politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Tory MPs must stop the Tory DUP deal from happening

Roger said:

Jonathan said:

Graham Brady is wasted in the 22.

Interesting. My cousin is one of his constituents and an occasional helper. I believe he's known locally as 'thicko'. Not that that should be a bar to preferment in the Tory Party.

Abbott?

FF43 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The Brexit clock is ticking. But we find ourselves in the odd position where the government have no authority to negotiate the deal they were after and the EU aren't in a position to give anything that resembles it. And there isn't the time to negotiate much of anything anyway.

So with "we are leaving" agreed by all sides, the question simply remains "to go where". What can this government and this corpse PM negotiate in the timescale we have? And the answer to that is "not a lot". A no deal hard Brexit is dead, so we have to have a softer deal but don't have the time to negotiate one.

A few hard realities exist. No deal means no customs deal. Which means our ports clog up immediately with trucks unable to enter or exit. Which means we find empty supermarket shelves inside a week and riots follow. No deal means the likes of Airbus and BMW and Nissan switching production elsewhere.

As a bare minimum we need the customs union, and retaining membership of that we may as well retain the single market. And thats a deal that we can do pretty simply and quickly. Rejoin EFTA. The bilateral deal between the EU and EFTA is already there. As a starting position it is lunacy not to jump at this to protect against the grotesque chaos of no deal. Problem again is ZombieMay who invested heavily in No Deal.

This is why she cannot continue. No authority in her own party. A coalition of chaos with terrorist sympathisers. No traction with Europe. A political instinct thats a proven liability. If the Tories can't set aside their desire to cling to power and appoint someone who can do the job, they should resign the government. In the national interest

I agree with this. I don't even think the EEA will work for us. It's not certain the EU will offer it to us either - we would have to do a compelling sales job on them, which is another reason to replace May. But EEA is our best option given the mess we are in. The other point is that only a Conservative government can implement Brexit on current numbers in parliament, but they can only do so with the tacit support of Labour.

Its not a case of offering it. We are independent signatories of the EEA agreement. Under treaty law we cannot be removed from the treaty unless we breach its terms. As long as we moved from being embers of the EU to members of EFTA we would remain in the EEA. This is all set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. And it has happened before with three countries moving from EFTA membership to EU membership whilst remaining in the EEA.

jonny83 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YmyROOn1tg

Wow at what she said to Osborne when she sacked him...

George used the exact same lines I used in this thread header.

Just saying like.

another_richard said:

Roger said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May should not only resign as PM, but as an MP too, so Ruth Davidson can become MP for Maidenhead and PM

And Ruth Davidson's policies are what exactly ?

Does she still support ending WFA in England but keeping it in Scotland ?

I suspect Davidson's popularity would decline somewhat if she ever had to do governing rather than opposing.

I agree. Tories looking in unlikely places for a messiah is what gave them Hague and IDS.

They too seemed like good ideas for five minutes

Thanks for the response Roger.

I notice that the fans of Messiah Ruth never able to say what she would actually do in government.

Ruth struggles when the answer to a question isn't 'No to Indy Ref 2'.

https://twitter.com/MeanwhileScotia/status/873631497340809217

Interesting that the 'victorious' SCons have refused to put up anyone on the Scottish political progs today. They're not usually so publicity shy.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/873846366237323265

Mr. 1000, interesting idea. As Mr. Jonathan said, unlikely to work, though.

SouthamObserver said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

FF43 said:

old_labour said:

Will it be a People's Brexit or a Banker's Brexit?

It will be a Brexit that will work for no-one. Neither bankers nor the people. Unfortunately it has to go ahead unless there is an explicit vote to the contrary and the EU agree to take us back. Democracy gives people power to make their own dumb decisions.

I am not sure I agree. I think there is a deal to be done. If we stop seeing the Europeans as our enemies and instead approach them as our friends, there is no reason to believe that national leaders like Merkel and Macron would not back an agreement that ensured a close, amicable and fully functional relationship between the UK and the EU27.

You're right. There's definitely a deal to be done. Better than nothing but not as good as before is a big negotiating space. That's the space in which a deal will be found. Crap but acceptable is a realistic, and in the circumstances a worthwhile, goal.

Obviously, there will be a trade-off. From a straight business perspective, leaving the EU will be worse than staying in it. But there is more to Brexit than that. The referendum campaign and what's happened since have made that clear. Once we leave behind the Tory right's notion that the EU27 are our enemies and the negotiating process must be a confrontation there is scope to find agreement across a wide range of areas. Merkel and Macron - the people who really count here - are pragmatists and want what is best for their countries. The UK has plenty to offer when genuine amicability underpins our departure.

I agree. A bit of love goes a long way.

Osborne going in to bat for Crosby seems a touch unwise.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Another one who fails to understand the difference between 'retaining The Customs Union' and being in a customs union. Being outside the Customs Union does not mean that our ports will clog up. Norway does perfectly well outside the Customs Union but inside the Single Market. People really should learn the basics before they start putting forward ideas.

