politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this story is right then you should take the 4/1 on Mrs May

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.

I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.

Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.

No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options

You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.

As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.

Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.

The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")

Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour

And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?

Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?

Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?

Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected

GIN1138 said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

GIN1138 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.

Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.

We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.

I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question....

Because it's the most salient political issue of this parliament.
That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.

+1 If we followed GIN's logic we shouldn't have had a referendum last year because we already had one in 1975!

For a long time that was exactly the reason the establishment wouldn't allow an EU referendum.

But you can't really compare having a referendum over 30 years ago to trying to re-run a referendum from just one year ago...

Fair point - plus in 1975 it was a ref on the EEC not today's EU. But... at least the 1975 ref gave a clear verdict.

One perennial problem with referenda is the danger of a close result. Do you honestly think that had it been 48/52 the other way the Brexiteers would have shut up?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pointer, the next PM should provide a reason to vote for the Conservatives, not be defined as Not-Corbyn. May tried that to destruction.

And she still won more votes and seats than Corbyn

GIN1138 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.

Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.

We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.

I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.

They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit people want to see.

We can remain if a party comes to power with a commitment to hold another referendum and the vote is to, er, remain.

I don't think that would be good for the country at the moment, but...if it happened, and we went back in, and they offered us Dave's deal, and of course we didn't need to sign up for Schengen & the Euro...well I might *just* be in favour, and put our economic well-being ahead of the national humiliation we would suffer.

The citymetric blog usually has interesting items on devolution and city issues.

The latest blogpost seems to be arguing about the number of tube lines in London.

http://www.citymetric.com/transport/how-many-tube-lines-does-london-have-riposte-3151

My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.

One for Sunil perhaps?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, yes. From a 20 point lead she lost seats and scraped a victory. That's not a model of inspiration, and the Conservatives must not be complacent next time.

Corbyn's a terrible leader, but (aided by an inept Conservative campaign and abetted by a soft-pedalling media) rather better at campaigning.

Morris The Daily Mail and Sun hardly soft pedaled on Corbyn My conservative supporting dad had to take all day on pre election day to way through the it all.He knew so much about Corbyn and the dementia tax , he rang me up and said for the first time in his life he was not voting.

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

In implementing Basel III, for example, the Commission put forward proposals on the harmonisation of capital requirements throughout the EU. The UK, concerned that this represented a threat to its post financial crisis policy objective of ensuring tougher capital requirements for domestic banks, negotiated a compromise position ensuring that individual member states would be permitted to set higher regulatory capital reserve requirements without prior permission from the EU.

Or

it is in the areas of passporting and non-discriminatory access to markets that the UK has most effectively wielded its influence. Absent from MiFID I, a harmonised third-country access regime was one of the UK’s key policy objectives during legislative negotiations on MiFID II. Proving to be one of the most controversial topics throughout negotiations, a compromise was finally reached which permitted non-EU states partial, reciprocal access based on an affirmative determination by the Commission that their regulatory framework in the provision of financial services was equivalent to EU rules.

Or

Likewise on EMIR, the UK used its influence not only to ensure a framework for third-country market access, but also to ensure non-discriminatory access to clearing houses, following heated debate over the appropriate venue for the clearing of euro-denominated derivatives trading.

How many more do you want?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, yes. From a 20 point lead she lost seats and scraped a victory. That's not a model of inspiration, and the Conservatives must not be complacent next time.

Corbyn's a terrible leader, but (aided by an inept Conservative campaign and abetted by a soft-pedalling media) rather better at campaigning.

The Tories clearly need to dump the dementia tax etc as they are starting to do but the fact the Tories still won more seats than Corbyn despite his running a far better campaign shows you the reservations swing voters have about voting Labour while he remains leader

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

In implementing Basel III, for example, the Commission put forward proposals on the harmonisation of capital requirements throughout the EU. The UK, concerned that this represented a threat to its post financial crisis policy objective of ensuring tougher capital requirements for domestic banks, negotiated a compromise position ensuring that individual member states would be permitted to set higher regulatory capital reserve requirements without prior permission from the EU.

