Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leave till last. Identifying the next Conservative leader

SystemSystem Posts: 12,587
edited May 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leave till last. Identifying the next Conservative leader

 

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,770
    Javid. Not a great speaker but a shoo-in.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,770
    edited May 2018
    20 men 8 women. Sorry 6 women now.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Second! Like Remain....and Corbyn....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Glad to see any nonsense about Hammond having a shot has finally been put to bed.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,173
    I wholeheartedly agree with your final paragraph #Esther4Leader

    However, I'm not one of those Labourites who has a visceral hatred for her. I might disagree with much of what she stands for, but at least she is a proper 'full-fat' Tory, rather than the Cameron-Osborne wishy-washy, virtually a LibDem type.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Depends entirely on the circumstance then the mechanics of the Tory electoral system.

    Look how May won, safety in a crisis and then a technical victory before it went to the members.

    On the first point...

    If they are in trouble then safety first will kick in again. Hunt, Gove all stand a decent chance.
    If they are on the up and tired of May, then they might look to a new generation. In which Javid is todays favourite, but there are others.

    On the technical point...

    You need to win MPs and then the members. The members will probably prefer a Brexiteer. If Gove can get over the first hurdle, he stands a pretty good chance with the second.

    Hard to see which factions are dominant in the HoC at the moment.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Shadsy has better prices. Ladbrokes have Esther McVey at 66/1 against for next leader and 100/1 against next Prime Minister, if you think (as I do) the contest will come before the next election (obviously not if you think the government will collapse first). Corals are about the same.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    edited May 2018
    However, her performance in the last year has been lamentable in the main, with no obvious signs of improvement

    Up to a point, Lord Copper;

    Best PM - May vs Corbyn:

    June 17: -1
    April 18: +14

    Still a very long way off her +30s peaks, but no obvious signs may be a tad uncharitable....

    But no, she should not fight the next GE. As Lilian Baylis once said to an aspiring star 'You've had your chance, my dear, and you muffed it"
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Brexit does not look like happening in any meaningful sense until the other side of the next election given that whatever Customs deal we end up doing with the EU will not be implemented until the mid-2020s at the earliest. Then there is the full fat trade deal to do on top which, whatever Davis says, will take years to finalise rather than months. With Corbyn making Labour unelectable, I suspect May is going to be leading the Tories into the GE, which probably means the next Tory leader and PM is likely to be someone who has not yet been in the cabinet.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,070
    SouthamObserver said:

    Brexit does not look like happening in any meaningful sense until the other side of the next election given that whatever Customs deal we end up doing with the EU will not be implemented until the mid-2020s at the earliest. Then there is the full fat trade deal to do on top which, whatever Davis says, will take years to finalise rather than months. With Corbyn making Labour unelectable, I suspect May is going to be leading the Tories into the GE, which probably means the next Tory leader and PM is likely to be someone who has not yet been in the cabinet.

    indeed fpt:
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    On point 1 it cannot work in the way you want. Because unless all your tariffs are permanently aligned with the EU then the RoW can gain cheaper access to the EU by importing via the UK (if UK tariffs are lower) or cheaper access to the UK by importing via the EU (if EU tariffs are cheaper)
    That this transparently simple point needs to be spelled out to some of our most ardent Brexiters explains to a large degree why we are in such a mess today.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    off topic, with apologies to Mr. Meeks, here's a scary NY Times article about Trump's detachment from logic:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/28/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-intelligence.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,756
    Penny Mordaunt is clearly the right answer (for my wallet).

    I agree that Hunt and Javid both had decent shots, and their odds are too long.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    edited May 2018
    Someone needs to a piece on the factions/groups within the HoC.

    * Is there still an Osborne group?
    * Is there a coherent Brexit faction and who do they associate with, JRM?
    * Is there any meaningful May faction and who would be its candidate?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    edited May 2018
    'tis the political equivalent of the Grand National.

    Just a bit of fun. No judgement required
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 193
    I also have backed Ester Mcvey at long odds but wonder if the fact she is single might affect the party member vote and her losing her consistuency in 2015 due to Labour hammering her for her minesterial work on benefits might mean she is vulnerable electorally.
    .Also backed Penny Mordaunt at 100/1 who has both Brexit credentials but also the liberal establishment media like her pre-politics background in foreign aid.She like Estey is also a good interviewer.
    If there was an election tomorrow Michael Gove would probably win if he stood.The MSM are currently giving him more positive ticks than any other cabinet minister however he would be a bad choice in terms of opposing Labour .
    Gove is a Tory equalivent of Michael Foot and would be an electoral disaster
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,035
    edited May 2018
    Of the main contenders only Javid, Boris and Mogg have higher approval than May with Yougov, Hunt, Hammond, Davis, Gove and Williamson have worse so look to the first 3 in particular.

    McVey has the same approval rating as May
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Jonathan said:

    Someone needs to a piece on the factions/groups within the HoC.

    * Is there still an Osborne group?
    * Is there a coherent Brexit faction and who do they associate with, JRM?
    * Is there any meaningful May faction and who would be its candidate?

    The Standard published a guide at the end of January which we can assume was well-informed but three months is a long time in Tory factionalism.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,178
    FPT
    It seems to be Hammond and Robbins behind the hare-brained customs partnership scheme, in which we would collect the duties due under the EU's common external tariff from all our imports and then pass on to Brussels that part due for those goods that go on the the EU, meanwhile reimbursing those importers for the goods that are used here.
    Costly bureaucratic nightmare or what? And to what end exactly? To avoid a "hard border" in Ireland. Well tough. There is already a border there, just not one for goods traffic. And that is easily avoided by us abolishing tariffs on imports and having genuinely free trade. But if we choose not to go down that route, then we should just have a "hard border" in the interim until the EU agrees an FTA with us.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,070
    geoffw said:

    FPT
    It seems to be Hammond and Robbins behind the hare-brained customs partnership scheme, in which we would collect the duties due under the EU's common external tariff from all our imports and then pass on to Brussels that part due for those goods that go on the the EU, meanwhile reimbursing those importers for the goods that are used here.
    Costly bureaucratic nightmare or what? And to what end exactly? To avoid a "hard border" in Ireland. Well tough. There is already a border there, just not one for goods traffic. And that is easily avoided by us abolishing tariffs on imports and having genuinely free trade. But if we choose not to go down that route, then we should just have a "hard border" in the interim until the EU agrees an FTA with us.