I understand very well. We need to be in the EEA and/or the customs union. That means Deal is better than No Deal. Which means Zombie's negotiating position is destroyed before the first meeting - she has to have a deal. And the EU aren't in a position to offer - in the timescale available - anything other than an off the shelf option such as EEA or CU or both.

That being the case she cannot negotiate with the EU - they will simply laugh at her and say no. The Tories cannot leave her in place unless they put narrow party interests ahead of the country.

kyf_100 said:

A party standing on ending tuiition fees / fixing the housing market could probably slip war with France and the sacrifice of the firstborn into its manifesto and still win the 18-30 demographic with a landslide.

The irony is that for all their virtue signalling they are very much 'me, me, me' voters and once they became homeowners their views would probably change.

Make no mistake, it's housing and tuition that's driving out the young. Got chatting yesterday to a recent grad. 25 years old, intelligent, good job, over 30k in debt and in his own words, no chance of ever buying a house. Seven people in a four bedroom house share. Wouldn't you vote for jam?

Well, first of all, I am a young person myself, so I think I know my own demographic.

Secondly, I didn't say that tuition fees and housing weren't a concern for young people - I simply mentioned how young people viewed Brexit in relation to Corbyn, challenging the idea they expected him to stop Brexit.

A big reason as to why Labour did so well with young people was Corbyn - he was getting loads of my demographic supporting him long before that tuition fees policy. His supporters have a messianic level of trust in him - and trust is important in politics. The LDs had a tuition fees pledge in 2010 too, but young people were not as anywhere near excited for them as they are Corbyn.

Re 'virtue signalling' - it's wrong to dismiss the concerns of young people as simply virtue signalling. You can care about your own situation as well as that of the country - that is something that most voters do.

The issue is that young people are having trouble getting on the housing ladder in the first place - so this idea that they'll miraculously become homeowners and then vote Tory en masse is a wrong analysis. Not in the least because the Tories aren't just losing young people - they are losing the voters in their thirties and forties as well - voters who, especially those in their forties, are likely to be homeowners. Because even when you own home the cost of living is still a big issue - and TMay and the Tories did not address those concerns during the campaign.

Floater said:

what is it about Labour and double standards?

https://order-order.com/2017/06/11/labour-repeatedly-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup/

Pretty thin gruel from Guido -- if you follow the links, Labour proposed maintaining spending which it would probably have done anyway, not seats in the Cabinet.

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Roger said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May should not only resign as PM, but as an MP too, so Ruth Davidson can become MP for Maidenhead and PM

And Ruth Davidson's policies are what exactly ?

Does she still support ending WFA in England but keeping it in Scotland ?

I suspect Davidson's popularity would decline somewhat if she ever had to do governing rather than opposing.

I agree. Tories looking in unlikely places for a messiah is what gave them Hague and IDS.

They too seemed like good ideas for five minutes

Thanks for the response Roger.

I notice that the fans of Messiah Ruth never able to say what she would actually do in government.

Ruth struggles when the answer to a question isn't 'No to Indy Ref 2'.

https://twitter.com/MeanwhileScotia/status/873631497340809217

Interesting that the 'victorious' SCons have refused to put up anyone on the Scottish political progs today. They're not usually so publicity shy.

The DUP links are eating away at SCON everyday until the Tories come to their senses !

Alistair said:

Osborne going in to bat for Crosby seems a touch unwise.

Nope, he is just making crystal clear that this shambles belongs to May and no one else. Even mentioning it feeds the meme that she wants to blame others for every mistake, it is one of her greatest flaws and he is highlighting it. He is really not someone you want as an enemy, he really isn't.

There is this idea that Labour, who we know won't get the DUP (and by the way, if you think McDonnell in particular wouldn't try to do something there to get his lands on the levers of power you have got to be kidding), somehow have the numbers if everyone else came together.

They don't, in fact its so poor for them that one of the votes vote in particular would be needed that just wont happen, and thats Sylvia Hermon. Left of centre she may be but not a f**king chance on Corbyn.

Jonathan said:

Far too nuanced, sensible and pragmatic to ever work.

I disagree, I think EFTA could be easily sold to the public, command widespread political support, and deliver what most people want which is free trade with the EU without the baggage. It's what Cameron should have offered after his negotiations failed. One thing we do need though is some sort of immigration fix, but that could be done through taxation or something like that.

What we need now is big beasts in the major parties to start talking up EFTA as an option. If it gets support across parties, the press, and the public, then I can see it becoming the favoured form of Brexit quite quickly.

Staying in the EU will piss off 52%. Hard Brexit will piss off 48%. I would expect EFTA to piss off no more than about 20% of the population.

