JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

Come again?

Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.

He does, at least, have the benefit of being unfailingly polite.

Something you could perhaps learn from ...

I tend to think politeness includes the courtesy of not boring the audience senseless.

You’re welcome.

You are just a small part of the audience. Others may well have a different view (and in fact have stated so in the past).

Sunil, to my amazement, appears to be developing something akin to decent taste in films.

It took him some time...

MarqueeMark said:

FF43 said:

Moral of the story. Be careful of referendum decisions when you have bunsen burner stuck up your backside.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1081968506504134656

He should have just lit his farts......

The Farts Awakens?

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

Come again?

Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.

He does, at least, have the benefit of being unfailingly polite.

Something you could perhaps learn from ...

I tend to think politeness includes the courtesy of not boring the audience senseless.

You’re welcome.

You are just a small part of the audience. Others may well have a different view (and in fact have stated so in the past).

Sunil, to my amazement, appears to be developing something akin to decent taste in films.

It took him some time...

You're both Russian trolls.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/02/star-wars-the-last-jedi-rian-johnson-abuse-politically-motivated-russian-trolls

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

RobD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.

Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.

Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.

The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition

Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.

A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.

The Tory share actually held up pretty well, it was the opposition vote that coalesced around Labour.

UKIP voters didn’t exactly swell Labour numbers though did they and nor did LibDems. The support he got was new support (students attracted by his unfunded promise on tuition fees for example), Labour support that was minced to vote Tory but stayed loyal when they saw some of her policies like social care and fox hunting, and few odds and sods from the SWP and the Communist Party.

Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD

Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.

So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/876894066478329857

I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.

Why - they are amusing

They might have been amusing the first time Big_G but not the tenth. I for one would like another election just so I never have to see Sunil's puerile charts again.

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

Come again?

Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.

He does, at least, have the benefit of being unfailingly polite.

Something you could perhaps learn from ...

I tend to think politeness includes the courtesy of not boring the audience senseless.

You’re welcome.

You are just a small part of the audience. Others may well have a different view (and in fact have stated so in the past).

Sunil, to my amazement, appears to be developing something akin to decent taste in films.

It took him some time...

You're both Russian trolls.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/02/star-wars-the-last-jedi-rian-johnson-abuse-politically-motivated-russian-trolls

I just Puton my critical faculties when watching The Last Jedi...

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

Come again?

Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.

He does, at least, have the benefit of being unfailingly polite.

Something you could perhaps learn from ...

I tend to think politeness includes the courtesy of not boring the audience senseless.

You’re welcome.

You are just a small part of the audience. Others may well have a different view (and in fact have stated so in the past).

I am speaking for the silent majority.

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

RobD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

May

Being relativele again.

Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.

The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition

Please stop igwithout.

The Tory share actually held up pretty well, it was the opposition vote that coalesced around Labour.

UKIP voters didn’t exactly swell Labour numbers though did they and nor did LibDems. The support he got was new s

Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD

Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.

So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/876894066478329857

I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.

Why - they are amusing

Come again?

Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.

Tedious? Look who's talking!

AmpfieldAndy, like most Corbynista fan-boys, is of the opinion that Labour somehow won GE2017. I was just spoofing that sentiment with my original tweet.

AmpfieldAndy is a Corbynista fanboy ?!?

There are only PB Tories, and Corbynista Fanboys, with nothing in between. Choose wisely.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

In Cameron's defence, the referendum was eminently winnable.

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The standing is fine, people need to get a grip - do you think nation's never go through periods of distraught politics?

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

AmpfieldAndy said:

MarqueeMark said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

MarqueeMark said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.

Perhaps if Labour also gives up with the notion they won in 2017?

No one is suggesting they did.

You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....

Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.

Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The standing is fine, people need to get a grip - do you think nation's never go through periods of distraught politics?

Standing isn't fine, I read a lot of foreign newspapers, and we've enfeebled ourselves through Brexit.

It is so bad even the French are laughing at us.

I do wonder if you actually ever speak to anyone from another country. Or at least anyone you can understand.

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

Beverley_C said:

FF43 said:

I didn't say the ban was illegal. It almost certainly wasn't illegal. I was making the specific point, as a matter of fact, that, uniquely, the EU shortened its ban because the UK was a member. This contradicts the assertion that the beef ban was a negative of membership. Whether the EU could have done more for a member is a different discussion that is made moot if we are no longer actually a member.

