politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Picking the nation’s leader. Why the Conservatives are running
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Picking the nation’s leader. Why the Conservatives are running out of options
We’ve been here before. For the second time in less than a year, the Conservatives are on the brink of replacing a leader between elections while in power. Yet right now they are in such a tizz, they aren’t considering some of the critical considerations that such a responsibility entails.
Comments
-
Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...0
-
Boris! Boris! Boris!0
-
Crouch!!!0
-
I do think David Davis would be acceptable.
He may not have held to "Big three" important offices of state but he has been around for donkey's ages (going all the way to John Major's government) and he clearly has enough experience to be PM.
It's between Hammond, Davis and Boris for me - But I think if you want to stop Corbyn your not going to be able to do it with a dull "manager" like Hammond.
Davis could do the job but won't be popular with the public so again probably wouldn't stop Corbyn.
Which really leaves only Boris - It is a risk but I can't see anyone else who could stop Corbyn's populist bandwagon.0 -
This is exactly what I have been saying. Boris! The country needs you.GIN1138 said:I do think David Davis would be acceptable.
He may not have held to "Big three" important offices of stats but he has been around for donkey's ages (going all the way to John Major's government) and he clearly has enough experience to be PM.
It's between Hammond, Davis and Boris for me - But I think of you want to stop Corbyn your not going to be able to do it with a dull "manager" like Hammond.
Davis could do the job but won't be popular with the public.
Which really leaves only Boris - It is a risk but I can't see anyone else who could stop Corbyn's populist bandwagon.0 -
Going in to opposition would be ridiculous. You spend the whole campaign talking about how Corbyn is a dangerous disaster, then you make him PM? Then you either have to keep abstaining so he can govern, or you stop him from doing anything and look even more cynical and ridiculous.
If the conservatives can't govern, the only real option is another election.0 -
Betting post
Betway offering 4-7 on Theresa May going before Arsene Wenger. Managed to get all of £7 on.0 -
Hammond for me.0
-
-
They would be putting Corbyn in power, in the hope that he would cause great harm, and then the voters would come crawling back to them with their tails between their legs.William_H said:Going in to opposition would be ridiculous. You spend the whole campaign talking about how Corbyn is a dangerous disaster, then you make him PM? Then you either have to keep abstaining so he can govern, or you stop him from doing anything and look even more cynical and ridiculous.
If the conservatives can't govern, the only real option is another election.
I can see some flaws in that.0 -
Damian Green? Been around a while, no one hates him, emollient, can match Corbyn twinkle for twinkle in the kindly old uncle stakes and is May's sort-of deputy.
More importantly, I have two quid on him at 420 on betfair exchange. Come on Damo!0 -
The ultimate irony if the blue 3 quidders end up seeing a Corbyn-led Govt.Floater said:
Even the thought of that gives me the heebie-jeebies.0 -
The only way Wenger is ever leaving Arsenal is in a casket, the senile old pr*ck.gambit said:Betting post
Betway offering 4-7 on Theresa May going before Arsene Wenger. Managed to get all of £7 on.0 -
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
0 -
Indeed. Given the Parliamentary arithmetic, Corbyn could only bring forward the most popular parts of his manifesto.Sean_F said:
They would be putting Corbyn in power, in the hope that he would cause great harm, and then the voters would come crawling back to them with their tails between their legs.William_H said:Going in to opposition would be ridiculous. You spend the whole campaign talking about how Corbyn is a dangerous disaster, then you make him PM? Then you either have to keep abstaining so he can govern, or you stop him from doing anything and look even more cynical and ridiculous.
If the conservatives can't govern, the only real option is another election.
I can see some flaws in that.
Abolish tuition fees. Either it passes and Labour nails on a large grateful client group of young people, and their parents, or it falls and we have another GE, with the Tories still bereft of any popular policies to sell.
A huge programme of retrofitting social housing, might have some appeal too. It could boost the construction trade, and the Tories could hardly oppose it.
Southern Rail nationalisation is another.
Either these pass then go to the country, or they fall, go to the country. Neither are beneficial to the Conservatives.0 -
Just wait until we see his asylum policy,i expect it to be like merkels first attempt,we will need homes.Scrapheap_as_was said:
The ultimate irony if the blue 3 quidders end up seeing a Corbyn-led Govt.Floater said:
Even the thought of that gives me the heebie-jeebies.0 -
Next Prime minister betting has Jeremy as clear favourite at 6/4 with William Hill -Hammond is on 10/1. Hammond is 6/1 to be next Conservative Leader (was 16/1) a few days ago.
Seems crazy to me the Tories are bound to go into the next election with a new leader - who would also be PM. Would be suicide to allow Theresa to be defeated in the Commons and let Jeremy say OK lets have an election if they had no one to replace her.0 -
At some stage wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporates might start to understand that being willing to pay a little bit more tax on money they can never hope to spend might be in their own best interests. When enough voters feel they no longer have a stake in the society in which they live yhey will choose to create a different one. Redistribution of wealth benefits everyone, not just those on the receiving end.Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
-1 -
One good thing that would come out of Corbyn's house seizure policy is that house prices would lower... Indeed by the time he's finished most "property" would probably be worthless, ha!0
-
Why would any Tory MP - such as Robert Haflon and David Jones - sacked by Theresa May in the recent reshuffle - or in July 2016 on becoming PM - have failed to send a letter to Graham Brady asking for a leadership contest? Surely they would derive much emotional satisfaction from such an act of revenge!0
-
We are definitely at the start of a realignment of politics, I fully agree with that.The_Apocalypse said:This feels like a watershed moment.
Nobody wants neo-liberalism anymore.
But far from this being the end of Neo-Liberalism, I think it is its down, or at least rebirth.
The expression 'Neo-Liberalism' has been used as an insult by populists, in an attempt to keep us down, classical Liberals, or Libertarians, as those of us who understand the philosophy prefer to be called, is growing, and growing on a wide front, Macron's expected victory in France today is its best example yet.
