I'll try again. The backstop did not come out of thin air or some evil machinations of the EU. It was first presented as a way of having no hard border between the SM and the UK on the island of Ireland. If you are to have completely uninhibited transmission of goods you must have the same rules on both sides. May agreed to this but the DUP didn't because it put Ulster into a different position from rUK and might be thought a step towards Irish unity. Having been reminded where her majority came from Mrs May accepted that and proposed that the backstop apply not only to Ulster but to the whole of the UK.
The question for us going forward is do we want to effectively remain in the SM? If we do then the backstop is an extremely generous way of achieving this because it gives us access that other countries have to pay for. The price is regulatory alignment. I can live with that not least because we still have the option of ending regulatory alignment at any point if the EU did something more than normally stupid at the cost of leaving the SM at that point. If we want that "freedom" now we need a FTA which is going to be both complex and take a long time to put in place.
The deal gives us both options and time to think about them. It really is a no brainer that should be supported by everyone except those absolutely determined not to leave under any circumstances and those who live somewhere other than planet earth.
Good summary. The truth is that if we are to leave the EU (which we must if we are not to trash the 2016 Referendum) we must ratify the Withdrawal Agreement that has been painstakingly negotiated between the two relevant parties.
When will this truth be accepted?
I think at some point in 2020 under PM Boris Johnson and that it will happen before any general election.
I freely admit that this looks unlikely right now, but such is my belief.
Why? Because everything else looks even more unlikely.
I hope you are right. My faith in rationality has taken a few dents of late.
The problem is that Boris has said we are leaving on October 31st - how does he not do that and survive.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
Tell me about it, especially when we hold all the cards.
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
Economically there aren't any really - it's the status-quo.
Politically - I believe the rise of Nigel is something HYUFD continually talks about if we don't leave
So status quo is risk free?
If you define risk as "deviation from the expected outcome", then yes, by definition.
If it's "deviation from the optimal outcome", then we're into an unresolvable argument about whether we'd be better off in or out in the short, medium and long term, plus a whole host of second, third and higher order effects, like whether the EU collapses at some point.
I'm with your second definition but no one ever says "who the fuck knows"
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
Yes, but we can mitigate those risks though our influence as members.
As non-members, not so much.
Do you have recent, meaningful examples of our ability to influence?
I believe we were highly influential in the drafting of GDPR. Something that has had enormous positive impact in a very short period of time.
I work in high-tech manufacturing and I'm wondering which of the companies I'm currently bouncing job applications off of will still be here in six months if Boris has his way. Meanwhile the no-dealers are all buying unicorns with other peoples money. I despair.
First post by the way, I figured I'd lurked for too long. Hi.
Welcome, we need more sensible people to stop lurking and comment
The problem with these forecasts is that they tend to be reported through the prism of a particular event, e.g no deal brexit. It is entirely possible (And actually quite likely) that we have a recession in the event of revoke, WA or no deal, given that we virtually have zero growth at present, much of Europe is in the same boat, Trump has blown a bubble that will pop at some time and Asian economies are showing signs of stress. Whether we Brexit or not is not the principle driver. For sure, a no-deal Brexit does have impact but it will be events immediately following the no-deal that matter rather than the no deal itself and nobody can predict those with any certainty
This is something I have said repeatedly. There are a whole series of events and decisions that will have a bigger impact on our economy over the next 5-10 years than Brexit. Some will be positive, some negative but identifying the net balance of Brexit alone is going to be both tricky and unpersuasive.
Completely off topic: anyone tried cancelling and moving a mobile phone account using Ofcom's new STAC codes?
What's the difference between PAC and STAC?
STAC is new. It is for transfering when you don't want to keep the old number.
Both codes can now be used to organize a transfer and end your old contract without having to spend ages on the phone listening to crap about upgrades.
I really hope this works out, because it is a scandal how hard it is to close an unwanted mobile contract.
Maybe Green members think they can do what the German Green Party has done?
Big mistake under FPTP.
If everyone in a party always votes "tactically", how can that party know where their true strength lies ?
As a Lib Dem ‘registered supporter’ I would be happy with an official but temporary ‘Green/Lib Dem Alliance’ ticket rather than individual parties standing aside, with open primaries for candidates. 🤷♂️
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
I don't agree Alastair. The deal remains a strong contender I think but dressed up as Broker Boris. A rose by any other name, and all that.
Deal 40% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum) 50% No deal 10%
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
A shock rise in the pound could create issues for exporters...
The opposite is normally presented as the real risk and the one which is better appreciated. There are pluses and minuses both ways but the exchange risks are always presented with the bias (hidden or exposed) of the presenter.