Save your breath. This is the sort of EU-bashing we have had for decades that painted the EU in the minds of many as a big, bad bogeyman.

The reality is that all the Leavers are interested in is Leaving, so do not expect much in the way of agreement that the EU is not the consumer of firstborns or the breeder of anti-UK locusts.

It’s not the EU, Beverley

It’s nation states pulling a fast one as they always do. The French used BSE to try to handicap our beef trade in the way that they and the Germans tried to grab clearing.

They used the structures of the EU but we’re twisting the rules.

The EU is simply a mechanism for power politics. But culturally we are a law-abiding state and our politicians do not have the mindset to behave otherwise (i’ll Leave it up you to decide if that’s a good thing or not).

The EU was not serving our interests and it was restricting our ability to stand up for ourselves.

There’s no “bogeyman” or patronising bullshit involved. Continued membership wasn’t in the country’s interest in my view. I appreciate you have reached a different conclusion, which I suspect may be because you are more risk adverse on a near term basis (while I have been trained to think on a multi generational basis)

This almost sounded like a reasonable reply until that classic last sentence. A master class in patronising tosh.

In actual fact you’ve nothing to base your Leave position on apart from windy garbage that “we” just don’t fit in.

We don’t have an optimal currency area. We don’t have a common legal system. We don’t have a unified demos. We have different global interests. That’s 4 for a start.

It makes a lot of sense to trade and cooperate with our European neighbours. The EU isn’t the right structure for us. In my view Cameron’s real failure (and Merkel) was that they were to able to develop a structure that could accommodate those different needs while preserving what is good about the set up.

May (and Merkel and Barnier)’s failure is they haven’t been able to focus on the bigger picture.

These are all question begging declarations, except the first which makes no sense given we are not in the Euro.

I agree with your points about the varyinf failures, but would have to say the fault lies largely with the U.K.

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

Come again?

Sunil is without doubt the most tedious aspect of PB. I have learned to treat his deranged re-posts like the pre-rolls on YouTube: skippable.

He does, at least, have the benefit of being unfailingly polite.

Something you could perhaps learn from ...

I tend to think politeness includes the courtesy of not boring the audience senseless.

You’re welcome.

You are just a small part of the audience. Others may well have a different view (and in fact have stated so in the past).

Sunil, to my amazement, appears to be developing something akin to decent taste in films.

It took him some time...

This literally appeared seconds before Sunil posted about a fart joke about films. I believe the term is “this hasn’t aged well”.

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The standing is fine, people need to get a grip - do you think nation's never go through periods of distraught politics?

Standing isn't fine, I read a lot of foreign newspapers, and we've enfeebled ourselves through Brexit.

It is so bad even the French are laughing at us.

With respect, cry me a river. Brexit being a big mistake or not, other countries laughing at us is not a reason to do or not do anything. Nations will laugh at others for things which seem ridiculous, but for the nation in question might be necessary, even beneficial. I don't want the country to do unnecessarily stupid things, and I'd be sad if we had, say, a Trumpian leader, but this sobbing refrain we see that suggests the mere fact others laugh at us means we must not do certain things is ridiculous.

And the point was not that we have not been hit by all of this, you are correct we have, but that nations take perception hits sometimes, particularly when they have deep problems and divisive politics. We do, others do too, and it will cause merriment and dismay in others, and ourselves.

That needs dealing with. It can be saddening. But the 'woe is us, french/german newspapers and comedy shows laugh at us' type of comment is one of the most singularly unconvincing whinges out there.

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

malcolmg said:

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

On today’s political scene, she is outclassed only by Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davison, and potentially John McDonnell.

Do you not rate Michael Gove?

I do, but I don’t think he outclasses May.
He suffers from questions about his judgment.

Hmm, I will know to double check your opinions if you think Gove is anything other than a lying useless ar**hole.

Well, with the exception of the teachers, about whom the less said the better, all the other groups he has worked with at both justice and DFRA think he is one of the best, most informed and supportive ministers they have dealt with in many years. Admittedly at Justice that was not hard, following on from 'Book Ban' Grayling but still it is refreshing to see so many of the concerned organisations hoping Gove does not get moved from DEFRA because he is actually making a difference.