I would highly recommend this video from the IEA about the their perception of the realignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5OlkZ968xM0 -
Probably because it's obvious she'll be going sooner or later anyway?justin124 said:Why would any Tory MP - such as Robert Haflon and David Jones - sacked by Theresa May in the recent reshuffle - or in July 2016 on becoming PM - have failed to send a letter to Graham Brady asking for a leadership contest? Surely they would derive much emotional satisfaction from such an act of revenge!
0 -
From YouGov today:Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
Jeremy Corbyn has called for luxury properties in Kensington that are owned but left empty to be requisitioned and provided as accommodation for Grenfell Tower residents who have been made homeless by the fire. Would you support or oppose such a move?
% ...........TOTAL Lab Con LD SNP UKIP
Strongly support 33 51 14 35 45 23
Tend to support .26 30 26 34 27 24
So 40% of Tories support Corbyn on this.0 -
You do live in a perfect world where people will not take advantage of the redistribution that Corbyn is on about.The reason so many people are in work now is that benefits are now a bit less than they were 10 years ago. If you increase benefits through redistribution then work becomes a lot less atrractiveSouthamObserver said:
At some stage wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporates might start to understand that being willing to pay a little bit more tax on money they can never hope to spend might be in their own best interests. When enough voters feel they no longer have a stake in the society in which they live yhey will choose to create a different one. Redistribution of wealth benefits everyone, not just those on the receiving end.Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.0 -
What is Kahn on about that the fire was caused by neglect? How much was the modernisation?0
-
27 percent of housing in Grenfell tower were leaseholder properties. Something widely ignored. Landlords do not have freedom to do whatever they want, whatever the disruption and whatever the cost when leaseholders are involved.0
-
In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary0
-
I think that ultimately a bigger % of the country want New Labour than any other option. New Labour is the consensus.0
-
Macron is an economic centrist not a neoliberal. Fillon was the economic neoliberal candidate, though Macron is certainly a social liberalBigRich said:
We are definitely at the start of a realignment of politics, I fully agree with that.The_Apocalypse said:This feels like a watershed moment.
Nobody wants neo-liberalism anymore.
But far from this being the end of Neo-Liberalism, I think it is its down, or at least rebirth.
The expression 'Neo-Liberalism' has been used as an insult by populists, in an attempt to keep us down, classical Liberals, or Libertarians, as those of us who understand the philosophy prefer to be called, is growing, and growing on a wide front, Macron's expected victory in France today is its best example yet.
I would highly recommend this video from the IEA about the their perception of the realignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5OlkZ968xM0 -
You think the people voting for Corbyn will be inspired by Philip Hammond?HYUFD said:In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary
0 -
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.0 -
Thanks for that link. Will give it a listen!BigRich said:
We are definitely at the start of a realignment of politics, I fully agree with that.The_Apocalypse said:This feels like a watershed moment.
Nobody wants neo-liberalism anymore.
But far from this being the end of Neo-Liberalism, I think it is its down, or at least rebirth.
The expression 'Neo-Liberalism' has been used as an insult by populists, in an attempt to keep us down, classical Liberals, or Libertarians, as those of us who understand the philosophy prefer to be called, is growing, and growing on a wide front, Macron's expected victory in France today is its best example yet.
I would highly recommend this video from the IEA about the their perception of the realignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5OlkZ968xM
0 -
Osborne sent his eleven months ago.GIN1138 said:
Probably because it's obvious she'll be going sooner or later anyway?justin124 said:Why would any Tory MP - such as Robert Haflon and David Jones - sacked by Theresa May in the recent reshuffle - or in July 2016 on becoming PM - have failed to send a letter to Graham Brady asking for a leadership contest? Surely they would derive much emotional satisfaction from such an act of revenge!
0 -
Redistribution is not just about benefits; far from it, in fact. It's about high-quality public services available to all: health, housing, transport, education, child-care etc.currystar said:
You do live in a perfect world where people will not take advantage of the redistribution that Corbyn is on about.The reason so many people are in work now is that benefits are now a bit less than they were 10 years ago. If you increase benefits through redistribution then work becomes a lot less atrractiveSouthamObserver said:
At some stage wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporates might start to understand that being willing to pay a little bit more tax on money they can never hope to spend might be in their own best interests. When enough voters feel they no longer have a stake in the society in which they live yhey will choose to create a different one. Redistribution of wealth benefits everyone, not just those on the receiving end.Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
0 -
India two down for nothing much !
Amir !0 -
You could not get much duller than John Major but he held off Kinnock's populist bandwagon in 1992GIN1138 said:I do think David Davis would be acceptable.
He may not have held to "Big three" important offices of state but he has been around for donkey's ages (going all the way to John Major's government) and he clearly has enough experience to be PM.
It's between Hammond, Davis and Boris for me - But I think if you want to stop Corbyn your not going to be able to do it with a dull "manager" like Hammond.
Davis could do the job but won't be popular with the public so again probably wouldn't stop Corbyn.
Which really leaves only Boris - It is a risk but I can't see anyone else who could stop Corbyn's populist bandwagon.0 -
You don't need to appeal to people voting FOR Corbyn, just the people voting for Labour DESPITE Corbyn.GIN1138 said:
You think the people voting for Corbyn will be inspired by Philip Hammond?HYUFD said:In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary
0 -
Barnesian said:
From YouGov today:Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
Jeremy Corbyn has called for luxury properties in Kensington that are owned but left empty to be requisitioned and provided as accommodation for Grenfell Tower residents who have been made homeless by the fire. Would you support or oppose such a move?
% ...........TOTAL Lab Con LD SNP UKIP
Strongly support 33 51 14 35 45 23
Tend to support .26 30 26 34 27 24
So 40% of Tories support Corbyn on this.
Are any of the people displaced from Grenfell actually without accommodation?0 -
For f* sake why don't the Tories just replace May with Hammond tomorrow afternoon and deal with this?Icarus said:Next Prime minister betting has Jeremy as clear favourite at 6/4 with William Hill -Hammond is on 10/1. Hammond is 6/1 to be next Conservative Leader (was 16/1) a few days ago.