RochdalePioneers said:

A few hard realities exist. No deal means no customs deal. Which means our ports clog up immediately with trucks unable to enter or exit. Which means we find empty supermarket shelves inside a week and riots follow. No deal means the likes of Airbus and BMW and Nissan switching production elsewhere.

Why clogging up as such at ports? There will in those circumstances be no prohibition of imports from the EU, just tariffs on them at WTO rates at most. And the return of empty lorries from British ports (empty because the trade in goods is so heavily one way) won't be affected.

I don't think that BMW and Nissan would scale down production here either. Rather, they'll find themselves at a competitive advantage in a UK market in which their competitors will have to increase prices by several £ thousands. Overall, there will be numerous opportunities opening up in the UK for import substitution, much more than the loss of export markets, given the imbalance in the trade in goods.

calum said:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/873846366237323265

Well Boris the Bumbling Buffoon isn't the answer IMO.

I think the youth turnout really shocked the party and they are not sure what to think. If they end up being dismissive thinking it was just a one off or that their campaign was flawed under a bad leader so fix both and all is solved then they are in for a rude awakening.

I think we may have to recognize that courting the youth vote is now really important.

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

Osborne going in to bat for Crosby seems a touch unwise.

Nah.

He's the "Strong and Stable" mastermind as I read it.

Read today's Sunday Times.

It was what Sir Lynton was briefing during the campaign, Mrs May is a pound shop Gordon Brown whose staff thought they knew better than Crosby and Textor.

May, Timothy, and Hill also thought Tories won in 2015 in spite of Cameron and Osborne not because of them.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Floater said:

what is it about Labour and double standards?

https://order-order.com/2017/06/11/labour-repeatedly-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup/

Pretty thin gruel from Guido -- if you follow the links, Labour proposed maintaining spending which it would probably have done anyway, not seats in the Cabinet.

Guido and the rest of the swivel-eyed Trumpian Tory right have been emasculated. It would take a heart of stone ...

Wulfrun_Phil said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A few hard realities exist. No deal means no customs deal. Which means our ports clog up immediately with trucks unable to enter or exit. Which means we find empty supermarket shelves inside a week and riots follow. No deal means the likes of Airbus and BMW and Nissan switching production elsewhere.

Why clogging up as such at ports? There will in those circumstances be no prohibition of imports from the EU, just tariffs on them at WTO rates at most. And the return of empty lorries from British ports (empty because the trade in goods is so heavily one way) won't be affected.

I don't think that BMW and Nissan would scale down production here either. Rather, they'll find themselves at a competitive advantage in a UK market in which their competitors will have to increase prices by several £ thousands. Overall, there will be numerous opportunities opening up in the UK for import substitution, much more than the loss of export markets, given the imbalance in the trade in goods.

They need to import parts and the UK is one small market. They also need people to be able to afford to buy cars, of course.

Ms. Apocalypse, I think there are many genuine concerns for younger voters, most obviously housing, but virtue signalling is something different, and also not limited to the young. It's about being right-on in an overt way, particularly when the consequences would fall on others' heads and when the cost to oneself is non-existent.

David_Evershed said:

FF43 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The Brexit clock is ticking. But we find ourselves in the odd position where the government have no authority to negotiate the deal they were after and the EU aren't in a position to give anything that resembles it. And there isn't the time to negotiate much of anything anyway.

So with "we are leaving" agreed by all sides, the question simply remains "to go where". What can this government and this corpse PM negotiate in the timescale we have? And the answer to that is "not a lot". A no deal hard Brexit is dead, so we have to have a softer deal but don't have the time to negotiate one.

A few hard realities exist. No deal means no customs deal. Which means our ports clog up immediately with trucks unable to enter or exit. Which means we find empty supermarket shelves inside a week and riots follow. No deal means the likes of Airbus and BMW and Nissan switching production elsewhere.

As a bare minimum we need the customs union, and retaining membership of that we may as well retain the single market. And thats a deal that we can do pretty simply and quickly. Rejoin EFTA. The bilateral deal between the EU and EFTA is already there. As a starting position it is lunacy not to jump at this to protect against the grotesque chaos of no deal. Problem again is ZombieMay who invested heavily in No Deal.

This is why she cannot continue. No authority in her own party. A coalition of chaos with terrorist sympathisers. No traction with Europe. A political instinct thats a proven liability. If the Tories can't set aside their desire to cling to power and appoint someone who can do the job, they should resign the government. In the national interest

I agree with this. I don't even think the EEA will work for us. It's not certain the EU will offer it to us either - we would have to do a compelling sales job on them, which is another reason to replace May. But EEA is our best option given the mess we are in. The other point is that only a Conservative government can implement Brexit on current numbers in parliament, but they can only do so with the tacit support of Labour.

Because of the House of Lords?

