processes and internal focus grouping. Surely some of the swing back from them was being picked up and they would have changed tactics.
Or did it all happen in the last 24 hours?
I have no idea, although as I said yesterday, a family member told me that the mood at his West Midlands medium-sized business changed markedly the day after she failed to turn up to the main TV debate.
This from a guy in touch with voters for Labour every day is interesting, as anecdotal evidence that the swing came very late -
I know you like Osborne personally (in-person we are often told he is far more likeable than his public persona!), you agree with his economic and political philosophy and the direction he wanted the Tory party to move in, and you also think he's talented on the strategic side.
Do you think he would have been able to "front" the party and win an election as Prime Minister? Or could he only have done the business as a right-hand man?
The guy is the face of austerity and is hated, viscerally, by many people the party could do with attracting (public sector workers, people on benefits or with disabled family members etc) while his metropolitanism may not have enthused shire Tories. There's a reason he was booed at the Olympics. There are people I know who are potential Tory voters but detest him with a fervour even worse than what I've seen for other political hate figures.
Do you think he could have detoxed himself with these voters, that they might have warmed to him if they saw more of his natural personality? (I know he was having a go, and the haircut was an improvement, but it takes a bit more than that!) Or that they would in the end have voted for perceived competence even if they didn't like him personally? Or that you'd have to sacrifice these votes, but would make gains elsewhere under Osborne (e.g. if the Northern Powerhouse attracted northern voters)?
For me, I struggle to see how he could have won as PM, but then my view is clouded - Osborne was the main reason that I didn't consider voting Conservative even back in 2010, and several people I know were likewise. (I seem to recall Tim late of this parish thought that Cameron might have won a majority in 2010 if he had had a more palatable shadow chancellor - I don't know whether that's true, but I'm sure it would have shifted some votes.) I don't hate Osborne like many people I know do. But I still may not be seeing the positive qualities in him as others in the country do.
My view is slightly different. I've never been sure that Osborne actually wanted the job. Not that he wouldn't have taken it if offered, but that he wouldn't actively strive or agitate for it. For one thing he would have looked at other chancellors who had recently become PM - Major and particularly Brown - and not liked what he saw. By the time a chancellor gets his turn, the party's been in power for a while and has problems.
I freely admit this might be very wrong ...
In fact, Cameron and Osborne were a good-cop bad-cop double act. Austerity was always going to be deeply unpopular, and it got pinned on Osborne, not the PM. He willingly deflected much ire from the leader.
This abortion nonsense if true shows the DUP is wagging the Tory dog.
It's absolutely ridiculous. Fine bung them some infrastructure money - but you don't open an issue like abortion up like this... I really think this could be toxic for the Tories whenever the next election comes.
+1. Utterly pathetic by the Tories.
Isn't this just Owen Pattinson making a bit of mischief?
Abortion is not a three line whip issue even if there were some legislation. Rest of the house wouldn't pass anything too reactionary.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Ah come on. Appreciate you're shocked and upset, but don't be a sore loser. This is the first time Labour has gained seats in twenty years. Can you imagine that? Chuck in all the gloating on here we've taken. Twenty years of shit, abuse and going backwards.
We're entitled to enjoy it a bit.
@Casino_Royale is simply pointing out that 48 hours ago there were Labour moderates on here slagging of Corbyn. Not because they thought he couldn't win (though they did think he wouldn't win) but because they actually didn't agree with his policies.
I don't agree with Corbyn's policies. I can't forgive or forget his past. But he has undeniably taken Labour forward. The reason I am so delighted with Thursday's result, though, is because the Tories did not get a mandate for what I saw as May's profoundly dangerous Brexit strategy. That is well worth celebrating.
A lot to agree with there, but I do think has a proven capability of reaching across the divide. He won twice in London which was and still is a Labour city. Labour anger towards Boris stems from the £350m per week lie, if he delivers £350m per week to the NHS then a lot of that anger will disappear as it won't be a lie.
I'm personally not convinced by Boris, but I do think we need to take a gamble. If he brings in new talent (Kwarteng) and old (Gove, Osborne) then he could lead a strong government despite the fact that May fucked us with the minority.
