politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The DUP deal has cost a lot more than £2bn: it’s blown apart t

SystemSystem Posts: 12,561
edited September 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The DUP deal has cost a lot more than £2bn: it’s blown apart the Tories’ economic case

YouGov published the results of an innovative survey on Thursday, where it found that the British public seemed more willing to pay a Brexit bill of £25bn (where 29% said they would find that acceptable), than one of £10bn (backed by 18%).

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,203
    First!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,190
    Second!!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2017
    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.

    The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.

    On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Leave didn't promise to spend the £350m pw on tax cuts, cutting the deficit or graphine research. It promised to spend 100% of it on public services. Not just any old public services but *the* Public Service. So powerful in Britain's self identity it was mythologised further in the Olympic opening ceremony. It breached the law to use the actual NHS logo, it used a Labour red bus. It didn't get the £350m pw from accelerated growth, tariffs or saying EU funded projects in the UK would be cut. It got the £350m pw from a magic money tree.

    The Leave campaign was a 10 Megaton Bomb on the Austerity Narrative. It said we could and should have lads of extra spending on an iconic public service and that it would be dead easy.

    It's a fantastic piece from David and the DUP deal is an awful narrative for Austerity. But lets not ignore that last year an explicitly left wing, economic populist campaign changed British history.

    If we want to look for huge changes in the stories we tell ourselves on Austerity June 2016 is a better place to start than the DUP.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,888
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.

    The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.

    On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.

    Yep, and the Left want to add even more debt to the country.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    One of the main difficulties of the May administration is that there seems to be no consistency of policy. It is almost as if there are different factions, each fighting their own corners, and the last one to catch the ear of one of the great ones, wins, until the next announcement....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,190
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.

    The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.

    On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.

    When I was a practising pharmacist I often had trouble with doctors' maths!

    More seriously, it’s been instructive to see Liddington talking about ‘plenty of money in police authority reserves’ and sundry Chief Constables coming on the box to say that ‘that may be true somewhere, but it’s not true in our Authority!'
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,888
    Ryanair is cancelling hundreds of flights over the next six weeks because cabin crew haven't taken enough days off.

    The airline suddenly removed 160 scheduled services to destinations across Europe on Friday without any explanation leaving holidaymakers furious.

    It now plans to cancel as many as 80 flights per day until the end of October in a bid to improve its punctuality statistics and clear 'a backlog of crew leave'.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7qrzgtk

    Is this because of Brexit?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2017
    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.

    The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.

    On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.

    Yep, and the Left want to add even more debt to the country.
    Not me. I have an aversion to debt.

    There are other ways to balance the books, notably tax reforms and rises. In particular we need proper taxation of the digital mega corporations and transnational chains as discussed in Junckers speech this week.

    Not only do these have a large store of untaxed profits, their unfair advantages due to minimal taxation give them unfair monopoly advantage over indigenous smaller companies.
  • VinnyVinny Posts: 48
    The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,190
    foxinsoxuk said:

    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.

    The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.

    On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.

    Yep, and the Left want to add even more debt to the country.
    Not me. I have an aversion to debt.

    There are other ways to balance the books, notably tax reforms and rises. In particular we need proper taxation of the digital mega corporations and transnational chains as discussed in Junckers speech this week.

    Not only do these have a large store of untaxed profits, their unfair advantages due to minimal taxation give them unfair monopoly advantage over indigenous smaller companies.
    Quite. And staying in the EU would be one way of ensuring such companies don’t play off one ‘host countyry’ against another.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,142
    OldKingCole said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.

    The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.

    On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.

    Yep, and the Left want to add even more debt to the country.
    Not me. I have an aversion to debt.

    There are other ways to balance the books, notably tax reforms and rises. In particular we need proper taxation of the digital mega corporations and transnational chains as discussed in Junckers speech this week.

    Not only do these have a large store of untaxed profits, their unfair advantages due to minimal taxation give them unfair monopoly advantage over indigenous smaller companies.
    Quite. And staying in the EU would be one way of ensuring such companies don’t play off one ‘host countyry’ against another.
    If that were true, why have our major corporations got away with doing exactly that with different EU members up to now?

    Luxembourg under Juncker being a massive part of the problem of course, for all his pathetic and barely coherent bleating on the subject now.

    There are many very good reasons to stay in the EU, but to crack down on tax avoidance simply isn't one of them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    David Herdson is spot on. Every other Conservative narrative has been sacrificed to Brexit. And since that's a second order matter compared with the economy, health, education etc, that's really dumb.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    More broadly, David is spot on.

    Economic sensibility is on ice until Brexit is done and the next election. The Tories don't have the numbers.

    The hope is there's a new glitzy post Brexit economic strategy to launch some time after 2019 under a new leader, who then (maybe) also seeks a new mandate rather than going to term.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.

    The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.

    On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.

    Yep, and the Left want to add even more debt to the country.
    And it is the Conservatives who have actually been adding even more debt -- whether because they wanted to or due to Osborne's mismanagement is moot.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    Their weakness made it inevitable, but as DH says they cannot say "there's no money left" anymore.

    I was at a regional meeting last week at an NHS Trust £80 million in deficit, that cannot recruit to empty posts and is losing staff, in a Brexit voting area. That £350 million per week is sorely needed, and Boris is right to promise it.

    If Brexit fails to deliver that sort of dividend, the backlash will be Corbynite. If the Tory Brexit flops, then people will want the alternative.

    Boris seems to have realised that WTO Brexit is on the cards, and at least he is breaking from the "cake and eat it" policy that has paralysed the government while the clock runs down.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Vinny said:

    The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.

    Surely most pb contributors are Tories. Today's headline piece, for instance, is written by a Conservative Party activist. Most of the debates here are between different parts of the right.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    Their weakness made it inevitable, but as DH says they cannot say "there's no money left" anymore.

    I was at a regional meeting last week at an NHS Trust £80 million in deficit, that cannot recruit to empty posts and is losing staff, in a Brexit voting area. That £350 million per week is sorely needed, and Boris is right to promise it.