Seems crazy to me the Tories are bound to go into the next election with a new leader - who would also be PM. Would be suicide to allow Theresa to be defeated in the Commons and let Jeremy say OK lets have an election if they had no one to replace her.
The public don't want another bloody election, so they aren't going to moan too much about mandates for a year or two.0 -
Forget inspiration.GIN1138 said:
You think the people voting for Corbyn will be inspired by Philip Hammond?HYUFD said:In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary
What's needed now is a period of competence.
And I have the strong impression that Johnson's ability to make decisions is no better developed than May's; it's just that he can screw things up with a more convincing display of insouciance.
0 -
Same idea in 1923 led to a Con landslide in 1924Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1923
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_19240 -
Thanks Alastair.
My money is on an insult to democracy.
And Pakistan.0 -
That was a very different time with a very different electorate and a very different media.HYUFD said:
You could not get much duller than John Major but he held off Kinnock's populist bandwagon in 1992GIN1138 said:I do think David Davis would be acceptable.
He may not have held to "Big three" important offices of state but he has been around for donkey's ages (going all the way to John Major's government) and he clearly has enough experience to be PM.
It's between Hammond, Davis and Boris for me - But I think if you want to stop Corbyn your not going to be able to do it with a dull "manager" like Hammond.
Davis could do the job but won't be popular with the public so again probably wouldn't stop Corbyn.
Which really leaves only Boris - It is a risk but I can't see anyone else who could stop Corbyn's populist bandwagon.0 -
The arithmetic isn't even vaguely similar: 258 191 158GIN1138 said:
Same idea in 1923 led to a Con landslide in 1924Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1923
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1924
The politics either.
The Conservatives did not have the ability to form a government then; right now they could probably do so without any formal agreement with the DUP.0 -
BoJo would be a fascinating choice. He both appeals and repels like very few politicians. He has a formidable intellect and star quality charisma but he is a 'born to rule' upper crust type who lacks personal integrity and positively reeks of careerism and privilege. Corbyn by contrast is not very bright and is not a toff. He is low key in style but is perceived to be strong on integrity and principles. Chalk and cheese. A GE fought between the tories led by BoJo and a radical left labour party under Jezza would be the starkest choice we have had since 1983. In addition to massive policy differences it would also have a strong and highly divisive Class War vibe to it. For a political junkie like me, the prospect is utterly fabulous and bring it on! But for the country? Hmm, not so sure.0
-
I think we went thru the 1923/4 scenario the other day. Very risky.GIN1138 said:
Same idea in 1923 led to a Con landslide in 1924Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1923
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_19240 -
There's no third party like Liberals, from whom the Conservatives can make gains.GIN1138 said:
Same idea in 1923 led to a Con landslide in 1924Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1923
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_19240 -
Just read about a survivor who was offered a hotel room in a high-rise hotel block. Understandably freaked out.David_Evershed said:Barnesian said:
From YouGov today:Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
Jeremy Corbyn has called for luxury properties in Kensington that are owned but left empty to be requisitioned and provided as accommodation for Grenfell Tower residents who have been made homeless by the fire. Would you support or oppose such a move?
% ...........TOTAL Lab Con LD SNP UKIP
Strongly support 33 51 14 35 45 23
Tend to support .26 30 26 34 27 24
So 40% of Tories support Corbyn on this.
Are any of the people displaced from Grenfell actually without accommodation?0 -
It doesn't matter because they are not going to given the choice for at least two years and possibly more. Hammond is more likely to make a "success" of Brexit than Boris.GIN1138 said:
You think the people voting for Corbyn will be inspired by Philip Hammond?HYUFD said:In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary
The problem the Tories have, when the next GE comes, is that they are going to lose a good chunk of their UKIP vote. They could drop from 42% share to say 36% -nothing to do with Hammond or Corbyn but the result of a Brexit that puts jobs ahead of immigration. If Corbyn is still on 40% and the rightwing vote is split then the result, according to Baxter, could be Labour most seats regardless of who the Tory leader is.0 -
Everything is risky for Con at the moment.rottenborough said:
I think we went thru the 1923/4 scenario the other day. Very risky.GIN1138 said:
Same idea in 1923 led to a Con landslide in 1924Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1923
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1924
Keep May for two years for Brexit - There might not be a Conservative Party left when she's finished.
Change May for Hammond - He might be able to pull off Brexit but the public will find him dull, boring and uninspiring. Next to Corbyn he'll fade into the background. And what if he turns out to be as useless as May?
Change May for Boris - ANYTHING could happen. He might be a great success. He might be a terrible disaster.
Put Corbyn in to govern as a minority - He might turn out to be even more popular and successful in office than he is in Opposition.
These are dark times for #TeamBlue0 -
No it was the same choice of dull centrist Tory against left-wing populist LabourGIN1138 said:
That was a very different time with a very different electorate and a very different media.HYUFD said:
You could not get much duller than John Major but he held off Kinnock's populist bandwagon in 1992GIN1138 said:I do think David Davis would be acceptable.
He may not have held to "Big three" important offices of state but he has been around for donkey's ages (going all the way to John Major's government) and he clearly has enough experience to be PM.
It's between Hammond, Davis and Boris for me - But I think if you want to stop Corbyn your not going to be able to do it with a dull "manager" like Hammond.
Davis could do the job but won't be popular with the public so again probably wouldn't stop Corbyn.
Which really leaves only Boris - It is a risk but I can't see anyone else who could stop Corbyn's populist bandwagon.0 -
Drama QueenJason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.0 -
No. What you are suggesting is socialism, or worse, communism. It might have escaped your notice, but those models impoverish and starve millions.SouthamObserver said:
At some stage wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporates might start to understand that being willing to pay a little bit more tax on money they can never hope to spend might be in their own best interests. When enough voters feel they no longer have a stake in the society in which they live yhey will choose to create a different one. Redistribution of wealth benefits everyone, not just those on the receiving end.Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
You're as mad as Corbyn.0 -
Hmm......Barnesian said:
From YouGov today:Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
Jeremy Corbyn has called for luxury properties in Kensington that are owned but left empty to be requisitioned and provided as accommodation for Grenfell Tower residents who have been made homeless by the fire. Would you support or oppose such a move?
