politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Davis continues to be the favourite to succeed TMay as C

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

'My son was circumcised without my consent'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40420511

This should make for an interesting and potentially useful case.

"I wrote to MPs and they basically shoved me off. Everybody you speak to it's like speaking to a brick wall."

She should name and shame the MPs.

It is a troubling case but if she is writing to MPs, plural, surely at least all but one of them will reply by directing her to her own MP? Isn't that how the system works?

Nick might know more, but I've read stories in the past where an MP will get involved even if the complainant isn't in his/her constituency, especially when they are campaigning on an issue. I suppose it'd be polite to tell the constituent's MP you're getting involved, though.

It just shows the woman's desperation to get justice.

It's possible for other MPs to get involved if they wish to (I once helped a constiuent of George Galloway when he ignored her request for advice and she wrote to me as I was chair of a relevant all-party medical group) but because of workload the default is to say sorry, you need to go to your MP.

Thanks.

I think she'll hang on as Jeremy and co turn a potential victory into a complete shambles. The man is hopeless. He's 'Chance the Gardener'. Funny like Eddie the Eagle was funny.

......But the facts haven't changed.......

He's got the weakest shadow cabinet Labour has ever had. He has a party who largely think he's a clown. He has a henchman who is seen as dangerous. He needs the complete support of at least three other parties to even make a dent.

Though it would be funny to have Corbyn government it's not going to happen. This is their high water mark and if I had to guess I'd say Labour will fall apart before May's government does. The best that progressives can hope for is that Brexit falls apart which is quite likely

freetochoose said:

"Altogether now with the PB lefties:

Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers"

And all the while they forget that the latter fund the former.

The poster about firemen and cheering is everything wrong with politics today, no substance, figures or reasoning, just emotive aimed at the hard of thinking. What about nurses, teachers, ambulancemen etc, how much should they get?

And what about government statisticians? Won't somebody think of the stattos?

Nigelb said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

'My son was circumcised without my consent'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40420511

This should make for an interesting and potentially useful case.

"I wrote to MPs and they basically shoved me off. Everybody you speak to it's like speaking to a brick wall."

She should name and shame the MPs.

It is a troubling case but if she is writing to MPs, plural, surely at least all but one of them will reply by directing her to her own MP? Isn't that how the system works?

It is also slightly puzzling that doctors appear not to have corrected what sounds like a botched circumcision (which itself sounds like it should be barely harder than cutting toenails, so was the operation actually done by a doctor in the first place?).

"barely harder than cutting toenails"

Are you serious? IMO male circumcision for religious reasons is child abuse.

Leaving that question aside, my comment was that it does not seem (to this non-expert) a technically difficult procedure. If separating conjoined twins is at one end of the scale of surgical complexity, and cutting toenails is at the other, then surely male circumcision is close to the latter end. Yet from the description in the story, it sounds like something went wrong.

I don't know if you're circumcised or not, but if you are not, I would submit you'd be much more concerned about getting a circumcision that you would having your toenails cut.

And things often go wrong with circumcisions.

As a Jewish friend of mine at Uni said to me: "What the hell gave my parents the right to do that to me?"

You are talking about whether it is desirable or is even abuse. I am not. Putting all moral, religious and aesthetic issues to one side, and even the legal ones about parental consent, it still sounds from the story that this comparatively simple operation was botched (and did not seem to have been corrected afterwards).

So you're ignoring all the glaring, major issues with this case?

Okkkay ...

You made the comparison with cutting toenails. That argument is just so patently ridiculous I'm amazed you're not ashamed to write it.

Cutting toenails is easy. So is circumcision. For centuries the operation has been carried out by laymen....

As has FGM. That doesn't make it either safe or acceptable.

DecrepitJohnL's position is so nonsensical I fear he is trolling.

freetochoose said:

"Altogether now with the PB lefties:

Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers"

And all the while they forget that the latter fund the former.

The poster about firemen and cheering is everything wrong with politics today, no substance, figures or reasoning, just emotive aimed at the hard of thinking. What about nurses, teachers, ambulancemen etc, how much should they get?

And if you don't like it, the way to respond is with reasoned argument.
Cheering in the commons for a pay freeze is just imbecilic.