    If Brexit fails to deliver that sort of dividend, the backlash will be Corbynite. If the Tory Brexit flops, then people will want the alternative.

    Boris seems to have realised that WTO Brexit is on the cards, and at least he is breaking from the "cake and eat it" policy that has paralysed the government while the clock runs down.
    Boris might be playing smart politics. Outbidding Corbyn on the NHS with a Brexit dividend, plus giving immigration control (which he won't) might win a few votes back to the Tories, particularly given Corbyn's other baggage.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,582
    Great piece David, though for me the arguments for or against austerity will be relatively short lived.

    In March 2019 we are going to perform a massive gamble on the economy. Tories seem to have forgotten that the other way to decrease debt is to increase tax revenues, and the way to do that without increasing tax rates is drive growth. We are a consumer economy, and it's hard to consume when you have less money and everything costs more. They kept the ball rolling for a while with personal borrowing but that bubble is starting to deflate as well.

    And what impact on growth will Brexit have? Even the least amount of change - we rejoin EFTA and retain our EEA membership - still prompts uncertainty. And that option appears fo be politically untenable for the government. Which means we face a hard Brexit of some kind. And in 10 years maybe it will all be fine.

    But before it's all fine it will all be shit. Ideas about no physical border and we won't impose tariffs or checks and neither will they are absurd fantasies exposed as such every time that cretin DD goes to Brussles for his slapping with Barnier. There will be checks. And a barrier. And HMRCs new customs computer assuming it works from the get go can at theoretical maximum cope with 60% of the transactions needed if we leave the EEA.

    So the argument about money going out will be swamped by the pain of the lack of money coming in as our economy has a heart attack in the week after we leave as the reality of the entire M20 a line of parked trucks and half the shelves in the supermarkets empty and food riots kicks in. We could avoid this. But we voted for a fantasy and our politicians have convinced themselves that fantasy can be achieved because aren't we marvellous.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    OT -- the Betfair Merkel layer now has £37,000 up at 1.05 so is either doing some serious greening up or thinks he knows something.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    On topic I see Boris has included using ' low interest rates to borrow more for infrastructure investment ' in his new 10 point plan for Brexit. *Snorts*

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,712
    Vinny said:

    The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.

    You're aware that David Herdson is a prominent Conservative activist? His big strength - and I used to say it when he was criticised from the left - is that he simply discusses current issues as he sees them without the (almost certainly false) idea that anything we say here will influence the flow of events. PB is a good read because most of us feel free to do that.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    OT -- the Betfair Merkel layer now has £37,000 up at 1.05 so is either doing some serious greening up or thinks he knows something.

    If he's a layer he's only put up £1,850.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Mistaken, as usual......
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    alex. said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    OT -- the Betfair Merkel layer now has £37,000 up at 1.05 so is either doing some serious greening up or thinks he knows something.

    If he's a layer he's only put up £1,850.
    Good point! Still worrying only a week away. It has certainly put me off topping up though.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Paul Goodman's take on Boris' article:

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/09/with-the-terror-threat-level-at-critical-johnson-launches-a-leadership-bid-or-so-it-is-bound-to-seem.html

    ...... what is Johnson up to?

    An easy answer is: a bid to destabilise May, create the circumstances for a leadership election, win it – and become Prime Minister.

    This take is credible. May has downgraded his department, role and status. His survey ratings on this site are at their lowest ever. Jacob Rees-Mogg is the activists’ new darling. Time to act – before any reshuffle.

    The Telegraph’s presentation boosts this view. “At last, a positive and bold vision for Brexit,” it says. “Boris…must challenge May,” writes Tim Stanley. Charles Moore asks if it’s “time for new leadership”.

    Another interpretation is that the Foreign Secretary’s move is more impulsive than deliberate. Downing Street is not denying claims that the article is a speech which it barred him from giving early next week.

    According to this version of events, a frustrated Johnson, chafing from the chains that bind him, has broken loose – and given the speech to his chief Fleet Street backer, for which he columnised for so long....
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    OT the hunt for the inept tube bomber is taking a surprisingly long time, given cctv all over the shop, the limited number of stations he could have used, and that he was carrying a Lidl bag-for-life. Not to mention that if the Donald is taken literally, he is already on file. One hopes there is more going on behind the scenes.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,723
    Good morning, everyone.

    The economic case was lost when May decided playing the strongest card at the election was unnecessary because she considered being able to more easily fire her Chancellor after inevitable victory mattered more.

    Daft bat.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    The economic case was lost when May decided playing the strongest card at the election was unnecessary because she considered being able to more easily fire her Chancellor after inevitable victory mattered more.

    Daft bat.

    The strongest card being that Philip Hammond needed (and wanted) to put taxes up?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,924
    OldKingCole said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.

    The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.

    On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.

    Yep, and the Left want to add even more debt to the country.
    Not me. I have an aversion to debt.

    There are other ways to balance the books, notably tax reforms and rises. In particular we need proper taxation of the digital mega corporations and transnational chains as discussed in Junckers speech this week.

    Not only do these have a large store of untaxed profits, their unfair advantages due to minimal taxation give them unfair monopoly advantage over indigenous smaller companies.
    Quite. And staying in the EU would be one way of ensuring such companies don’t play off one ‘host countyry’ against another.
    really ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/14/jean-claude-juncker-luxembourg-tax-deals-controversy
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    CarlottaVance said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Second, like the Tories at next GE

    Mistaken, as usual......
    Third like the Tories then!
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    AlastairMeeks said:

    David Herdson is spot on. Every other Conservative narrative has been sacrificed to Brexit. And since that's a second order matter compared with the economy, health, education etc, that's really dumb.

    I made the point in the leadup to the rferendum that a leave vote would result in all the available time and effort would be expended on this one activity. Almost everything elase would be ignored and important things would fall through the cracks, is the recent rash of terror attacks and failure to address problems in the NHS and other public services a direct reslut of this?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,040
    Morning all, just catching up after a few days away. First of all, glad that the latest terrorist idiot made Four Lions look like jidadist geniuses, hope that our security services can pick him and his friends up quickly.