% ...........TOTAL Lab Con LD SNP UKIP
Strongly support 33 51 14 35 45 23
Tend to support .26 30 26 34 27 24
So 40% of Tories support Corbyn on this.
Some questions:-
-What's "luxury"? Who defines it? What's any appeal process?
-What's "empty"?
-What if it were left unused for a month because the owner was thinking of redecorating or refurbishing?
-Or three or six months?
-What if the owner works abroad on a monthly contract and genuinely doesn't know when they will be back and wants a secure base for when that happens?
- Is compensation to be paid and if so how much and for how long?
- If not what else can the Govt seize and under what circumstances?
- How does the owner get their property back and when?
-What if it's mortgaged and the lender decides to call the loan in because their security is now in doubt?
- What if the owner is foreign and you start an international tit for tat? Lots of Chinese owned flats in London for example so that's going to end well isn't it? Why should I suffer a trade embargo to goods I export to China from far off Wales forcing me to lay people off in the Valleys because people are grandstanding in London?
This was a dreadful tragedy. Huge efforts must be made to allieviate the suffering of those involved in a humane and practical fashion asap, no question. All aspects of this need to see full daylight in full public scrutiny for sure. However, we should also not all be leaping to conclusions before the technical enquiry as to the cause(s) has even really started. A bit less emoting wildly and a bit more thinking through the huge consequences of shoot from the hip responses might help.
0 -
Agreed. The Tories need to get their heads down and govern for the time being. The fact that the media appear to be taking seriously the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn forming a government on 260 seats just shows how much the narrative has changed and his stock has risen - they are taking what he says as gospel, even though it's patently nonsense on the numbers.Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
I don't think it's a good time to change a leader either - straight after a GE is a risky strategy. Better to wait at least a year, probably even better to be wait until after Brexit then wield the knife.0 -
Yes but the difference is that in 1992 the electorate was in favour of the dull centrist but now the electorate may well be in favour of the left wing populist.HYUFD said:
No it was the same choice of dull centrist Tory against left-wing populist LabourGIN1138 said:
That was a very different time with a very different electorate and a very different media.HYUFD said:
You could not get much duller than John Major but he held off Kinnock's populist bandwagon in 1992GIN1138 said:I do think David Davis would be acceptable.
He may not have held to "Big three" important offices of state but he has been around for donkey's ages (going all the way to John Major's government) and he clearly has enough experience to be PM.
It's between Hammond, Davis and Boris for me - But I think if you want to stop Corbyn your not going to be able to do it with a dull "manager" like Hammond.
Davis could do the job but won't be popular with the public so again probably wouldn't stop Corbyn.
Which really leaves only Boris - It is a risk but I can't see anyone else who could stop Corbyn's populist bandwagon.
Brexit's changed everything...0 -
No, I am not suggesting socialism or communism. I am suggesting that those who offshore money they can never hope to spend rather than giving some of it up in additional tax payments are not acting in their own long-term interests.Jason said:
No. What you are suggesting is socialism, or worse, communism. It might have escaped your notice, but those models impoverish and starve millions.SouthamObserver said:
At some stage wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporates might start to understand that being willing to pay a little bit more tax on money they can never hope to spend might be in their own best interests. When enough voters feel they no longer have a stake in the society in which they live yhey will choose to create a different one. Redistribution of wealth benefits everyone, not just those on the receiving end.Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
You're as mad as Corbyn.
0 -
Corbyn took almost 20% of the 2015 UKIP vote so some Labour voters might also return to UKIP under such a scenario, however the Tories might be able to win back some voters May lost to the LDs and Labour to compensate while Corbyn is unlikely to be able to win over many more Tories he has not already wonBarnesian said:
It doesn't matter because they are not going to given the choice for at least two years and possibly more. Hammond is more likely to make a "success" of Brexit than Boris.GIN1138 said:
You think the people voting for Corbyn will be inspired by Philip Hammond?HYUFD said:In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary
The problem the Tories have, when the next GE comes, is that they are going to lose a good chunk of their UKIP vote. They could drop from 42% share to say 36% -nothing to do with Hammond or Corbyn but the result of a Brexit that puts jobs ahead of immigration. If Corbyn is still on 40% and the rightwing vote is split then the result, according to Baxter, could be Labour most seats regardless of who the Tory leader is.0 -
May's credibility is utterly destroyed though. At the moment the country appears to be leaderless...numbertwelve said:
Agreed. The Tories need to get their heads down and govern for the time being. The fact that the media appear to be taking seriously the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn forming a government on 260 seats just shows how much the narrative has changed and his stock has risen - they are taking what he says as gospel, even though it's patently nonsense on the numbers.Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
I don't think it's a good time to change a leader either - straight after a GE is a risky strategy. Better to wait at least a year, probably even better to be wait until after Brexit then wield the knife.0 -
I don't think there is any possible course of action available to the Tories that doesn't lead to a Corbyn government in 1 to 5 years.GIN1138 said:
Yes but the difference is that in 1992 the electorate was in favour of the dull centrist but now the electorate may well be in favour of the left wing populist.HYUFD said:
No it was the same choice of dull centrist Tory against left-wing populist LabourGIN1138 said:
That was a very different time with a very different electorate and a very different media.HYUFD said:
You could not get much duller than John Major but he held off Kinnock's populist bandwagon in 1992GIN1138 said:I do think David Davis would be acceptable.
He may not have held to "Big three" important offices of state but he has been around for donkey's ages (going all the way to John Major's government) and he clearly has enough experience to be PM.
It's between Hammond, Davis and Boris for me - But I think if you want to stop Corbyn your not going to be able to do it with a dull "manager" like Hammond.
Davis could do the job but won't be popular with the public so again probably wouldn't stop Corbyn.