I don't disagree that he can reach across the divide. There are voters he can reach that the others can't - 52%, including many Labour voters, says a lot about that. The problem is that he is also toxic to some other voters. (@JosiasJessop on here being one example!) To strong Remainers, and/or those who see him as a bumbling incompetent toff, he is very seriously offputting. I think you could get away with him as a campaigner supporting someone else, but not as the main proposition you're asking people to vote for. I don't think he'd carry London now after his role in the Leave campaign.
(I did suggest a few threads that if the Tories want to make a positive statement with a leadership change, rather than one that looks like a post-defeat retreat, they should consider putting making someone smart, fresh-faced and forward-looking like Kwasi PM! But in reality I think it needs to be someone experienced in political chicanery and deal-making in the Commons, and a big enough beast to command respect from the Tory MPs / negotiators in Brussels.)
I wouldn't say I think he's 'toxic': I quite like him as a person. But we have the advantage of looking at his time as London Mayor, and he wasn't exactly stellar in the role.
I fear Boris has several attributes that make him unsuitable to be PM: he likes the sound of his own voice too much, he does not listen to others, is a very poor manager, and worst of all, he wants the job too much.
On the other hand, he has a certain attractiveness (a bit like Livingstone before him). Yet we need PMs who can make good decisions in the proper manner. He isn't someone who can do that.
Boris has become a figure of ridicule, so I think it's unlikely now that the party will risk making him leader. Having said that, if he was leader he might be electable and might be a reasonable PM. If he is seen as a leader and not as a ruler. He'd be disastrous as a British Trump. But people are willing to trust him if it's clear he has a strong, capable cabinet that he allows to do their job.
I am utterly confused. This is exactly the same as the Tory plan. If there is no FOM, there is no EEA, therefore there needs to be a deal outside of the SM and Customs Union. Which is what May is doing.
This all sounds wonderful, apart from the bit where the EU foist unreasonable conditions that make such a deal impossible.
There is simply NO point in going on about how there 'has' to be a deal when the only way to assure a 'deal' is to accept terms that are potentially completely unreasonable.
The no deal option is so catastrophic the best deal available has to be especially grim before the no deal option is preferable. It's stupid to go into negotiations on that basis. In think as long as you accept the arrangement will be worse than what we have now, an acceptably mediocre arrangement is doable.
It would have been sensible to have thought about this BEFORE voting Leave, but there you go ...
I know you like Osborne personally (in-person we are often told he is far more likeable than his public persona!), you agree with his economic and political philosophy and the direction he wanted the Tory party to move in, and you also think he's talented on the strategic side.
Do you think he would have been able to "front" the party and win an election as Prime Minister? Or could he only have done the business as a right-hand man?
The guy is the face of austerity and is hated, viscerally, by many people the party could do with attracting (public sector workers, people on benefits or with disabled family members etc) while his metropolitanism may not have enthused shire Tories. There's a reason he was booed at the Olympics. There are people I know who are potential Tory voters but detest him with a fervour even worse than what I've seen for other political hate figures.
Do you think he could have detoxed himself with these voters, that they might have warmed to him if they saw more of his natural personality? (I know he was having a go, and the haircut was an improvement, but it takes a bit more than that!) Or that they would in the end have voted for perceived competence even if they didn't like him personally? Or that you'd have to sacrifice these votes, but would make gains elsewhere under Osborne (e.g. if the Northern Powerhouse attracted northern voters)?
For me, I struggle to see how he could have won as PM, but then my view is clouded - Osborne was the main reason that I didn't consider voting Conservative even back in 2010, and several people I know were likewise. (I seem to recall Tim late of this parish thought that Cameron might have won a majority in 2010 if he had had a more palatable shadow chancellor - I don't know whether that's true, but I'm sure it would have shifted some votes.) I don't hate Osborne like many people I know do. But I still may not be seeing the positive qualities in him as others in the country do.
My view is slightly different. I've never been sure that Osborne actually wanted the job. Not that he wouldn't have taken it if offered, but that he wouldn't actively strive or agitate for it. For one thing he would have looked at other chancellors who had recently become PM - Major and particularly Brown - and not liked what he saw. By the time a chancellor gets his turn, the party's been in power for a while and has problems.