    Boris has probably just about avoided standing on the PM’s shoes with some careful language in his Telegraph article, but the timing of it when there’s soldiers on the streets is awful.

    On topic, we are still £50bn per year in the red and need to get that down before the next recession hits. However the very close Parliamentary arithmetic makes major changes outside the Budget very difficult to get through. It would be a very big rabbit if the Chancellor could find as much as £10bn in his Budget hat for pay rises. Given how much squeezing of departmental spending has already happened, it’s either going to have to come from tax rises (on almost everyone, not just some subset of ‘rich’), or from cutting whole spending programmes.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,723
    Mr. L, there's a gaping chasm between raising taxes and saying it's a choice you're making having successfully stewarded the economy, and being seen to be pushed into it.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,924
    Juncker butters up the Irish

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-my-european-tax-plans-are-not-antiirish-insists-juncker-36137506.html

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,480
    Casino_Royale said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    Their weakness made it inevitable, but as DH says they cannot say "there's no money left" anymore.

    I was at a regional meeting last week at an NHS Trust £80 million in deficit, that cannot recruit to empty posts and is losing staff, in a Brexit voting area. That £350 million per week is sorely needed, and Boris is right to promise it.

    If Brexit fails to deliver that sort of dividend, the backlash will be Corbynite. If the Tory Brexit flops, then people will want the alternative.

    Boris seems to have realised that WTO Brexit is on the cards, and at least he is breaking from the "cake and eat it" policy that has paralysed the government while the clock runs down.
    Boris might be playing smart politics. Outbidding Corbyn on the NHS with a Brexit dividend, plus giving immigration control (which he won't) might win a few votes back to the Tories, particularly given Corbyn's other baggage.
    People know for sure now that the Tories are lying toerags and will do anything to stay in power. Their days are numbered, it will be anybody but the Tories next time regardless of how crap they are going to be. The shoddy deal with DUP has shown yet again that they will stoop to any level in their avarice.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,040
    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    Did we really have any choice though?

    Were it not for the Brexit clock ticking, I could see the attractiveness of allowing Corbyn’s Coalition of Chaos to fail to pass a Budget, followed by a second election in October. But with the EU exit having the priority it does, it would have been somewhat selfish to allow a summer of chaos when there was a workable Parliamentary agreement available.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,480
    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    Exactly David, far better to have had principles and let Labour take a pounding but the weak , greedy wasters leading the party chose self interest. Pretty stupid poisoning your own well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,142
    edited September 2017
    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    The result meant you didn't actually have that choice. No government without one of the Conservatives or the DUP would have had a majority and the DUP would never have put the IRA-supporting Corbyn (which he is, whatever his ridiculous claims on the subject) into power. (That the Conservatives missed this rather obvious card in negotiations, preferring to allow the DUP to get money instead, bodes ill for Brexit negotiations.)

    It would, from every point of view, have been better to offer to talk to the SNP and Liberal Democrats first, so that when they refused to play ball (which they would have done, of course) they would have been unable to criticise this arrangement which was the only viable option. However, we are where we are.

    And any government that keeps out Corbyn - a less able and less honest version of Chavez - is a good deal. Given his age, time is on the country's side over that.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,480
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    OT the hunt for the inept tube bomber is taking a surprisingly long time, given cctv all over the shop, the limited number of stations he could have used, and that he was carrying a Lidl bag-for-life. Not to mention that if the Donald is taken literally, he is already on file. One hopes there is more going on behind the scenes.

    Hard to believe we have 25% of all the CCTV cameras in the world but they appear to be next to useless in most cases.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,040
    Alanbrooke said:

    Juncker butters up the Irish

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-my-european-tax-plans-are-not-antiirish-insists-juncker-36137506.html

    So it has absolutely everything to do with the Irish!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited September 2017
    They are all as bad as each other, just because the Tories are having a bad time (of their own making ) the alternative is much worse. Frankly, politics sickens me at the moment, in fact pretty much everything I hear sickens me. Our once great Country is sinking in to a mire of shit and I hate to think how it will be in 50 yrs time. I won't be there to see it, thankfully, but I feel sad for future generations. At least I have two weeks coming up where I don't have to come into contact with what is going on. My holiday beckons.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,142
    malcolmg said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    OT the hunt for the inept tube bomber is taking a surprisingly long time, given cctv all over the shop, the limited number of stations he could have used, and that he was carrying a Lidl bag-for-life. Not to mention that if the Donald is taken literally, he is already on file. One hopes there is more going on behind the scenes.

    Hard to believe we have 25% of all the CCTV cameras in the world but they appear to be next to useless in most cases.
    If they're all next to Boris, no wonder they're not much help in catching criminals...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    FTPT
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Alistair said:

    I can say, with little fear of contradiction, that this is good for Yes.

    Why
    Everything is good for yes.

    In this case Boris is about as popular north of the border as a Johnson slapped in your face.
    Wrong actually, according to the July Survation a Boris led Tory Party would poll 32% in Scotland, even above the 29% they got in June, Labour would be on 36% and the SNP would fall to under 30%
    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MoS-Brexit-Poll-Tables-16.07.2017.pdf
    Seriously?

    Ok ignoring for the moment that it's a Scottish subsample lets take a look at the question.

    It's a voting intention question where only Labour and Conservative are prompted for. You can't use t as a voting intention question alone.

    Fortunately an actual serious Voting intention question was asked and the Scotland figure was Conservative 23% Labour 25% (SNP on 32%)

    So when it comes to the head to head Labour-Conservative question which asks
    If these two politicians were leaders of the two main parties at the next general election, for which party would you vote? “Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Philip Hammond for the Conservatives”
    of course Labour and Conservatives will poll higher than the headline figure - unless you want to explain some magical process that makes the Labour vote rise 10 points over the general voting intention question.