Nick Palmer thinks Gove is good - but then, he thinks the same of Corbyn.

That is a minority view for those who deal with Gove at DEFRA.

The one thing they'll say in his favour is that he's better than Leadsom, but that's like saying syphilis is preferable to AIDS.

It isn't a minority view at all. It is the view of the vast majority of (and excuse me using this awful word) stakeholders working with DEFRA. There is a long list of organisations, both farming and conservation, who have been delighted by his attitude to his brief and the fact he actually listens to people about how best to improve things. You just have a chip on your shoulder about him because you are a teacher.

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).

And that’s just for the apperitif.

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Unemployment is half what is when, the economy is one fifth bigger, and the deficit is one seventh what it was then.

AmpfieldAndy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

RobD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

May didn’t inherit the problems that Thatcher did which is just as well because she is a isn’t fit to deal with the issues she does have to deal with. Cameron was saddled with Coalition partners and most people had worked out after 30 months that the Big Society was totally meaningless.

Being relatively unpopular doesn’t have any correlation to electability. Her successor may fare better or worse but the Tories are heading for opposition against the most incompetent Labour Party since Foot’s with May. At least with someone new leading, they have a chance of becoming electable again.

Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.

The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition

Please stop ignoring the fact she lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last GE; lost her majority in a snap election she called and wont be leader when the next GE is held as the price she had to pay for not having the vote of confidence go against her.

A Tory lead in the polls when she is gone will be meaningful. Until then she a deadweight the Tories can do without.

The Tory share actually held up pretty well, it was the opposition vote that coalesced around Labour.

UKIP voters didn’t exactly swell Labour numbers though did they and nor did LibDems. The support he got was new support (students attracted by his unfunded promise on tuition fees for example), Labour support that was minced to vote Tory but stayed loyal when they saw some of her policies like social care and fox hunting, and few odds and sods from the SWP and the Communist Party.

Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD

Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.

So are you of the opinion Labour won the 2017 election?

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/876894066478329857

I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.

But they are like Private Eye jokes. The repetition is what makes them funny.


Eventually.

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

malcolmg said:

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

On today’s political scene, she is outclassed only by Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davison, and potentially John McDonnell.

Do you not rate Michael Gove?

I do, but I don’t think he outclasses May.
He suffers from questions about his judgment.

Hmm, I will know to double check your opinions if you think Gove is anything other than a lying useless ar**hole.

Well, with the exception of the teachers, about whom the less said the better, all the other groups he has worked with at both justice and DFRA think he is one of the best, most informed and supportive ministers they have dealt with in many years. Admittedly at Justice that was not hard, following on from 'Book Ban' Grayling but still it is refreshing to see so many of the concerned organisations hoping Gove does not get moved from DEFRA because he is actually making a difference.

Nick Palmer thinks Gove is good - but then, he thinks the same of Corbyn.

That is a minority view for those who deal with Gove at DEFRA.

The one thing they'll say in his favour is that he's better than Leadsom, but that's like saying syphilis is preferable to AIDS.

It isn't a minority view at all. It is the view of the vast majority of (and excuse me using this awful word) stakeholders working with DEFRA. There is a long list of organisations, both farming and conservation, who have been delighted by his attitude to his brief and the fact he actually listens to people about how best to improve things. You just have a chip on your shoulder about him because you are a teacher.

Go on, name them.

Against that, my father works for him and has gone from being an admirer to a hater.

Edit - I would add teachers felt the same way at the start, until it became obvious that he would listen politely and then ignore our views and do something stupid. It was why his reforms have been disastrous.

I do not think Warren will be the nominee, but I would not completely dismiss her chances...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/05/elizabeth-warren-iowa-democrats-2020-1082574

kle4 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).

And that’s just for the apperitif.

Well, plus we're probably due for a downturn anyway.

But I have to do some preperatory work for the week ahead. Good jousting everyone.

Good knight to you, sir!

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Unemployment is half what is when, the economy is one fifth bigger, and the deficit is one seventh what it was then.

So not AAA then I guess, what are we?

What difference does AA or AAA make to anyone?

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

It is in fact nearly nine years since they had 265+ seats in the Commons.

