I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
There needs to be a re-balancing between the generations definitely, but Labours solution is to borrow and hope things take care of themselves. This is not a long term solution, and they must know it isn't. They just don't care. On the other side the Tories need to actually try and get a grasp on this issue, something they have been avoiding in the main.
May going to Cheltenham and other previous libdem strongholds in the last days in the south was like Hillary going to Michigan at the last minute. At least one old adage of politics remains true, look where the party leaders go.
TSE - To a lot of people Cameron certainly did put put the Party first - above the country in fact and one reason they think his behaviour unforgivable.
Mr. Oracle, I think that's an astute point. As e-books have led books to become smaller, Twitter and the like lead to more concise, but also sometimes overly simplistic discourse in which little soundbites and shorthand are used in place of meaningful debate.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
The government currently borrowing £50bn a year to be paid back by the next generation is the worst.
Yes and the people voting for Corbyn are implicitly voting for even more unfairness for the generation that follows them. Housing, university funding, and incomes need to improve a lot, but the idea that Corbyn has the fix is preposterous. What he was offering and what he could plausibly deliver are miles apart, and in all likelihood a Labour government with such a programme would be a total disaster.
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).
Globalisation has meant enterprises and entrepreneurs have flexibility about where they set up in business and pay taxes. This means competition between countries which leads to lower tax rates (although more tax paid) and more wealth created through the resulting higher productivity (eg electronic communication).
Countries which impose higher tax rates will drive away enterprise, drive away higher productivity and drive away wealth.
Younger people (and older people) who want a better standard of living need to contibute in a way which is valued by other people rather than expect to be feather bedded by others.
There needs to be a re-balancing between the generations definitely, but Labours solution is to borrow and hope things take care of themselves. This is not a long term solution, and they must know it isn't. They just don't care. On the other side the Tories need to actually try and get a grasp on this issue, something they have been avoiding in the main.
Labour's solution is a Ponzi scheme really. Superficially attractive but economically undeliverable.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
May going to Cheltenham and other previous libdem strongholds in the last days in the south was like Hillary going to Michigan at the last minute. At least one old adage of politics remains true, look where the party leaders go.
5/43 visits resulted in Con win but 38/43 visits resulted in Labour win.
Which safe Con seat has someone willing to head to the Lords in order for Osborne to return.
Or will he just wait until October's election?
Depends if he thinks that the next leader who takes over from May has a chance of winning the Autumn GE or not. If the thinks that the party will need a new leader after the election he will hold back now, and form a new base within the party. Doubtful if he thinks he has a good chance at the moment of winning the election and won't want to be seen as a loser, better to wait and get his new seat.
On the other hand, thinking about it, if there is a landslide for Labour, then even then, he might not get back in
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
Yes, they need to regain those and seats like Eastbourne and Croydon Central but they also need to hold Mansfield, Copeland, Stoke South and Walsall North and Middlesborough South and Cleveland East and gain more seats like those too now some seats like Chester, Ilford North and Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton, Westmister North and Hampstead and Kilburn which were on the Tory target seat list this time now have Labour majorities of close to 10,000 or more and are probably lost to the Tories for good
There needs to be a re-balancing between the generations definitely, but Labours solution is to borrow and hope things take care of themselves. This is not a long term solution, and they must know it isn't. They just don't care. On the other side the Tories need to actually try and get a grasp on this issue, something they have been avoiding in the main.
Labour's solution is a Ponzi scheme really. Superficially attractive but economically undeliverable.
But it would get them into power, which is why an increasing number of people are calling them a populist party. If they were a party of truly distributive policies then that manifesto would be a lot different.
The government currently borrowing £50bn a year to be paid back by the next generation is the worst.
Yes and the people voting for Corbyn are implicitly voting for even more unfairness for the generation that follows them. Housing, university funding, and incomes need to improve a lot, but the idea that Corbyn has the fix is preposterous. What he was offering and what he could plausibly deliver are miles apart, and in all likelihood a Labour government with such a programme would be a total disaster.
I'm really not convinced there can be another election this side of Brexit. The timetable is already incredibly tight and another election would effectively put negotiations on hold for another 2 months.
Yes but nothing is really going to happen substantively until after the German election on 24th September.