As we're an importing/consumption economy with people that like to go abroad on summer holidays generally the risk is in the currency depreciating. But an appreciating currency ain't great for export, particularly if it is a very rapid upward movement.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
Ah, but its being so cheerful that keeps you going Alastair.
I think Boris (and Fox who has surprised me in recent weeks) know that the deal is optimal but they need to find a way to get it over the line, something May could never find. No deal as a real possibility is their weapon of choice. It is a long way from a no risk game but I think you are slightly pessimistic.
@Philip_Thompson thinks it's rubbish. So the official report by the independent body trusted with making this assessment can safely be disregarded.
Well it depends upon what assumptions went into their model to derive these outputs. Same with any and all modelling - garbage in, garbage out.
Considering the IMF and Treasury forecasts of what would happen in the period between a Brexit vote and actual exit turned out not to be just rubbish but complete and utter codswallop, OBR forecasts based on that modelling would have been equally codswallop.
Remember by now we were supposed to have had 500k of job losses and a recession, when instead we have the highest employment ever recorded in our entire history and wages outstripping inflation. In every single year since the referendum the OBR forecasts have been wrong and the deficit has come in below OBR forecasts despite the government then increasing spending on pet projects more than forecast.
Its almost as if economic modelling is based on assumptions that can be wrong and not an actual hard science that is perfectly accurate at all times.
That's ok then. I'll blindly trust the hopes of a crazed zealot over the impartial body whose responsibility it is to draw up the forecasts.
That's fine, you put your faith in those experts saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.
The last few years have demonstrated in a very real way how the British public can be right and the so-called experts can be wrong.
How can they have got it wrong wen we haven't left over the last three years? The only thing that has so far been tested is loss of confidence caused by the vote which has resulted in the pound falling by nearly 20%. The projections today involve the cost to the UK ecomomy of the new rules involved in a no deal Brexit. Worth reading.....
What time is the Grieve amendment expected to be voted on?
Trying to find out the same thing myself but I think it's now called the Burt-Benn?
It’s expected around 1.30 pm.
The reason it’s Burt-Benn is they’re both very popular MPs with a lot of respect so a better chance of getting the votes. What’s interesting is that I think Burt voted against the original Grieve amendments so him supporting this action might help further .
How crap of an opposition do you have to be to be down 4% in mid term and after 9 years of a government who are a total shit show?
A Green-LD Remain Alliance would come top of the poll. Crikey. If these two parties could get their act together, then...????
I mean, I think a good 50-66% of the Green vote would vote Labour in the event of a Green-LD alliance (and many greens, like myself, probably tactically vote in our seats at a GE anyway)
It goes both ways, of course. In the event of a LD-Green alliance there would be plenty of Lib Dems such as myself who, if there wasn't a Lib Dem candidate, would not transfer to voting Green.
What time is the Grieve amendment expected to be voted on?
Trying to find out the same thing myself but I think it's now called the Burt-Benn?
It’s expected around 1.30 pm.
The reason it’s Burt-Benn is they’re both very popular MPs with a lot of respect so a better chance of getting the votes. What’s interesting is that I think Burt voted against the original Grieve amendments so him supporting this action might help further .
Thanks Nico - excellent update.
I have a feeling this one will pass. But will all of Labour come on board? They're not a happy camp right now ...
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
Yes, but we can mitigate those risks though our influence as members.
As non-members, not so much.
Do you have recent, meaningful examples of our ability to influence?
I believe we were highly influential in the drafting of GDPR. Something that has had enormous positive impact in a very short period of time.
2016. "Believe", "highly influential". This is presumably the view from the UK. Is it substantiable?
What time is the Grieve amendment expected to be voted on?
Trying to find out the same thing myself but I think it's now called the Burt-Benn?
It’s expected around 1.30 pm.
The reason it’s Burt-Benn is they’re both very popular MPs with a lot of respect so a better chance of getting the votes. What’s interesting is that I think Burt voted against the original Grieve amendments so him supporting this action might help further .
I didn't have Alistair Burt chalked up as a remain rebel, who did ?
I think it'll pass with him on the face of the bill too.
What time is the Grieve amendment expected to be voted on?
Trying to find out the same thing myself but I think it's now called the Burt-Benn?
It’s expected around 1.30 pm.
The reason it’s Burt-Benn is they’re both very popular MPs with a lot of respect so a better chance of getting the votes. What’s interesting is that I think Burt voted against the original Grieve amendments so him supporting this action might help further .
Thanks Nico - excellent update.
I have a feeling this one will pass. But will all of Labour come on board? They're not a happy camp right now ...
You’re welcome . The Labour infighting shouldn’t make much difference , MPs views of no deal or suspension of parliament are pretty solid anyway and won’t really be swayed by the current internal dramas.