763 days. The number of days the Tories have had a majority in 22 years.

Three.

The number of times Labour has had a 40% share of the vote in the last fifty years - and one of those was 48 years ago.

(OK, I know Corbyn nearly managed it, but nearly isn't quite.)

Of course, if we want to be really mean: 0 is the number of times the Liberals or Liberal Democrats have exceeded 70 seats in the last 95 years.

Doesn’t TSE have a handy bar chart on this topic?

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Unemployment is half what is when, the economy is one fifth bigger, and the deficit is one seventh what it was then.

So not AAA then I guess, what are we?

Shows that the credit rating isn’t everything.

Sean_F said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Unemployment is half what is when, the economy is one fifth bigger, and the deficit is one seventh what it was then.

So not AAA then I guess, what are we?

What difference does AA or AAA make to anyone?

The government’s cost of borrowing was considerably higher when we were triple AAA, so the answer seems to be the square route of bugger all.

It’s not clear to me how meaningful credit ratings are when the issuer can print the currency in question. If we borrowed extensively in EUR or USD, it would matter.

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

It is in fact nearly nine years since they had 265+ seats in the Commons.

763 days. The number of days the Tories have had a majority in 22 years.

Three.

The number of times Labour has had a 40% share of the vote in the last fifty years - and one of those was 48 years ago.

(OK, I know Corbyn nearly managed it, but nearly isn't quite.)

Of course, if we want to be really mean: 0 is the number of times the Liberals or Liberal Democrats have exceeded 70 seats in the last 95 years.

Doesn’t TSE have a handy bar chart on this topic?

I've got a new chart on that coming out next week.

You're not going to like it though.

A bar chart of number of AV threads per month?

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

RobD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

May didn’t .

snip

Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.

The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition

snip

snip.

The Tory share actually held up pretty well, it was the opposition vote that coalesced around Labour.

UKIP voters didn’t ist Party.

Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD

Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.

Of course it is as the only reason Labour got 40% at GE17 was by squeezing minor parties like the LDs and uniting most Remainers behind it

How does a YouGov poll of current voting intentions in Jan 2019 help explain Labour’s 2017 GE performance.

LibDems actually increased their seats in 2017, BTW so not much evidence of LD support drifting to Labour, either.

Only in mainly vevel.

It depends very much on where those Lab to LD voters are. If we are seeing the re-emegence of tactical voting, while dropping a few votes in safe University city seats then it could be ominous for the Tories. We need constituency level data to be sure.

In 2005 the Tories won 33 extra seats despite their voteshare going up just 0.7% due to an almost 5% swing from Labour to LD, even if it was more pronounced in the marginals. Far from being ominous for the Tories that would be great news for the Tories

Could be. But a lot has changed since 2005. I know some people who in 2005 would have been quite happy to see the Tories back in contention who are now coughing blood at the very mention of them. I had one over Xmas quizzing me on whether the Lib Dems or Labour were best placed to beat her Tory MP who she now loathes.

By contrast the leavers I know are still leavers but have, unaccountably to me, decided that Mrs May is the hero of the story and the Conservatives who oppose her are the villains. I can see them turning out to vote for her. But if she moves on they might well sit on their hands.

This is a small town with a particular gripe against the EU so this may not be representative of anything much. But it is a very different picture to the polls and the media.

rural_voter said:

Gardenwalker said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).

And that’s just for the apperitif.

In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.

The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.

It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.

Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.

We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.

Then, we realised that currency fluctuations mean bugger all, save to forex traders.

AmpfieldAndy said:

kle4 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

MarqueeMark said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

MarqueeMark said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.

Perhaps if Labour also gives up with the notion they won in 2017?

No one is suggesting they did.

You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....

Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.

Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.

I don’t think parliamentary gridlock on Brexit and a complete lack of any domestic policy agenda (nothwithstanding today’s NHS announcement) is at all desirable myself. A GE would give Corbyn the chance he craves but a Corbyn Gov would be an economic disaster. Rather than run the risk of losing a no confidence vote, May should resign and give a new leader a chance to establish themselves - and rebuild relationships withthe DUP, at least in my view.