I do agree though that the Tories cheering is risible, they really are a dreadful group of people who only have themselves to blame for bringing such disdain upon themselves.

Mr. Observer, that policeman is clearly a hero, and deserves to be recognised in the honours list.

Using one man to dictate the approach to millions, however, is demented. By that logic, we'd look at the London bridge attacks and ban Muslims. Or look at Harold Shipman, and ban doctors.

tlg86 said:

freetochoose said:

"Altogether now with the PB lefties:

Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers"

And all the while they forget that the latter fund the former.

The poster about firemen and cheering is everything wrong with politics today, no substance, figures or reasoning, just emotive aimed at the hard of thinking. What about nurses, teachers, ambulancemen etc, how much should they get?

And what about government statisticians? Won't somebody think of the stattos?

It would be nice to have lists of which professions are deserving and which are undeserving.

NickPalmer said:

SouthamObserver said:

It really is a bad look to be voting against giving people like this hero a pay rise. Cheering when you do it is bonkers ...
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/880122717495861256

Leaving aside the political aspect for a moment, I do urge people to hear the interview. Really remarkable. I hope he gets an appropriate medal.

I agree, it is remarkable. An incredibly brave man.

SouthamObserver said:

It really is a bad look to be voting against giving people like this hero a pay rise. Cheering when you do it is bonkers ...
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/880122717495861256

My uncle was shot and killed receiving a QPM for his service back in the late 70s. Now my mum was clearly was out campaigning for the Conservatives so the police can be denied pay increases.
The Tories have said they'll look at it, and Labour's amendment was a confidence issue to the Queens speech
The Conservatives could have pulled the same trick had Jez got 25 more seats, he'd have voted down a police pay rise too..................

We can have a go at the Tories for alot of things, voting down this bill isn't one of them. Jesus.

MikeSmithson said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

It really is a bad look to be voting against giving people like this hero a pay rise. Cheering when you do it is bonkers ...
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/880122717495861256

Last week the PB lefties told us that pay rises were a bad thing.

Or did that only apply only to agricultural workers ?

Altogether now with the PB lefties:

Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers

Could you stop posting in such an offensive manner

Mike

Is it possible that you could put the donate button back on the site - I feel I should make a small donation from my election winnings.

I hope that's not too offensive

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, that policeman is clearly a hero, and deserves to be recognised in the honours list.

Using one man to dictate the approach to millions, however, is demented. By that logic, we'd look at the London bridge attacks and ban Muslims. Or look at Harold Shipman, and ban doctors.

I can't argue with that.
Have you thought of applying to join the Tory front bench, Mr.D ? The capacity to make sensible cases to the public for their policies seems to be beyond many of the current lot.

DavidL said:

NickPalmer said:

SouthamObserver said:

It really is a bad look to be voting against giving people like this hero a pay rise. Cheering when you do it is bonkers ...
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/880122717495861256

Leaving aside the political aspect for a moment, I do urge people to hear the interview. Really remarkable. I hope he gets an appropriate medal.

I agree, it is remarkable. An incredibly brave man.

That was my reaction. He was incredibly impressive.

dyedwoolie said:

Morning all. I'm off to have blood extracted from me by a nurse in a bit. I'll probably not mention pay restraint to her before she sucks me dry.
The point of course has now been made. The opposition can run the government close on key issues. The government and their honourable friends have to actively turn up and oppose such amendments. That is to say they have to justify not doing what would be popular and, one might argue, right. The election result is worse for them than a narrow defeat long term.

What the government needs is some sort of positive vision for the future.

Mr. B, ha. I'm in want of work. If a political party should like to hire me, I'm available.

Edited extra bit: and thank you for the kind words, and to Mr. Choose likewise.

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

Mortimer said:

bigjohnowls said:

https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/880188222659334146

BJO. Astroturfing here makes no sense. You're not going to change anyone's mind or shame anyone.

As an aside, I keep seeing these sanctimonious 'Tories voted against nice fluffy things thus they must be NASTY NASTY NASTY'. Doesn't it insult the intelligence of the intended audience, and miss the point that to win an election they need to get Tory switchers...

It's precisely because the vast majority of Tories are good, decent people (just like the vast majority of Labour supporters) that posters such as that one are going to work.