    So we are going to have a hard border in Ireland, and abolish the Lords.

    Brexiters - true patriots of our day.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,178
    TOPPING said:

    geoffw said:

    FPT
    It seems to be Hammond and Robbins behind the hare-brained customs partnership scheme, in which we would collect the duties due under the EU's common external tariff from all our imports and then pass on to Brussels that part due for those goods that go on the the EU, meanwhile reimbursing those importers for the goods that are used here.
    Costly bureaucratic nightmare or what? And to what end exactly? To avoid a "hard border" in Ireland. Well tough. There is already a border there, just not one for goods traffic. And that is easily avoided by us abolishing tariffs on imports and having genuinely free trade. But if we choose not to go down that route, then we should just have a "hard border" in the interim until the EU agrees an FTA with us.

    So we are going to have a hard border in Ireland, and abolish the Lords.

    Brexiters - true patriots of our day.
    Who said anything about abolishing the Lords?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,435
    TOPPING said:

    geoffw said:

    FPT
    It seems to be Hammond and Robbins behind the hare-brained customs partnership scheme, in which we would collect the duties due under the EU's common external tariff from all our imports and then pass on to Brussels that part due for those goods that go on the the EU, meanwhile reimbursing those importers for the goods that are used here.
    Costly bureaucratic nightmare or what? And to what end exactly? To avoid a "hard border" in Ireland. Well tough. There is already a border there, just not one for goods traffic. And that is easily avoided by us abolishing tariffs on imports and having genuinely free trade. But if we choose not to go down that route, then we should just have a "hard border" in the interim until the EU agrees an FTA with us.

    So we are going to have a hard border in Ireland, and abolish the Lords.

    Brexiters - true patriots of our day.
    It’s why I called Brexit a “death cult” from the beginning. Hyperbole, sure, but paraphrasing the Americans in Vietnam they seem to want to destroy the village to save it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    Rare to see so many good lays in a list of Tories
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,178
    Gardenwalker said:

    TOPPING said:

    geoffw said:

    FPT
    It seems to be Hammond and Robbins behind the hare-brained customs partnership scheme, in which we would collect the duties due under the EU's common external tariff from all our imports and then pass on to Brussels that part due for those goods that go on the the EU, meanwhile reimbursing those importers for the goods that are used here.
    Costly bureaucratic nightmare or what? And to what end exactly? To avoid a "hard border" in Ireland. Well tough. There is already a border there, just not one for goods traffic. And that is easily avoided by us abolishing tariffs on imports and having genuinely free trade. But if we choose not to go down that route, then we should just have a "hard border" in the interim until the EU agrees an FTA with us.

    So we are going to have a hard border in Ireland, and abolish the Lords.

    Brexiters - true patriots of our day.
    It’s why I called Brexit a “death cult” from the beginning. Hyperbole, sure, but paraphrasing the Americans in Vietnam they seem to want to destroy the village to save it.
    Oikophobe.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,070
    geoffw said:

    TOPPING said:

    geoffw said:

    FPT
    It seems to be Hammond and Robbins behind the hare-brained customs partnership scheme, in which we would collect the duties due under the EU's common external tariff from all our imports and then pass on to Brussels that part due for those goods that go on the the EU, meanwhile reimbursing those importers for the goods that are used here.
    Costly bureaucratic nightmare or what? And to what end exactly? To avoid a "hard border" in Ireland. Well tough. There is already a border there, just not one for goods traffic. And that is easily avoided by us abolishing tariffs on imports and having genuinely free trade. But if we choose not to go down that route, then we should just have a "hard border" in the interim until the EU agrees an FTA with us.

    So we are going to have a hard border in Ireland, and abolish the Lords.

    Brexiters - true patriots of our day.
    Who said anything about abolishing the Lords?
    Your fellow Brexit travellers not liking it up 'em, parliamentary democracy-wise.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Am I the only one that thinks that Ester McVey's ability to stick her foot in it might be a bit too much of a liability for Prime Minister?

    Can you imagine is Theresa had said that rape victims might like to have a chat with the person responsible for their JSA?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Am I the only one that thinks that Ester McVey's ability to stick her foot in it might be a bit too much of a liability for Prime Minister?

    Can you imagine is Theresa had said that rape victims might like to have a chat with the person responsible for their JSA?

    Female Boris
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,929
    Morning all :)

    The overnight Survation poll told us very little new about the London local elections tomorrow and without much in the way of breakdown is a broad brush at best.

    Labour just above 50, Conservative just above 30 and Lib Dems just above 10 with the others (particularly UKIP) taking a pounding. The swing from Conservative to Labour on these numbers is just 3.5% from 2014 but that means nothing without a detailed Borough breakdown.

    Last evening, for example, Labour were leafleting at East Ham tube for the Mayoral candidate while down a couple of the side streets the Conservatives were issuing business cards for their Ward candidates. I don't understand the Tory effort in Newham - to this observer it's a spectacular waste of resources and money. It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives got some net swings toward them in some of the Wards but I can't see any seats being won.

    The minimum for Labour has to be taking Tower Hamlets and Barnet. Picking up any of Hillingdon, Westminster or Wandsworth will be a bonus. The LDs will be delighted to add Kingston and Richmond to Sutton but ending with control of two of the three will be pretty good.

    The Conservatives will hold Bromley, Bexley and Kensington & Chelsea in my view but how many others ? Holding all they currently hold and adding Sutton would be the dream Conservative outcome. Losing all bar the aforementioned three would be the nightmare.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Gambling commission on Leo Vegas (Norwich City FC's club sponsor - thanks Ed!!)

    "11,205 self-excluded customers did not have their account balance funds returned to them on account closure. This is a breach of social responsibility code provision 3.5.3(5)"!!

  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    A shame

    "Digitalisation of UK tax system delayed by Brexit

    In an email sent out on 30 April, HMRC has announced that plans to replace traditional tax returns with digital versions, a revision originally expected to be implemented by 2020, will be indefinitely delayed in order to focus the department’s energies on Brexit. HMRC explains, “We have made the decision to delay plans to introduce further digital services for individuals, to release project capability to EU Exit work. This means halting progress on simple assessment and real time tax code changes."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/digital-tax-revolution-will-delayed-brexit/
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,233
    JonathanD said:

    A shame

    "Digitalisation of UK tax system delayed by Brexit

    In an email sent out on 30 April, HMRC has announced that plans to replace traditional tax returns with digital versions, a revision originally expected to be implemented by 2020, will be indefinitely delayed in order to focus the department’s energies on Brexit. HMRC explains, “We have made the decision to delay plans to introduce further digital services for individuals, to release project capability to EU Exit work. This means halting progress on simple assessment and real time tax code changes."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/digital-tax-revolution-will-delayed-brexit/

    Good.