I freely admit this might be very wrong ...
In fact, Cameron and Osborne were a good-cop bad-cop double act. Austerity was always going to be deeply unpopular, and it got pinned on Osborne, not the PM. He willingly deflected much ire from the leader.
I agree with you, he never showed any signs of wanting the top job and in fact took the heat for Cameron regularly. It is a shame he's gone, he would have been able to do any cabinet job well.
The dementia tax was unpopular because of the impact on a man's ability to leave his house to his issue.
I think May, Hill and Timothy are all childless. Coincidence?
Bit of a moot point at this stage, but I have to say I am confused about the dementia tax and why it was worse than the current system. Right now, people already have to sell their homes to pay for care if they can't pay for it out of income or savings: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/
The current system was to be exyteded to care at home - albeit with the £23,000 floor increased to £100,000 and the existing proposed £72,000 ceiling on contributions being re-considered.
As May is in office (i hesitate to use the word 'power'), the Tory manifesto presumable stands as government policy now. So there will be a green paper and a change to £100K floor and house costs included for care in the home.
The cap was made up on the campaign trail and does not appear in the manifesto.
Given the lack of majority then God alone knows what the green paper can come up with that will command support.
She could leave alone and the cap of £72K would come in as before in 2020.
The £72k cap is more spin and little substance as it ignores the 'hotel' costs of care.
Labour only got as close as it did because it accepted Brexit was going to happen. It baffles me that some people are trying to make out that the Election result says Brexit should be shelved. The only party still moaning about it got 7%. As you say a cross party arrangement would be fine, we just need to get on with it. Any old deal will do, the next government can always rearrange the parts it dilikes.
"Brexit will have to be negotiated in consensus with the opposition. Essentially the Conservatives implement the Labour plan and can then see off any opposition within its own ranks. Because of this need to work with Labour, however informally, the Conservatives will also need to avoid any other contentious legislation that could derail it."
To see what sort of Brexit we are going to have, just read the Labour manifesto.
I can't see the Tories calling another election but I can see them changing leader this year. It needs to be someone who can a) lead b) negotiate and c) most importantly, work across party lines. May can't do these things. Neither can Boris.
The only two candidates who can are Hammond and Davis.
Hammond has the advantage of being a soft brexiteer and a diplomat. Davis has the advantage of being knowledgeable and clubbable. Both could pick up the Brexit negotiations and run with it, while simultaneously consulting with Corbyn's team on the content, and dropping the point scoring in the Commons.
The choice between Hammond and Davis has to be made by the Tory membership. Their choice needs to be restricted to those two.
To be honest, this assumption that the initial Brexit deal will be carved in stone for all time, and bind future governments, is for the birds. I have never understood why it is so important. If we elect a pro immigration govt, immigration controls will be looser than if we elect a anti immigration govt, and so on
Was chatting to someone last night who is utterly opposed to our new pact with the DUP. He described it using "The Snake" and he thinks the DUP will absolutelyfuck us over in the long term and possibly even poison the well for unionism in NI.
Mr. Eagles, although we're not quite in the same boat politically, I agree with you.
May's needless gamble hasn't only wrecked careers as you say, it's emboldened and strengthened the far left. The stupid and unnecessary DUP deal is going to retoxify the Conservatives.
And in 2022 or sooner we may have a terrorist-sympathising, unilateralist, to the left of Michael Foot wretch who marches under Stalin banners and wouldn't drone strike terrorists if given the chance.
Any chance a Conservative in a safe seat might be persuaded to jump off the cliff to get Osborne into Parliament?
Gove's clever but I don't think he has wide enough support. Boris is a charismatic jester. Rudd's majority is too small.
I shall be expanding my views on this tomorrow.
I'm busy for the rest of the day, so I'll not rant further at Mrs May and her Labour sleeper agent Chiefs of Staff.
Comments
an election for all malc
you get Mrs May in a coffin, I get Salmond
I have to say given that just about everybody - me included - called this election wrong I have to ask how much our collected PB wisdom is worth :-)
http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/news/leave-and-remain-voices-back-shared-vision-for-how-uk-can-brexit-together/
Kwasi needs a big role next time around, so does Priti Patel. We need to bring through the next generation of Tories. Hammond, May, Davis and a few others need to be pensioned off.