Shame on those who reduce confidence motions (for that is what amendments on the QS basically are) to an excuse for virtue signalling.

Seriously, I expected better of you.

I admire the virtues you are signalling - you are tough, pragmatic and prepared to make the hard calls. Such virtues. I wish I could be as virtuous as you.

For some, the degree of pb Toryness is itself an exercise in virtue signalling isn't it?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, that policeman is clearly a hero, and deserves to be recognised in the honours list.

Using one man to dictate the approach to millions, however, is demented. By that logic, we'd look at the London bridge attacks and ban Muslims. Or look at Harold Shipman, and ban doctors.

He was doing what we would expect all policemen to do in such circumstances. Just as we would expect firefighters to run to a fire and ambulance staff to drive into a catastrophe. We strike a bargain: members of the emergency services agree to put themselves on the line when the time comes, we agree to ensure they enjoy a decent standard of living that does not drop.

another_richard said:

Nigelb said:

freetochoose said:

"Altogether now with the PB lefties:

Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers
Higher pay for public sector workers, lower pay for private sector workers"

And all the while they forget that the latter fund the former.

The poster about firemen and cheering is everything wrong with politics today, no substance, figures or reasoning, just emotive aimed at the hard of thinking. What about nurses, teachers, ambulancemen etc, how much should they get?

And if you don't like it, the way to respond is with reasoned argument.
Cheering in the commons for a pay freeze is just imbecilic.

Indeed, and then politicians wonder why they're viewed with such contempt.

Yes - this was precisely the point. Do it with regret, if you have to do it; but do not cheer it from the rafters.

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

Davis is totally winging it ...

So far he is not up to the task. An ambassador from a senior member state, who has been briefed on how Davis is viewed by the EU now, has a crushing verdict: “He is part of the problem. He doesn’t know the dossiers well. His style is arrogant, he is full of bluster.” A European insider says Davis appears to have an inflated, jingoistic faith in Britain’s influence which is not going to play out well. “He’s going to be humiliated again and again by the EU, as he was in the first week. How will someone as vain as Davis explain that?.” Even a senior Tory peer and Brexiteer is worried by his performance so far: “I am, frankly, scared. I’d be surprised if it all went right now.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/davis-is-a-dangerous-driver-of-the-brexit-bus-xshs7h7rj

AA Gill was a seer...

Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.

Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”

http://dndlaw.com/aa-gill-on-brexit/

Davis is winging it. He has a religious faith in Brexit and believes nothing else is necessary. On 29th March 2019 the Lord will come down and deliver a promised land, so why bother looking at documents and understanding how things work now?

Brilliant, the hard Brexiters in a sentence. Throw of the shackles of Human Rights and all will be milk and honey. Let's not bother with the detail. Brexit is Lord Flash from Blackadder, no more no less.

NickPalmer said:

SouthamObserver said:

It really is a bad look to be voting against giving people like this hero a pay rise. Cheering when you do it is bonkers ...
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/880122717495861256

Leaving aside the political aspect for a moment, I do urge people to hear the interview. Really remarkable. I hope he gets an appropriate medal.

I think there's a fuller interview which is even better.

Morning all

The issue of pay for "blue light" workers has been a problem for some time. It's not a question of whether they are "deserving" but a simpler question of recruitment and retention. If there are levels of Police, Fire and Ambulance that are deemed to be required, these must be adequately resourced.

Of course, you can start from the basis that you can have as many policemen, fire and rescue personnel and paramedics as you want or are willing to pay for and there are huge debates over appropriate levels of "cover" and how that should be manifested in terms of public visibility but that's an operational issue.

It's not always but pay either - providing suitable accommodation is perhaps the bigger issue. Apart from site accommodation such as Police Section houses or watch accommodation at fire stations, there needs to be a recognition that you are employing both the person and their family unit and perhaps we need to improve the provision of affordable housing for key public sector workers.

One initiative has been the use of property guardians and it's no surprise a large proportion of those seeking accommodation through guardian companies are NHS workers. I know of a couple of larger councils who have used property guardians at sites no longer required or suitable for operational use.

freetochoose said:

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, that policeman is clearly a hero, and deserves to be recognised in the honours list.