    Now a change from the VAT plans would be good, too...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,035
    edited May 2018
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Penny Mordaunt is clearly the right answer (for my wallet).

    I agree that Hunt and Javid both had decent shots, and their odds are too long.

    Mourdaunt has an approval rating of -15% with Yougov, the highest of any Cabinet Minister I think and higher than Boris and Mogg.

    Of senior Tories only Ruth Davidson polls better thsn Penny Mourdaunt so she may be worth a punt
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,435
    edited May 2018
    The next leader has around 3 years to set out their stall. Realistically, per Amber Rudd’s sudden slip, anything could happen. Also, its not clear in 3 years time whether the MPs will still want to put a Remainer and a Brexiter to the membership.

    But if there was a contest today, it would surely be (Johnson v Gove) v (Hunt v Javid). Williamson might stand but get knocked out in a first or second round.
    For the sake of optics, and to put down a marker for the future, either Mordaunt or McVey would also give it a go.

    The media (and why the hell do we let them encourage certain narratives?) would want Rees-Mogg to run. He probably would - not to win, but to secure a leading position post-contest.

    The winner might be whoever could successfully ally with Rees-Mogg to outflank his main rival. A Hunt / Rees-Mogg ticket to beat Johnson?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,756
    Mr. Mortimer, ha, I was just thinking that.

    Mr. HYUFD, Penny's worth a thought :)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,961
    I wonder if Max could say if a 1.8% annual fall in Swiss retail sales results in as much wailing and crying as a 1.1% annual increase in UK retail sales does in this country.

    ' Real turnover in the retail sector also adjusted for sales days and holidays fell by 1.8% in March 2018 compared with the previous year. Real growth takes inflation into consideration. Compared with the previous month, real, seasonally adjusted retail trade turnover registered an increase of 0.1%. '

    https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home.assetdetail.5026258.html
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,180
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The overnight Survation poll told us very little new about the London local elections tomorrow and without much in the way of breakdown is a broad brush at best.

    Labour just above 50, Conservative just above 30 and Lib Dems just above 10 with the others (particularly UKIP) taking a pounding. The swing from Conservative to Labour on these numbers is just 3.5% from 2014 but that means nothing without a detailed Borough breakdown.

    Last evening, for example, Labour were leafleting at East Ham tube for the Mayoral candidate while down a couple of the side streets the Conservatives were issuing business cards for their Ward candidates. I don't understand the Tory effort in Newham - to this observer it's a spectacular waste of resources and money. It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives got some net swings toward them in some of the Wards but I can't see any seats being won.

    The minimum for Labour has to be taking Tower Hamlets and Barnet. Picking up any of Hillingdon, Westminster or Wandsworth will be a bonus. The LDs will be delighted to add Kingston and Richmond to Sutton but ending with control of two of the three will be pretty good.

    The Conservatives will hold Bromley, Bexley and Kensington & Chelsea in my view but how many others ? Holding all they currently hold and adding Sutton would be the dream Conservative outcome. Losing all bar the aforementioned three would be the nightmare.

    I am now quite certain that Westminster is out of reach (the Labour vote is heavily concentrated in a small number of wards) even if Labour win more votes across the borough than the Conservatives. Wandsworth and Hillingdon are probably out of reach.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/991597939360493568
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,082
    TGOHF said:

    Glad to see any nonsense about Hammond having a shot has finally been put to bed.

    Yes, far too sensible for the job.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The overnight Survation poll told us very little new about the London local elections tomorrow and without much in the way of breakdown is a broad brush at best.

    Labour just above 50, Conservative just above 30 and Lib Dems just above 10 with the others (particularly UKIP) taking a pounding. The swing from Conservative to Labour on these numbers is just 3.5% from 2014 but that means nothing without a detailed Borough breakdown.

    Last evening, for example, Labour were leafleting at East Ham tube for the Mayoral candidate while down a couple of the side streets the Conservatives were issuing business cards for their Ward candidates. I don't understand the Tory effort in Newham - to this observer it's a spectacular waste of resources and money. It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives got some net swings toward them in some of the Wards but I can't see any seats being won.

    The minimum for Labour has to be taking Tower Hamlets and Barnet. Picking up any of Hillingdon, Westminster or Wandsworth will be a bonus. The LDs will be delighted to add Kingston and Richmond to Sutton but ending with control of two of the three will be pretty good.

    The Conservatives will hold Bromley, Bexley and Kensington & Chelsea in my view but how many others ? Holding all they currently hold and adding Sutton would be the dream Conservative outcome. Losing all bar the aforementioned three would be the nightmare.

    Survation numbers* are split by "region of London". But where does "West London" start and finish?!? There's a stupid argument we don't need to have.

    Region Lab/Con/LD
    Central 46/25/20
    North 59/24/10
    East 64/24/5
    South 35/44/16
    West 46/38/12

    Based on weighted samples, I'd say "North" was quite restricted and "central" pretty big.

    Tories retain 83% of their GE voters with Lab retaining 90%
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 1,540
    At the risk of repeating myself, the next leader must be comfortable in their own skin and perform well on TV. Those are unfortunately the key criteria
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    logical_song said:

    TGOHF said:

    Glad to see any nonsense about Hammond having a shot has finally been put to bed.

    Yes, far too sensible for the job.
    At current odds Philip Hammond is an excellent bet. My suggestions above are non-exhaustive - I think there's value all over the place.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,845
    edited May 2018
    Mortimer said:

    JonathanD said:

    A shame

    "Digitalisation of UK tax system delayed by Brexit

    In an email sent out on 30 April, HMRC has announced that plans to replace traditional tax returns with digital versions, a revision originally expected to be implemented by 2020, will be indefinitely delayed in order to focus the department’s energies on Brexit. HMRC explains, “We have made the decision to delay plans to introduce further digital services for individuals, to release project capability to EU Exit work. This means halting progress on simple assessment and real time tax code changes."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/digital-tax-revolution-will-delayed-brexit/

    Good.