He thought getting a paper round was more important...
My god, I'm turning into TSE
Although they did think Labour would win Kensington by 36 rather than the 20 votes they did.
Certainly the idea of an election where nobody won is absurd. You can't draw an election.
http://www.itv.com/news/utv/2016-09-09/boundary-changes-detrimental-to-unionism-dup/
Yes, one of the biggest consequences of May's decision to call a premature election is that the Conservatives seem likely to have lost the ability to gerrymander the electoral boundaries based on flawed December 2015 registrations, from which we know there were swathes of people missing who were legitimately entitled to vote, as the Electoral Commission was at pains to point out. Furthermore, their other UK voter suppression proposals in the Conservative manifesto will fall by the wayside, since in the absence of a majority they cannot insist on overriding the House of Lords objections to them even if they get DU support.
Since the system is already gamed heavily in the Conservatives' failure (66 more seats than Labour despite a difference in the popular vote of only 2.4%) then 8th June 2017 appears to have been a very good day for democracy.
https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/873428249111560192
And the expenses should be lower...
Typical bloody Lib Dem - bringing people together.
So basically overturning 3,000 years of experience of how you win under the democratic process.
Bold. And never to be repeated, anywhere on the plant. It was that bad.
Because of that moron good people like Edward Timpson have been screwed by that failed Turing Test that is Mrs May.
Leavers cannot accept those parameters. They literally cannot accept the reality because to do so recognises they sold the public a pup on Brexit. Either they themselves were deluded or they cheated the public. Remainers can plausibly say they are fulfilling a democratic mandate to leave the EU and are seeing to its conclusion a process that has already started - without having to worry about whether we end up worse off than we started.
Theresa May's selection as leader was sound on those grounds. She threw away her advantage by becoming the archest of all Leavers.
But I am sure his little drolleries only cost us London seats, and ragging and sabotaging a member of the lower middle classes was always what the Buller spirit was about.
The campaign was equally inexplicable, some seriously ill-thought-out policies in the manifesto, and essentially no rebuttal of the nonsense Labour was spewing out daily. Labour gave the Tories dozens of things to shoot at, and never mind missing them the Tories barely ever fired the gun.
May needs to go as soon as is possible, she plainly isn't up to the job of being PM and managing Brexit.
Osborne has always been a tactician - looking for short term gain even at the expenses of long term damage.
Now that might work to the benefit of a political career but it doesn't to the benefit of a country's well-being.
I think the Ulster Mps get first go at the trough
stand at the back of the line
I fear Boris has several attributes that make him unsuitable to be PM: he likes the sound of his own voice too much, he does not listen to others, is a very poor manager, and worst of all, he wants the job too much.
On the other hand, he has a certain attractiveness (a bit like Livingstone before him). Yet we need PMs who can make good decisions in the proper manner. He isn't someone who can do that.
This all sounds wonderful, apart from the bit where the EU foist unreasonable conditions that make such a deal impossible.
There is simply NO point in going on about how there 'has' to be a deal when the only way to assure a 'deal' is to accept terms that are potentially completely unreasonable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-northern-ireland-32394480
It's amazing how election results aren't relevant in this country. Two identical scenarios lead to completely different reactions based on circumstance.
May certainly needs patching.
I know you like Osborne personally (in-person we are often told he is far more likeable than his public persona!), you agree with his economic and political philosophy and the direction he wanted the Tory party to move in, and you also think he's talented on the strategic side.
Do you think he would have been able to "front" the party and win an election as Prime Minister? Or could he only have done the business as a right-hand man?
The guy is the face of austerity and is hated, viscerally, by many people the party could do with attracting (public sector workers, people on benefits or with disabled family members etc) while his metropolitanism may not have enthused shire Tories. There's a reason he was booed at the Olympics. There are people I know who are potential Tory voters but detest him with a fervour even worse than what I've seen for other political hate figures.