On that poll and if Borus gets a bounce at the next general election too, the question will not be whether the Tories win it but whether Labour or the LDs come second, at least in voteshare
Personally 2022 should in my view be favourite. To get an election early there has to be a majority of MPs voting to have one. It's not particularly easy to see when it's going to be in the interests of a majority of the current batch of MPs to have an election.
After next by-election in Wales, it is very likely government will have a working majority of 1. Not sustainable for any length of time.
I'll try again. The backstop did not come out of thin air or some evil machinations of the EU. It was first presented as a way of having no hard border between the SM and the UK on the island of Ireland. If you are to have completely uninhibited transmission of goods you must have the same rules on both sides. May agreed to this but the DUP didn't because it put Ulster into a different position from rUK and might be thought a step towards Irish unity. Having been reminded where her majority came from Mrs May accepted that and proposed that the backstop apply not only to Ulster but to the whole of the UK.
The question for us going forward is do we want to effectively remain in the SM? If we do then the backstop is an extremely generous way of achieving this because it gives us access that other countries have to pay for. The price is regulatory alignment. I can live with that not least because we still have the option of ending regulatory alignment at any point if the EU did something more than normally stupid at the cost of leaving the SM at that point. If we want that "freedom" now we need a FTA which is going to be both complex and take a long time to put in place.
The deal gives us both options and time to think about them. It really is a no brainer that should be supported by everyone except those absolutely determined not to leave under any circumstances and those who live somewhere other than planet earth.
Good summary. The truth is that if we are to leave the EU (which we must if we are not to trash the 2016 Referendum) we must ratify the Withdrawal Agreement that has been painstakingly negotiated between the two relevant parties.
When will this truth be accepted?
I think at some point in 2020 under PM Boris Johnson and that it will happen before any general election.
I freely admit that this looks unlikely right now, but such is my belief.
Why? Because everything else looks even more unlikely.
I hope you are right. My faith in rationality has taken a few dents of late.
The problem is that Boris has said we are leaving on October 31st - how does he not do that and survive.
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
A shock rise in the pound could create issues for exporters...
The opposite is normally presented as the real risk and the one which is better appreciated. There are pluses and minuses both ways but the exchange risks are always presented with the bias (hidden or exposed) of the presenter.
As we're an importing/consumption economy with people that like to go abroad on summer holidays generally the risk is in the currency depreciating. But an appreciating currency ain't great for export, particularly if it is a very rapid upward movement.
On that poll and if Borus gets a bounce at the next general election too, the question will not be whether the Tories win it but whether Labour or the LDs come second, at least in voteshare
On that polling I don't think anyone could predict anything with any confidence.
It's also a poll which I don't think an election campaign would sustain as I suspect a lot of people would make decisions based on least worst likely to win options.
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
Yes, but we can mitigate those risks though our influence as members.
As non-members, not so much.
Do you have recent, meaningful examples of our ability to influence?
I believe we were highly influential in the drafting of GDPR. Something that has had enormous positive impact in a very short period of time.
2016. "Believe", "highly influential". This is presumably the view from the UK. Is it substantiable?
OK - I'll rephrase.
It all came out along the lines 'we' (those involved in consultations and UKGov) wanted. [edited to add] It should also be pointed out that it did not turn out the way others outside the EU wanted (e.g. the US) who would have preferred if it had exempted rather than caught businesses domiciled in those territories.
I suppose it *might* have gone that way entirely by chance, but it was significant, contentious legislation and it came out in the UK's preferred form. This is the evidence I have to suggest that we were highly influential.
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
Yes, but we can mitigate those risks though our influence as members.
As non-members, not so much.
Do you have recent, meaningful examples of our ability to influence?
I believe we were highly influential in the drafting of GDPR. Something that has had enormous positive impact in a very short period of time.
Positive? The man hours wasted on producing crappy policies that no one ever reads, additional bureaucracy and extra regulation with the added bonus of fines to justify the regulator's existence and salaries is bordering on tragic. Has anyone on here ever looked at anyone's cookie policy or done anything other than tick yes to get the nonsense off the screen?
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
I don't agree Alastair. The deal remains a strong contender I think but dressed up as Broker Boris. A rose by any other name, and all that.
Deal 40% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum) 50% No deal 10%
The revoke with or without a referendum has the wonderful benefit that we'd be rid of the ghastly Johnson.
Following that "No deal", 75% the UK comes crawling back to sign off something that looks like the deal.
Remain is doubtless a betrayal of democracy, but superior for the economy so might be the best option.
The big risk to Remain is on the EU side. To keep extending they're going to need a reason for prolonging the agony. If the British government isn't asking for one, they're not going to look hard for one.