Using one man to dictate the approach to millions, however, is demented. By that logic, we'd look at the London bridge attacks and ban Muslims. Or look at Harold Shipman, and ban doctors.

He was doing what we would expect all policemen to do in such circumstances. Just as we would expect firefighters to run to a fire and ambulance staff to drive into a catastrophe. We strike a bargain: members of the emergency services agree to put themselves on the line when the time comes, we agree to ensure they enjoy a decent standard of living that does not drop.

You appear addicted to emotive virtue signalling.

Everybody agrees the emergency services are brave and indispensible, as are nurses and teachers, but somebody sometime has to cost and fund their pay structure. What we have now is tribal fools on one side making emotive noises and tribal fools on the other side cheering.

Grow up the lot of you.

I see that you are signalling your virtue is to be grown-up and to be able to ignore emotion in order to make the tough calls. Thanks for sharing.

David Davis is such a hypocrite too as well as an inept.

https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880334138833858560
https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880123582961131525

SouthamObserver said:

freetochoose said:

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, that policeman is clearly a hero, and deserves to be recognised in the honours list.

Using one man to dictate the approach to millions, however, is demented. By that logic, we'd look at the London bridge attacks and ban Muslims. Or look at Harold Shipman, and ban doctors.

He was doing what we would expect all policemen to do in such circumstances. Just as we would expect firefighters to run to a fire and ambulance staff to drive into a catastrophe. We strike a bargain: members of the emergency services agree to put themselves on the line when the time comes, we agree to ensure they enjoy a decent standard of living that does not drop.

You appear addicted to emotive virtue signalling.

Everybody agrees the emergency services are brave and indispensible, as are nurses and teachers, but somebody sometime has to cost and fund their pay structure. What we have now is tribal fools on one side making emotive noises and tribal fools on the other side cheering.

Grow up the lot of you.

I see that you are signalling your virtue is to be grown-up and to be able to ignore emotion in order to make the tough calls. Thanks for sharing.

No problem at all, facebook is for emotion, parliament is about making difficult decisions that not everybody agrees with.

We know how much you care, you tell us every day, leave the decision making to those who who don't resort to yah boo and cheering, unfortunately they're thin on the ground.

Here's a thought, perhaps we should transfer Parliament to Glastonbury, after all the two seem to be merging into one another.

We'll put Jon Snow in charge.

As for the politics, the Conservative-DUP deal is pretty much as might have been expected. One area that does interest me is the implementation of the Gambling Commission Review relating to the amounts that can be played on FOBTs in betting shops.

The DUP has actually supported Labour, LDs, SNP and others in wanting the stake reduced to £2 while the Conservatives have supported the betting industry and want to keep the status quo. I think if the question went to the floor of the Commons it's entirely possible the Government would lose.

That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.

Otherwise, after the febrile excitement of recent times, I suspect a quieter period may be approaching. I do think in the longer term the Conservatives are done and you can put a fork in them now. By 2022, they will have been in office for 12 years and that's approaching "time for a change" territory. Corbyn's toxicity was over done as well but if I were Labour (and the LDs as well), I'd be thinking now about the kind of Britain the 2020s and the departure from the EU will present.

GeoffM said:

Roger said:

JackW said:

Sean_F said:

JackW said:

Good Morning To All Complete Pricks Of PB Worldwide :

JosiasJessop said:

'My son was circumcised without my consent'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40420511

This should make for an interesting and potentially useful case.

"I wrote to MPs and they basically shoved me off. Everybody you speak to it's like speaking to a brick wall."

She should name and shame the MPs.

Is it bad of me to find this story funny?

Yes.

You're a very bad man and should cleave off your todger in an appropriate mea culpa and send the offending member to the next PB drinks where it will served as a tasty morsel to the assembled court of public opinion.

A man went into a shop on Stamford hill and asked for a bag of potatoes

'I'm sorry but I don't sell potatoes. I'm a mohel'

'Well why the hell have you got potatoes in your window?'

'Well what do want me to put in my window?'

My Jewish wife sometimes says that she loves me because she can't resist anything that's got 10% off/

Hopefully your wife is better able to resist buy one get one free or worse still 50% off !!!!!!!!!!!

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, that policeman is clearly a hero, and deserves to be recognised in the honours list.