    And looking at those head to heads vs Corbyn
    Bojo 32% - 36% Corbyn
    Amber Rudd 34% - 34% Corbyn
    Hammond 32% - 36% Corbyn
    David Davis 33% - 34% Corbyn

    Making Bojo the least popular Conservative leader. On the Scotland Sub sample Bojo loses every head to head "which of these 2 would you prefer to lead the conservative party" question as well - a phenominal 46/23 to David Davis.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    A novel idea The Conservatives have never done that since WW2 .Choosing to go into opposition goes against their base instinct of been the sole an only party able to govern this country.
  • david_kendrick1david_kendrick1 Posts: 325
    Nobody in the real world cares about the DUP, or extra public spending in NI. Linking the abandonment of public sector pay restraint to a deal with the DUP is 'spurious correlation'.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,480
    Casino_Royale said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    Their weakness made it inevitable, but as DH says they cannot say "there's no money left" anymore.

    I was at a regional meeting last week at an NHS Trust £80 million in deficit, that cannot recruit to empty posts and is losing staff, in a Brexit voting area. That £350 million per week is sorely needed, and Boris is right to promise it.

    If Brexit fails to deliver that sort of dividend, the backlash will be Corbynite. If the Tory Brexit flops, then people will want the alternative.

    Boris seems to have realised that WTO Brexit is on the cards, and at least he is breaking from the "cake and eat it" policy that has paralysed the government while the clock runs down.
    Boris might be playing smart politics. Outbidding Corbyn on the NHS with a Brexit dividend, plus giving immigration control (which he won't) might win a few votes back to the Tories, particularly given Corbyn's other baggage.
    I think not, the big buffoon sees where he is heading and is doing his best teenager impression.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,076
    Surely 'twas Brexit, and the Tory reaction to it, that destroyed their economic case.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,480
    Sandpit said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    Did we really have any choice though?

    Were it not for the Brexit clock ticking, I could see the attractiveness of allowing Corbyn’s Coalition of Chaos to fail to pass a Budget, followed by a second election in October. But with the EU exit having the priority it does, it would have been somewhat selfish to allow a summer of chaos when there was a workable Parliamentary agreement available.
    so they just decided they would have even more chaos and do a real number on us.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    Sandpit said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    Did we really have any choice though?

    Were it not for the Brexit clock ticking, I could see the attractiveness of allowing Corbyn’s Coalition of Chaos to fail to pass a Budget, followed by a second election in October. But with the EU exit having the priority it does, it would have been somewhat selfish to allow a summer of chaos when there was a workable Parliamentary agreement available.
    You always have a choice. Sitting out the negotiations would indeed have been a risk, though Starmer is the one really capable member of the Shadow Cabinet, and strings can be pulled in opposition, as Labour is demonstrating. In the mean time, the Corbyn project would have collapsed under its internal contradictions.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,480
    david_kendrick1 said:

    Nobody in the real world cares about the DUP, or extra public spending in NI. Linking the abandonment of public sector pay restraint to a deal with the DUP is 'spurious correlation'.

    Cuckoo
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,480
    Alistair said:

    FTPT

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Alistair said:

    I can say, with little fear of contradiction, that this is good for Yes.

    Why
    Everything is good for yes.

    In this case Boris is about as popular north of the border as a Johnson slapped in your face.
    Wrong actually, according to the July Survation a Boris led Tory Party would poll 32% in Scotland, even above the 29% they got in June, Labour would be on 36% and the SNP would fall to under 30%
    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MoS-Brexit-Poll-Tables-16.07.2017.pdf
    Seriously?

    Ok ignoring for the moment that it's a Scottish subsample lets take a look at the question.

    It's a voting intention question where only Labour and Conservative are prompted for. You can't use t as a voting intention question alone.

    Fortunately an actual serious Voting intention question was asked and the Scotland figure was Conservative 23% Labour 25% (SNP on 32%)

    So when it comes to the head to head Labour-Conservative question which asks
    If these two politicians were leaders of the two main parties at the next general election, for which party would you vote? “Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Philip Hammond for the Conservatives”
    of course Labour and Conservatives will poll higher than the headline figure - unless you want to explain some magical process that makes the Labour vote rise 10 points over the general voting intention question.

    And looking at those head to heads vs Corbyn
    Bojo 32% - 36% Corbyn
    Amber Rudd 34% - 34% Corbyn
    Hammond 32% - 36% Corbyn
    David Davis 33% - 34% Corbyn

    Making Bojo the least popular Conservative leader. On the Scotland Sub sample Bojo loses every head to head "which of these 2 would you prefer to lead the conservative party" question as well - a phenominal 46/23 to David Davis.
    Good old subsamples, 2 people in Scotland would support Boris and the Tories.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,480
    edited September 2017
    Sandpit said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Juncker butters up the Irish

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-my-european-tax-plans-are-not-antiirish-insists-juncker-36137506.html

    So it has absolutely everything to do with the Irish!
    Always at the middle of it , real troublemakers:)
    PS: That was a personal one meant for Mr Brooke
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    Yorkcity said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    A novel idea The Conservatives have never done that since WW2 .Choosing to go into opposition goes against their base instinct of been the sole an only party able to govern this country.
    February (or, strictly speaking, March) 1974.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    david_herdson said:

    Yorkcity said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    A novel idea The Conservatives have never done that since WW2 .Choosing to go into opposition goes against their base instinct of been the sole an only party able to govern this country.
    February (or, strictly speaking, March) 1974.
    Yes David I thought about Feb ,1974 Heath did not choose to go into opposition as in reality he tried hard to get a deal with the Liberals to stay in government.So in my opinion was forced.to relinquish power .
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    The result meant you didn't actually have that choice. No government without one of the Conservatives or the DUP would have had a majority and the DUP would never have put the IRA-supporting Corbyn (which he is, whatever his ridiculous claims on the subject) into power. (That the Conservatives missed this rather obvious card in negotiations, preferring to allow the DUP to get money instead, bodes ill for Brexit negotiations.)

    It would, from every point of view, have been better to offer to talk to the SNP and Liberal Democrats first, so that when they refused to play ball (which they would have done, of course) they would have been unable to criticise this arrangement which was the only viable option. However, we are where we are.

    And any government that keeps out Corbyn - a less able and less honest version of Chavez - is a good deal. Given his age, time is on the country's side over that.
    What the numbers mean is that had the Tories gone into opposition and Labour been willing to form a government (which it was), Corbyn could have been brought down at a time and on a subject of the Conservatives' choosing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,040
    edited September 2017
    david_herdson said:

    Sandpit said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    Did we really have any choice though?