The Conservative government needs the tacit support of Labour to face down the threat of revolt within their own ranks. That revolt could come either from the headbanger or the liberal wings of the party. As long as Labour at least abstains, the government is guaranteed to get its legislation through. In practice the Conservative government implements Labour's plan for Brexit and gets the blame for anything that goes wrong. But unless they actually want a Corbyn government or see themselves associated forever with a Brexit catastrophe, they are stuck with it.

GIN1138 said:

Coming to the conclusion that anybody that wants Brexit to be achieved has got to rally around May and the DUP agreement... If Theresa goes any chance of any form of Brexit will go with her... The Remainiacs on here have made that quite clear.

Yep. Good isn't it.

SouthamObserver said:

Obviously, there will be a trade-off. From a straight business perspective, leaving the EU will be worse than staying in it. But there is more to Brexit than that.

I like the rest of your post too, but this is an excellent point.

And pro-Remain posters here who post things like "the best possible deal is staying in the EU" seem to me to be seeing the world from a very different perspective to the people who voted to Leave, and even to that bloc of voters who voted very reluctantly to Remain.

There simply isn't an objectively "right" trade-off to make between sovereignty, immigration, trade and so on. People have different priorities. In economic terms, you can't tell someone that they're being irrational for maximising their utility function just because their utility function is different to yours. Different strokes for different folks. Moreover, the terms of EU membership are not static, but dynamic as the EU evolves - it's perfectly possible to tolerate the current status of the UK within the EU but have severe doubts over future compatibility as the kind of deeper integration takes place required to keep the Euro functioning. This brings into play not just tastes for different styles of governance, and issues of identity (to what extent am I a "political European", rather than a geographic or cultural or historical one?) but also differing opinions about direction of travel the EU is following, and what legitimacy the 1975 referendum result has for such changed circumstances.

My general feeling on Scottish independence, is that if the Scottish people (on the whole) desire to live in an independent state, then that is up to them, and the criteria that they get to choose it on are up to them. During the struggle for Irish independence, what truck would it have got to tell them that "objectively, under British rule with limited local autonomy you're getting the best possible economic deal"? Fundamental questions about the future direction of a country are up to the people of that country. If the Brits want to Brexit, then let them Brexit.

(I appreciate the counter-argument that people don't really want to Brexit after all, or won't once the consequences are clear, but this surely needs to be evidenced in a referendum or clear election result before politicians should act on it.)

Morris_Dancer said:

Ms. Apocalypse, I think there are many genuine concerns for younger voters, most obviously housing, but virtue signalling is something different, and also not limited to the young. It's about being right-on in an overt way, particularly when the consequences would fall on others' heads and when the cost to oneself is non-existent.

True.

A lot of young people are genuinely on the centre-left. They are not just adopting these beliefs to seem 'right on', but because they really believe in what they're saying. Now whether the kind of left-wing politics that many on Tumblr, Twitter, and people who I know believe in is practical is a different question.

But they are sincere.

The_Apocalypse said:

Well, first of all, I am a young person myself, so I think I know my own demographic.

[...]

A big reason as to why Labour did so well with young people was Corbyn - he was getting loads of my demographic supporting him long before that tuition fees policy. They have a messianic level of trust in him - and trust is important in politics.

[...]

Re 'virtue signalling' - it's wrong to dismiss the concerns of young people as simply virtue signalling. You can care about your own situation as well as that of the country - that is something that most voters do.

The issue is that young people are having trouble getting on the housing ladder in the first place - so this idea that they'll miraculously become homeowners and then vote Tory en masse is a wrong analysis. Not in the least because the Tories aren't just losing young people - they are losing the voters in their thirties and forties as well - voters who, especially those in their forties, are likely to be homeowners. Because even when you own home the cost of living is still a big issue - and TMay and the Tories did not address those concerns during the campaign.

In most of my political conversations with anyone under 30 - and I have them a lot, I'm only in my mid 30s, and my local boozer is a hotbed of Momentum types, Brexit hardly came up during the election campaign.

It was all about doing what is right, fixing the country, fighting inequality.

While it is definitely true that the young are utterly shafted by the concentration of wealth, power and housing in the hands of the old, 'fairer' ultimately means 'take from him and give to me'.

The cynic in me thinks the Tories lost voters in their 30s and 40s because they were expecting to inherit mummy and daddy's house in the shires. Or they have just had kids themselves and find the policy of free tuition fees attractive. But I agree being strongly pro-remain played a vital part in that demographic.

However I'd challenge the view that the 18-30s are all pro-remain.

When they find out I'm a Tory, it is considered utterly beyond the pale, I'm baby-eating Tory scum.

But when they find out I voted Brexit, a lot of them are in agreement, particularly if you get them onto the subject of neo-liberalism. "It's all a neo-liberal con," "look at what they did to Greece," "have you read that Yanis Varoufakis book?" and so on. And I'm inclined to agree with them - an unlimited pool of unskilled labour drives down wages and creates a race to the bottom. It's a very Marxist analysis of the EU but it's one a lot of the Momentum types share.