It's a bit like using UN long term climate forecasts on the to prove global warming. Rising average temperatures is an input to those models, not an output. The relevant output in both cases is, "what kind of sensitivity does the undesirable negative outcome have to the severity of our lack of planning for it?"
That is not true. The rising temperatures predicted by climate models are a consequence of calculating approximations to the underlying partial differential equations that describe the fundamental physics involved. The observed temperature evolution is not an input to the model.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
I don't agree Alastair. The deal remains a strong contender I think but dressed up as Broker Boris. A rose by any other name, and all that.
Deal 40% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum) 50% No deal 10%
The revoke with or without a referendum has the wonderful benefit that we'd be rid of the ghastly Johnson.
Sadly it would still probably flop around Westminster looking deflated for a while before going back to journalism and sticking itself where it isn't wanted.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
Ah, but its being so cheerful that keeps you going Alastair.
I think Boris (and Fox who has surprised me in recent weeks) know that the deal is optimal but they need to find a way to get it over the line, something May could never find. No deal as a real possibility is their weapon of choice. It is a long way from a no risk game but I think you are slightly pessimistic.
The problem with a negotiation in the public eye is that everyone wants to know what your negotiating position is but being publicly truthful about it destroys that negotiating position. Likewise any untrustworthy members of the negotiating team creates its own problems- May seemingly having being the most untrustworthy.
Predicting what will happen is for the birds - T20 blast starts tonight then the Ashes. Far more enjoyable than listening to the Trumpians vs the Chicken Lickens on Brexit.
What is this concept of a hard three line whip? How does this differ from a three line whip?
In order to add emphasis and skew perception, the author has added a word ("hard")' in front of the phrase.
A few weeks ago I asked for suggestions for names for this phenomenon. When I have a few minutes I will revisit it, because it's used so often we need a word for it.
Positive? The man hours wasted on producing crappy policies that no one ever reads, additional bureaucracy and extra regulation with the added bonus of fines to justify the regulator's existence and salaries is bordering on tragic. Has anyone on here ever looked at anyone's cookie policy or done anything other than tick yes to get the nonsense off the screen?
Cookie policy is a tiny part of GDPR.
It has caused (most, sensible) businesses to completely re-evaluate the way they treat data, privacy, internal data handling policies, information sharing with contractors etc. This is largely because the fines for serious breaches are no longer in the slap-on-the-wrist scale, giving the regulators real teeth.
I've worked with a bunch of different businesses who would not have given a second thought to this, and carried on leaking data to organized crime, without GDPR.
The fact that it, like most things, has been dumbed down to "it's just a click on a cookie policy" by the media, is yet another example of the paucity of our national discourse.
Personally 2022 should in my view be favourite. To get an election early there has to be a majority of MPs voting to have one. It's not particularly easy to see when it's going to be in the interests of a majority of the current batch of MPs to have an election.
After next by-election in Wales, it is very likely government will have a working majority of 1. Not sustainable for any length of time.
IIRC a minority government was in office 1976-79 and didn't the Tories lose their majority some years before 1997?
But this would all change if the DUP end the C&S agreement, a possibility which has been little discussed but is not impossible.
Labour survived courtesy of the Lib/Lab pact March 1977 - September 1978. Major's Government did not lose its majority until beginning of 1997.
On that poll and if Borus gets a bounce at the next general election too, the question will not be whether the Tories win it but whether Labour or the LDs come second, at least in voteshare
There's six points between first and fourth. In a general election campaign, held in circumstances currently unknowable, anything could happen and any of the four parties could come first in vote share.
In the meantime, with continued Extinction Rebellion protests, there is the possibility that the Greens could close the gap on the four parties ahead of them.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
Ah, but its being so cheerful that keeps you going Alastair.
I think Boris (and Fox who has surprised me in recent weeks) know that the deal is optimal but they need to find a way to get it over the line, something May could never find. No deal as a real possibility is their weapon of choice. It is a long way from a no risk game but I think you are slightly pessimistic.
The problem with a negotiation in the public eye is that everyone wants to know what your negotiating position is but being publicly truthful about it destroys that negotiating position. Likewise any untrustworthy members of the negotiating team creates its own problems- May seemingly having being the most untrustworthy.
I agree but red lines and hard deadlines have proven somewhat sub-optimal to date and the evidence that this will suddenly improve is slight.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
I don't agree Alastair. The deal remains a strong contender I think but dressed up as Broker Boris. A rose by any other name, and all that.
Deal 40% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum) 50% No deal 10%
The revoke with or without a referendum has the wonderful benefit that we'd be rid of the ghastly Johnson.
Far from it, Boris would be able to present himself as the champion of 'the will of the people' against MPs prepared to revoke rather than deliver the Brexit 52% voted for.