Using one man to dictate the approach to millions, however, is demented. By that logic, we'd look at the London bridge attacks and ban Muslims. Or look at Harold Shipman, and ban doctors.

He was doing what we would expect all policemen to do in such circumstances. Just as we would expect firefighters to run to a fire and ambulance staff to drive into a catastrophe. We strike a bargain: members of the emergency services agree to put themselves on the line when the time comes, we agree to ensure they enjoy a decent standard of living that does not drop.

You appear addicted to emotive virtue signalling.

Everybody agrees the emergency services are brave and indispensible, as are nurses and teachers, but somebody sometime has to cost and fund their pay structure. What we have now is tribal fools on one side making emotive noises and tribal fools on the other side cheering.

Grow up the lot of you.

Market forces are affecting recruitment and retention adversely across pretty much all grades in the NHS, where there has been a 1% cap for a decade or so already. With inflation picking up that 1% cap becomes even more untenable.

Around 5-10% of nursing or medical posts are unfilled at present, depending on speciality. Money is not the only issue of course, conditions, rotas, workload and attitudes like yours all add to the reason people vote with their feet by leaving. Market forces similarly affect other public services. They have been running on empty for too long already.

Attitudes like mine?

I want politicians to stop cheering, therefore I'm responsible for unfilled vacancies in NHS. You talk more bollox every day.

Your point about people voting with their feet is the only sane one you make, you can NEVER buck the market, despite what you tell me all the time. Its why you're planning on emigrating and abandoning the lifeboat you care so much about.

"Pay me more money or I'll leave" is your motto, what a humble Liberal Democrat you are.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Davis is such a hypocrite too as well as an inept.

https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880334138833858560
https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880123582961131525

Obviously it is an ID card. It is an ID card for people who are not British but are being welcomed here and given the use of our NHS, benefits system and other public services free of charge.

Of course we are doing this because the vast majority of these people are contributors to our society not because we are nice but even so we still need to distinguish between those entitled and those not. Is there something wrong with that? Are Europeans, who pretty much all have such documents in their own countries really going to get wound up about this?

The EU position seems to be that EU citizens should have identical rights in the UK after the UK has left the EU. It is a somewhat odd proposition if you think about it.

Would you like me to list all the times David Davis viewed ID cards as the spawn of Satan?

Remember that by election ?

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Davis is such a hypocrite too as well as an inept.

https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880334138833858560
https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880123582961131525

Obviously it is an ID card. It is an ID card for people who are not British but are being welcomed here and given the use of our NHS, benefits system and other public services free of charge.

Of course we are doing this because the vast majority of these people are contributors to our society not because we are nice but even so we still need to distinguish between those entitled and those not. Is there something wrong with that? Are Europeans, who pretty much all have such documents in their own countries really going to get wound up about this?

The EU position seems to be that EU citizens should have identical rights in the UK after the UK has left the EU. It is a somewhat odd proposition if you think about it.

I've still never really understood why people are so against ID cards at all in the UK. As you say, most other countries in Europe manage with them, without turning into totalitarian surveillance states. The government should really just bring them in for everyone. It's also a big part of why so many Calais migrants try to get in to the UK - no ID checks once you are inside.

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

dyedwoolie said:

Morning all. I'm off to have blood extracted from me by a nurse in a bit. I'll probably not mention pay restraint to her before she sucks me dry.
The point of course has now been made. The opposition can run the government close on key issues. The government and their honourable friends have to actively turn up and oppose such amendments. That is to say they have to justify not doing what would be popular and, one might argue, right. The election result is worse for them than a narrow defeat long term.

What the government needs is some sort of positive vision for the future.

Yep that is what was completely missing from the election campaign which is why May didn't get a majority. I fear, however, that her vision is one where the paperwork is done just that bit more efficiently than it is at the moment. Useful, certainly, but somewhat short of inspiration.

Better management would suffice as long as people think things are on the right path and that the good things are going to arrive at some point.

But there's too many people ** who think things are on the wrong path and want change not better management. They need to be offered a positive vision and hope for the future. May seems incapable of that.