Which really leaves only Boris - It is a risk but I can't see anyone else who could stop Corbyn's populist bandwagon.
Brexit's changed everything...0 -
The Conservatives were very happy to requisition people's property in WW2 . They were also happy in the 1950s and 1960s to compulsory purchase it at below market value for major building projects . If you had a nice property but were unlucky to live in the middle of a large slum clearance area again your home was requisitioned with below market value compensation .bigjohnowls said:
Drama QueenJason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.0 -
Can we have an En Marche UK please?0
-
Have you got sources for that please?MarkSenior said:
The Conservatives were very happy to requisition people's property in WW2 . They were also happy in the 1950s and 1960s to compulsory purchase it at below market value for major building projects . If you had a nice property but were unlucky to live in the middle of a large slum clearance area again your home was requisitioned with below market value compensation .bigjohnowls said:
Drama QueenJason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.0 -
We might be needing a beer-match in this Final/0
-
It is beginning to look that way...Dura_Ace said:
I don't think there is any possible course of action available to the Tories that doesn't lead to a Corbyn government in 1 to 5 years.GIN1138 said:
Yes but the difference is that in 1992 the electorate was in favour of the dull centrist but now the electorate may well be in favour of the left wing populist.HYUFD said:
No it was the same choice of dull centrist Tory against left-wing populist LabourGIN1138 said:
That was a very different time with a very different electorate and a very different media.HYUFD said:
You could not get much duller than John Major but he held off Kinnock's populist bandwagon in 1992GIN1138 said:I do think David Davis would be acceptable.
He may not have held to "Big three" important offices of state but he has been around for donkey's ages (going all the way to John Major's government) and he clearly has enough experience to be PM.
It's between Hammond, Davis and Boris for me - But I think if you want to stop Corbyn your not going to be able to do it with a dull "manager" like Hammond.
Davis could do the job but won't be popular with the public so again probably wouldn't stop Corbyn.
Which really leaves only Boris - It is a risk but I can't see anyone else who could stop Corbyn's populist bandwagon.
Brexit's changed everything...0 -
How about a Clegg/Cameron/Blair centrist movement? I'd vote for them, and I reckon Middle England would too.Gallowgate said:Can we have an En Marche UK please?
0 -
UKIP are dead and bankrupt and leaderless . They will never recover from this .A new far right party formed/led by Banks/Farage is a possibility but it will not be called UKIP .HYUFD said:
Corbyn took almost 20% of the 2015 UKIP vote so some Labour voters might also return to UKIP under such a scenario, however the Tories might be able to win back some voters May lost to the LDs and Labour to compensate while Corbyn is unlikely to be able to win over many more Tories he has not already wonBarnesian said:
It doesn't matter because they are not going to given the choice for at least two years and possibly more. Hammond is more likely to make a "success" of Brexit than Boris.GIN1138 said:
You think the people voting for Corbyn will be inspired by Philip Hammond?HYUFD said:In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary
The problem the Tories have, when the next GE comes, is that they are going to lose a good chunk of their UKIP vote. They could drop from 42% share to say 36% -nothing to do with Hammond or Corbyn but the result of a Brexit that puts jobs ahead of immigration. If Corbyn is still on 40% and the rightwing vote is split then the result, according to Baxter, could be Labour most seats regardless of who the Tory leader is.0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Far too warm. Roll on winter.
I agree that Hammond is the best bet if a leader is needed in the short term.
Mr. Gate, sounds good. Would give non-crazy lefties something to vote for and might actually force the Conservatives to up their game. But I'll believe it when I see it. The PLP has decided to kneel before the Friend of Hamas (with some honourable exceptions).0 -
According to Survation 13% of Labour voters are more likely to vote Tory under Hammond, 17% under Boris, 7% under Davis, 8% under Gove and 11% under Rudd. However 39% would be less likely to vote for the Tories under Boris, 26% less likely under Hammond, 29% under Davis, 32% under Rudd and 36% under Gove.GIN1138 said:
Everything is risky for Con at the moment.rottenborough said:
I think we went thru the 1923/4 scenario the other day. Very risky.GIN1138 said:
Same idea in 1923 led to a Con landslide in 1924Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1923
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1924
Keep May for two years for Brexit - There might not be a Conservative Party left when she's finished.
Change May for Hammond - He might be able to pull off Brexit but the public will find him dull, boring and uninspiring. Next to Corbyn he'll fade into the background. And what if he turns out to be as useless as May?
Change May for Boris - ANYTHING could happen. He might be a great success. He might be a terrible disaster.
Put Corbyn in to govern as a minority - He might turn out to be even more popular and successful in office than he is in Opposition.
These are dark times for #TeamBlue
http://survation.com/labour-party-now-polling-5-ahead-conservatives-public-say-theresa-may-resign-49-38/
Of course a Corbyn McDonnell government would be a disaster for the country but ironically the quickest way to revive the Tories, we would be asking the IMF for a bailout in a year or two, the EU would make mincemeat of Corbyn and Starmer and the unions would be running the country0 -
I'd also vote for them. Problem is the leader. Clegg is tainted by tuition fees. Cameron tainted by Austerity. Blair tainted by Iraq.Jason said:
How about a Clegg/Cameron/Blair centrist movement? I'd vote for them, and I reckon Middle England would too.Gallowgate said:Can we have an En Marche UK please?
0 -
It'll have to be up to Salmond. He's the UK's foremost political GILF specialist.Gallowgate said:Can we have an En Marche UK please?
0 -
Google is your friendGallowgate said:
Have you got sources for that please?MarkSenior said:
The Conservatives were very happy to requisition people's property in WW2 . They were also happy in the 1950s and 1960s to compulsory purchase it at below market value for major building projects . If you had a nice property but were unlucky to live in the middle of a large slum clearance area again your home was requisitioned with below market value compensation .bigjohnowls said:
Drama QueenJason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.0 -
It might help the rehousing issue to have a general x country appeal for vacant accomodation, if there is any and then let individuals choose if they are happy to be relocated. Yet again the issue does appear to be a lack of organisaioal ability. Given how much senior council officials are paid then if the stories about inability to pull this together and provide rapid solutions are true then its poor.Jason said:
No. What you are suggesting is socialism, or worse, communism. It might have escaped your notice, but those models impoverish and starve millions.SouthamObserver said:
At some stage wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporates might start to understand that being willing to pay a little bit more tax on money they can never hope to spend might be in their own best interests. When enough voters feel they no longer have a stake in the society in which they live yhey will choose to create a different one. Redistribution of wealth benefits everyone, not just those on the receiving end.Jason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.