Apart from toads like Matt Hancock and snakes like Michael Gove, a lot of fair-minded tory ministers know they're not going to get preferment under Boris Johnson. So they may as well vote in the country's best interests today.
The 'problem' for the amendment is the unhappy chaos in the PLP.
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
Yes, but we can mitigate those risks though our influence as members.
As non-members, not so much.
Do you have recent, meaningful examples of our ability to influence?
I believe we were highly influential in the drafting of GDPR. Something that has had enormous positive impact in a very short period of time.
2016. "Believe", "highly influential". This is presumably the view from the UK. Is it substantiable?
OK - I'll rephrase.
It all came out along the lines 'we' (those involved in consultations and UKGov) wanted. [edited to add] It should also be pointed out that it did not turn out the way others outside the EU wanted (e.g. the US) who would have preferred if it had exempted rather than caught businesses domiciled in those territories.
I suppose it *might* have gone that way entirely by chance, but it was significant, contentious legislation and it came out in the UK's preferred form. This is the evidence I have to suggest that we were highly influential.
Still not convinced I'm afraid, but my default mode is sceptic.
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
Yes, but we can mitigate those risks though our influence as members.
As non-members, not so much.
Do you have recent, meaningful examples of our ability to influence?
I believe we were highly influential in the drafting of GDPR. Something that has had enormous positive impact in a very short period of time.
Positive? The man hours wasted on producing crappy policies that no one ever reads, additional bureaucracy and extra regulation with the added bonus of fines to justify the regulator's existence and salaries is bordering on tragic. Has anyone on here ever looked at anyone's cookie policy or done anything other than tick yes to get the nonsense off the screen?
Pause.
Actually, yes. Me. It only takes a moment. Although I do not do it often I do do it occasionally.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
I don't agree Alastair. The deal remains a strong contender I think but dressed up as Broker Boris. A rose by any other name, and all that.
Deal 40% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum) 50% No deal 10%
The revoke with or without a referendum has the wonderful benefit that we'd be rid of the ghastly Johnson.
Far from it, Boris would be able to present himself as the champion of 'the will of the people' against MPs prepared to revoke rather than deliver the Brexit 52% voted for.
He would be a UK Alex Salmond
Correct - the positioning for a GE is obvious.
Vote Boris, cleanse the stables and get Brexit.
Vote for Grieve-Davey-Starmer - vote for us and we will ignore whatever you want as per usual.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
I don't agree Alastair. The deal remains a strong contender I think but dressed up as Broker Boris. A rose by any other name, and all that.
Deal 40% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum) 50% No deal 10%
The revoke with or without a referendum has the wonderful benefit that we'd be rid of the ghastly Johnson.
Far from it, Boris would be able to present himself as the champion of 'the will of the people' against MPs prepared to revoke rather than deliver the Brexit 52% voted for.
He would be a UK Alex Salmond
Given the accusations levelled against the former First Minister that's both an apt and... somewhat unwise comparison for someone who supports him.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
I don't agree Alastair. The deal remains a strong contender I think but dressed up as Broker Boris. A rose by any other name, and all that.
Deal 40% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum) 50% No deal 10%
The revoke with or without a referendum has the wonderful benefit that we'd be rid of the ghastly Johnson.
Far from it, Boris would be able to present himself as the champion of 'the will of the people' against MPs prepared to revoke rather than deliver the Brexit 52% voted for.
As a Green who has engaged with the internal conversation about potential deal with the LDs; it isn't going to happen. We don't trust them on policy, nor politics. It has happened in the past that we made agreements with them not to stand and they agreed, we stood down, and they stood anyway. Whilst Sian and Jonathan seem to be in favour, I would say 2/3rds of the membership are against.
So a deal that could give the Greens 6+ seats does not appeal? Clearly there are policy differences but all we are talking about are arrangements in maybe 30-50 seats.
Don't game FPTP and stay pure seems to be your approach.
I agree with you; the rest of the membership not so much. I think it is because we have lots of anti austerity ex Lab and ex LD voters who just do not trust the LD party on anything, either because of past relationships with the LD party turning sour or because they do not trust the word of LDHQ.
The problem for the Greens is that on 8% they will struggle to win extra seats under FPTP even if the LDs stand down. For example, the Greens got 17% of the vote in Isle of Wight. If you add the LDs 4% then that still only takes you to 21%, around 3k votes behind Labour and 24k behind the Tories.
Realistically the Greens best shot of picking up extra seats would be to take on Lab in Bristol W and Norwich S but the LDs would presumably also see these as targets. It shows that while there is a certain level of cooperation, the Greens and LDs are also competitors fishing in the same pool of voters.
Neither Greens nor LibDems have a hope in hell in Norwich South!