In theory we could have another election on Thursday 28th September or Thursday 5th October and it wouldn't make much difference to the negotiations which up to end of September will be largely preliminary.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
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).
My point is simply this - the young didn't vote out of altruism, they voted overwhelmingly in what they saw as their own economic self interest.
The government currently borrowing £50bn a year to be paid back by the next generation is the worst.
Yes and the people voting for Corbyn are implicitly voting for even more unfairness for the generation that follows them. Housing, university funding, and incomes need to improve a lot, but the idea that Corbyn has the fix is preposterous. What he was offering and what he could plausibly deliver are miles apart, and in all likelihood a Labour government with such a programme would be a total disaster.
Why?
They won't raise enough tax, they won't spend issued debt wisely, they won't attract investment, and the tax base would almost certainly decline. Basically it doesn't add up.
True, though 20% would give a Farage led UKIP more than enough to start to rebuild after their disaster at this election
How many Kippers would actually be against EFTA with some immigration fix? Sure some will but probably not all of them, and maybe not even a majority of them.
There is no outcome that will make everybody happy, and the extreme positions are very divisive. The public have not changed their mind either way in now nearly a year since the referendum. So what we need is something that most people will be content with.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP, as fudged Brexit will involve some compromise on free movement even if there are controls put on it and some payments continuing to the EU and for the UKIP 2015 and Leaver hardcore that will not be enough
No-one will trust me on this, but I am sure the UKIP's moment has passed. If Brexit is "betrayed" those that moved to UKIP from Conservatives and Labour, to move back again after the referendum was run, won't remove a second time to UKIP in the same numbers. The "betrayal" will take place in a very messy context and would be Kippers in denial rather than high dudgeon.
May going to Cheltenham and other previous libdem strongholds in the last days in the south was like Hillary going to Michigan at the last minute. At least one old adage of politics remains true, look where the party leaders go.
5/43 visits resulted in Con win but 38/43 visits resulted in Labour win.
Thats because corbyn went to many safe labour seats.
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
'the Scottish 'loyalist' vote' has its limits and then its visibility very rapidly begins to impinge on a party's appeal to other voters.
I'm sure Ruth's very public announcement of her impending nuptials with her Catholic girlfriend is entirely coincidental of course. Not virtue signalling at all.
It really does seem that May and her inner circle poisoned the Tory well in the rather bizarre belief that May was (sorry, is, for now) a more able populist PM than David Cameron. Amazing.
But it would get them into power, which is why an increasing number of people are calling them a populist party. If they were a party of truly distributive policies then that manifesto would be a lot different.
Oh I agree, despite the names it was Labour that was being conservative (back to the '70s, this time it will work) and the Tories being radical with the lets fix social care bombshell and other hard choices.
The government currently borrowing £50bn a year to be paid back by the next generation is the worst.
Yes and the people voting for Corbyn are implicitly voting for even more unfairness for the generation that follows them. Housing, university funding, and incomes need to improve a lot, but the idea that Corbyn has the fix is preposterous. What he was offering and what he could plausibly deliver are miles apart, and in all likelihood a Labour government with such a programme would be a total disaster.
Why?
The tax take calculations were "heroic" in the extreme, this would mean either they would have to ratchet up borrowing or cut their schemes.....we all know which one would occur. So, instead we start to increase the deficit during a very unstable time, also when we are statistically due a recession. If we have a recession during a time of expansionist government deficit the problems would multiply hugely. And could you see Corbyn cutting services with the deficit spiralling?
But it would get them into power, which is why an increasing number of people are calling them a populist party. If they were a party of truly distributive policies then that manifesto would be a lot different.
Oh I agree, despite the names it was Labour that was being conservative (back to the '70s, this time it will work) and the Tories being radical with the lets fix social care bombshell and other hard choices.
Possibly, but the way the Tories framed what they were doing was awful. All negative.
My point is simply this - the young didn't vote out of altruism, they voted overwhelmingly in what they saw as their own economic self interest.
People always do, they idea that politics is all about appealing to the high ideals of the public is laughable. A tiny, tiny number of people will vote for something that actually makes them substantially worse off.