** young people especially and rightly so.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Davis is such a hypocrite too as well as an inept.

https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880334138833858560
https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880123582961131525

Obviously it is an ID card. It is an ID card for people who are not British but are being welcomed here and given the use of our NHS, benefits system and other public services free of charge.

Of course we are doing this because the vast majority of these people are contributors to our society not because we are nice but even so we still need to distinguish between those entitled and those not. Is there something wrong with that? Are Europeans, who pretty much all have such documents in their own countries really going to get wound up about this?

The EU position seems to be that EU citizens should have identical rights in the UK after the UK has left the EU. It is a somewhat odd proposition if you think about it.

Would you like me to list all the times David Davis viewed ID cards as the spawn of Satan?

Remember that by election ?

Yes, he's an arse and the party dodged a bullet when he was comprehensively defeated by Cameron. Hopefully his time has passed. But the idea that the EU are going to get their knickers in a twist about this is pretty far fetched.

Mr. Fletcher, indeed. From reports (didn't see it live), there's an alarming lack of intelligence on display.

HYUFD said:

John Major won in 1992 against the odds and despite a recession after 13 years of the Tories in power when Kinnock expected to win on his second attempt, much as Corbyn does now, Major won 41% and held almost all the 42% who voted for Thatcher in 1987 given 42% voted for May in 2017 the Tories in 2022 need to do the same

I expected one of the Conservative members and supporters to come back on this and I wasn't disappointed.

There is the key difference that Margaret Thatcher was deposed by her own backbenchers in November 1990. What the Conservatives therefore need to do is overthrow May in 2019 or 2020 and hope a new person will recapture the vote. The problem is May isn't Thatcher in 1987 - May is already a busted flush, you know that, I know that, most of the Conservative Party knows it.

There are other reasons why the 87-92 parallel doesn't work - in 1987 the Conservatives had a majority of 101. That was reduced to 21 (or so) in 1992 so if we take a similar 40-seat loss to Labour next time that doesn't end so well.

Relying on vote share only gets you so far - the Conservatives polled 42% and were hammered by Labour in 1966 while Labour won more votes but still lost in 1951. Yes, the Conservatives could go up a tiny amount and get a majority - they could go down a small amount and not be able to form a government.

stodge said:

That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.

There are High Streets with 12-14 bookies on them ???

One thing which has surprised me is that the number of betting shops has increased - I would have thought that with internet betting they would have fallen.

Though, personally, I would be quite happy to see fewer betting shops and likewise fewer coffee shops, pound shops and general cheap tat shops. With the property thus freed up redeveloped for residential use.

saddo said:

Re ID cards

Does anyone with a driving licence ever not go out without it in their wallets or purses?

Its an ID card already

Yes, I never carry my driving licence or passport. If you are stopped and asked to show your licence you can take it to a police station within a few days.

DavidL said:

stodge said:

As for the politics, the Conservative-DUP deal is pretty much as might have been expected. One area that does interest me is the implementation of the Gambling Commission Review relating to the amounts that can be played on FOBTs in betting shops.

The DUP has actually supported Labour, LDs, SNP and others in wanting the stake reduced to £2 while the Conservatives have supported the betting industry and want to keep the status quo. I think if the question went to the floor of the Commons it's entirely possible the Government would lose.

That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.

Otherwise, after the febrile excitement of recent times, I suspect a quieter period may be approaching. I do think in the longer term the Conservatives are done and you can put a fork in them now. By 2022, they will have been in office for 12 years and that's approaching "time for a change" territory. Corbyn's toxicity was over done as well but if I were Labour (and the LDs as well), I'd be thinking now about the kind of Britain the 2020s and the departure from the EU will present.

Personally, I think that this is a recommendation that should be implemented. The damage done by FOBTs is horrendous and if the price paid is slightly fewer betting shops in the High Street that is a price worth paying. Its like arguing Boots would have more branches if only they could sell crack.

I would be surprised and disappointed if there were not a number of Tory MPs who did not feel the same.

Indeed.

Though isn't the National Lottery effectively a FOBT with the proceeds used for government benefit.

David Davis has the great advantage with his potential electorate of being a Brexit true believer who hasn't yet crashed and burned. He looks the part: like Kitchener, he might not be a great man but he's a great poster.

Other than that, it's hard to find much to commend him. But that might be enough.

another_richard said:

There are High Streets with 12-14 bookies on them ???