Personally 2022 should in my view be favourite. To get an election early there has to be a majority of MPs voting to have one. It's not particularly easy to see when it's going to be in the interests of a majority of the current batch of MPs to have an election.
After next by-election in Wales, it is very likely government will have a working majority of 1. Not sustainable for any length of time.
It will be 3 if Brecon & Radnor is lost.
Will it? According to HoC the state of parties gives:
Con+DUP 'government': 322
Everyone else in opposition: 319
There is one vacancy, which is presumably the Brecon seat.
SF don't take their 7 seats.
I suppose there is the issue of Deputy Speakers. I've never been quite clear how they fit with the working majority calculations. But in the state of the parties above they are assumed to be normal voting MPs.
What is this concept of a hard three line whip? How does this differ from a three line whip?
In order to add emphasis and skew perception, the author has added a word ("hard")' in front of the phrase.
A few weeks ago I asked for suggestions for names for this phenomenon. When I have a few minutes I will revisit it, because it's used so often we need a word for it.
Following that "No deal", 75% the UK comes crawling back to sign off something that looks like the deal.
Remain is doubtless a betrayal of democracy, but superior for the economy so might be the best option.
The big risk to Remain is on the EU side. To keep extending they're going to need a reason for prolonging the agony. If the British government isn't asking for one, they're not going to look hard for one.
The EU are world championship can kickers though. I've heard Macron is getting more support but when push and shove come on 31st October I think they'll extend. We'll have to make a positive move to leave in the end which is why I doubt it'll happen.
I suppose there is the issue of Deputy Speakers. I've never been quite clear how they fit with the working majority calculations. But in the state of the parties above they are assumed to be normal voting MPs.
I make it this, assuming LDs win Brecon:
650 MPs - SF 7 - minus speaker = 642
Tories + DUP = 322
The rest = 642 - 322 = 320
But Tories only lose 1 to dep speakers, since the speaker is a Tory (lol). Lab lose two.
What were Boris's aides thinking? Okay, Boris was probably misinformed or just made it up, but someone should have checked the story's veracity and steered him away from it when it became clear it was bunk. The EU now look the informed, calm and organized ones, whilst we look as if we're happy to be run by nincompoops. Where was Gavin Williamson?
Ian Dunt's attempts to "not comment" on Twitter are going about as well as my other half telling me she definitely wouldn't buy another orchid for the house yesterday at Tatton.
The unyielding determination of our political classes to box themselves in before they negotiate drives me close to despair. We can only hope that Boris concludes that the only way he can deliver on his promise is to sign May's deal with some frankly irrelevant tweak and that enough Labour MPs are sufficiently scared of no deal to at least abstain.
The deal now looks the least likely of the three outcomes. The fact that it is also probably the least bad is a shame.
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45% No deal: 45%
I don't agree Alastair. The deal remains a strong contender I think but dressed up as Broker Boris. A rose by any other name, and all that.
Deal 40% Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum) 50% No deal 10%
The revoke with or without a referendum has the wonderful benefit that we'd be rid of the ghastly Johnson.
Far from it, Boris would be able to present himself as the champion of 'the will of the people' against MPs prepared to revoke rather than deliver the Brexit 52% voted for.
He would be a UK Alex Salmond
He will never be fit to tie Alex Salmond's shoelaces
I agree with Alastair that the Parliament and government could easily go to its full term (to 2022). This certainly ISN'T desirable however.
The party in power have only 312 seats, possibly may regain one to go back to 313 in a week or two. However, we're less than half way through the Parliament and they've carelessly lost five MPs so far (Three to the Tiggers, Nick Boles and now Chris Davies) so its very easy to see them ending the Parliament with less than 310 MPs. Their 'partners' in the DUP are completely unreliable (Thanks for the £1m, we agree to vote with you on Confidence, Supply and Brexit votes... oh hang on, just kidding). They can't go on like this for three more years, its simply not good governance.
Having said all that, there are two reasons why an election isn't desirable. Firstly, Brexit, which is all consuming and we don't really have time for a six/seven week GE campaign before our deadline to leave. An extension will help, or just getting Brexit 'done' to move onto the next stage will also help. But then there is a final stop to an election.
Turkey's aren't going to vote for Christmas! If the current polls are even slightly right, both main parties are at risk of significant cull in numbers. Call me a cynic, but asking an MP to vote for an election and risk their £80k a year, four day a week, gold plated DB pension with all expenses paid..... isn't going to happen.
This is the big flaw in the Trump plan. Fascism not only attracts, it also repels.
I try to use the term fascist sparingly, but I think there are now just too many resonant chords being struck by Trump to exonerate him from that accusation.
I notice there are fewer folk leaping to the 'stop hyperbolising, he's nothing like a fascist' defence.