The ridiculous thing is that the party leader is CoI and could easily avoid stoking this image of the DUP as all being Free-P zealots. But she's totally hostage to her own party because of RHI. Fascinating to see how our local bullshit is now affecting the national stage
Mr. glw, but different sort of currencies are involved. It's not only money, but also things like feeling you voted for a party that was right, or for a policy proposal that was smart. Money matters but it's not the only thing.
Also, someone might vote for a manifesto that causes them small economic harm if it substantially benefits those about whom they care.
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.
Bless
Without going into this all again who do you think would be the most popular choice to be PM now? Cameron, May or Corbyn?
Corbyn.
Would Cameron have called an election? He wouldn't have had the silly poll leads that May was getting and the country wouldn't have gone through this farce.
I don't hate Cameron. The irony for me is that if he had weathered the immediate aftermath of the referendum vote we would still have a stable government.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
You'll like the afternoon thread.
Please tell the hard right that trying to get socially conservative voters in shitholes like Leeds East has been an absolute disaster and we need to be on the side of the people who are "citizens of the world".
We did this sketch earlier in this thread thanks to the ever-reliable Guido. If you read the links, it is clear the only coalition discussed was Labour/LibDem and not with the DUP.
Mr. glw, but different sort of currencies are involved. It's not only money, but also things like feeling you voted for a party that was right, or for a policy proposal that was smart. Money matters but it's not the only thing.
Also, someone might vote for a manifesto that causes them small economic harm if it substantially benefits those about whom they care.
Small economic harm being the key, for all the talk you hear of "I'd vote for more money for the NHS" very few people seem all that keen on actually paying much more for it themselves, but almost everybody is happy for other people to pay more tax.
Indeed. In-fact in 2015 Cameron and the Master Strategist themselves were sounding out the DUP as potential partners in the event of a hung parliament but the Lib-Dems not having enough seats or the will to keep the coalition going.
Conveniently forgotten by The Posh Boy fan club on here of course...
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.
Bless
Without going into this all again who do you think would be the most popular choice to be PM now? Cameron, May or Corbyn?
With the general public probably Corbyn right now. But I think Cameron would get a lot of support, far more than people realize.
I've had a lot of friends not just Conservative leaning voters (some Labour and some Lib Dem too) who have said they wish Cameron was in charge right now or that he could come back.
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
'the Scottish 'loyalist' vote' has its limits and then its visibility very rapidly begins to impinge on a party's appeal to other voters.
I'm sure Ruth's very public announcement of her impending nuptials with her Catholic girlfriend is entirely coincidental of course. Not virtue signalling at all.
They won't raise enough tax, they won't spend issued debt wisely, they won't attract investment, and the tax base would almost certainly decline. Basically it doesn't add up.
The IFS concluded that Labour would raise £9bn less than the costed £49bn. That's well within the MoE of an economic forecast of this nature. Indeed, I don't know why Labour didn't use that as an endorsement - I would have done.
Mr. glw, but different sort of currencies are involved. It's not only money, but also things like feeling you voted for a party that was right, or for a policy proposal that was smart. Money matters but it's not the only thing.
Also, someone might vote for a manifesto that causes them small economic harm if it substantially benefits those about whom they care.
Small economic harm being the key, for all the talk you hear of "I'd vote for more money for the NHS" very few people seem all that keen on actually paying much more for it themselves, but almost everybody is happy for other people to pay more tax.
Indeed.
'I want it all, I want it now, I want someone else to pay for it'
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
'the Scottish 'loyalist' vote' has its limits and then its visibility very rapidly begins to impinge on a party's appeal to other voters.
I'm sure Ruth's very public announcement of her impending nuptials with her Catholic girlfriend is entirely coincidental of course. Not virtue signalling at all.
She announced the engagement in May 2016.
I don't remember any mention of her g/f's Catholicism then. But good for Ruth for making a big deal of it now.
Are the people now referring to the DUP backlash as "confected outrage" the same people who got their knickers in a knot when the Walloons were holding up the FTA with Canada?
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
'the Scottish 'loyalist' vote' has its limits and then its visibility very rapidly begins to impinge on a party's appeal to other voters.
I'm sure Ruth's very public announcement of her impending nuptials with her Catholic girlfriend is entirely coincidental of course. Not virtue signalling at all.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
You'll like the afternoon thread.
Please tell the hard right that trying to get socially conservative voters in shitholes like Leeds East has been an absolute disaster and we need to be on the side of the people who are "citizens of the world".