You're as mad as Corbyn.0 -
She had a nightmare election and didn't come out of it well. Nevertheless, she won the most votes and seats. She is damaged, certainly, but it would be hasty to dump her on the eve of Brexit negotiations. Tory voters are likely going to be incensed that the party changed PM a week after an election.GIN1138 said:
May's credibility is utterly destroyed though. At the moment the country appears to be leaderless...numbertwelve said:
Agreed. The Tories need to get their heads down and govern for the time being. The fact that the media appear to be taking seriously the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn forming a government on 260 seats just shows how much the narrative has changed and his stock has risen - they are taking what he says as gospel, even though it's patently nonsense on the numbers.Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
I don't think it's a good time to change a leader either - straight after a GE is a risky strategy. Better to wait at least a year, probably even better to be wait until after Brexit then wield the knife.
She should not be let anywhere near another vote, but the best thing to do right now is keep her in a caretaker role for the time being. Anything else leads to massive issues of legitimacy, another GE and Corbyn in number 10 by the end of the year.
Also worth mentioning - the narrative is awful for the Tories now. But will it always remain so, all the way up to the next election? People need to stop being so ridiculously hasty.0 -
I'm sorry but that isn't how this works. You can't just make a claim and then tell ME to Google it.MarkSenior said:
Google is your friendGallowgate said:
Have you got sources for that please?MarkSenior said:
The Conservatives were very happy to requisition people's property in WW2 . They were also happy in the 1950s and 1960s to compulsory purchase it at below market value for major building projects . If you had a nice property but were unlucky to live in the middle of a large slum clearance area again your home was requisitioned with below market value compensation .bigjohnowls said:
Drama QueenJason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.0 -
We cannot hand over the reigns of power to Corbyn, no matter how tough it gets for the Tories. Corbyn has been emboldened, and has already starting talking about property theft from a demographic he despises.HYUFD said:
According to Survation 13% of Labour voters are more likely to vote Tory under Hammond, 17% under Boris, 7% under Davis, 8% under Gove and 11% under Rudd. However 39% would be less likely to vote for the Tories under Boris, 26% less likely under Hammond, 29% under Davis, 32% under Rudd and 36% under Gove.GIN1138 said:
Everything is risky for Con at the moment.rottenborough said:
I think we went thru the 1923/4 scenario the other day. Very risky.GIN1138 said:Nigelb said:
The arithmetic doesn't even begin to support that idea. How on earth would you justify to the public letting Corbyn in and only allowing him to put through the commons the policies you approve of ?GIN1138 said:Thinking The Herdson's suggestion of putting Jezza in to "govern" with 260 seats might not be a bad option...
What do you do when he makes the first vote a confidence issue ?
And it you do allow him to pass legislation, you'd effectively be outsourcing the leadership of the Tories to Corbyn.
Utterly absurd - even before you begin to consider the executive powers the PM possesses which don't require commons votes.
And the message would also be "we don't have a leader any better than May".
Pitiful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1923
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1924
Keep May for two years for Brexit - There might not be a Conservative Party left when she's finished.
Change May for Hammond - He might be able to pull off Brexit but the public will find him dull, boring and uninspiring. Next to Corbyn he'll fade into the background. And what if he turns out to be as useless as May?
Change May for Boris - ANYTHING could happen. He might be a great success. He might be a terrible disaster.
Put Corbyn in to govern as a minority - He might turn out to be even more popular and successful in office than he is in Opposition.
These are dark times for #TeamBlue
http://survation.com/labour-party-now-polling-5-ahead-conservatives-public-say-theresa-may-resign-49-38/
Of course a Corbyn McDonnell government would be a disaster for the country but ironically the quickest way to revive the Tories, we would be asking the IMF for a bailout in a year or two, the EU would make mincemeat of Corbyn and Starmer and the unions would be running the country
That's the tip of the iceberg. Imagine him as PM and McDonnell as chancellor. The damage they would do would sink this country.0 -
Even if it is called a different name a Farage/Banks party would certainly win back a number of former UKIP voters in the event of a softer BrexitMarkSenior said:
UKIP are dead and bankrupt and leaderless . They will never recover from this .A new far right party formed/led by Banks/Farage is a possibility but it will not be called UKIP .HYUFD said:
Corbyn took almost 20% of the 2015 UKIP vote so some Labour voters might also return to UKIP under such a scenario, however the Tories might be able to win back some voters May lost to the LDs and Labour to compensate while Corbyn is unlikely to be able to win over many more Tories he has not already wonBarnesian said:
It doesn't matter because they are not going to given the choice for at least two years and possibly more. Hammond is more likely to make a "success" of Brexit than Boris.GIN1138 said:
You think the people voting for Corbyn will be inspired by Philip Hammond?HYUFD said:In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary
The problem the Tories have, when the next GE comes, is that they are going to lose a good chunk of their UKIP vote. They could drop from 42% share to say 36% -nothing to do with Hammond or Corbyn but the result of a Brexit that puts jobs ahead of immigration. If Corbyn is still on 40% and the rightwing vote is split then the result, according to Baxter, could be Labour most seats regardless of who the Tory leader is.0 -
I take your point on Labour losing some UKIP support. 2% loss would take Labour down to 38% and UKIP back to 10%. (I'm assuming the Tories lose 6% because of UKIP returning to the fold).HYUFD said:
Corbyn took almost 20% of the 2015 UKIP vote so some Labour voters might also return to UKIP under such a scenario, however the Tories might be able to win back some voters May lost to the LDs and Labour to compensate while Corbyn is unlikely to be able to win over many more Tories he has not already wonBarnesian said:
It doesn't matter because they are not going to given the choice for at least two years and possibly more. Hammond is more likely to make a "success" of Brexit than Boris.GIN1138 said:
You think the people voting for Corbyn will be inspired by Philip Hammond?HYUFD said:In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary
The problem the Tories have, when the next GE comes, is that they are going to lose a good chunk of their UKIP vote. They could drop from 42% share to say 36% -nothing to do with Hammond or Corbyn but the result of a Brexit that puts jobs ahead of immigration. If Corbyn is still on 40% and the rightwing vote is split then the result, according to Baxter, could be Labour most seats regardless of who the Tory leader is.