    Now a change from the VAT plans would be good, too...
    I asked our accounting software provider what I might need to do to get our software output compliant with that. They said I was the first person who brought it up - it's a change barely publicised, certainly I've seen nothing about it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,435
    AlastairMeeks said:

    logical_song said:

    TGOHF said:

    Glad to see any nonsense about Hammond having a shot has finally been put to bed.

    Yes, far too sensible for the job.
    At current odds Philip Hammond is an excellent bet. My suggestions above are non-exhaustive - I think there's value all over the place.
    Hammond odds are wrong, sure. But the odds seem all over the place anyway.

    Hammond has one clear route to the leadership. And that is if we approach a Brexit precipice and go over in a barrel. In that circumstance, May resigns and we’ll be looking for a safe pair of hands. He is the *only* possible candidate.

    Stil unlikely.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The overnight Survation poll told us very little new about the London local elections tomorrow and without much in the way of breakdown is a broad brush at best.

    Labour just above 50, Conservative just above 30 and Lib Dems just above 10 with the others (particularly UKIP) taking a pounding. The swing from Conservative to Labour on these numbers is just 3.5% from 2014 but that means nothing without a detailed Borough breakdown.

    Last evening, for example, Labour were leafleting at East Ham tube for the Mayoral candidate while down a couple of the side streets the Conservatives were issuing business cards for their Ward candidates. I don't understand the Tory effort in Newham - to this observer it's a spectacular waste of resources and money. It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives got some net swings toward them in some of the Wards but I can't see any seats being won.

    The minimum for Labour has to be taking Tower Hamlets and Barnet. Picking up any of Hillingdon, Westminster or Wandsworth will be a bonus. The LDs will be delighted to add Kingston and Richmond to Sutton but ending with control of two of the three will be pretty good.

    The Conservatives will hold Bromley, Bexley and Kensington & Chelsea in my view but how many others ? Holding all they currently hold and adding Sutton would be the dream Conservative outcome. Losing all bar the aforementioned three would be the nightmare.

    Survation numbers* are split by "region of London". But where does "West London" start and finish?!? There's a stupid argument we don't need to have.

    Region Lab/Con/LD
    Central 46/25/20
    North 59/24/10
    East 64/24/5
    South 35/44/16
    West 46/38/12

    Based on weighted samples, I'd say "North" was quite restricted and "central" pretty big.

    Tories retain 83% of their GE voters with Lab retaining 90%
    Probably the old ILEA area, with Haringey in Central
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The overnight Survation poll told us very little new about the London local elections tomorrow and without much in the way of breakdown is a broad brush at best.

    Labour just above 50, Conservative just above 30 and Lib Dems just above 10 with the others (particularly UKIP) taking a pounding. The swing from Conservative to Labour on these numbers is just 3.5% from 2014 but that means nothing without a detailed Borough breakdown.

    Last evening, for example, Labour were leafleting at East Ham tube for the Mayoral candidate while down a couple of the side streets the Conservatives were issuing business cards for their Ward candidates. I don't understand the Tory effort in Newham - to this observer it's a spectacular waste of resources and money. It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives got some net swings toward them in some of the Wards but I can't see any seats being won.

    The minimum for Labour has to be taking Tower Hamlets and Barnet. Picking up any of Hillingdon, Westminster or Wandsworth will be a bonus. The LDs will be delighted to add Kingston and Richmond to Sutton but ending with control of two of the three will be pretty good.

    The Conservatives will hold Bromley, Bexley and Kensington & Chelsea in my view but how many others ? Holding all they currently hold and adding Sutton would be the dream Conservative outcome. Losing all bar the aforementioned three would be the nightmare.

    Survation numbers* are split by "region of London". But where does "West London" start and finish?!? There's a stupid argument we don't need to have.

    Region Lab/Con/LD
    Central 46/25/20
    North 59/24/10
    East 64/24/5
    South 35/44/16
    West 46/38/12

    Based on weighted samples, I'd say "North" was quite restricted and "central" pretty big.

    Tories retain 83% of their GE voters with Lab retaining 90%
    We’ve already had it at great length... don’t encourage them
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,180
    Charles said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The overnight Survation poll told us very little new about the London local elections tomorrow and without much in the way of breakdown is a broad brush at best.

    Labour just above 50, Conservative just above 30 and Lib Dems just above 10 with the others (particularly UKIP) taking a pounding. The swing from Conservative to Labour on these numbers is just 3.5% from 2014 but that means nothing without a detailed Borough breakdown.

    Last evening, for example, Labour were leafleting at East Ham tube for the Mayoral candidate while down a couple of the side streets the Conservatives were issuing business cards for their Ward candidates. I don't understand the Tory effort in Newham - to this observer it's a spectacular waste of resources and money. It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives got some net swings toward them in some of the Wards but I can't see any seats being won.

    The minimum for Labour has to be taking Tower Hamlets and Barnet. Picking up any of Hillingdon, Westminster or Wandsworth will be a bonus. The LDs will be delighted to add Kingston and Richmond to Sutton but ending with control of two of the three will be pretty good.

    The Conservatives will hold Bromley, Bexley and Kensington & Chelsea in my view but how many others ? Holding all they currently hold and adding Sutton would be the dream Conservative outcome. Losing all bar the aforementioned three would be the nightmare.

    Survation numbers* are split by "region of London". But where does "West London" start and finish?!? There's a stupid argument we don't need to have.

    Region Lab/Con/LD
    Central 46/25/20
    North 59/24/10
    East 64/24/5
    South 35/44/16
    West 46/38/12

    Based on weighted samples, I'd say "North" was quite restricted and "central" pretty big.

    Tories retain 83% of their GE voters with Lab retaining 90%
    We’ve already had it at great length... don’t encourage them
    North is Barnet, Enfield, Haringey. West is Richmond, Hounslow, Brent, Harrow, Ealing, and Hillingdon.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Charles said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The overnight Survation poll told us very little new about the London local elections tomorrow and without much in the way of breakdown is a broad brush at best.

    Labour just above 50, Conservative just above 30 and Lib Dems just above 10 with the others (particularly UKIP) taking a pounding. The swing from Conservative to Labour on these numbers is just 3.5% from 2014 but that means nothing without a detailed Borough breakdown.