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as they support tuition fees and Labour promises to end them.
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as home ownership continues to fall.
Telling voters in Mansfield and Stoke that they're thick provincial plebs wont get the urban middle classes back but it will lose dozens of Conservatives seats elsewhere.
They won't raise enough tax, they won't spend issued debt wisely, they won't attract investment, and the tax base would almost certainly decline. Basically it doesn't add up.
The IFS concluded that Labour would raise £9bn less than the costed £49bn. That's well within the MoE of an economic forecast of this nature. Indeed, I don't know why Labour didn't use that as an endorsement - I would have done.
No, they said this;
"But the IFS said the calculation includes "factual mistakes" and "optimistic assumptions" - creating a £9 billion shortfall.
"Their proposals could be expected to raise at most £40 billion in the short run, and less in the long run," the IFS research concluded."
They said it would raise at least £9bn less, at least.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
You'll like the afternoon thread.
Please tell the hard right that trying to get socially conservative voters in shitholes like Leeds East has been an absolute disaster and we need to be on the side of the people who are "citizens of the world".
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as they support tuition fees and Labour promises to end them.
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as home ownership continues to fall.
Telling voters in Mansfield and Stoke that they're thick provincial plebs wont get the urban middle classes back but it will lose dozens of Conservatives seats elsewhere.
fack mansfield and stoke. We need Kensington, and High peak and derby north and Keighley not Stoke Central.
Surprised he'd be in meltdown. I thought he was basically an anti-establishment radical... With Jezza on the cusp of power and potentially about to turn down the entire UK order for the past 50 years I'd have thought he'd be in his element?
The Tories are lucky the airtime rules weren't there for the Lib Dems, I think Cheltenham, St Ives, North Devon and a few others would have been lost too.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
Yes, they need to regain those and seats like Eastbourne and Croydon Central but they also need to hold Mansfield, Copeland, Stoke South and Walsall North and Middlesborough South and Cleveland East and gain more seats like those too now some seats like Chester, Ilford North and Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton, Westmister North and Hampstead and Kilburn which were on the Tory target seat list this time now have Labour majorities of close to 10,000 or more and are probably lost to the Tories for good
There's a lot of fantasy thinking that changing the Conservative leaders or rhetoric will win back Ealing Central or Ilford North or Brighton Kemptown.
These seats have become unwinnable for the Conservatives just as Ealing North, Ilford South and Brighton Pavilion did a decade earlier.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
You'll like the afternoon thread.
Please tell the hard right that trying to get socially conservative voters in shitholes like Leeds East has been an absolute disaster and we need to be on the side of the people who are "citizens of the world".
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as they support tuition fees and Labour promises to end them.
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as home ownership continues to fall.
Telling voters in Mansfield and Stoke that they're thick provincial plebs wont get the urban middle classes back but it will lose dozens of Conservatives seats elsewhere.
fack mansfield and stoke. We need Kensington.
Kensington, Canterbury, hold on to Barnet, win back Enfield Southgate, win back Oxford West and Abingdon. Fuck Mansfield man. He's not loyal to our party, the middle classes are, but we've turned our back on them and we need to win them back.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
You'll like the afternoon thread.
Please tell the hard right that trying to get socially conservative voters in shitholes like Leeds East has been an absolute disaster and we need to be on the side of the people who are "citizens of the world".
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as they support tuition fees and Labour promises to end them.
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as home ownership continues to fall.
Telling voters in Mansfield and Stoke that they're thick provincial plebs wont get the urban middle classes back but it will lose dozens of Conservatives seats elsewhere.
fack mansfield and stoke. We need Kensington.
Kensington, Canterbury, hold on to Barnet, win back Enfield Southgate, win back Oxford West and Abingdon. Fuck Mansfield man. He's not loyal to our party, the middle classes are, but we've turned our back on them and we need to win them back.
One nation Toryism didn't last long!
Tories are on the wrong side of the divides on age, education and Brexit to win back in London.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
You'll like the afternoon thread.
Please tell the hard right that trying to get socially conservative voters in shitholes like Leeds East has been an absolute disaster and we need to be on the side of the people who are "citizens of the world".