    Were it not for the Brexit clock ticking, I could see the attractiveness of allowing Corbyn’s Coalition of Chaos to fail to pass a Budget, followed by a second election in October. But with the EU exit having the priority it does, it would have been somewhat selfish to allow a summer of chaos when there was a workable Parliamentary agreement available.
    You always have a choice. Sitting out the negotiations would indeed have been a risk, though Starmer is the one really capable member of the Shadow Cabinet, and strings can be pulled in opposition, as Labour is demonstrating. In the mean time, the Corbyn project would have collapsed under its internal contradictions.
    As Sir Humphrey might have once said, that would have been a very brave decision indeed.
    Doubly so after all that was said about Mr Corbyn personally during the campaign.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,142
    edited September 2017
    david_herdson said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    The result meant you didn't actually have that choice. No government without one of the Conservatives or the DUP would have had a majority and the DUP would never have put the IRA-supporting Corbyn (which he is, whatever his ridiculous claims on the subject) into power. (That the Conservatives missed this rather obvious card in negotiations, preferring to allow the DUP to get money instead, bodes ill for Brexit negotiations.)

    It would, from every point of view, have been better to offer to talk to the SNP and Liberal Democrats first, so that when they refused to play ball (which they would have done, of course) they would have been unable to criticise this arrangement which was the only viable option. However, we are where we are.

    And any government that keeps out Corbyn - a less able and less honest version of Chavez - is a good deal. Given his age, time is on the country's side over that.
    What the numbers mean is that had the Tories gone into opposition and Labour been willing to form a government (which it was), Corbyn could have been brought down at a time and on a subject of the Conservatives' choosing.
    And substantially improved his position in the subsequent election by accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the nation's future? That isn't my idea of good strategy.

    In any case, the main point is you could not have gone into opposition without *supporting* a Corbyn government. Of the 642 seats in the Commons in practice, Corbyn's allies can only muster 315 - short of the Conservative total never mind the Conservative and DUP combined. No way could even someone as megalomaniacal as Corbyn survive on that basis.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    As shown on the previous thread...

    https://twitter.com/marinahyde/status/908958651410509824
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited September 2017
    https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/908826287984271360

    Could only be improved if he had said Bigly instead of mightily
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    The result meant you didn't actually have that choice. No government without one of the Conservatives or the DUP would have had a majority and the DUP would never have put the IRA-supporting Corbyn (which he is, whatever his ridiculous claims on the subject) into power. (That the Conservatives missed this rather obvious card in negotiations, preferring to allow the DUP to get money instead, bodes ill for Brexit negotiations.)

    It would, from every point of view, have been better to offer to talk to the SNP and Liberal Democrats first, so that when they refused to play ball (which they would have done, of course) they would have been unable to criticise this arrangement which was the only viable option. However, we are where we are.

    And any government that keeps out Corbyn - a less able and less honest version of Chavez - is a good deal. Given his age, time is on the country's side over that.
    What the numbers mean is that had the Tories gone into opposition and Labour been willing to form a government (which it was), Corbyn could have been brought down at a time and on a subject of the Conservatives' choosing.
    And substantially improved his position in the subsequent election by accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the nation's future? That isn't my idea of good strategy.

    In any case, the main point is you could not have gone into opposition without *supporting* a Corbyn government. Of the 642 seats in the Commons in practice, Corbyn's allies can only muster 315 - short of the Conservative total never mind the Conservative and DUP combined. No way could even someone as megalomaniacal as Corbyn survive on that basis.
    It's not in Labour's interest to make the 'playing politics' argument because it undermines their case that they 'won'. As for supporting Corbyn, the Tories need only have abstained on a Queen's Speech, onthe grounds that Labour 'had to be given a fair chance.

    You're a historian. Think 1923/4.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,582
    All the Tories had to do was govern as a minority. The DUP would give them support on key issues and vote them down on policies everyone bar May thinks are batshit like pay cuts for Nurses. Which is what we have now...

    But the real reason why May couldn't do that is simple.May could not personally survive Bunning their majority. For her own personal survival - like dodgy Dave before her - she put her party second and balls to what it does to the country.

    What that demonstrates is the invertebrate cowardice of Tory MPs. They know both were leading them toward the cliff edge, but they're too congenitally stupid and inept to do something about it
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,142
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/908826287984271360

    Could only be improved if he had said Bigly instead of mightily

    Oo-er, missus!

    Does he really not know the difference between plans and clichés? That's almost as bad as Corbyn's rubbish on student loans.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @election_data: The worst part of the ten point plan is that he clearly got to four and thought "I need ten; a four point plan sounds shit" #Boris
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Great piece David, though for me the arguments for or against austerity will be relatively short lived.

    In March 2019 we are going to perform a massive gamble on the economy. Tories seem to have forgotten that the other way to decrease debt is to increase tax revenues, and the way to do that without increasing tax rates is drive growth. We are a consumer economy, and it's hard to consume when you have less money and everything costs more. They kept the ball rolling for a while with personal borrowing but that bubble is starting to deflate as well.

    And what impact on growth will Brexit have? Even the least amount of change - we rejoin EFTA and retain our EEA membership - still prompts uncertainty. And that option appears fo be politically untenable for the government. Which means we face a hard Brexit of some kind. And in 10 years maybe it will all be fine.

    But before it's all fine it will all be shit. Ideas about no physical border and we won't impose tariffs or checks and neither will they are absurd fantasies exposed as such every time that cretin DD goes to Brussles for his slapping with Barnier. There will be checks. And a barrier. And HMRCs new customs computer assuming it works from the get go can at theoretical maximum cope with 60% of the transactions needed if we leave the EEA.

    So the argument about money going out will be swamped by the pain of the lack of money coming in as our economy has a heart attack in the week after we leave as the reality of the entire M20 a line of parked trucks and half the shelves in the supermarkets empty and food riots kicks in. We could avoid this. But we voted for a fantasy and our politicians have convinced themselves that fantasy can be achieved because aren't we marvellous.