    Last evening, for example, Labour were leafleting at East Ham tube for the Mayoral candidate while down a couple of the side streets the Conservatives were issuing business cards for their Ward candidates. I don't understand the Tory effort in Newham - to this observer it's a spectacular waste of resources and money. It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives got some net swings toward them in some of the Wards but I can't see any seats being won.

    The minimum for Labour has to be taking Tower Hamlets and Barnet. Picking up any of Hillingdon, Westminster or Wandsworth will be a bonus. The LDs will be delighted to add Kingston and Richmond to Sutton but ending with control of two of the three will be pretty good.

    The Conservatives will hold Bromley, Bexley and Kensington & Chelsea in my view but how many others ? Holding all they currently hold and adding Sutton would be the dream Conservative outcome. Losing all bar the aforementioned three would be the nightmare.

    Survation numbers* are split by "region of London". But where does "West London" start and finish?!? There's a stupid argument we don't need to have.

    Region Lab/Con/LD
    Central 46/25/20
    North 59/24/10
    East 64/24/5
    South 35/44/16
    West 46/38/12

    Based on weighted samples, I'd say "North" was quite restricted and "central" pretty big.

    Tories retain 83% of their GE voters with Lab retaining 90%
    We’ve already had it at great length... don’t encourage them
    38% means there's plenty of blue in West London!!!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    edited May 2018
    I'm not sure complacency is Labour's only problem, Owen.....

    The biggest election threat facing Labour is complacency

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/election-labour-corbyn-left-thursday

    And the most popular comment on Owen's piece:

    instead Corbynism deprived Theresa May of a majority

    Theresa May deprived Theresa May of a majority. A more competent Labour leader would be Prime Minister by now.

    ending a neoliberal consensus that had prevailed for a generation.

    No, it hasn't.

    It is a reminder that the media is fuelling dangerous radicalisation.

    It's all the media's fault. It's not as if Emily Thornberry was shamefully defending Russia on Question Time last week. It's not as if John McDonnell held up Mao's little red book during a Budget. It's not as if Diane Abbott claimed that Mao did more good than harm. It's not as if Jeremy Corbyn appointed a notorious Stalin worshipper as his spin doctor. Nope, it's all the media.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,845
    West London is best London, or so I've been told.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,929
    TheWhiteRabbit said:


    Survation numbers* are split by "region of London". But where does "West London" start and finish?!? There's a stupid argument we don't need to have.

    Region Lab/Con/LD
    Central 46/25/20
    North 59/24/10
    East 64/24/5
    South 35/44/16
    West 46/38/12

    Based on weighted samples, I'd say "North" was quite restricted and "central" pretty big.

    Tories retain 83% of their GE voters with Lab retaining 90%

    I agree it's meaningless and that's why I said the Survation figures weren't very helpful.

    Musing on this on the way home yesterday I had two thoughts, neither of which are original. First, the extent to which the local elections will be viewed as an opportunity to kick the Government via abstention. Too much PB discussion is viewed through the prism of how people voted on 23/6/16 but local elections are different beasts and often it's an opportunity to express discontent safely - it's not going to put Corbyn into power but not voting for the Tory in my Ward.

    Second thought was that Labour too has a motivational problem in that its most enthusiastic demographics are those least likely to actually get to the polling station. It's been interesting to see Owen Jones and others trying to ramp up Labour motivation and it must be a concern.

    We'll know much more by Friday morning.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    stodge said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:


    Survation numbers* are split by "region of London". But where does "West London" start and finish?!? There's a stupid argument we don't need to have.

    Region Lab/Con/LD
    Central 46/25/20
    North 59/24/10
    East 64/24/5
    South 35/44/16
    West 46/38/12

    Based on weighted samples, I'd say "North" was quite restricted and "central" pretty big.

    Tories retain 83% of their GE voters with Lab retaining 90%

    I agree it's meaningless and that's why I said the Survation figures weren't very helpful.

    Musing on this on the way home yesterday I had two thoughts, neither of which are original. First, the extent to which the local elections will be viewed as an opportunity to kick the Government via abstention. Too much PB discussion is viewed through the prism of how people voted on 23/6/16 but local elections are different beasts and often it's an opportunity to express discontent safely - it's not going to put Corbyn into power but not voting for the Tory in my Ward.

    Second thought was that Labour too has a motivational problem in that its most enthusiastic demographics are those least likely to actually get to the polling station. It's been interesting to see Owen Jones and others trying to ramp up Labour motivation and it must be a concern.

    We'll know much more by Friday morning.
    Based on Survation polling people are broadly going to vote as they did in the GE (which was, again, broadly in line with the referendum). The problem is (a) local elections are decided on the shift of a few % of people, and (b) the error margins on this poll are pretty much +/- 5% once you look at the detail.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,763
    On topic, I’m on all of these except Sajid Javid who I’m afraid I don’t rate.

    The Cabinet ministers I think most able to do the job of PM are Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt, but unfortunately I doubt they are election winners.

    Esther McVey may we’ll be another but it’s too early to tell. She needs more experience.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,435
    Douglas Carswell is actually one of the more palatable Brexiters, but he too seems to have been driven mad by Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/991026293033652224?s=21
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,845
    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, I’m on all of these except Sajid Javid who I’m afraid I don’t rate.

    The Cabinet ministers I think most able to do the job of PM are Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt, but unfortunately I doubt they are election winners.

    Esther McVey may we’ll be another but it’s too early to tell. She needs more experience.

    Heh

    I've simply laid Mogg for next PM.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Pulpstar said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, I’m on all of these except Sajid Javid who I’m afraid I don’t rate.

    The Cabinet ministers I think most able to do the job of PM are Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt, but unfortunately I doubt they are election winners.

    Esther McVey may we’ll be another but it’s too early to tell. She needs more experience.

    Heh

    I've simply laid Mogg for next PM.
    I've laid Mogg off and reinvested a bit of my (for once) all green book.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Very good article from AM, gove-or-take his instinctive orc-like reaction to the beaming light of Brexit.

    It would, of couse, do Labour's nut for the Tories to elect a third female leader before they got round to doing so once. All the more so if it was someone like McVey. Or if the Party elected an ethnic minority leader before Labour* (something I've been predicting it would, from well before Javid achieved prominence).