The Tories won seats like Stoke South, Mansfield and Walsall North which even Thatcher failed to win last Thursday so not entirely, the trick is to hold those seats and win a few more like them while also winning back some of the southern seats lost on Thursday outside Bristol and Brighton which I think are now lost to the Tories. London is now a Labour city but the Tories could still win back a few seats lost like Croydon Central and Kensington and Enfield Southgate and could even pick up Dagenham which has a Labour majority of under 5000 and is now marginal
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
You'll like the afternoon thread.
Please tell the hard right that trying to get socially conservative voters in shitholes like Leeds East has been an absolute disaster and we need to be on the side of the people who are "citizens of the world".
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as they support tuition fees and Labour promises to end them.
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as home ownership continues to fall.
Telling voters in Mansfield and Stoke that they're thick provincial plebs wont get the urban middle classes back but it will lose dozens of Conservatives seats elsewhere.
fack mansfield and stoke. We need Kensington, and High peak and derby north and Keighley not Stoke Central.
And you're not going to win the urban middle classes until you come up with proposals for tuition fees and home ownership.
Telling Mansfield and Stoke to go fack will lose Mansfield and Stoke and others and put Corbyn in government.
Now think of something to do about tuition fees and home ownership.
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
'the Scottish 'loyalist' vote' has its limits and then its visibility very rapidly begins to impinge on a party's appeal to other voters.
I'm sure Ruth's very public announcement of her impending nuptials with her Catholic girlfriend is entirely coincidental of course. Not virtue signalling at all.
I expect we are now nearing peak Tory in Scotland of almost 30% but that is still a solid Unionist base for the Tories, I think the threat to the SNP now will come not from the Tories so much but SLab if they build on their gains last Thursday and really start to eat into SNP territory in the central belt again
Interesting that the 'victorious' SCons have refused to put up anyone on the Scottish political progs today. They're not usually so publicity shy.
LOL, running away now, you could not make it up. She will regret cosying up to the "unionists". She cannot run forever, one day she will have to come up with a policy idea.
Surprised he'd be in meltdown. I thought he was basically an anti-establishment radical... With Jezza on the cusp of power and potentially about to turn down the entire UK order for the past 50 years I'd have thought he'd be in his element?
Used to be. He is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of CCHQ.
Tories are on the wrong side of the divides on age, education and Brexit to win back in London.
Yes, I said that before the election. Chasing Blue Labour at the expense of our base was and is a stupid strategy. Blue Labour are still Labour, all we did this election was cede the centre ground of politics to the left by taking on those idiotic policies like the energy price cap and the racial pay charter. Hopefully the next leader will see that and get our base back on side and fix the housing market so we can advance with 24-40 year old grauduates, usually a fairly solid bloc of supporters (around 35-45 con/lab vs probably 20/60 this time).
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
There is without Bath. I expect Kensington and Mansfield will swap back next parliament but city-rural polarisation will continue.
You'll like the afternoon thread.
Please tell the hard right that trying to get socially conservative voters in shitholes like Leeds East has been an absolute disaster and we need to be on the side of the people who are "citizens of the world".
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as they support tuition fees and Labour promises to end them.
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as home ownership continues to fall.
Telling voters in Mansfield and Stoke that they're thick provincial plebs wont get the urban middle classes back but it will lose dozens of Conservatives seats elsewhere.
fack mansfield and stoke. We need Kensington.
Kensington, Canterbury, hold on to Barnet, win back Enfield Southgate, win back Oxford West and Abingdon. Fuck Mansfield man. He's not loyal to our party, the middle classes are, but we've turned our back on them and we need to win them back.
One nation Toryism didn't last long!
Tories are on the wrong side of the divides on age, education and Brexit to win back in London.
They seem to think a new Tory leader hurling hatred at Mansfield will win them thousands of votes in Ealing and Enfield.
I suppose its easier than admitting their policies on tuition fees and home ownership have been disastrous or of thinking ways of solving the problems.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
Yes, they need to regain those and seats like Eastbourne and Croydon Central but they also need to hold Mansfield, Copeland, Stoke South and Walsall North and Middlesborough South and Cleveland East and gain more seats like those too now some seats like Chester, Ilford North and Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton, Westmister North and Hampstead and Kilburn which were on the Tory target seat list this time now have Labour majorities of close to 10,000 or more and are probably lost to the Tories for good
There's a lot of fantasy thinking that changing the Conservative leaders or rhetoric will win back Ealing Central or Ilford North or Brighton Kemptown.