    HMRC said that it would be 5 years before tbey have staff and computers for border tariffs in Treasury Select Committee this week. If on time...

    https://twitter.com/SarahLudford/status/908375967122513922
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,142
    edited September 2017
    david_herdson said:

    ydoethur said:



    And substantially improved his position in the subsequent election by accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the nation's future? That isn't my idea of good strategy.

    In any case, the main point is you could not have gone into opposition without *supporting* a Corbyn government. Of the 642 seats in the Commons in practice, Corbyn's allies can only muster 315 - short of the Conservative total never mind the Conservative and DUP combined. No way could even someone as megalomaniacal as Corbyn survive on that basis.

    It's not in Labour's interest to make the 'playing politics' argument because it undermines their case that they 'won'. As for supporting Corbyn, the Tories need only have abstained on a Queen's Speech, onthe grounds that Labour 'had to be given a fair chance.

    You're a historian. Think 1923/4.
    You mean, 1923/4 when the Labour and Liberal parties had 347 seats to the Unionist 258? The 1923/4 when Baldwin was voted out and had no choice but to go into opposition? The 1923/4 when the Liberals were the ones who forced the election, losing 116 seats in the process? That 1923/4?

    Can you not see the circumstances are just a little different here?

    Edit - it is also worth pointing out that Labour then contained senior figures with a proven track record in Government and confirmed centrist credentials. The current shadow cabinet has neither.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    edited September 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    david_herdson said:

    Yorkcity said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    A novel idea The Conservatives have never done that since WW2 .Choosing to go into opposition goes against their base instinct of been the sole an only party able to govern this country.
    February (or, strictly speaking, March) 1974.
    Yes David I thought about Feb ,1974 Heath did not choose to go into opposition as in reality he tried hard to get a deal with the Liberals to stay in government.So in my opinion was forced.to relinquish power .
    He did. But he could also have tried to do a deal with the Ulster Unionists but decided the price would have been too high. There is a certain irony in there but N Ireland was very different in the early/mid-1970s.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,169
    Good piece. The Conservatives lost the economic competence card with Brexit. Voters decided to Brexit so the government has to respect the vote. But they could go for a cautious, don't rock the boat approach, as advocated by Philip Hammond. Instead they burnt out boats and or bridges too. It's not an amount of money. It's the idea that economic competence and good sense are for wimps.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,676
    edited September 2017
    The trouble was that endless austerity, and out of a limited number of budgets, was never sustainable and Cameron and Osborne failed to grasp this, at least in part because their background limited their understanding of how ordinary people relate to public services.

    Austerity to me signalled cutting some egregious waste but also lots of things you didn't really want to cut because the deficit required it. The second phase had to be structural reform, slower but requiring an appreciation of what you were providing, with the possibility of repairing some of the early cuts. Cameron failed ever to move onto that, or even understand that there was a massive mindset difference between the two things.

    There are exceptions, UC was at least an attempt at this, but was run very detached from the PM, whilst NHS reform needed to focus on localism Vs regionalism at the outset in a very open way, not just change which seats the accountants occupied.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    ydoethur said:



    And substantially improved his position in the subsequent election by accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the nation's future? That isn't my idea of good strategy.

    In any case, the main point is you could not have gone into opposition without *supporting* a Corbyn government. Of the 642 seats in the Commons in practice, Corbyn's allies can only muster 315 - short of the Conservative total never mind the Conservative and DUP combined. No way could even someone as megalomaniacal as Corbyn survive on that basis.

    It's not in Labour's interest to make the 'playing politics' argument because it undermines their case that they 'won'. As for supporting Corbyn, the Tories need only have abstained on a Queen's Speech, onthe grounds that Labour 'had to be given a fair chance.

    You're a historian. Think 1923/4.
    You mean, 1923/4 when the Labour and Liberal parties had 347 seats to the Unionist 258? The 1923/4 when Baldwin was voted out and had no choice but to go into opposition? The 1923/4 when the Liberals were the ones who forced the election, losing 116 seats in the process? That 1923/4?

    Can you not see the circumstances are just a little different here?

    Edit - it is also worth pointing out that Labour then contained senior figures with a proven track record in Government and confirmed centrist credentials. The current shadow cabinet has neither.
    The circumstances are (slightly) different - the Tories still don't have a majority - but the precise mechanisms of the change of office are less important than what happened afterwards.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,451
    https://twitter.com/nickmotown/status/908944324162879489
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,856
    Austerity never happened.

    There were cuts and there were pay-caps but most of all there was profligacy.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    malcolmg said:

    david_kendrick1 said:

    Nobody in the real world cares about the DUP, or extra public spending in NI. Linking the abandonment of public sector pay restraint to a deal with the DUP is 'spurious correlation'.

    Cuckoo
    Morning Malc! :D
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,856
    david_herdson said:


    Yorkcity said:

    david_herdson said:

    Yorkcity said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    A novel idea The Conservatives have never done that since WW2 .Choosing to go into opposition goes against their base instinct of been the sole an only party able to govern this country.
    February (or, strictly speaking, March) 1974.
    Yes David I thought about Feb ,1974 Heath did not choose to go into opposition as in reality he tried hard to get a deal with the Liberals to stay in government.So in my opinion was forced.to relinquish power .
    He did. But he could also have tried to do a deal with the Ulster Unionists but decided the price would have been too high. There is a certain irony in there but N Ireland was very different in the early/mid-1970s.
    Even with the Ulster Unionists the numbers didn't work for Heath in February 1974:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974

    In fact Heath would have need both the Liberals and the UUP to get a bare majority.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,040
    another_richard said:

    Austerity never happened.

    There were cuts and there were pay-caps but most of all there was profligacy.

    Yep, government spending actually went up every year from 2010 - 2015, helped along by the massive increase in the “Department” of debt interest.

    With the benefit of hindsight, what we should have done is what happened in Ireland, with large actual cuts in government salaries, pensions and benefits. This gave the couple of years’ breathing space necessary for the government’s finances to adjust to the new reality.