Or

it is in the areas of passporting and non-discriminatory access to markets that the UK has most effectively wielded its influence. Absent from MiFID I, a harmonised third-country access regime was one of the UK’s key policy objectives during legislative negotiations on MiFID II. Proving to be one of the most controversial topics throughout negotiations, a compromise was finally reached which permitted non-EU states partial, reciprocal access based on an affirmative determination by the Commission that their regulatory framework in the provision of financial services was equivalent to EU rules.

Or

Likewise on EMIR, the UK used its influence not only to ensure a framework for third-country market access, but also to ensure non-discriminatory access to clearing houses, following heated debate over the appropriate venue for the clearing of euro-denominated derivatives trading.

How many more do you want?

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

Nige, @TheScreamingEagles has done this. There are many, many more.

Beverley_C said:

Benpointer said:

Beverley_C said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Hinkley Point: EDF raises cost estimate for nuclear plant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40479053

I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.

There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.

Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.

We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.

However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.

I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.

Wasn't it the government that imposed power cuts in response to the miners' strike and also (often forgotten) the oil price shock where oil went up 400 per cent and supply was reduced? I don't recall the power workers striking, though I could be wrong as it was a long time ago.

Verulamius said:

The citymetric blog usually has interesting items on devolution and city issues.

The latest blogpost seems to be arguing about the number of tube lines in London.

http://www.citymetric.com/transport/how-many-tube-lines-does-london-have-riposte-3151

My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.

One for Sunil perhaps?

The East London Line was part of the tube network and 15 years ago would certainly have been thought to have been one of the tube lines. By a rebadging after its extension, it became part of the Overground. Not treating it as a tube line would be worse than the decision to demote Pluto from planet status.

calum said:

GIN1138 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.

Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.

We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.

I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.

They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit people want to see.

I think the big test for the polls will come in the Autumn as we move into the divorce bill phase of the initial negotiations - we could easily see Remain support hitting over 60% once folks realise there is a real cost to Brexit.

Restating the same question gives a clearer picture of how many people have changed their minds.

You can only start asking the rejoin question once we have left when, of course, the terms of rejoining would be critical. Up to actually leaving nobody knows for certain on what basis we would be allowed to stay in if we changed our mind.

AlastairMeeks said:

Verulamius said:

The citymetric blog usually has interesting items on devolution and city issues.

The latest blogpost seems to be arguing about the number of tube lines in London.

http://www.citymetric.com/transport/how-many-tube-lines-does-london-have-riposte-3151

My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.

One for Sunil perhaps?

The East London Line was part of the tube network and 15 years ago would certainly have been thought to have been one of the tube lines. By a rebadging after its extension, it became part of the Overground. Not treating it as a tube line would be worse than the decision to demote Pluto from planet status.

I am not at all sure about what has happened to the Circle Line, these past 15 years or so.

Beverley_C said:

Benpointer said:

Beverley_C said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Hinkley Point: EDF raises cost estimate for nuclear plant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40479053

I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.

There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.

Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.

We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.

However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.

I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.

Fair point, but we would do better to spend the £20bn on developing ways to store and re-use energy e.g. through Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc.

Re the 70's I was there too with my powercut rota... my recollection is that it was Heath's* inept goverment that caused that - it's all in the eye of the beholder!

(*Although I still have arguments from time to time with people who think that the 3-day-week was under Wilson/Callaghan!)

If the header is right I wonder if it is worth backing the UK out of the EU by the end of March 2019?

AlastairMeeks said:

Verulamius said:

The citymetric blog usually has interesting items on devolution and city issues.

The latest blogpost seems to be arguing about the number of tube lines in London.

http://www.citymetric.com/transport/how-many-tube-lines-does-london-have-riposte-3151

My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.