What were Boris's aides thinking? Okay, Boris was probably misinformed or just made it up, but someone should have checked the story's veracity and steered him away from it when it became clear it was bunk. The EU now look the informed, calm and organized ones, whilst we look as if we're happy to be run by nincompoops. Where was Gavin Williamson?
BoZo doesn't care.
Telling lies about the EU is what his entire career is based on.
Racists versus the Democrats would be more accurate. It's not a dog whistle anymore, the GOP is allowing explicitly racist speech and doing nothing to condemn it.
This is the big flaw in the Trump plan. Fascism not only attracts, it also repels.
I try to use the term fascist sparingly, but I think there are now just too many resonant chords being struck by Trump to exonerate him from that accusation.
I notice there are fewer folk leaping to the 'stop hyperbolising, he's nothing like a fascist' defence.
I just find it odd that what tipped people off was his tweets, not his concentration camps.
I suppose there is the issue of Deputy Speakers. I've never been quite clear how they fit with the working majority calculations. But in the state of the parties above they are assumed to be normal voting MPs.
I make it this, assuming LDs win Brecon:
650 MPs - SF 7 - minus speaker = 642
Tories + DUP = 322
The rest = 642 - 322 = 320
But Tories only lose 1 to dep speakers, since the speaker is a Tory (lol). Lab lose two.
Thus, end result is 321 vs 318.
Tories + DUP = 322 excludes the Speaker already according to HoC website.
Of course we should take the OBR scenario forecasts with a pinch of salt. @Philip_Thompson is right that a lot depends on the assumptions you input and that there is a lot of uncertainty about them, especially since nothing like a no-deal Brexit has ever been tried in an advanced Western economy in peacetime.
The only things is, if you need to apply a pinch of salt to the OBR forecasts, how many buckets of salt do you need to apply to forecasts based on airy hand-waving which assure us that it will all be fine? Do these Leavers ever even countenance the possibility that they might be wrong and the experts might be at least roughly right? And what happens if the experts are roughly right?
This is why I have always supported the deal despite being of the personal view that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated. I may be wrong and it is a stupid risk to take if it can be avoided. This seems, with respect to some of the more ideological no dealers, obvious.
What is the evidence that the consequences of no deal are being wildly overstated?
Is it any more compelling than parroting ‘some other forecasts were wrong on some other occasion’?
No one ever talks about the risk of remaining. Are there really none?
Yes, but we can mitigate those risks though our influence as members.
As non-members, not so much.
Do you have recent, meaningful examples of our ability to influence?
I believe we were highly influential in the drafting of GDPR. Something that has had enormous positive impact in a very short period of time.
Positive? The man hours wasted on producing crappy policies that no one ever reads, additional bureaucracy and extra regulation with the added bonus of fines to justify the regulator's existence and salaries is bordering on tragic. Has anyone on here ever looked at anyone's cookie policy or done anything other than tick yes to get the nonsense off the screen?
Pause.
Actually, yes. Me. It only takes a moment. Although I do not do it often I do do it occasionally.
Well there's always one isn't there? I recall that Google or someone put in red and bold in their terms and conditions that signing up to these conditions meant the loss of your eternal soul and no one ever queried it. These things may benefit the lawyers paid to draft them but absolutely no one else.
Regarding the attempt to block prorogation, isn't there a very easy work around even if the amendment passes? Simply push back royal assent for the Northern Ireland bill until early November.
Comments
We learnt today that May never told the EU she would go for No Deal. They haven't yet faced anything other than under-arm deliveries.....
I'd currently assess the odds as:
Deal: 10%
Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum): 45%
No deal: 45%
Both codes can now be used to organize a transfer and end your old contract without having to spend ages on the phone listening to crap about upgrades.
I really hope this works out, because it is a scandal how hard it is to close an unwanted mobile contract.
The ERG are going to discover what it feels like to be in a supposedly loving relationship with him.
Deal 40%
Eventual revoke (with or without a further referendum) 50%
No deal 10%
I think Boris (and Fox who has surprised me in recent weeks) know that the deal is optimal but they need to find a way to get it over the line, something May could never find. No deal as a real possibility is their weapon of choice. It is a long way from a no risk game but I think you are slightly pessimistic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49008826
The reason it’s Burt-Benn is they’re both very popular MPs with a lot of respect so a better chance of getting the votes. What’s interesting is that I think Burt voted against the original Grieve amendments so him supporting this action might help further .
I have a feeling this one will pass. But will all of Labour come on board? They're not a happy camp right now ...
Moving the system to how it works for gas/electric which in effect this does is excellent news.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1151700953030123522?s=20
I think it'll pass with him on the face of the bill too.