    Of course, life would have been better if we hadn’t been running deficits when the recession hit in the first place, but as Corbyn discovered people will vote for free sweeties.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    One to watch. At the LD Conference will the rebel europhiles win the vote to suspend the conference to force a Brexit debate?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Want to know why the British government left British citizens and territories in the lurch after they were devastated by Hurricane Irma? The foreign secretary was too busy to think about them as he had a Tory leadership campaign to plan.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,142
    edited September 2017

    The circumstances are (slightly) different - the Tories still don't have a majority - but the precise mechanisms of the change of office are less important than what happened afterwards.
    No, the circumstances are radically different. In 1924 Baldwin could not influence events as he didn't have the numbers. This was hugely to his advantage in a number of ways. It meant he could be seen to be the victim of the electorate. It meant that the Liberals took all the blame for putting in a Government that subsequently became highly unpopular. It also meant that they - not the Unionists - were the ones who timed the election by withdrawing support. And that meant that they, not the Unionists, were pounded by the electorate. 40% of their voters abandoned them in 1924, two-thirds to the Unionists, although admittedly they fielded over 200 fewer candidates as well (partly because some former candidates refused to stand).

    I will say again, and will say repeatedly, that the parallel is completely wrong. Unlike Baldwin, Theresa May would have to make the conscious choice to prop up Corbyn. She would have to vote with him or abstain (same difference) on all votes or the government could not survive or even function. She would be the one who would get the blame when support was withdrawn, and her party would suffer the consequences.

    If Corbyn had won most seats I would have agreed with your suggestion appalling though the prospect is. One of Brown's worst offences - among many - was to ignore the very clear Baldwin precedent of 1929 that a leader who has come second in an election resigns at once (in this he was of course advised by the egregious Augustine O'Donnell, who turned out to be as ignorant of history, law and democratic mandates as he was of economics and administration). Can you not see however that in the circumstances where a party has to either form a government or actively support an alternative government, particularly when the alternative government is composed of dim-witted far-left populists with links to terrorism, Holocaust Denial and Islington Labour Party that they have to form a government or get a brutal hammering themselves?

    The alternative to a May government was another election, and that really wasn't feasible.

    (My PhD thesis was on the second Baldwin government of 1924-29. I studied this election in a great deal of depth, including the Joynson-Hicks leadership challenge, the Campbell case and the Zinoviev letter.)
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    Some background
    https://andrewhickey.info/2017/09/12/why-are-the-lib-dem-leadership-so-keen-on-brexit/

    ps vote underway - I can find no live broadcast.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I think the Tories need to understand that Thatcherism -nastypartyism-is dead. People wont put up with it any more. They need a younger leader, a new philosophy and an explicit rejection of austerity which is just Thatcherite cuts and redistribution to the rich by another name. The deficit just gave the Tories an excuse to do what they have always done since 1979.
    The problem with the poltical situation at the moment is that the antidote is even worse than the sickness. If the Tories were to be replaced by Corbyn, it would be a total disaster-for Britain, for the economy, and for the Labour Party which I have supported all my life.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,582
    Boris is delusional but he isn't the only one. We simply cannot have hard Brexit from the EU in 2019 without at the very least a massive economic shock and snap depression. And that's the best case scenario as economies recover even from a deep depression, providing they are still able to trade.

    Yet the Tories keep insisting that is we wish hard enough the EU will cave in and problems like 5 years for a customs set-up won't matter. There are still a large number of voters backing this approach, I've seen messages sent to a Labour MP up here denouncing them for voting against the second reading of the May enabling act.

    But by the time we have an election if we have hard Brexit those voters won't be saying that. Instead they will be demanding blood having been lied to about how the EU will give is our freedom and the sunlit uplands lie over the fence. When they realise the uplands are on fire and there is no food the mood will change. And the people to blame will be the Tories.

    Hard Brexit is an Extinction Level Event for any politician / party who backs it. Even if he doesn't become PM you can see Boris forcing May's hand which is already clutching the tiller towards the cliff edge. Who was that civil servant who said I'm fucked you're fucked the party's fucked? That's the Tories.

    Popcorn anyone?
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    SouthamObserver said:

    Want to know why the British government left British citizens and territories in the lurch after they were devastated by Hurricane Irma? The foreign secretary was too busy to think about them as he had a Tory leadership campaign to plan.

    Nothing moves in Whitehall under the snail speed control of Mrs May.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,611
    Vinny said:

    The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.

    There's no point in having a right wing view on anything in the UK. RW politics in this country is morally and intellectually defunct. Thatcher and Cameron were able to articulate a vision that seemed relevant to the future. This lot are tilling the earth with salt in the name of Brexit and have an increasingly ugly streak of social conservatism.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    LD Leadership loses control of its own Conference.

    Caron Lindsay‏ @caronmlindsay 33s
    Standing orders suspended to allow #Brexit motion. 377-97. Amazing turnout for first thing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Boris's 10 point Brexit success plan is an absolute Bobby Dazzler. Brexit will be a success because Brexit will be a success. Superb!!!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Boris is delusional but he isn't the only one. We simply cannot have hard Brexit from the EU in 2019 without at the very least a massive economic shock and snap depression. And that's the best case scenario as economies recover even from a deep depression, providing they are still able to trade.

    Yet the Tories keep insisting that is we wish hard enough the EU will cave in and problems like 5 years for a customs set-up won't matter. There are still a large number of voters backing this approach, I've seen messages sent to a Labour MP up here denouncing them for voting against the second reading of the May enabling act.

    But by the time we have an election if we have hard Brexit those voters won't be saying that. Instead they will be demanding blood having been lied to about how the EU will give is our freedom and the sunlit uplands lie over the fence. When they realise the uplands are on fire and there is no food the mood will change. And the people to blame will be the Tories.

    Hard Brexit is an Extinction Level Event for any politician / party who backs it. Even if he doesn't become PM you can see Boris forcing May's hand which is already clutching the tiller towards the cliff edge. Who was that civil servant who said I'm fucked you're fucked the party's fucked? That's the Tories.

    Popcorn anyone?