That is very different to my work colleagues, slightly older at late twenties to early forties, who are all ardent remainers, on very high salaries, and almost all Labour, although not Momentum.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A few hard realities exist. No deal means no customs deal. Which means our ports clog up immediately with trucks unable to enter or exit. Which means we find empty supermarket shelves inside a week and riots follow. No deal means the likes of Airbus and BMW and Nissan switching production elsewhere.

Why clogging up as such at ports? There will in those circumstances be no prohibition of imports from the EU, just tariffs on them at WTO rates at most. And the return of empty lorries from British ports (empty because the trade in goods is so heavily one way) won't be affected.

I don't think that BMW and Nissan would scale down production here either. Rather, they'll find themselves at a competitive advantage in a UK market in which their competitors will have to increase prices by several £ thousands. Overall, there will be numerous opportunities opening up in the UK for import substitution, much more than the loss of export markets, given the imbalance in the trade in goods.

Clogging up at ports simply to handle the paperwork. The import substitution doesn't work for supply chains. Instead the supply chains will simply cut out the UK bit of it.

Investment in car manufacturing in the UK has already dropped to 40% of pre-referendum levels. This is in boom times for car manufacturing.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

Osborne going in to bat for Crosby seems a touch unwise.

Nah.

He's the "Strong and Stable" mastermind as I read it.

Read today's Sunday Times.

It was what Sir Lynton was briefing during the campaign, Mrs May is a pound shop Gordon Brown whose staff thought they knew better than Crosby and Textor.

May, Timothy, and Hill also thought Tories won in 2015 in spite of Cameron and Osborne not because of them.

Seriously? Anyone with a brain knows that 2015 was won in large part because of Cameron and his ratings (better than his own party).

It would have been interesting if he was still an MP right now, I could imagine there would be a faction within the party trying to get him some kind of role near the top of government.

The_Apocalypse said:

Pulpstar said:

Clown_Car_HQ said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

Brexit is happening. The leader of the opposition and the shadow chancellor actively want it to happen. Most Labour MPs represent areas that returned strong Leave votes. There is no way on earth that Labour is going to change its position. The key thing now is to get a Brexit that does the least possible damage to the UK economy, ensures all current security arrangements continue and protects as many of the rights that UK citizens currently have as possible - basically the Brexit that Corbyn outlined on Marr this morning. It seems to me that there is a deal to be done in the Commons around that. The key thing is to shut out the swivel-eyed rightists who see the Europeans as our enemies and would have us walk away without any deal at all.

Yes, there is no way Labour MPs for places like Sunderland will go against their constituents wishes on such a fundamental point.

I wonder how many students voted for Corbyn in the mistaken belief that he would stop Brexit.

More that his manifesto gave a bit of hope I suspect. It's Osborne and Cameron that have done this long term to the Tories, every single one of @Another_Richard comment is spot on re Housing, tuition fees, and generally treating the youth as a non voting bloc to be utterly shat upon.

Yes, PBers are making the same mistake they did pre-election - underestimating young people. The reality is most young people know that Corbyn will not 'stop Brexit' but see Labour as the chance to secure a soft Brexit.

Why does asking that question imply that I underestimate young people?

For the record, a large part of working life was spent teaching and training students for a career in scientific research. I don't underestimate their intelligence, but I think anyone of any age can deceive themselves. We all tend to hear what we want to hear.

I'm pretty cynical about all politicians. They are no better or more talented as a cohort than most of the population. I don't know why anyone has such faith in them. They mostly stumble along from crisis to crisis and occasionally something worthwhile happens.

David_Evershed said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A few hard realities exist. No deal means no customs deal. Which means our ports clog up immediately with trucks unable to enter or exit. Which means we find empty supermarket shelves inside a week and riots follow. No deal means the likes of Airbus and BMW and Nissan switching production elsewhere.

Why clogging up as such at ports? There will in those circumstances be no prohibition of imports from the EU, just tariffs on them at WTO rates at most. And the return of empty lorries from British ports (empty because the trade in goods is so heavily one way) won't be affected.

I don't think that BMW and Nissan would scale down production here either. Rather, they'll find themselves at a competitive advantage in a UK market in which their competitors will have to increase prices by several £ thousands. Overall, there will be numerous opportunities opening up in the UK for import substitution, much more than the loss of export markets, given the imbalance in the trade in goods.

WTO tariff is 10%. The pound has already devalued by 15% so UK car manufacturers are 5% more competitive.

However, UK manufacturers will need to source more from the UK to avoid this advantage being eroded by the higher cost of importing component parts.

Please see my post earlier. That is simply wrong.

To understand this, think of it this way. Nissan's Sunderland plant makes about 507,000 cars a year, and employs 6,700 people. Now, let's assume that each person earns £30,000/year. That means each person produced 75 cars a year. If you assume the average car costs £20,000 to produce then the amount of labour in each car is under £300.