Deal 75%
No Deal 5%
Ref2/Revoke 20%
Pity we can't all bet with each other, given the variance ...
It's also a poll which I don't think an election campaign would sustain as I suspect a lot of people would make decisions based on least worst likely to win options.
It all came out along the lines 'we' (those involved in consultations and UKGov) wanted. [edited to add] It should also be pointed out that it did not turn out the way others outside the EU wanted (e.g. the US) who would have preferred if it had exempted rather than caught businesses domiciled in those territories.
I suppose it *might* have gone that way entirely by chance, but it was significant, contentious legislation and it came out in the UK's preferred form. This is the evidence I have to suggest that we were highly influential.
Following that "No deal", 75% the UK comes crawling back to sign off something that looks like the deal.
Remain is doubtless a betrayal of democracy, but superior for the economy so might be the best option.
It’s a UK rule and nothing to do with the EU.
A few weeks ago I asked for suggestions for names for this phenomenon. When I have a few minutes I will revisit it, because it's used so often we need a word for it.
It has caused (most, sensible) businesses to completely re-evaluate the way they treat data, privacy, internal data handling policies, information sharing with contractors etc. This is largely because the fines for serious breaches are no longer in the slap-on-the-wrist scale, giving the regulators real teeth.
I've worked with a bunch of different businesses who would not have given a second thought to this, and carried on leaking data to organized crime, without GDPR.
The fact that it, like most things, has been dumbed down to "it's just a click on a cookie policy" by the media, is yet another example of the paucity of our national discourse.
No-deal in 2019: 32%
Deal in 2019: 26%
Art 50 revoked (anytime): 26%
In the meantime, with continued Extinction Rebellion protests, there is the possibility that the Greens could close the gap on the four parties ahead of them.
If there is a market on revoking I'd be interested in betting against that though.
He would be a UK Alex Salmond
The 'problem' for the amendment is the unhappy chaos in the PLP.
Whatever you think of him and his politics, the way he's built genuine activism into his campaign deserves more attention.
Actually, yes. Me. It only takes a moment. Although I do not do it often I do do it occasionally.
Vote Boris, cleanse the stables and get Brexit.
Vote for Grieve-Davey-Starmer - vote for us and we will ignore whatever you want as per usual.
No Deal - 75%
Deal - 20%
Revoke/Remain/Referendum - 5%
I hope I’m wrong though.
https://twitter.com/pablopereza/status/1151811835697487872?s=21
Con+DUP 'government': 322
Everyone else in opposition: 319
There is one vacancy, which is presumably the Brecon seat.
SF don't take their 7 seats.
I suppose there is the issue of Deputy Speakers. I've never been quite clear how they fit with the working majority calculations. But in the state of the parties above they are assumed to be normal voting MPs.
His schtick renders me practically insensible, and I'm not surprised.
I don't think polarising quite captures it.
Who is going to resign over that ?
How about a vote to block a future war against Greenland ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-media-reject-1415832
... seems to be taking a leaf out of Trump's playbook.
650 MPs - SF 7 - minus speaker = 642
Tories + DUP = 322
The rest = 642 - 322 = 320
But Tories only lose 1 to dep speakers, since the speaker is a Tory (lol). Lab lose two.
Thus, end result is 321 vs 318.
Ian Dunt's attempts to "not comment" on Twitter are going about as well as my other half telling me she definitely wouldn't buy another orchid for the house yesterday at Tatton.
"Harris, Warren tie for third place in new 2020 Dem poll, but Biden still leads". See anything missing from that headline?
The party in power have only 312 seats, possibly may regain one to go back to 313 in a week or two. However, we're less than half way through the Parliament and they've carelessly lost five MPs so far (Three to the Tiggers, Nick Boles and now Chris Davies) so its very easy to see them ending the Parliament with less than 310 MPs. Their 'partners' in the DUP are completely unreliable (Thanks for the £1m, we agree to vote with you on Confidence, Supply and Brexit votes... oh hang on, just kidding). They can't go on like this for three more years, its simply not good governance.
Having said all that, there are two reasons why an election isn't desirable. Firstly, Brexit, which is all consuming and we don't really have time for a six/seven week GE campaign before our deadline to leave. An extension will help, or just getting Brexit 'done' to move onto the next stage will also help. But then there is a final stop to an election.
Turkey's aren't going to vote for Christmas! If the current polls are even slightly right, both main parties are at risk of significant cull in numbers. Call me a cynic, but asking an MP to vote for an election and risk their £80k a year, four day a week, gold plated DB pension with all expenses paid..... isn't going to happen.
So three more years of zombie government.
I notice there are fewer folk leaping to the 'stop hyperbolising, he's nothing like a fascist' defence.
Telling lies about the EU is what his entire career is based on.