One for Sunil perhaps?

The East London Line was part of the tube network and 15 years ago would certainly have been thought to have been one of the tube lines. By a rebadging after its extension, it became part of the Overground. Not treating it as a tube line would be worse than the decision to demote Pluto from planet status.

I refuse to recognise the tube since the Circle Line stopped being a circle.

GIN1138 said:

Nigelb said:

GIN1138 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.

Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.

We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.

I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question....

Because it's the most salient political issue of this parliament.
That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.

There are more relevant ways you can get that across though.

You could ask, for example;

After the referendum we're leaving the European Union. Do you think this is the right decision? Etc.

I just think asking the old Remain/Leave question a year after we voted to leave is odd.

But pollsters haven't 'just asked' that. Only a couple of days back we saw a survey on what people would be prepared to pay to retain the benefits of EU citizenship.

You might like neither the questions nor the answers.
Feel free to pose your own.

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Verulamius said:

The citymetric blog usually has interesting items on devolution and city issues.

The latest blogpost seems to be arguing about the number of tube lines in London.

http://www.citymetric.com/transport/how-many-tube-lines-does-london-have-riposte-3151

My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.

One for Sunil perhaps?

The East London Line was part of the tube network and 15 years ago would certainly have been thought to have been one of the tube lines. By a rebadging after its extension, it became part of the Overground. Not treating it as a tube line would be worse than the decision to demote Pluto from planet status.

I refuse to recognise the tube since the Circle Line stopped being a circle.

Ok the Circle line is not a circle but at least the Northern line is the most... er, southerly.

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)

Yeah but those who get tumescent when whining about Jonnny Foreigner will be happy.

tyson said:

I might have to finish my Times subscription......I cannot cope with the endless stories about the machinations of the Tory leadership. I stopped subscribing to the Guardian because the Corbyn/Blairite stuff got boring and repetitive....

These Tories are really horrible to each other and care far more for their ridiculous egos than they could ever care for the national interest....

How do you stop subscribing to the Guardian? Not pay the voluntary 1.4x coffee per month donation?

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

The experience.

I Corbyn.

Trouble face.

No even viable options

You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.



The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")

Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour

And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?

Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?

Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?

Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected

True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?

Yes, next time

Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.

All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.

The Labour left, which now controls the party, has made absolutely clear it does not want anti-Tory, anti-Brexit votes - only socialist ones. It has decided that this is what Labour got last month and has rejected centrists and moderates as a result. Their support is not needed. Thus, Labour will present a much more redistributive, anti-market manifesto to voters when the next election takes place. If the Tories have not made a complete pig's ear of Brexit - which I concede is a very big if given their current shambolic approach - they should approach the next election with a fair degree of confidence. They do have a major talent problem, though.

@BenPointer

I have very fond earlier memories of the three day week.....the candles coming out felt like camping, and it was wonderful having my dad at home....it was the only time I remember seeing him because he was working all the time....

Everyone had sod all then...I lived on hand me downs and a bag of crips was a treat....

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?

the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?

the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?

The sector didn't crash the economy. You did. With all your borrowing and HD TVs and new Audis on the never never and your self-certifying mortgages.

Charles said:

Yes but "unfit to be Prime Minister but I'm willing to serve under him" ain't going to fly

It seems to be almost ready for take-off for Labour.

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pointer, the next PM should provide a reason to vote for the Conservatives, not be defined as Not-Corbyn. May tried that to destruction.

Yes - I agree on both points. But there is always an element of a beauty contest - relative charisma often plays a part. I can't think of any election since the 1970s, except possibly 1992, where I would say the more charismatic leader of the two main parties hasn't come out on top. Admittedly sometimes (Wilson Heath) there was next to no charisma on either side.

The logic of this argument leads me to conclude that BoJo is the only choice to succeed May...
...so I hope my argument is flawed somehere along the line!