A 10% devaluation has therefore cut Nissan's manufacturing cost of a car by less than £30.

The markets are going to be fun tomorrow morning.

I am sorry but the Tories have no choice but to deal with the DUP as that is the only way they will get any legislation through and avoid losing a vote of no confidence. There will be no change to the position on LGBT rights, that is not up for negotiation, however ironically on issues like easing austerity, winter fuel allowance, watering down the dementia tax etc the DUP are actually to the left of the platform the Tories ran on and will force concessions so ironically a Tory DUP agreement could actually get the Tory programme closer to that voters wanted in the election

Mr. Oracle, it can be over-used to dismiss an idea without troubling oneself to actually consider it or conjure up a counter-argument.

But the same applies in reverse with various labels or insults, and the desire by some (authoritarians, religious zealots, the over-sensitive) to limit free speech and win debates by default, having silenced as unacceptable opinions to the contrary.

That's one big advantage of PB. People often want a statement backed up by sources or reasoning.

Floater said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Floater said:

what is it about Labour and double standards?

https://order-order.com/2017/06/11/labour-repeatedly-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup/

Pretty thin gruel from Guido -- if you follow the links, Labour proposed maintaining spending which it would probably have done anyway, not seats in the Cabinet.

Supply and demand is not seats in cabinet

Coalition is, and does seem to have been offered. As I suggested on previous threads, there is nothing in it for the DUP though.

jonny83 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

Osborne going in to bat for Crosby seems a touch unwise.

Nah.

He's the "Strong and Stable" mastermind as I read it.

Read today's Sunday Times.

It was what Sir Lynton was briefing during the campaign, Mrs May is a pound shop Gordon Brown whose staff thought they knew better than Crosby and Textor.

May, Timothy, and Hill also thought Tories won in 2015 in spite of Cameron and Osborne not because of them.

Seriously? Anyone with a brain knows that 2015 was won in large part because of Cameron and his ratings (better than his own party).

It would have been interesting if he was still an MP right now, I could imagine there would be a faction within the party trying to get him some kind of role near the top of government.

The great irony is Cameron quit as an MP because he put the party first.

It was becoming abundantly clear that Mrs May was going to tear up the 2015 manifesto, such as on grammar schools, and Dave didn't want to damage her and the party by consistently voting against her.

Boy could we do with him right now.

calum said:

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Roger said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May should not only resign as PM, but as an MP too, so Ruth Davidson can become MP for Maidenhead and PM

And Ruth Davidson's policies are what exactly ?

Does she still support ending WFA in England but keeping it in Scotland ?

I suspect Davidson's popularity would decline somewhat if she ever had to do governing rather than opposing.

I agree. Tories looking in unlikely places for a messiah is what gave them Hague and IDS.

They too seemed like good ideas for five minutes

Thanks for the response Roger.

I notice that the fans of Messiah Ruth never able to say what she would actually do in government.

Ruth struggles when the answer to a question isn't 'No to Indy Ref 2'.

https://twitter.com/MeanwhileScotia/status/873631497340809217

Interesting that the 'victorious' SCons have refused to put up anyone on the Scottish political progs today. They're not usually so publicity shy.

The DUP links are eating away at SCON everyday until the Tories come to their senses !

I'm sure that even a party that courted the Loyalist vote and is sticking by its elected members with 'interesting' views has its line in the sand when it comes to the wrong kind of bigots.

David_Evershed said:

Pulpstar said:

Christ on a bike, some aftertiming from Kirstie Allsop.

Aftertiming - Is that a word?

You bet!
Or maybe you don't.

Theuniondivvie said:

calum said:

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Roger said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May should not only resign as PM, but as an MP too, so Ruth Davidson can become MP for Maidenhead and PM

And Ruth Davidson's policies are what exactly ?

Does she still support ending WFA in England but keeping it in Scotland ?

I suspect Davidson's popularity would decline somewhat if she ever had to do governing rather than opposing.

I agree. Tories looking in unlikely places for a messiah is what gave them Hague and IDS.

They too seemed like good ideas for five minutes

Thanks for the response Roger.

I notice that the fans of Messiah Ruth never able to say what she would actually do in government.

Ruth struggles when the answer to a question isn't 'No to Indy Ref 2'.

https://twitter.com/MeanwhileScotia/status/873631497340809217

Interesting that the 'victorious' SCons have refused to put up anyone on the Scottish political progs today. They're not usually so publicity shy.

The DUP links are eating away at SCON everyday until the Tories come to their senses !

I'm sure that even a party that courted the Loyalist vote and is sticking by its elected members with 'interesting' views has its line in the sand when it comes to the wrong kind of bigots.

Was Sir Brian the right kind of bigot ?

Pulpstar said:

Al Baghdadi killed in air strike.

really ?