    That said, Gove remains key to the whole question. Does he run by himself - he certainly has ambitions to that end - or does he recognise his PR limitations and cut a deal where he gets the Treasury (where I think he'd be very good), and hefts his support behind, say, Javid.

    * Yes, there was Disraeli, who certainly counts as an ethnic minority in the context of his time, but who I'm excluding by timeframing the question to the 20th/21st century, when Labour was around.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, I’m on all of these except Sajid Javid who I’m afraid I don’t rate.

    I didn't either, but thought he made a decent fist of his first Home Secretary outing in the Commons.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,627
    SouthamObserver said:

    Brexit does not look like happening in any meaningful sense until the other side of the next election given that whatever Customs deal we end up doing with the EU will not be implemented until the mid-2020s at the earliest. Then there is the full fat trade deal to do on top which, whatever Davis says, will take years to finalise rather than months. With Corbyn making Labour unelectable, I suspect May is going to be leading the Tories into the GE, which probably means the next Tory leader and PM is likely to be someone who has not yet been in the cabinet.

    Spot on.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    edited May 2018
    4pt con lead on latest YouGov 1st may.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Gardenwalker said:

    Douglas Carswell is actually one of the more palatable Brexiters, but he too seems to have been driven mad by Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/991026293033652224?s=21

    Carswell is defined by Brexit. If you think he's driven mad look at the remain supporters who thought it would never happen and are slowly waking up to smell the coffee, these people have gone completely bonkers!
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    david_herdson said:

    Very good article from AM, gove-or-take his instinctive orc-like reaction to the beaming light of Brexit.

    It would, of couse, do Labour's nut for the Tories to elect a third female leader before they got round to doing so once. All the more so if it was someone like McVey. Or if the Party elected an ethnic minority leader before Labour* (something I've been predicting it would, from well before Javid achieved prominence).

    That said, Gove remains key to the whole question. Does he run by himself - he certainly has ambitions to that end - or does he recognise his PR limitations and cut a deal where he gets the Treasury (where I think he'd be very good), and hefts his support behind, say, Javid.

    * Yes, there was Disraeli, who certainly counts as an ethnic minority in the context of his time, but who I'm excluding by timeframing the question to the 20th/21st century, when Labour was around.

    You're forgetting Michael Howard, aren't you?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    That's a new one.....'I fell asleep in the wrong place...'

    https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/991604901414363136
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    notme said:

    4pt con lead on latest YouGov 1st may.

    Down 1 from five I think?
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    CarlottaVance said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, I’m on all of these except Sajid Javid who I’m afraid I don’t rate.

    I didn't either, but thought he made a decent fist of his first Home Secretary outing in the Commons.
    He's probably hit his ministerial peak with regards his ability and communications skills. I'm not sure if he is a safe pair of hands given he's relatively untested with the exception of the TATA steel debacle. I would be very surprised if the next leader currently holds one of the 4 big offices (obviously May excluded).
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    I'm used to Roger defending appalling luvvies and disgraceful lefties for their disgusting behaviours, and I can understand his sycophantic desire to do so.

    But why's he sticking up for Berco Baggins?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    notme said:

    4pt con lead on latest YouGov 1st may.

    Celebrating with a pineapple pizza
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Brom said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Douglas Carswell is actually one of the more palatable Brexiters, but he too seems to have been driven mad by Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/991026293033652224?s=21

    Carswell is defined by Brexit. If you think he's driven mad look at the remain supporters who thought it would never happen and are slowly waking up to smell the coffee, these people have gone completely bonkers!
    I think in any Brexit Bonkers list A C Grayling would come pretty near the top....

    https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/991595356558372864
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Carolus_Rex said:

    david_herdson said:

    Very good article from AM, gove-or-take his instinctive orc-like reaction to the beaming light of Brexit.

    It would, of couse, do Labour's nut for the Tories to elect a third female leader before they got round to doing so once. All the more so if it was someone like McVey. Or if the Party elected an ethnic minority leader before Labour* (something I've been predicting it would, from well before Javid achieved prominence).

    That said, Gove remains key to the whole question. Does he run by himself - he certainly has ambitions to that end - or does he recognise his PR limitations and cut a deal where he gets the Treasury (where I think he'd be very good), and hefts his support behind, say, Javid.

    * Yes, there was Disraeli, who certainly counts as an ethnic minority in the context of his time, but who I'm excluding by timeframing the question to the 20th/21st century, when Labour was around.

    You're forgetting Michael Howard, aren't you?
    I don't think being Jewish was an ethnic minority in the UK in the early 21st century; it was a detail. Sadly, it might be again now - and it certainly was in the mid-1800s.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The overnight Survation poll told us very little new about the London local elections tomorrow and without much in the way of breakdown is a broad brush at best.

    Labour just above 50, Conservative just above 30 and Lib Dems just above 10 with the others (particularly UKIP) taking a pounding. The swing from Conservative to Labour on these numbers is just 3.5% from 2014 but that means nothing without a detailed Borough breakdown.

    Last evening, for example, Labour were leafleting at East Ham tube for the Mayoral candidate while down a couple of the side streets the Conservatives were issuing business cards for their Ward candidates. I don't understand the Tory effort in Newham - to this observer it's a spectacular waste of resources and money. It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives got some net swings toward them in some of the Wards but I can't see any seats being won.

    The minimum for Labour has to be taking Tower Hamlets and Barnet. Picking up any of Hillingdon, Westminster or Wandsworth will be a bonus. The LDs will be delighted to add Kingston and Richmond to Sutton but ending with control of two of the three will be pretty good.

    The Conservatives will hold Bromley, Bexley and Kensington & Chelsea in my view but how many others ? Holding all they currently hold and adding Sutton would be the dream Conservative outcome. Losing all bar the aforementioned three would be the nightmare.

    Survation numbers* are split by "region of London". But where does "West London" start and finish?!? There's a stupid argument we don't need to have.

    Region Lab/Con/LD
    Central 46/25/20
    North 59/24/10
    East 64/24/5
    South 35/44/16
    West 46/38/12

    Based on weighted samples, I'd say "North" was quite restricted and "central" pretty big.

    Tories retain 83% of their GE voters with Lab retaining 90%
    How well do the polling figures in London relate to the referendum result?