Corbyn is not charismatic, he is just a bearded nerd who rants a lot

Relative to May or Hammond he is.

Dull Tory can beat left-wing ranter see Major v Kinnock but not charismatic moderate see Major v Blair

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?

the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?

The financial services sector is more than the banks, I believe Lloyds-HBOS have repaid their loans.

I wish you, like the SWP, would come up with decent ideas of growing the economy instead of castrating/reducing the financial services sector.

tyson said:

TOPPING said:

tyson said:

I might have to finish my Times subscription......I cannot cope with the endless stories about the machinations of the Tory leadership. I stopped subscribing to the Guardian because the Corbyn/Blairite stuff got boring and repetitive....

These Tories are really horrible to each other and care far more for their ridiculous egos than they could ever care for the national interest....

How do you stop subscribing to the Guardian? Not pay the voluntary 1.4x coffee per month donation?

I had the Guardian on my kindle for 9.99 a month....

To be honest I think I still pay it, but I get the Times delivered everyday now. I subscribe to the NY Times too

Murdoch lackey

Beverley_C said:

Benpointer said:

Beverley_C said:

Benpointer said:

Beverley_C said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Hinkley Point: EDF raises cost estimate for nuclear plant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40479053

I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.

There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.

Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.

We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.


I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.

Fair point, but we would do better to spend the £20bn on developing ways to store and re-use energy e.g. through Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc.

I did look into this some years ago and came to the conclusion that we would be better off with tidal generation than pumped storage. Someone did the calculations and we lack enough "storage space" in our hills. Direct tidal generation, river barriers and tidal pools offered more possibilities and are predictable and reliable.

Benpointer said:

Re the 70's I was there too with my powercut rota... my recollection is that it was Heath's* inept goverment that caused that - it's all in the eye of the beholder!

(*Although I still have arguments from time to time with people who think that the 3-day-week was under Wilson/Callaghan!)

My father was self-employed and I was at school at the time so my memories of the 3 day week are vague at best. I will never forget the power cuts or having to wait 6 months for BT to install our first phone. Ours was NOT a shared line and we felt like Gods and stared at it wondering who we could phone (and whether we could afford the call)

I remember homework by candlelight.
And it was the Post Office the ran the telephone network in the 70s - BT didn't come into being until 1981.

As for the £20bn, this might be a worthwhile investment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Wind_Power_Hub

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)

Go to places like Barking... it feels like the 3rd World, & many are living in abject poverty to be able to fund the lifestyles of Westminster politicians and the like

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. City, true, I meant the broadcast media rather than print.

Mr. Eagles, it's damning with faint praise to claim a diplomatic triumph for Britain when we're given permission to actually have proper financial regulations that are stricter than an EU minimum. Such power. Such influence.

There are some genuine positives to being in the EU (economic, essentially). The mighty ability to sometimes have some influence over our own regulation is not one of them.

You don't work in the financial services industry do you?

As I explained with clearing a few weeks ago, it is likely very possible that a UK institution, post Brexit, could accidentally bring to its knees a Eurozone institution.

Their currency, they want oversight rules.

Scott_P said:

@acgrayling: Because, as one Chinese businessman said: 'The UK is the door to Europe. Without Europe it is the door to nowhere.' https://twitter.com/ukipnfkn/status/881656232628695041

This is exactly what I heard time and again the last time I was in China. The UK is a decent market, but on its own not one that is really worth a great deal of time and investment. Trump is driving the Chinese to the Europeans, while also giving them a big leadership role in Asia. Outside the EU if we want to trade with the Chinese it will be on the terms they set. Though, to be fair, that also applies to all other major and fast-growing economies.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?

the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?

The financial services sector is more than the banks, I believe Lloyds-HBOS have repaid their loans.

I wish you, like the SWP, would come up with decent ideas of growing the economy instead of castrating/reducing the financial services sector.