Monksfield said:

LadyBucket said:

The British people are inherently fair and one thing they do not like is treacherous back-stabbers. I would say George Osborne is a "dead man walking" if he ever thinks he can get become Conservative Leader in the future.

I also expect Theresa May, as she is now the "under-dog" will start to get the sympathy vote in a few days because that is how we are.

You are a parody account snd I claim my £5

She adds merriment to the site. She's a real asset. I mean that most sincerely.

Theuniondivvie said:

calum said:

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Roger said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May should not only resign as PM, but as an MP too, so Ruth Davidson can become MP for Maidenhead and PM

And Ruth Davidson's policies are what exactly ?

Does she still support ending WFA in England but keeping it in Scotland ?

I suspect Davidson's popularity would decline somewhat if she ever had to do governing rather than opposing.

I agree. Tories looking in unlikely places for a messiah is what gave them Hague and IDS.

They too seemed like good ideas for five minutes

Thanks for the response Roger.

I notice that the fans of Messiah Ruth never able to say what she would actually do in government.

Ruth struggles when the answer to a question isn't 'No to Indy Ref 2'.

https://twitter.com/MeanwhileScotia/status/873631497340809217

Interesting that the 'victorious' SCons have refused to put up anyone on the Scottish political progs today. They're not usually so publicity shy.

The DUP links are eating away at SCON everyday until the Tories come to their senses !

I'm sure that even a party that courted the Loyalist vote and is sticking by its elected members with 'interesting' views has its line in the sand when it comes to the wrong kind of bigots.

The Tories won the Scottish 'loyalist' vote on Thursday so I doubt they will have any problem with working with the NI 'loyalists'. Nats may hate it but they will never be voting Tory anyway and SLab may dislike it but again those who voted for Corbyn won't vote Tory either. Indeed if the DUP force a watering down of austerity without affecting LGBT rights at all on the mainland as is most likely I think most Scots won't be too displeased

Is there a way forward for The Conservatives?

She could issue a joint statement with Arlene Foster and say it will only be a confidence deal on issues such as the budget, and that civil rights will not only be protected but extended and the statement should set out a timetable for legislation (not effecting devolved admins.) and they should reverse the employment tribunal fees that May bought in.

This will ally a lot of fears people have, though ofcourse not all.

Pulpstar said:

Al Baghdadi killed in air strike.

Let's see if it's verified. But if true excellent news!

rottenborough said:

The markets are going to be fun tomorrow morning.

UK stockmarket up 1% on Friday.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Oracle, perhaps.

I don't use it (or try not to). If an argument's stupid, it should be described as such. A lot of modern terms are idiotic. Like 'mansplaining'. The idea putting 'man' as a prefix to make something bad is unacceptably bigoted. Imagine, as I tweeted only today, 'femsterical'.

Using jargon (excepting obviously popular terms like differential front end grip) makes debating more difficult to follow, and terms like those above just dehumanise opponents and delegitimises their arguments without actually using the power of reason to beat them in debate.

Not a fan of terms like 'deficit denier' or 'progressive' either.

Yes, I think social media, in the way in which these catchphrases resound through it - in fact, in a way, it's almost *set up* for the use and exchange of them - is part of the reason.

Social media can also energise and focus democracy , at other times .

kyf_100 said:

In most of my political conversations with anyone under 30 - and I have them a lot, I'm only in my mid 30s, and my local boozer is a hotbed of Momentum types, Brexit hardly came up during the election campaign.

It was all about doing what is right, fixing the country, fighting inequality.

While it is definitely true that the young are utterly shafted by the concentration of wealth, power and housing in the hands of the old, 'fairer' ultimately means 'take from him and give to me'.

The cynic in me thinks the Tories lost voters in their 30s and 40s because they were expecting to inherit mummy and daddy's house in the shires. Or they have just had kids themselves and find the policy of free tuition fees attractive. But I agree being strongly pro-remain played a vital part in that demographic.

However I'd challenge the view that the 18-30s are all pro-remain.

When they find out I'm a Tory, it is considered utterly beyond the pale, I'm baby-eating Tory scum.

But when they find out I voted Brexit, a lot of them are in agreement, particularly if you get them onto the subject of neo-liberalism. "It's all a neo-liberal con," "look at what they did to Greece," "have you read that Yanis Varoufakis book?" and so on. And I'm inclined to agree with them - an unlimited pool of unskilled labour drives down wages and creates a race to the bottom. It's a very Marxist analysis of the EU but it's one a lot of the Momentum types share.

That is very different to my work colleagues, slightly older at late twenties to early forties, who are all ardent remainers, on very high salaries, and almost all Labour, although not Momentum.

Well I have conversations with my own age group pretty much everyday day, and Brexit was a big concern. My friends are very concerned about the economic impact of Brexit on their futures. They are also very socially liberal on immigration and see many of the concerns/objections to freedom of movement as inward looking and xenophobic.