Baxtering that still leads to Labour taking most seats but dependent on the SNP to get a majority.
I don't see the Tories winning many seats back from the LibDems, if any. I suspect that Richmond Park will be a LibDem gain next time when the 5,773 Labour voters are reminded that the Tories won by 45 votes. I think the LibDems in RP slipped up on the Labour squeeze this time and took their vote for granted. They won't next time.0 -
Alastair has logic on his side, but I'm not convinced Conservative MPs are thinking in those terms, let alone party members.0
-
Ironic, isn't it?BigRich said:
We are definitely at the start of a realignment of politics, I fully agree with that.The_Apocalypse said:This feels like a watershed moment.
Nobody wants neo-liberalism anymore.
But far from this being the end of Neo-Liberalism, I think it is its down, or at least rebirth.
The expression 'Neo-Liberalism' has been used as an insult by populists, in an attempt to keep us down, classical Liberals, or Libertarians, as those of us who understand the philosophy prefer to be called, is growing, and growing on a wide front, Macron's expected victory in France today is its best example yet.
I would highly recommend this video from the IEA about the their perception of the realignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5OlkZ968xM
The French have elected probably the free market government in the world. While we can't decide between the illiberal Mrs May or the Marxist Mr Corbyn.0 -
Can anybody make sense of Labours Brexit position of staying in the customs union but leaving the single market?0
-
"Anything else would be an insult to democracy."
No it would not. We elect MPs not PMs. Anyone who can command a majority in Parliament is fit and suitable to be a PM as that is ultimately the decision of the MPs not the public.
0 -
The Tories got 42% in 2017 ie exactly the same as Thatcher got in 1987, Major won in 1992 by winning 41% and holding almost all that vote, Hammond would need to do the sameGIN1138 said:
Yes but the difference is that in 1992 the electorate was in favour of the dull centrist but now the electorate may well be in favour of the left wing populist.HYUFD said:
No it was the same choice of dull centrist Tory against left-wing populist LabourGIN1138 said:
That was a very different time with a very different electorate and a very different media.HYUFD said:
You could not get much duller than John Major but he held off Kinnock's populist bandwagon in 1992GIN1138 said:I do think David Davis would be acceptable.
He may not have held to "Big three" important offices of state but he has been around for donkey's ages (going all the way to John Major's government) and he clearly has enough experience to be PM.
It's between Hammond, Davis and Boris for me - But I think if you want to stop Corbyn your not going to be able to do it with a dull "manager" like Hammond.
Davis could do the job but won't be popular with the public so again probably wouldn't stop Corbyn.
Which really leaves only Boris - It is a risk but I can't see anyone else who could stop Corbyn's populist bandwagon.
Brexit's changed everything...0 -
Who knows ?!?David_Evershed said:Are any of the people displaced from Grenfell actually without accommodation?
But given the handling of this matter by the local council who would be surprised if there some surviving stragglers sleeping in doorways or asked to move back to Grenfell Tower and clear up the mess with a government supplied toothbrush or picked up for vagrancy in tube stations?0 -
Technically yes but in practice no.Richard_Tyndall said:"Anything else would be an insult to democracy."
No it would not. We elect MPs not PMs. Anyone who can command a majority in Parliament is fit and suitable to be a PM as that is ultimately the decision of the MPs not the public.
I don't think, in this day and age, you could be PM of the country from the backbenches or the Lords for that matter.
The minimum to be PM, I would say, is to be a Cabinet minister though I don't think it necessarily has to come from the "big three" offices of State anymore...0 -
Mr. Jason, none of them are in the Commons...0
-
Macron was not as right-wing economically as Fillon thoughrcs1000 said:
Ironic, isn't it?BigRich said:
We are definitely at the start of a realignment of politics, I fully agree with that.The_Apocalypse said:This feels like a watershed moment.
Nobody wants neo-liberalism anymore.
But far from this being the end of Neo-Liberalism, I think it is its down, or at least rebirth.
The expression 'Neo-Liberalism' has been used as an insult by populists, in an attempt to keep us down, classical Liberals, or Libertarians, as those of us who understand the philosophy prefer to be called, is growing, and growing on a wide front, Macron's expected victory in France today is its best example yet.
I would highly recommend this video from the IEA about the their perception of the realignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5OlkZ968xM
The French have elected probably the free market government in the world. While we can't decide between the illiberal Mrs May or the Marxist Mr Corbyn.0 -
An unexpected defence from you of the parliamentary democracy that brought us our EU membership in the first place. I suppose you'd be perfectly happy with a Remain majority revoking Article 50 and be sanguine about overturning their actions in the next parliament after they were turfed out?Richard_Tyndall said:"Anything else would be an insult to democracy."
No it would not. We elect MPs not PMs. Anyone who can command a majority in Parliament is fit and suitable to be a PM as that is ultimately the decision of the MPs not the public.0 -
Back n the 30's my home town collected for a hospital, and JUST before the wat t'committee puchesded a piece of land on which to build it. It was compulsory purchased ten years late for a school at about the price paid before the war; much less than it was then worth.Gallowgate said:
Have you got sources for that please?MarkSenior said:
The Conservatives were very happy to requisition people's property in WW2 . They were also happy in the 1950s and 1960s to compulsory purchase it at below market value for major building projects . If you had a nice property but were unlucky to live in the middle of a large slum clearance area again your home was requisitioned with below market value compensation .bigjohnowls said:
Drama QueenJason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.0 -
Constitutionally, yes. In practice? It can play out differently. Brown was forever plagued by jibes that he had no mandate. May would have had the same if she didn't call the recent election.Richard_Tyndall said:"Anything else would be an insult to democracy."