One thing which has surprised me is that the number of betting shops has increased - I would have thought that with internet betting they would have fallen.

Though, personally, I would be quite happy to see fewer betting shops and likewise fewer coffee shops, pound shops and general cheap tat shops. With the property thus freed up redeveloped for residential use.

You really ought to get out a little more, my friend ?

East Ham High Street has 14 bookies - many others have double figures in London.

I suppose the equivalent in provincial England is the charity book shop - Bexhill has 23 apparently.

If I remember correctly the objection to Blair's Id card proposal was not that you got a card with your photo on but that there was going to a huge database of all your personal / biometric data with a massive number and wide ranging state agencies would have access to.

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

John Major won in 1992 against the odds and despite a recession after 13 years of the Tories in power when Kinnock expected to win on his second attempt, much as Corbyn does now, Major won 41% and held almost all the 42% who voted for Thatcher in 1987 given 42% voted for May in 2017 the Tories in 2022 need to do the same

I expected one of the Conservative members and supporters to come back on this and I wasn't disappointed.

There is the key difference that Margaret Thatcher was deposed by her own backbenchers in November 1990. What the Conservatives therefore need to do is overthrow May in 2019 or 2020 and hope a new person will recapture the vote. The problem is May isn't Thatcher in 1987 - May is already a busted flush, you know that, I know that, most of the Conservative Party knows it.

There are other reasons why the 87-92 parallel doesn't work - in 1987 the Conservatives had a majority of 101. That was reduced to 21 (or so) in 1992 so if we take a similar 40-seat loss to Labour next time that doesn't end so well.

Relying on vote share only gets you so far - the Conservatives polled 42% and were hammered by Labour in 1966 while Labour won more votes but still lost in 1951. Yes, the Conservatives could go up a tiny amount and get a majority - they could go down a small amount and not be able to form a government.

In 1990 Thatcher's problem was the poll tax which was entirely associated with her and Major replaced with the council tax. May's problem was the dementia tax, which she has already dumped and arguably hard Brexit which someone like Hammond if he were Tory leader could soften

Your seat argument also does not hold as from 1987 to 1992 Kinnock squeezed about 4% from the SDP/LDs and Corbyn has already squeezed the LDs as much as he can

So on voteshare provided the Tories avoid any further significant movement to Labour they could remain largest party at the next general election or even get a very small majority

another_richard said:

stodge said:

That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.

There are High Streets with 12-14 bookies on them ???

One thing which has surprised me is that the number of betting shops has increased - I would have thought that with internet betting they would have fallen.

Though, personally, I would be quite happy to see fewer betting shops and likewise fewer coffee shops, pound shops and general cheap tat shops. With the property thus freed up redeveloped for residential use.

Again, that seems sensible. Wembley had a rather interesting building stuck up near the Central station which was flats and some decent shops. If some of the bookies were closed and allowed for redevelopment it would make the street look much better even if they were purely residential units (which would be very valuable). While I accept High Streets denuded of shops are not ideal, where there are only bookies, coffee shops, pound shops and charity shops they are not worth a damn as High Streets anyway.

Mr. L, congrats to your son.

Mr. Urquhart, indeed. The ID card scheme was horrendous.

What's Mike on about? The QS hasn't passed yet. It will, but they vote on it today. She's flying back from the g20 to vote.

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

stodge said:

As for the politics, the Conservative-DUP deal is pretty much as might have been expected. One area that does interest me is the implementation of the Gambling Commission Review relating to the amounts that can be played on FOBTs in betting shops.

The DUP has actually supported Labour, LDs, SNP and others in wanting the stake reduced to £2 while the Conservatives have supported the betting industry and want to keep the status quo. I think if the question went to the floor of the Commons it's entirely possible the Government would lose.

That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.

Otherwise, after the febrile excitement of recent times, I suspect a quieter period may be approaching. I do think in the longer term the Conservatives are done and you can put a fork in them now. By 2022, they will have been in office for 12 years and that's approaching "time for a change" territory. Corbyn's toxicity was over done as well but if I were Labour (and the LDs as well), I'd be thinking now about the kind of Britain the 2020s and the departure from the EU will present.