These seats have become unwinnable for the Conservatives just as Ealing North, Ilford South and Brighton Pavilion did a decade earlier.
Wes' Ilford North majority on Thursday morning was 589. Within 24 hours it had risen to 9,639!
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
Yes, they need to regain those and seats like Eastbourne and Croydon Central but they also need to hold Mansfield, Copeland, Stoke South and Walsall North and Middlesborough South and Cleveland East and gain more seats like those too now some seats like Chester, Ilford North and Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton, Westmister North and Hampstead and Kilburn which were on the Tory target seat list this time now have Labour majorities of close to 10,000 or more and are probably lost to the Tories for good
There's a lot of fantasy thinking that changing the Conservative leaders or rhetoric will win back Ealing Central or Ilford North or Brighton Kemptown.
These seats have become unwinnable for the Conservatives just as Ealing North, Ilford South and Brighton Pavilion did a decade earlier.
Yes, social change in those seats have moved them away from the Tories, however the social composition of other seats has moved them towards the Tories. Corbyn won seats Thatcher and Major won but May won seats Foot and Kinnock won, that is the clearest evidence you need of that
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
Took Cameron years to achieve that. Moderates aren't going to be fooled again so quickly, for that to happen the headbangers need to be purged from the parliamentary party or forced to publically recant.
* Those amused by Blue's self-harming * Red team (apart from those who really don’t want Corbyn) * Soft Brexiteers * Unionist (pro-union Scots, Northern Ireland unionists) * All who don't like kippers.
But what does that mean for betters going forward?
* My first guess (short odds on this) is Theresa wants to go on and on and on but a 'coalition of chaos' with DUP will just lead to another election. * Next guesses (longer shots may be on offer): Staking horse put up by Team Boris. BJ steps in to 'steady the ship' and then a Corbyn vs Johndon election. Oh dear, that could have a distinct 'Laurel and Hardy' feel about it and then two good elections for the politicians and populace of Europe having a laugh.
I agree now but the price of fudged Brexit will inevitably be to revive UKIP
Let's hope this time the Conservatives chose to fight them instead of appeasing them. The Neville Chamberlain approach has led them into this mess.
It may well be the Tories have to sacrifice a few of the Kippers they won on Thursday in order to gain more voters back from Labour but it will need to be a careful balancing act
They need to re-gain the moderate fiscal conservatives (but socially liberal) Tories they lost in the south and London. There is no realistic path for a tory majority without Kensington, Canterbury and Bath.
Yes, they need to regain those and seats like Eastbourne and Croydon Central but they also need to hold Mansfield, Copeland, Stoke South and Walsall North and Middlesborough South and Cleveland East and gain more seats like those too now some seats like Chester, Ilford North and Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton, Westmister North and Hampstead and Kilburn which were on the Tory target seat list this time now have Labour majorities of close to 10,000 or more and are probably lost to the Tories for good
There's a lot of fantasy thinking that changing the Conservative leaders or rhetoric will win back Ealing Central or Ilford North or Brighton Kemptown.
These seats have become unwinnable for the Conservatives just as Ealing North, Ilford South and Brighton Pavilion did a decade earlier.
Wes' Ilford North majority on Thursday morning was 589. Within 24 hours it had risen to 9,639!
Yes, at the next election I will be campaigning in Thurrock and Dagenham not Ilford North and Enfield North as I did this time. The Tories now hold 0 seats in Ilford and Enfield out of 4 despite winning 318 seats, in 1992 they won all 4 seats in Ilford and Enfield when they won 336 seats nationally, not much more than they did this time. Only Enfield Southgate of the 4 is remotely winnable back for the Tories now
Comments
On the other side the Tories need to actually try and get a grasp on this issue, something they have been avoiding in the main.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-paxman-david-cameron-a-pretty-terrible-prime-minister_uk_581dc4c9e4b09d57a9a8ae51
Redistribution per se is uncontroversial. The question is the degree.