No it would not. We elect MPs not PMs. Anyone who can command a majority in Parliament is fit and suitable to be a PM as that is ultimately the decision of the MPs not the public.0 -
That's Turkey's position isn't it?GIN1138 said:Can anybody make sense of Labours Brexit position of staying in the customs union but leaving the single market?
0 -
True, but those three combined would be a formidable force. Biggest problem, though, is they are all Europhiles. This country's in a fucking mess. We have a far left extremist that has been partially legitimised, a lame duck PM, and confusion over Brexit on all sides (apart from maybe UKIP).Gallowgate said:
I'd also vote for them. Problem is the leader. Clegg is tainted by tuition fees. Cameron tainted by Austerity. Blair tainted by Iraq.Jason said:
How about a Clegg/Cameron/Blair centrist movement? I'd vote for them, and I reckon Middle England would too.Gallowgate said:Can we have an En Marche UK please?
A foreign investor looking to set up shop may well look at Britian and think 'no, it's too big a risk'. Just look at the rhetoric on this site. In a globalised economy, we need every advantage available to us, and yet people are willing to shrug their shoulders and offer up Corbyn as the saviour of the nation.
We've come full circle since the 70s.0 -
I agree with you about Hammond. I saw him on Marr this morning and he's just about on the right side of the fruitcake line which is more than you can say about the other contenders.
He also answers questions without obfuscation which on the Tory side makes him unique.0 -
Dunno. I would've thought the single market was more important but who knows?Gallowgate said:
That's Turkey's position isn't it?GIN1138 said:Can anybody make sense of Labours Brexit position of staying in the customs union but leaving the single market?
0 -
AGREED.Gallowgate said:
I'm sorry but that isn't how this works. You can't just make a claim and then tell ME to Google it.MarkSenior said:
Google is your friendGallowgate said:
Have you got sources for that please?MarkSenior said:
The Conservatives were very happy to requisition people's property in WW2 . They were also happy in the 1950s and 1960s to compulsory purchase it at below market value for major building projects . If you had a nice property but were unlucky to live in the middle of a large slum clearance area again your home was requisitioned with below market value compensation .bigjohnowls said:
Drama QueenJason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.0 -
Rogerdarmus tipping Hammond must be the kiss of death for him!Roger said:I agree with you about Hammond. I saw him on Marr this morning and he's just about on the right side of the fruitcake line which is more than you can say about the other contenders.
He also answers questions without obfuscation which on the Tory side makes him unique.
0 -
The likes of Kensington, Bedford and Reading though May go back to the Tories from Labour though if a softer Brexit is pursued and the Dementia Tax dumped. The Tories are more likely to pursue fudged Brexit than full soft Brexit so I doubt 6% will go back to UKIPBarnesian said:
I take your point on Labour losing some UKIP support. 2% loss would take Labour down to 38% and UKIP back to 10%. (I'm assuming the Tories lose 6% because of UKIP returning to the fold).HYUFD said:
Corbyn took almost 20% of the 2015 UKIP vote so some Labour voters might also return to UKIP under such a scenario, however the Tories might be able to win back some voters May lost to the LDs and Labour to compensate while Corbyn is unlikely to be able to win over many more Tories he has not already wonBarnesian said:
It doesn't matter because they are not going to given the choice for at least two years and possibly more. Hammond is more likely to make a "success" of Brexit than Boris.GIN1138 said:
You think the people voting for Corbyn will be inspired by Philip Hammond?HYUFD said:In my view if and when May goes the likeliest replacement for her will be Philip Hammond. Not only would he probably be the best bet for the Tories now to see off Corbyn and McDonnell but just as important the best bet for Britain to get a half decent Brexit deal. Hammond has an Oxford first, speaks fluent French and has a business background and is ideally suited to the task and EU leaders like German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble have a grudging respect for him they do not have for Boris. Davis will probably stay as Brexit Secretary
The problem the Tories have, when the next GE comes, is that they are going to lose a good chunk of their UKIP vote. They could drop from 42% share to say 36% -nothing to do with Hammond or Corbyn but the result of a Brexit that puts jobs ahead of immigration. If Corbyn is still on 40% and the rightwing vote is split then the result, according to Baxter, could be Labour most seats regardless of who the Tory leader is.
Baxtering that still leads to Labour taking most seats but dependent on the SNP to get a majority.
I don't see the Tories winning many seats back from the LibDems, if any. I suspect that Richmond Park will be a LibDem gain next time when the 5,773 Labour voters are reminded that the Tories won by 45 votes. I think the LibDems in RP slipped up on the Labour squeeze this time and took their vote for granted. They won't next time.
0 -
It is indeed. Particularly when the person making claims (you in this case) is being misleading. The requisitioning of properties in WW2 required a whole raft of new laws to be passed by Parliament to allow it to happen and include compensation. Very different from what Corbyn is proposing and you are apparently supporting.MarkSenior said:
Google is your friendGallowgate said:
Have you got sources for that please?MarkSenior said:
The Conservatives were very happy to requisition people's property in WW2 . They were also happy in the 1950s and 1960s to compulsory purchase it at below market value for major building projects . If you had a nice property but were unlucky to live in the middle of a large slum clearance area again your home was requisitioned with below market value compensation .bigjohnowls said:
Drama QueenJason said:
A stark and very real warning of what a Corbyn premiership would present. The literal theft of somebody's property because they happen to use it in a way that is perceived to be distasteful - ie - making profit from it, or keeping it vacant, or for whatever reason.Floater said:
Where will this end? Illegal evictions of private property owners to make way for more 'deserving' demographics? It's only a step away from seizing other assets.
We are living in dangerous times.0