Personally, I think that this is a recommendation that should be implemented. The damage done by FOBTs is horrendous and if the price paid is slightly fewer betting shops in the High Street that is a price worth paying. Its like arguing Boots would have more branches if only they could sell crack.

I would be surprised and disappointed if there were not a number of Tory MPs who did not feel the same.

Indeed.

Though isn't the National Lottery effectively a FOBT with the proceeds used for government benefit.

My late father in law always said he was too much of a gambler to play the lottery. FOBTs and the lottery are a tax on the stupid in large part and objectionable for that reason alone.

I agree about FOBTs and lottery scratchcards. I disagree about the lottery itself. Most people who participate in the lottery know that the odds are rubbish. They're not betting to make a shrewd investment. They're buying a dream. At £2, it's cheap.

DavidL said:

Paristonda said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Davis is such a hypocrite too as well as an inept.

https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880334138833858560
https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/880123582961131525

Obviously it is an ID card. It is an ID card for people who are not British but are being welcomed here and given the use of our NHS, benefits system and other public services free of charge.

Of course we are doing this because the vast majority of these people are contributors to our society not because we are nice but even so we still need to distinguish between those entitled and those not. Is there something wrong with that? Are Europeans, who pretty much all have such documents in their own countries really going to get wound up about this?

The EU position seems to be that EU citizens should have identical rights in the UK after the UK has left the EU. It is a somewhat odd proposition if you think about it.

I've still never really understood why people are so against ID cards at all in the UK. As you say, most other countries in Europe manage with them, without turning into totalitarian surveillance states. The government should really just bring them in for everyone. It's also a big part of why so many Calais migrants try to get in to the UK - no ID checks once you are inside.

The reality for most adults is that the photo ID driving licence serves the same function. I think there is also an underlying principle that you are not accountable to functionaries of the state and required to produce your papers but I find it hard to get excited about it personally.

I carry a Court pass which allows me through security in Courts without my bags being searched and into prisons (and more importantly out again). Would I have fewer rights if I had to carry an ID card? Struggle to see it.

I guess as years go by more and more people have the photo driving license, so yes it has probably made the card a bit redundant - but a lot of people still don't have the photo ones. My mother only just got a photo one after years of us mocking her papyrus elder scroll version.

It seems like one of those issues people treat as "the thin end of the wedge", when in reality it wouldn't change much at all.

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

stodge said:

As for the politics, the Conservative-DUP deal is pretty much as might have been expected. One area that does interest me is the implementation of the Gambling Commission Review relating to the amounts that can be played on FOBTs in betting shops.

The DUP has actually supported Labour, LDs, SNP and others in wanting the stake reduced to £2 while the Conservatives have supported the betting industry and want to keep the status quo. I think if the question went to the floor of the Commons it's entirely possible the Government would lose.

That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.

Otherwise, after the febrile excitement of recent times, I suspect a quieter period may be approaching. I do think in the longer term the Conservatives are done and you can put a fork in them now. By 2022, they will have been in office for 12 years and that's approaching "time for a change" territory. Corbyn's toxicity was over done as well but if I were Labour (and the LDs as well), I'd be thinking now about the kind of Britain the 2020s and the departure from the EU will present.

Personally, I think that this is a recommendation that should be implemented. The damage done by FOBTs is horrendous and if the price paid is slightly fewer betting shops in the High Street that is a price worth paying. Its like arguing Boots would have more branches if only they could sell crack.

I would be surprised and disappointed if there were not a number of Tory MPs who did not feel the same.

Indeed.

Though isn't the National Lottery effectively a FOBT with the proceeds used for government benefit.

My late father in law always said he was too much of a gambler to play the lottery. FOBTs and the lottery are a tax on the stupid in large part and objectionable for that reason alone.

I agree about FOBTs and lottery scratchcards. I disagree about the lottery itself. Most people who participate in the lottery know that the odds are rubbish. They're not betting to make a shrewd investment. They're buying a dream. At £2, it's cheap.

The lottery and FOBTs have a little-discussed effect of sucking money out of the local economy. As such, they add to austerity and are bad for the government's electoral chances (whoever is in office).

Mr. Eagles, taxes aren't voluntary.

Mr. Stodge, I share your dislike of ID cards.