    This government is totally self-absorbed and utterly incompetent. It's as simple as that.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,142
    another_richard said:

    david_herdson said:


    Yorkcity said:

    david_herdson said:

    Yorkcity said:

    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    A novel idea The Conservatives have never done that since WW2 .Choosing to go into opposition goes against their base instinct of been the sole an only party able to govern this country.
    February (or, strictly speaking, March) 1974.
    Yes David I thought about Feb ,1974 Heath did not choose to go into opposition as in reality he tried hard to get a deal with the Liberals to stay in government.So in my opinion was forced.to relinquish power .
    He did. But he could also have tried to do a deal with the Ulster Unionists but decided the price would have been too high. There is a certain irony in there but N Ireland was very different in the early/mid-1970s.
    Even with the Ulster Unionists the numbers didn't work for Heath in February 1974:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974

    In fact Heath would have need both the Liberals and the UUP to get a bare majority.
    He claimed he tried to split 7 of the 12 Unionists off and get them to rejoin the Conservatives, but they opposed power-sharing so it wouldn't work.

    However, he was in practice assuming that when it came to the crunch they would support his government against Wilson which is why he only spoke seriously to Thorpe.

    That election is a very slightly better parallel to David's suggestion as of course Heath had to offer tacit support to Labour - whom he described as 'standing on the most extreme platform of any party in the twentieth century' - and lost 20 seats at the next election as a result.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,053
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Boris is delusional but he isn't the only one. We simply cannot have hard Brexit from the EU in 2019 without at the very least a massive economic shock and snap depression. And that's the best case scenario as economies recover even from a deep depression, providing they are still able to trade.

    Yet the Tories keep insisting that is we wish hard enough the EU will cave in and problems like 5 years for a customs set-up won't matter. There are still a large number of voters backing this approach, I've seen messages sent to a Labour MP up here denouncing them for voting against the second reading of the May enabling act.

    But by the time we have an election if we have hard Brexit those voters won't be saying that. Instead they will be demanding blood having been lied to about how the EU will give is our freedom and the sunlit uplands lie over the fence. When they realise the uplands are on fire and there is no food the mood will change. And the people to blame will be the Tories.

    Hard Brexit is an Extinction Level Event for any politician / party who backs it. Even if he doesn't become PM you can see Boris forcing May's hand which is already clutching the tiller towards the cliff edge. Who was that civil servant who said I'm fucked you're fucked the party's fucked? That's the Tories.

    Popcorn anyone?

    The blame, if it comes to blame, will depend entirely on who the public feel are responsible for a hard Brexit.

    If the UK government makes a fair offer to the EU (possibly even by Theresa May in Florence next week) and the EU continue to play hard ball it is more than probable the public will insist on the UK walking away, no matter what the economic consequencies are for the UK and indeed the EU
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    David Herdson thank you yet again for your articles .You seem to me a thought provoking conservative and they are very lucky to have you as a member.I will always remember your post just before the election this year when you said this was not the expected forgone conclusion.The party needs more like you listening on the ground outside the Westminster arena.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    Live LD conference feed

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Xf0EqMJ50

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,054
    david_herdson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.

    We should have chosen to go into opposition.
    That would have been viewed (correctly) as a massive sulk by the voters, who would have punished the Conservatives (deservedly).

    The Conservatives won a majority on the Mainland, so it was their duty to form a government.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,122
    https://twitter.com/duncanrobinson/status/908943625572225024
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,040
    Allan said:

    LD Leadership loses control of its own Conference.

    Caron Lindsay‏ @caronmlindsay 33s
    Standing orders suspended to allow #Brexit motion. 377-97. Amazing turnout for first thing.

    Party conference season popcorn time starts early this year!
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    Yorkcity said:

    David Herdson thank you yet again for your articles .You seem to me a thought provoking conservative and they are very lucky to have you as a member.I will always remember your post just before the election this year when you said this was not the expected forgone conclusion.The party needs more like you listening on the ground outside the Westminster arena.

    I echo your words on David Herdson. High quality, though he is I suspect less red meat tory than myself.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,053
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Boris is delusional but he isn't the only one. We simply cannot have hard Brexit from the EU in 2019 without at the very least a massive economic shock and snap depression. And that's the best case scenario as economies recover even from a deep depression, providing they are still able to trade.

    Yet the Tories keep insisting that is we wish hard enough the EU will cave in and problems like 5 years for a customs set-up won't matter. There are still a large number of voters backing this approach, I've seen messages sent to a Labour MP up here denouncing them for voting against the second reading of the May enabling act.

    But by the time we have an election if we have hard Brexit those voters won't be saying that. Instead they will be demanding blood having been lied to about how the EU will give is our freedom and the sunlit uplands lie over the fence. When they realise the uplands are on fire and there is no food the mood will change. And the people to blame will be the Tories.

    Hard Brexit is an Extinction Level Event for any politician / party who backs it. Even if he doesn't become PM you can see Boris forcing May's hand which is already clutching the tiller towards the cliff edge. Who was that civil servant who said I'm fucked you're fucked the party's fucked? That's the Tories.

    Popcorn anyone?

    The blame, if it comes to blame, will depend entirely on who the public feel are responsible for a hard Brexit.

    If the UK government makes a fair offer to the EU (possibly even by Theresa May in Florence next week) and the EU continue to play hard ball it is more than probable the public will insist on the UK walking away, no matter what the economic consequencies are for the UK and indeed the EU
    Also poor old Boris getting little coverage in the broadcast media due to their saturation coverage of the terror attack
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    SouthamObserver said:

    Boris's 10 point Brexit success plan is an absolute Bobby Dazzler. Brexit will be a success because Brexit will be a success. Superb!!!

    I hope you are not going to be unpatriotic and criticise it in any way!
  • fakesoundofprogressfakesoundofprogress Posts: 2
    Good article!

    The Tories dont really have a response now people bring up the DUP payment...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,906
    £2 bn is a lot, lot less than the divorce bill the EU want us to pay them!

    UK = responsible hard-working spouse

    EU = profligate gold-digger
This discussion has been closed.