Were RIGHT this time (With a small ballot box sing to Corbyn, and a ballot box collapse for UKIP)
Huffpo pollster average:
When you divide Lab Con Lib in the Huffpo pollser average you get:
84.4% "Decided"
Which yields:
Con 43.6
Lab 39.8
Lib Dem 7.9
UKIP 4.0
On April 20th we were at:
Con 46.5
Lab 28
Lib Dem 11
UKIP 8.3
The graph of "undecided" being the mirror of Labour is quite striking.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/873860402043641856
Countries which impose higher tax rates will drive away enterprise, drive away higher productivity and drive away wealth.
Younger people (and older people) who want a better standard of living need to contibute in a way which is valued by other people rather than expect to be feather bedded by others.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/05/11/labour-to-start-talks-with-homophobic-dup/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/11/dup-not-ideologically-opposed-coaltion
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/09/02/news/hillary-clinton-emails-labour-sought-dup-election-pact-248668/?param=ds12rif76F
Nothing like being two faced.
On the other hand, thinking about it, if there is a landslide for Labour, then even then, he might not get back in
In theory we could have another election on Thursday 28th September or Thursday 5th October and it wouldn't make much difference to the negotiations which up to end of September will be largely preliminary.
I'm sure Ruth's very public announcement of her impending nuptials with her Catholic girlfriend is entirely coincidental of course. Not virtue signalling at all.
So, instead we start to increase the deficit during a very unstable time, also when we are statistically due a recession.
If we have a recession during a time of expansionist government deficit the problems would multiply hugely. And could you see Corbyn cutting services with the deficit spiralling?
The afternoon thread is a must read for anyone who bet on the election.
Also, someone might vote for a manifesto that causes them small economic harm if it substantially benefits those about whom they care.
Would Cameron have called an election? He wouldn't have had the silly poll leads that May was getting and the country wouldn't have gone through this farce.
I don't hate Cameron. The irony for me is that if he had weathered the immediate aftermath of the referendum vote we would still have a stable government.
Conveniently forgotten by The Posh Boy fan club on here of course...
I've had a lot of friends not just Conservative leaning voters (some Labour and some Lib Dem too) who have said they wish Cameron was in charge right now or that he could come back.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/canada-pre-race-2017.html
'I want it all, I want it now, I want someone else to pay for it'
Is the current mentality.
Lol.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/873174533427142656
The Conservatives are facked among the urban middle classes as long as home ownership continues to fall.
Telling voters in Mansfield and Stoke that they're thick provincial plebs wont get the urban middle classes back but it will lose dozens of Conservatives seats elsewhere.
"But the IFS said the calculation includes "factual mistakes" and "optimistic assumptions" - creating a £9 billion shortfall.
"Their proposals could be expected to raise at most £40 billion in the short run, and less in the long run," the IFS research concluded."
They said it would raise at least £9bn less, at least.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/tory-plan-balance-budget-mid-2020s-could-require-tax-rises/
These seats have become unwinnable for the Conservatives just as Ealing North, Ilford South and Brighton Pavilion did a decade earlier.
https://twitter.com/Cairdeliverpool/status/873799961812627456
Tories are on the wrong side of the divides on age, education and Brexit to win back in London.
Telling Mansfield and Stoke to go fack will lose Mansfield and Stoke and others and put Corbyn in government.
Now think of something to do about tuition fees and home ownership.
Most BME communities aren't exactly tolerant of gay people.
Most BME-majority countries have restrictions/severe penalties for being gay.
I suppose its easier than admitting their policies on tuition fees and home ownership have been disastrous or of thinking ways of solving the problems.
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/873873849913286656
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/873872446431965184
* Those amused by Blue's self-harming
* Red team (apart from those who really don’t want Corbyn)
* Soft Brexiteers
* Unionist (pro-union Scots, Northern Ireland unionists)
* All who don't like kippers.
But what does that mean for betters going forward?
* My first guess (short odds on this) is Theresa wants to go on and on and on but a 'coalition of chaos' with DUP will just lead to another election.
* Next guesses (longer shots may be on offer): Staking horse put up by Team Boris. BJ steps in to 'steady the ship' and then a Corbyn vs Johndon election. Oh dear, that could have a distinct 'Laurel and Hardy' feel about it and then two good elections for the politicians and populace of Europe having a laugh.
Tell us, which model of Norwegian car are you currently driving?
Oh...
About as likely as the DUP agreeing to a United Ireland!