Given all the latest Tory members polls have Boris ahead and No Dealers in the top positions beyond him if May went we likely go straight to No Deal without passing go. May at least offers the chance for a Deal, even if it goes to a Deal v No Deal referendum, while still maintaining a Tory lead according to YouGov today

Recidivist said:

RobD said:

If

rural_voter said:

Gardenwalker said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).

And that’s just for the apperitif.

In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.

The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.

It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.

Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.

We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.

The Euro, a proper currency? Give me a break!

I'd quite like to join the Euro. I thought it wouldn't happen in my lifetime. But that was before the referendum. It seems quite likely now.

Even No Deal has about 10% more support than joining the Euro according to the latest polls on them

Recidivist said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

RobD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

May didn’t .

snip

Please stop ignoring the facts just to confirm your bias.

The Tories are 6% ahead with YouGov today led by May, that is not 'heading for opposition' on any definition

snip

snip.

The Tory share actually held up pretty well, it was the opposition vote that coalesced around Labour.

UKIP voters didn’t ist Party.

Plus diehard Remainers who according to YouGov today are now starting to go LD

Don’t think that YouGov poll is relevant to explaining Labour’s 2017 GE performance though which is what we were discussing.

Of course it is as the only reason Labour got 40% at GE17 was by squeezing minor parties like the LDs and uniting most Remainers behind it

How does a YouGov poll of current voting intentions in Jan 2019 help explain Labour’s 2017 GE performance.

LibDems actually increased their seats in 2017, BTW so not much evidence of LD support drifting to Labour, either.

Only in mainly vevel.

It depends very much on where those Lency level data to be sure.

In 2005 the Tories won 33 extra s that would be great news for the Tories

Could be. But a lot has changed since 2005. I know some people who in 2005 would have been quite happy to see the Tories back in contention who are now coughing blood at the very mention of them. I had one over Xmas quizzing me on whether the Lib Dems or Labour were best placed to beat her Tory MP who she now loathes.

By contrast the leavers I know are still leavers but have, unaccountably to me, decided that Mrs May is the hero of the story and the Conservatives who oppose her are the villains. I can see them turning out to vote for her. But if she moves on they might well sit on their hands.

This is a small town with a particular gripe against the EU so this may not be representative of anything much. But it is a very different picture to the polls and the media.

The Tories got 32% in 2005, they are on 40% today.

Given the LDs start from such a low base and Labour from such a high one any net movement back from Labour to the LDs helps the Tories even if the Tory vote stands still

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Unemployment is half what is when, the economy is one fifth bigger, and the deficit is one seventh what it was then.

So not AAA then I guess, what are we?

What difference does AA or AAA make to anyone?

I seem to remember conservatives saw it as very important indeed. Osborne made it the litmus test of the economy on his watch. Oh well. Seems we’re back to the 70s with that one.

Certainly it was widely seen as important, but given the economic facts I think we probably didn't deserve that AAA rating in the past, and in many important respects our current AA rated economy is healthier than it was then. Or to put it more simply, maybe ratings and the agencies that create them aren't worth a toss.

Probably another case of garbage in, garbage out. The very things that matter the most are the hardest to measure, and so we get rated on easy to measure but ultimately meaningless data.

Sean_F said:

rural_voter said:

Gardenwalker said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).

And that’s just for the apperitif.

In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.

The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.

It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.

Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.

We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.

Then, we realised that currency fluctuations mean bugger all, save to forex traders.

Given how much we need to/want to import, you are staggeringly wrong. A 25% decrease cannot to be hand-waved.

It’s this kind of wilful know-nothingness that gives Brexitism a bad name.

Right, off to watch “the Favourite”. Play safe, kids.

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

kle4 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

MarqueeMark said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

MarqueeMark said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.

Perhaps if Labour also gives up with the notion they won in 2017?

No one is suggesting they did.

You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....

Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.

Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.

I don’t think parliamentary gridlock on Brexit and a complete lack of any domestic policy agenda (nothwithstanding today’s NHS announcement) is at all desirable myself. A GE would give Corbyn the chance he craves but a Corbyn Gov would be an economic disaster. Rather than run the risk of losing a no confidence vote, May should resign and give a new leader a chance to establish themselves - and rebuild relationships withthe DUP, at least in my view.