Try housebuilding theres a start, were a bit short of them

and then some decent infrastructure like a sensible motorway networks and rail

and decent broadband

we could also revitalise manufacturing and onshore more of the stuff we need to cut our horrendous trade deficit

develop a few IT hubs to help pay our way and pump some cash into materials research and area were ratrher good at

there that should start you

however as the Bob Crow of the financial sector that might confuse you

from Red Robbo to Red shoed Robbo in a generation

Beverley_C said:

Benpointer said:

Beverley_C said:

Benpointer said:

Beverley_C said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Hinkley Point: EDF raises cost estimate for nuclear plant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40479053

I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.

There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.

Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.

We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.

However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.

I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.

Fair point, but we would do better to spend the £20bn on developing ways to store and re-use energy e.g. through Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc.

I did look into this some years ago and came to the conclusion that we would be better off with tidal generation than pumped storage. Someone did the calculations and we lack enough "storage space" in our hills. Direct tidal generation, river barriers and tidal pools offered more possibilities and are predictable and reliable.

Gas plus wind plus imported energy is the here and now answer. Because gas plants are cheap to install and economically viable when used intermittently you can still reduce overall greenhouse emissions. Nuclear power is inflexible, expensive and risky. You can make a case with one of those disadvantages, but not two, let alone three.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Beverley_C said:

Benpointer said:

Beverley_C said:

Pulpstar said:

logical_song said:

Hinkley Point: EDF raises cost estimate for nuclear plant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40479053

I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.

There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.

Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.

We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.

However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.

I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.

Wasn't it the government that imposed power cuts in response to the miners' strike and also (often forgotten) the oil price shock where oil went up 400 per cent and supply was reduced? I don't recall the power workers striking, though I could be wrong as it was a long time ago.

Details here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week

Note what the ensuing Labour government paid the miners - two consecutive 35% pay rises.

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?

the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?

The sector didn't crash the economy. You did. With all your borrowing and HD TVs and new Audis on the never never and your self-certifying mortgages.

lol

during the boom years I saved

but its always fun to watch the finance guys claim it's people fault and they never went a bit off the rails themselves

I wonder what all those billions of fines were for ?

Look on it as a tripartite arrangement. The bankers were wrong, the governments were wrong, and you, sunshine, although not you personally who put money into a leaky roof fund, but otherwise, generally, for normal people, you were wrong.

All three elements.

And it's difficult to put people in jail for bad business strategy although some of the mortgage bundling was definitely on the borderline, most fines were for fraud relating to TARP funds.

isam said:

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)

Go to places like Barking... it feels like the 3rd World, & many are living in abject poverty to be able to fund the lifestyles of Westminster politicians and the like

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5407282,0.0880255,122a,35y,292.31h,44.99t/data=!3m1!1e3

Sheds seem very popular for some reason in Barking..

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?

the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?

The sector didn't crash the economy. You did. With all your borrowing and HD TVs and new Audis on the never never and your self-certifying mortgages.

lol

during the boom years I saved

but its always fun to watch the finance guys claim it's people fault and they never went a bit off the rails themselves

I wonder what all those billions of fines were for ?

Shakedown

isam said:

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.

Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.

Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)

Go to places like Barking... it feels like the 3rd World, & many are living in abject poverty to be able to fund the lifestyles of Westminster politicians and the like

Barking is a very odd place. Redevelopment seems to have moved the town centre to the west. My impression last time I was there after a long period away was that you could do a lot of walking without appearing to get anywhere. Even its posh streets now look shabby. Most of the jobs in Dagenham (not just Ford) have gone.

Alanbrooke said:

Try housebuilding theres a start, were a bit short of them

and then some decent infrastructure like a sensible motorway networks and rail

and decent broadband

we could also revitalise manufacturing and onshore more of the stuff we need to cut our horrendous trade deficit

develop a few IT hubs to help pay our way and pump some cash into materials research and area were ratrher good at

there that should start you

however as the Bob Crow of the financial sector that might confuse you

from Red Robbo to Red shoed Robbo in a generation

Unfortunately Brexit has put the kibosh on a lot of that, PBers were warned

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/13/guest-slot-the-impact-of-leaving-the-eu-on-londons-technology-start-up-scene/

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.

Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?

have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.

Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.

I

I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.

But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.

Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............

tax revenues.

that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?

the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?

The sector didn't crash the economy. You did. With all your borrowing and HD TVs and new Audis on the never never and your self-certifying mortgages.

lol

during the boom years I saved

but its always fun to watch the finance guys claim it's people fault and they never went a bit off the rails themselves

I wonder what all those billions of fines were for ?

Look on it as a tripartite arrangement. The bankers were wrong, the governments were wrong, and you, sunshine, although not you personally who put money into a leaky roof fund, but otherwise, generally, for normal people, you were wrong.

All three elements.

And it's difficult to put people in jail for bad business strategy although some of the mortgage bundling was definitely on the borderline, most fines were for fraud relating to TARP funds.

we'll of course Im glad you recognise my upbeat sunshiny nature, but lets face it if the brakes were taken off , the financial services sector today would just go off and do it all over again

David_Evershed said:

Pay rises are a negotiation.

By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.

There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?

Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.

Improving public finances probably give the government some room for manouvere.

GeoffM said:

Stark_Dawning said:

The Tories desperately need to reclaim the centre ground. Theresa's problem was that she was terrified that Jacob Rees-Mogg would defect to UKIP and so created an entire electoral strategy around aping Farage. This was as foolish as it was short sighted - the Kippers all voted for Corbyn anyway. Why a 'conservative' party thinks there's any benefit in mimicking Corbyn, UKIP and other manifestations of the far Left is beyond me. The Tories need to rediscover their purpose. The far Left is a crowded field and the Tories should just let UKIP, Corbyn and the Greens fight it out.

The Conservatives are depressingly centre ground right now.

Brexit was forced upon them so that doesn't count. They've dropped any truly radical policies - sorting out long term healthcare, grammar schools etc. I can't think of a single strong initiative.

Reclaim the centre ground? You can't be serious. They've built a huge ugly multi-storey car park in the middle of the centre ground for all their broken tanks.

Maybe they could get more radical if the conservative membership had some influence.At the moment they are twisting and turning to whatever the current leadership says , which changes daily including Milliband ideas and even parts of Corbyn agenda.Surely they have some think tanks of their own .They are the most pragmatic successful party but to be a member must be more like religious faith.

HYUFD said:

David_Evershed said:

Pay rises are a negotiation.

By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.

There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?

Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.

Public sector pay could at least rise in line with average pay even if not in line with inflation after years of public sector pay caps

Pay rises can only be justified by increased performance. This might be better quality of work, wider skills or improved productivity but not just because of inflation or somebody else's pay increase umless necessary because of market forces.

tyson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

The experience.

I Corbyn.

Trouble face.

No even viable options

You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.



The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")

Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour

And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?

Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?

Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?

Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected

True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?

Yes, next time

Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.

All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.

The talent problem, though.

I think the only thing that will now stop Labour heading into power is replacing Corbyn with Abbott....

Whether you like it or not Brexit is driving the country in one direction....into the path of left wing populists....

Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies that voted Tory in 2015 and 2017 are suddenly going to embrace the kind of populist socialism advocated by those who now control the Labour party. This country has never swung behind the left in that way before. The utter uselessness of Boris & co might persuade it to, but I am far from convinced.

SouthamObserver said:

Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies that voted Tory in 2015 and 2017 are suddenly going to embrace the kind of populist socialism advocated by those who now control the Labour party. This country has never swung behind the left in that way before. The utter uselessness of Boris & co might persuade it to, but I am far from convinced.

The Conservatives will be extremely vulnerable at the next election if Labour offers an alternative government-in-waiting. But that doesn't look even remotely likely at the moment.