I didn't say that all young people are Remainers but most young people are more Remain leaning than Leave leaning, even if they have concerns about the internal structures of the EU. It is important to remember after all that Varoufakis despite his own grievances with the EU supported Remain. All the people I know within my age group all voted Remain. I literally know no young person who voted Leave. The only Leavers I know are 40+.

Re inequality, that ties in with tution fees and housing. A lot of the people I know (as well as myself) are concerned about inter-generational unfairness - we see this issue at the forefront of the inequality debate. Young people believe in redistribution - just like the left in general does.

Pulpstar said:

Al Baghdadi killed in air strike.

I hope the West congratulates Assad on this service and pays him the £20 million bounty

atia2 said:

HaroldO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Ms. Apocalypse, I think there are many genuine concerns for younger voters, most obviously housing, but virtue signalling is something different, and also not limited to the young. It's about being right-on in an overt way, particularly when the consequences would fall on others' heads and when the cost to oneself is non-existent.

True.

A lot of young people are genuinely on the centre-left. They are not just adopting these beliefs to seem 'right on', but because they really believe in what they're saying. Now whether the kind of left-wing politics that many on Tumblr, Twitter, and people who I know believe in is practical is a different question.

But they are sincere.

I agree, they are. But they want ("they", I'm 34) someone else to pay for it usually, not them as they usually cannot afford it. And that is the sticking point for me, there are not enough "other people" willing to just take the extra taxes to fund these ideas.

Possibly true if we tax only income. Not true if, like many other countries, we tax wealth. We have allowed inordinate wealth inequality to develop in this country. By consistently refusing to reallocate resources, a large fraction of resources have become inaccessible. Not only does this mean we can't fund adequate public services, but also it means that social will eventually fragment.

The first party to do so will get a kick in the nuts from any opposition. The people with the largest amounts of wealth are often the elderly, who have the least amount of liquid wealth.
It will be opposed as "stealing from Grannies" etc etc.
Far better to tax the rich (with unrealistic targets) and borrow at high levels (because of the banksters, right?) than grasp that nettle.

kyf_100 said:

It was all about doing what is right, fixing the country, fighting inequality.

While it is definitely true that the young are utterly shafted by the concentration of wealth, power and housing in the hands of the old, 'fairer' ultimately means 'take from him and give to me'.

But that's precisely what fairness often requires. Recent economic policies have resulted in higher returns to capital than to labour and to age than to youth. It is entirely legitimate for young workers to ask for redress.

It's really rather childish to characterise that as "take from him and give to me" or "magic money tree" (not that I'm saying you do).

The_Apocalypse said:

kyf_100 said:

In most of my political conversations with anyone under 30 - and I have them a lot, I'm only in my mid 30s, and my local boozer is a hotbed of Momentum types, Brexit hardly came up during the election campaign.

It was all about doing what is right, fixing the country, fighting inequality.

While it is definitely true that the young are utterly shafted by the concentration of wealth, power and housing in the hands of the old, 'fairer' ultimately means 'take from him and give to me'.

The cynic in me thinks the Tories lost voters in their 30s and 40s because they were expecting to inherit mummy and daddy's house in the shires. Or they have just had kids themselves and find the policy of free tuition fees attractive. But I agree being strongly pro-remain played a vital part in that demographic.

However I'd challenge the view that the 18-30s are all pro-remain.

When they find out I'm a Tory, it is considered utterly beyond the pale, I'm baby-eating Tory scum.

But when they find out I voted Brexit, a lot of them are in agreement, particularly if you get them onto the subject of neo-liberalism. "It's all a neo-liberal con," "look at what they did to Greece," "have you read that Yanis Varoufakis book?" and so on. And I'm inclined to agree with them - an unlimited pool of unskilled labour drives down wages and creates a race to the bottom. It's a very Marxist analysis of the EU but it's one a lot of the Momentum types share.

That is very different to my work colleagues, slightly older at late twenties to early forties, who are all ardent remainers, on very high salaries, and almost all Labour, although not Momentum.

Well I have conversations with my own age group pretty much everyday day, and Brexit was a big concern. My friends are very concerned about the economic impact of Brexit on their futures. They are also very socially liberal on immigration and see many of the concerns/objections to freedom of movement as inward looking and xenophobic.

I didn't say that all young people are Remainers but most young people are more Remain leaning than Leave leaning, even if they have concerns about the internal structures of the EU. It is important to remember after all that Varoufakis despite his own grievances with the EU supported Remain. All the people I know within my age group all voted Remain. I literally know no young person who voted Leave. The only Leavers I know are 40+.

Re inequality, that ties in with tution fees and housing. A lot of the people I know (as well as myself) are concerned about inter-generational unfairness - we see this issue at the forefront of the inequality debate. Young people believe in redistribution - just like the left in general does.

Re Intergenerational unfairness.

The government currently borrowing £50bn a year to be paid back by the next generation is the worst.