Do you think he could have detoxed himself with these voters, that they might have warmed to him if they saw more of his natural personality? (I know he was having a go, and the haircut was an improvement, but it takes a bit more than that!) Or that they would in the end have voted for perceived competence even if they didn't like him personally? Or that you'd have to sacrifice these votes, but would make gains elsewhere under Osborne (e.g. if the Northern Powerhouse attracted northern voters)?
For me, I struggle to see how he could have won as PM, but then my view is clouded - Osborne was the main reason that I didn't consider voting Conservative even back in 2010, and several people I know were likewise. (I seem to recall Tim late of this parish thought that Cameron might have won a majority in 2010 if he had had a more palatable shadow chancellor - I don't know whether that's true, but I'm sure it would have shifted some votes.) I don't hate Osborne like many people I know do. But I still may not be seeing the positive qualities in him as others in the country do.
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/
May's needless gamble hasn't only wrecked careers as you say, it's emboldened and strengthened the far left. The stupid and unnecessary DUP deal is going to retoxify the Conservatives.
And in 2022 or sooner we may have a terrorist-sympathising, unilateralist, to the left of Michael Foot wretch who marches under Stalin banners and wouldn't drone strike terrorists if given the chance.
Any chance a Conservative in a safe seat might be persuaded to jump off the cliff to get Osborne into Parliament?
Gove's clever but I don't think he has wide enough support. Boris is a charismatic jester. Rudd's majority is too small.
The Conservatives will use the breakdown of the DUP agreement as the excuse to call the next election - but at a time to suit themselves.
It was woeful frankly. And deeply cynical.
Presumably the Tories also need a thorough review of their canvassing and data processes and internal focus grouping. Surely some of the swing back from them was being picked up and they would have changed tactics.
Or did it all happen in the last 24 hours?
I have no idea, although as I said yesterday, a family member told me that the mood at his West Midlands medium-sized business changed markedly the day after she failed to turn up to the main TV debate.
Ultimately the only possible resolution will come from former Leavers recanting and advocating further integration with Europe.
Lets take a look:
Enfield Southgate
2010 Con maj 17.2%
2015 Con maj 10.4%
Croydon Central
2010 Con maj 5.9%
2015 Con maj 0.3%
Ealing Central
2010 Con maj 7.9%
2015 Lab maj 0.5%
Enfield North
2010 Con maj 3.8%
2015 Lab maj 2.4%
Ilford North
2010 Con maj 11.5%
2015 Lab maj 1.2%
And it is Osborne's policies of increasing student tuition fees and increasing house prices which have so damaged the Conservatives among the young voters who are proportionally so important in London. Or indeed in places like Leamington.
The facts destroy your cheerleading.
Meanwhile it is those 'Blue Labour' voters who have kept the Conservatives in government. Perhaps you'd would be happy to lose them - too working class or too Northern for your taste maybe ? - and seats such as Stoke S, Walsall N, Mansfield, Derbyshire NE, Copeland, Middlesbrough S. Plus all the other seats dependent upon working class votes for the Conservatives.
And please do not include me in whoever you think 'your lot' refers to.
Mr. Pulpstar, you're wrong. It's not a coalition. Just the chaos.
Edited extra bit: this isn't good for my productivity. And there's a race this weekend. Humbug!
The numbers aren't there for Corbyn.
I worry that this won't happen, because May is too deeply committed to a Brexit strategy she thought she'd have the numbers to implement. The only way we're doing it like this is if they knife May and draft in Davis.
I am now fully of the opinion that they need to get rid of May, and soon. I feel very sorry for May on a personal level because I do think she's a decent person with a sense of duty and this result is a personal tragedy for her. However, politics is a tough game and she's just demonstrated that she can't bring the country in sufficient numbers with her. We all need to take stock now, realise the arithmetic is impossible to carry on 'as you were' and aim for some genuine bipartisanship in UK politics.
"Brexit will have to be negotiated in consensus with the opposition. Essentially the Conservatives implement the Labour plan and can then see off any opposition within its own ranks. Because of this need to work with Labour, however informally, the Conservatives will also need to avoid any other contentious legislation that could derail it."
To see what sort of Brexit we are going to have, just read the Labour manifesto.
http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017/brexit
I can't see the Tories calling another election but I can see them changing leader this year. It needs to be someone who can a) lead b) negotiate and c) most importantly, work across party lines. May can't do these things. Neither can Boris.