Given all the latest Tory members polls ov today

There was never any chance of a deal with May forcing Davis to agree to the EU agenda, ignore trade and try and build a special relationship with the EU that they clearly do not want. The best chance of a deal that would have support would have been either to go for a Norway type deal after she lost her majority and focus on domestic policy or to have focussed on trade so the EU agenda and trade were two parts of the same deal.

A Norway type deal requires free movement and therefore obviously disrespects the Leave vote and would have turned the current trickle of Tory voters to UKIP into a flood.

We cannot do any trade deal without a guarantee of a backstop of no hard border in Ireland as the EU have made abundantly clear

Recidivist said:

HYUFD said:

rural_voter said:

Gardenwalker said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The economy is in much better shape now than in 2009.

We were AAA rated back then. What are we now?

Yes. Thanks to Brexit, our economy is stagnant, our credit rating has been downrated, and the £ is down 25% on a trade-weighted basis (with no upside for exporters).

And that’s just for the apperitif.

In the post-war years, up until Thatcher, devaluation was seen as national humiliation.

The £ went down by 30% versus the $ in 1949, presumably linked to wartime debts to the USA.

It went down 14% vs the $ in 1967. Some saw this as Harold Wilson's worst moment as PM.

Now people are trying to laugh off a reduction in the £ of 25% although I don't know exactly what percent it is versus the $.

We should have joined the Euro - a proper currency, like the S.Fr - 20 years ago.

Tell 20% unemployment Greece and 16% unemployment Spain and 11% unemployment Italy how well the Euro is working out for them? Our unemployment rate is just 4%

It would have been a different currency if we had joined it. And we'd have had more influence on the decisions.

No, the decisions would still have been made by Germany, they are still a bigger economy than we are

This thread is old news.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

It has been nearly nine years since Labour had 300+ seats in the Commons.

And what a wretched nine years for the economy, public services, the unity of the country and Britain's standing in the world.

The standing is fine, people need to get a grip - do you think nation's never go through periods of distraught politics?

Standing isn't fine, I read a lot of foreign newspapers, and we've enfeebled ourselves through Brexit.

It is so bad even the French are laughing at us.

I do wonder if you actually ever speak to anyone from another country. Or at least anyone you can understand.

Richard, I'm fluent in French and German, which are two of the six languages I'm fluent in.

I'm spending the latter part of this forthcoming week in Germany,

I spent 36 days in Germany last year for work.

So as with many things you're wrong.

I have had a fair few conversations about Brexit with foreigners. Mostly curiosity: what do you think of Brexit? Oddly, the "You're bonkers" conversations have largely been with Swiss people. Odd because Switzerland isn't in the EU either.

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

kle4 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

MarqueeMark said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

MarqueeMark said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

I’d give up posting those bar charts if I were you. They weren’t worth posting once let alone worth repeating.

Perhaps if Labour also gives up with the notion they won in 2017?

No one is suggesting they did.

You must have missed "Corbyn will be PM by Christmas 2017 2018".....

Nothing like a bit of unrealistic braggadocio to keep activists active. The Tories might gift him the next GE sticking with May but there is a reason he is a scratched record aboutthe need for new GE.

Because that's what oppositions have to do. There's absolutely no need for one. At least usually oppositions can try to claim that the public are crying out for a change in leadership by pointing to the polls, but those range from small Tory leads to small Labour leads so even that falls down. And since a GE is not necessary to change policies, and have no guarantee of returning a parliament better able to deliver for the country, there really is no need for one at all.

I don’tw.

Given all the latest Tory members polls ov today

There was never any chance of a deal with May forcing Davis to agree to the EU agenda, ignore trade and try and build a special relationship with the EU that they clearly do not want. The best chance of a deal that would have support would have been either to go for a Norway type deal after she lost her majority and focus on domestic policy or to have focussed on trade so the EU agenda and trade were two parts of the same deal.

A Norway type deal requires free movement and therefore obviously disrespects the Leave vote and would have turned the current trickle of Tory voters to UKIP into a flood.

We cannot do any trade deal without a guarantee of a backstop of no hard border in Ireland as the EU have made abundantly clear

If you pander to the EU agenda, you get no deal. The EU have been allowed to ruthlessly and expertly exploit the Irish border because of the inept way we have handled the negotiations.

The EU have been clear throughout the negotiations, no backstop, no deal and they are a bigger percentage of our exports than we are of theirs