    In particular do Lib Dems benefit at all from the areas most pro the EU?
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    CarlottaVance said:

    Brom said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Douglas Carswell is actually one of the more palatable Brexiters, but he too seems to have been driven mad by Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/991026293033652224?s=21

    Carswell is defined by Brexit. If you think he's driven mad look at the remain supporters who thought it would never happen and are slowly waking up to smell the coffee, these people have gone completely bonkers!
    I think in any Brexit Bonkers list A C Grayling would come pretty near the top....

    https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/991595356558372864
    With Adonis a close second
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Gardenwalker said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    logical_song said:

    TGOHF said:

    Glad to see any nonsense about Hammond having a shot has finally been put to bed.

    Yes, far too sensible for the job.
    At current odds Philip Hammond is an excellent bet. My suggestions above are non-exhaustive - I think there's value all over the place.
    Hammond odds are wrong, sure. But the odds seem all over the place anyway.

    Hammond has one clear route to the leadership. And that is if we approach a Brexit precipice and go over in a barrel. In that circumstance, May resigns and we’ll be looking for a safe pair of hands. He is the *only* possible candidate.

    Stil unlikely.
    The case for Hammond will be that as Brexit converges on what he and the Treasury predicted all along, he will look wise and statesmanlike. The problem is that "I told you so" might not be a very attractive campaign slogan.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    ExiledInScotland said:

    At the risk of repeating myself, the next leader must be comfortable in their own skin and perform well on TV. Those are unfortunately the key criteria


    A shame Bruce Forsyth is no longer available for selection.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Excellent again from Alistair Meeks."McVile" as PM will raise the blood pressure for many of us disabled people.As long as the Tory party trundle along at over 40%,usually it stays in complacency mode.If,however,polls start going into the 30s and on a downward trend,Tories could easily switch to panic mode and start freaking out.In that case,I suspect Johnson at a double-figure price is value.This is exactly the leader the Tories deserve,someone who's best mates with Orban,and is a total waster of public money, but he has connections,is an old Etonian who is,therefore,born to rule.Dave, as one of the younger boys,jumped the queue for PM so it is Boris's turn now-and he gets £160,000 per tennis match so party funding is no problem.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,117
    The current attitude of [X] to immigration is...

    Conservatives:
    Too strict: 21%
    Not strict enough: 44%
    About right: 15%

    Labour:
    Too strict: 3%
    Not strict enough: 48%
    About right: 24%

    via @YouGov

    Fascinating dilemma for Labour here.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    JonnyJimmy said:

    I'm used to Roger defending appalling luvvies and disgraceful lefties for their disgusting behaviours, and I can understand his sycophantic desire to do so.

    But why's he sticking up for Berco Baggins?

    Just because your boss loses his temper does not mean he is bullying you.

    For someone who spent 30 years in the navy Bercow's ex Secretary seems remarkably fragile and feeble. Let's hope the current naval staff have more backbone.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,315
    JonnyJimmy said:

    I'm used to Roger defending appalling luvvies and disgraceful lefties for their disgusting behaviours, and I can understand his sycophantic desire to do so.

    But why's he sticking up for Berco Baggins?

    You see, there are special people for whom the rules do not apply. These are the creatives, a group of wonderful people who are above us in every way (and includes that ultimate creative, Bercow). We should genuflect ourselves to such heroes every day, and any temper they show us should be received with gladness.

    They include such people as Saville, Polanski and Weinstein. If you are abused or bullied by such people, you should accept it with gladness, as you are just aiding them in their critical creative craft.

    Ii personally look forward to being bullied by such a creative, so I can feel a warm glow that I am worthy of abuse from such a titan.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Brom said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Douglas Carswell is actually one of the more palatable Brexiters, but he too seems to have been driven mad by Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/991026293033652224?s=21

    Carswell is defined by Brexit. If you think he's driven mad look at the remain supporters who thought it would never happen and are slowly waking up to smell the coffee, these people have gone completely bonkers!
    I think in any Brexit Bonkers list A C Grayling would come pretty near the top....

    https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/991595356558372864
    With Adonis a close second
    He was already gone, although, granted, moreso now
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,178
    FT:
    The economy of the single currency area grew by 0.4 per cent between the end of last year and the opening three months of 2018, according to Eurostat. That was down from 0.7 per cent for the final quarter of 2017. The last time growth was this slow was in the summer of 2016.

    and

    Eurozone manufacturing gauge drops to 13-month low
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    David_Evershed said:

    ExiledInScotland said:

    At the risk of repeating myself, the next leader must be comfortable in their own skin and perform well on TV. Those are unfortunately the key criteria


    A shame Bruce Forsyth is no longer available for selection.
    One half of Ant & Dec is available.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
    https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Actually, that headline looks wrong from the piece, suspect it should be Lab +131 - have asked Steve on twitter.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,627
    edited May 2018
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    David_Evershed said:

    ExiledInScotland said:

    At the risk of repeating myself, the next leader must be comfortable in their own skin and perform well on TV. Those are unfortunately the key criteria


    A shame Bruce Forsyth is no longer available for selection.
    One half of Ant & Dec is available.
    Yes, the other half is still tied up with broadcasting commitments :smile:
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,233
    Pulpstar said:

    Mortimer said:

    JonathanD said:

    A shame

    "Digitalisation of UK tax system delayed by Brexit

    In an email sent out on 30 April, HMRC has announced that plans to replace traditional tax returns with digital versions, a revision originally expected to be implemented by 2020, will be indefinitely delayed in order to focus the department’s energies on Brexit. HMRC explains, “We have made the decision to delay plans to introduce further digital services for individuals, to release project capability to EU Exit work. This means halting progress on simple assessment and real time tax code changes."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/01/digital-tax-revolution-will-delayed-brexit/

    Good.

    Now a change from the VAT plans would be good, too...
    I asked our accounting software provider what I might need to do to get our software output compliant with that. They said I was the first person who brought it up - it's a change barely publicised, certainly I've seen nothing about it.
    One of the reasons why I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is kicked into some long grass at some point.

    I can't see the need. We have a perfectly adequate system in place, and have had for a decade - it worked for paper submission and it works for the digital submission with manual input.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,315
    David_Evershed said:

    JonnyJimmy said:

    I'm used to Roger defending appalling luvvies and disgraceful lefties for their disgusting behaviours, and I can understand his sycophantic desire to do so.

    But why's he sticking up for Berco Baggins?

    Just because your boss loses his temper does not mean he is bullying you.