The only two candidates who can are Hammond and Davis.
Hammond has the advantage of being a soft brexiteer and a diplomat.
Davis has the advantage of being knowledgeable and clubbable.
Both could pick up the Brexit negotiations and run with it, while simultaneously consulting with Corbyn's team on the content, and dropping the point scoring in the Commons.
The choice between Hammond and Davis has to be made by the Tory membership. Their choice needs to be restricted to those two.
Why is it impossible to deliver now anymore than 48hrs ago? A huge majority of votes voted for parties that are commited to it
The cap was made up on the campaign trail and does not appear in the manifesto.
Given the lack of majority then God alone knows what the green paper can come up with that will command support.
She could leave alone and the cap of £72K would come in as before in 2020.
I don't think Osborne could be leader post the EU Referendum, but say he was Deputy PM/Chancellor/Foreign Secretary in Dave's successor's government, he would have been a great adviser.
He knows first hand how much damage a mandateless PM calling a snap election (or thinking about it) can cause.
He is loyal to the Tory party, anyone watching ITV's coverage the other night saw how pained he was every time a Tory lost.
The pasty tax never cost the Tories an election or an MP their job, the dementia tax has made it very likely that Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM in the next five years.
Mrs May will be spoken in the same bracket as Neville Chamberlain.
https://twitter.com/anthonypainter/status/873465449308196864
There has been plenty of speculation about what could be put on the table by the DUP during negotiations over its support for Theresa May's minority Government with a particular focus on the party's stance on issues like gay marriage and abortion.
Conservative former Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't see many major social issues coming up in the next parliament.
"You might get a debate I suppose on further reduction of abortion times as medical science advances.
"But the stuff you mention like gay rights and all that, which you're probably referring to, that is all devolved.
"It's not only a free vote issue, most of this, but it's nearly all devolved and that's down to the politicians in Northern Ireland to resolve."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/10/theresa-may-set-appoint-new-cabinet-clings-power-disastrous/
This may be a fuss over nothing.
Like many of you, I'm coming to the conclusion that the longer May stays, the worse this looks for the Tories. And the deal with the DUP is utterly toxic.
The argument is that Corbyn is so dangerous he can't be allowed near the levers of power, but the longer this goes on, the more it looks like when an election is called, Labour will win with a majority of 100 rather than a majority of 10 (or a rainbow coalition).
Better to stand aside now than to send the party into a toxic spiral for the next five years that results in a 1997 style landslide for Labour.
Here's what I think should happen.
May should announce she is standing aside as leader but will continue as caretaker PM.
During this time the Tories should have a long leadership campaign. Months if necessary. Time to find a leader who actually stands FOR something, can set out some kind of positive vision, beyond the thin gruel of austerity so far promised.
And the big one. In the interim, Corbyn, and one or two other Labour people (Kier Starmer?) should be invited into the cabinet as part of a national unity government to last until Brexit negotiations are completed. A GE to happen the day after that.
You heard that right. Get Corbyn in the cabinet. Now. National unity government. It's the least toxic way forward for the Tories. Make the next two years all about Brexit. Everything else on hold.
If Corbyn refuses, he looks small minded and his legions of fans will be unable to understand why, when offered the chance to enter government, he refuses.
If he and other Labour people enter, they can be managed the way Clegg and others in Lib Dems were managed in coalition.
Cauterise the wound, now. Things will only get worse from here otherwise.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/06/09/i-phone-banked-for-four-weeks-but-picked-up-no-labour-surge-and-then-on-polling-day-there-it-was/
I freely admit this might be very wrong ...
In fact, Cameron and Osborne were a good-cop bad-cop double act. Austerity was always going to be deeply unpopular, and it got pinned on Osborne, not the PM. He willingly deflected much ire from the leader.
Abortion is not a three line whip issue even if there were some legislation. Rest of the house wouldn't pass anything too reactionary.
It would have been sensible to have thought about this BEFORE voting Leave, but there you go ...
I'm busy for the rest of the day, so I'll not rant further at Mrs May and her Labour sleeper agent Chiefs of Staff.