    For someone who spent 30 years in the navy Bercow's ex Secretary seems remarkably fragile and feeble. Let's hope the current naval staff have more backbone.
    There's an interesting distinction here: if someone only ever loses his or her temper with underlings, then it's probably bullying. If that same person also loses his or her temper with their bosses or customers, then they're just a git.

    If you do lose your temper with your employees, people under you, or other colleagues, it is so important to apologise, explain, and try to make amends. Most of all, it is important to try to moderate your behaviour in future.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,845
    Tissue_Price said:

    Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
    https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

    Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

    March of the residents association ?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,627
    Good thread header from AM - thanks.

    The key to this is surely what Tory MPs think, since they will determine who gets put to the membership. Is there still a body who think Theresa May is better than any of the alternatives - could she therefore survive a leadership challenge?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,480
    CarlottaVance said:

    Brom said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Douglas Carswell is actually one of the more palatable Brexiters, but he too seems to have been driven mad by Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/991026293033652224?s=21

    Carswell is defined by Brexit. If you think he's driven mad look at the remain supporters who thought it would never happen and are slowly waking up to smell the coffee, these people have gone completely bonkers!
    I think in any Brexit Bonkers list A C Grayling would come pretty near the top....

    https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/991595356558372864
    Bloody hell. How an someone so supposedly intelligent be so dumb. He must realise that voting Green or Lib Dem only takes votes away from Labour and they are still the only realistic hope Remaniacs have of reversing Brexit.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Tissue_Price said:

    Actually, that headline looks wrong from the piece, suspect it should be Lab +131 - have asked Steve on twitter.


    It's all relative to four years ago so as much about what was happening in 2014 as in 2018.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Brom said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Douglas Carswell is actually one of the more palatable Brexiters, but he too seems to have been driven mad by Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/991026293033652224?s=21

    Carswell is defined by Brexit. If you think he's driven mad look at the remain supporters who thought it would never happen and are slowly waking up to smell the coffee, these people have gone completely bonkers!
    I think in any Brexit Bonkers list A C Grayling would come pretty near the top....

    https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/991595356558372864
    Bloody hell. How an someone so supposedly intelligent be so dumb. He must realise that voting Green or Lib Dem only takes votes away from Labour and they are still the only realistic hope Remaniacs have of reversing Brexit.
    To be fair to him, the number of councillors Labour have doesn't make any difference to reversing Brexit. And most of those Grayling will be influencing aren't likely to be letting Tories come through the middle by voting Green/LD.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,627
    Tissue_Price said:

    Actually, that headline looks wrong from the piece, suspect it should be Lab +131 - have asked Steve on twitter.

    It must be +131 since the range is -126 to +388.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    David_Evershed said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Actually, that headline looks wrong from the piece, suspect it should be Lab +131 - have asked Steve on twitter.


    It's all relative to four years ago so as much about what was happening in 2014 as in 2018.
    Sure, but his range for Lab is -126 to +388. Looks like a typo.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited May 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
    https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

    Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

    March of the residents association ?
    Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

    Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

    Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

    Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,244
    JonnyJimmy said:

    I'm used to Roger defending appalling luvvies and disgraceful lefties for their disgusting behaviours, and I can understand his sycophantic desire to do so.

    But why's he sticking up for Berco Baggins?

    Perhaps he is opposing anti-semitism?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    JosiasJessop said:

    David_Evershed said:

    JonnyJimmy said:

    I'm used to Roger defending appalling luvvies and disgraceful lefties for their disgusting behaviours, and I can understand his sycophantic desire to do so.

    But why's he sticking up for Berco Baggins?

    Just because your boss loses his temper does not mean he is bullying you.

    For someone who spent 30 years in the navy Bercow's ex Secretary seems remarkably fragile and feeble. Let's hope the current naval staff have more backbone.
    There's an interesting distinction here: if someone only ever loses his or her temper with underlings, then it's probably bullying. If that same person also loses his or her temper with their bosses or customers, then they're just a git.

    If you do lose your temper with your employees, people under you, or other colleagues, it is so important to apologise, explain, and try to make amends. Most of all, it is important to try to moderate your behaviour in future.
    Bosses can lose their temper with the situation rather than with employees. But fragile employees might think the boss is angry with them rather than the situation.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,939
    notme said:

    4pt con lead on latest YouGov 1st may.

    Wonder what accounts for this uptick in Con support?

    It's like the worse Windrush has got (even including a Cabinet resignation) the more Con support has picked up?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,627
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
    https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

    Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

    March of the residents association ?
    Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

    Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

    Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

    Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.
    Indeed. If LAB is +131, the big 3 net is +56... presumably from that former big 3 party UKIP
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,178
    GIN1138 said:

    notme said:

    4pt con lead on latest YouGov 1st may.

    Wonder what accounts for this uptick in Con support?

    It's like the worse Windrush has got (even including a Cabinet resignation) the more Con support has picked up?
    Could be that they are seen to be doing something while preserving a stringent attitude to illegals.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
    https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

    Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

    March of the residents association ?
    Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

    Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

    Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

    Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.
    Indeed. If LAB is +131, the big 3 net is +56... presumably from that former big 3 party UKIP
    If that's right and Fisher's right, it will look like a Lab victory when in reality it is quite the defeat.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
    https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

    Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

    March of the residents association ?
    Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

    Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

    Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

    Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.
    Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,845
    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
    https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

    Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

    March of the residents association ?
    Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

    Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

    Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

    Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.
    Indeed. If LAB is +131, the big 3 net is +56... presumably from that former big 3 party UKIP
    It's still a prediction of a good night for Greens/Residents/residual kippers compared to Rallings & Thrasher who go +137 the big three.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Benpointer said:

    Good thread header from AM - thanks.

    The key to this is surely what Tory MPs think, since they will determine who gets put to the membership. Is there still a body who think Theresa May is better than any of the alternatives - could she therefore survive a leadership challenge?

    There is a quite large body who think Theresa May is better than any of the alternatives for the moment. However, I think she'll stand down of her own accord once Brexit has happened and the outline deal is done (I take the point that the deal will not be done in detail, but I don't think that's relevant). If she doesn't stand down voluntarily, I think she'll be nudged out by the men (and women, now) in grey suits, on the basis of: 'Step down now in honour, having taken the country through this most difficult time, or face a messy challenge which you'll lose.'

    Of course, as Alastair points out, events may overcome her, but I think the above is by far the most likely outcome.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025