Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The July local by-elections see the LD surge continuing

SystemSystem Posts: 12,628
edited July 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The July local by-elections see the LD surge continuing

(And that’s not just party political boasting either!)

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,205
    First!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FPT
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
    So basically he fecked the future to make sure he could be PM?

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
    Countercyclical to what? 2005, 2006 etc was a year of high global economic growth. In fact in 2005 Blair and Brown were boasting on the campaign trail about how well the economy was growing and how long a period of growth the country had sustained.

    So why enter the recession with an already maxed out deficit?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FPT
    kjh said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PeterMannion said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1154716173080117248

    The No Deal diehards like Baker and Francois are basically Brexit Party anyway, even refusing to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 thus resulting in us still being in the EU.

    Much like the diehard Remainers like Greening and Grieve who voted against both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and are basically LDs who want to stop Brexit
    I agree about SB and MF being BXP, but JG and DG being remainers doesn't make them 'basically Lib Dems'
    Greening is, Grieve isn't.
    Given the 2019 LDs are simply the "bollocks to Brexit" party, Grieve is.
    What nonsense. It just happens to be the most important issue currently (and sadly for the last few years).

    You might as well say the Conservative party is the 'Bollocks to Remain' party.

    Oh I see your point!
    Yes 100% the Conservative Party should be the 'Bollocks to Remain' party. Remain was ruled out as an option three years ago and every Tory MP bar Ken Clarke to my knowledge was elected on a mandate to Leave. I don't think Ken Clarke personally pledged to Leave so he is the exception to the rule but Soubry, Boles, Heidi Allen, Grieve etc did.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,941
    Philip_Thompson said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
    Countercyclical to what? 2005, 2006 etc was a year of high global economic growth. In fact in 2005 Blair and Brown were boasting on the campaign trail about how well the economy was growing and how long a period of growth the country had sustained.

    So why enter the recession with an already maxed out deficit?
    Because he was introducing Tax credits to ensure people looked favourably on the Labour party. Heck I seem to remember that we qualified for them and at the time I think I was earning £40k although granted Mrs Eek wasn't working.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,035
    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    kjh said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PeterMannion said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1154716173080117248

    The No Deal diehards like Baker and Francois are basically Brexit Party anyway, even refusing to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 thus resulting in us still being in the EU.

    Much like the diehard Remainers like Greening and Grieve who voted against both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and are basically LDs who want to stop Brexit
    I agree about SB and MF being BXP, but JG and DG being remainers doesn't make them 'basically Lib Dems'
    Greening is, Grieve isn't.
    Given the 2019 LDs are simply the "bollocks to Brexit" party, Grieve is.
    What nonsense. It just happens to be the most important issue currently (and sadly for the last few years).

    You might as well say the Conservative party is the 'Bollocks to Remain' party.

    Oh I see your point!
    Yes 100% the Conservative Party should be the 'Bollocks to Remain' party. Remain was ruled out as an option three years ago and every Tory MP bar Ken Clarke to my knowledge was elected on a mandate to Leave. I don't think Ken Clarke personally pledged to Leave so he is the exception to the rule but Soubry, Boles, Heidi Allen, Grieve etc did.
    Not disagreeing with you there. Just having fun.

    Disagree with your description of the 2109 LDs, but understand why you said it.

  • eekeek Posts: 30,941
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Philip_Thompson said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
    Countercyclical to what? 2005, 2006 etc was a year of high global economic growth. In fact in 2005 Blair and Brown were boasting on the campaign trail about how well the economy was growing and how long a period of growth the country had sustained.

    So why enter the recession with an already maxed out deficit?
    Erm, you do remember Gordon Brown steering us around this recession?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

    And "maxed out deficit" is not an economic term. There is no actual credit card. Household economics does have its limits.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,566
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    The voters aren't very impressed by Corbyn

    https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1154699702778155008?s=20
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Beibheirli_C said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Beibheirli_C said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    I'd like to see some detailed polling about how Boris Johnson is regarded by older women. My anecdotal experience is that even fervent Leavers in that group are not impressed.

    Define "Older" ...

    Being on the wrong side of 50 :( my detailed assessment is that I believe he lacks a spine (reportedly run away from too many awkward situations), his pronouncements on race and colour convince me that he is anything but tolerant and if he has a plan we are yet to hear it rather than the vague objectives that he blusters about.

    Executive summary: I cannot think of a role he is fit for, but PM is not it. If he worked me I would fire him.

    You’re far too soft. I’d never have hired him. He’d make a good subject for one of my investigations.
    Well ... yes! I doubt he would ever pass the interview, but if I had inherited him he would be gone at the first opportunity.

    I look at his cabinet and the list of non-entities he is packing it with - Raab, Leadsome, Patel, etc and the only upside I can see is pure entertainment along the lines of the Keystone Cops.
    That’s why women usually make better managers than men: they can spot the shits that are going to ruin any hope of teamwork.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,560
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
    Countercyclical spending assumes that there is a period of saving between the periods of spending. Brown spent in the bad times, but he also spent in the good. That's not countercyclical spending. It's just spending.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/TheHeraldEditor/status/1154727214665142280
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,579
    Baxtering those percentages gives:

    Lib Dem 508
    Lab 47
    SNP 37
    Con 27
    Green 1
    NI 18

    We can but dream....
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,560
    StuartDickson said:

    Beibheirli_C said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Beibheirli_C said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    I'd like to see some detailed polling about how Boris Johnson is regarded by older women. My anecdotal experience is that even fervent Leavers in that group are not impressed.

    Define "Older" ...

    Being on the wrong side of 50 :( my detailed assessment is that I believe he lacks a spine (reportedly run away from too many awkward situations), his pronouncements on race and colour convince me that he is anything but tolerant and if he has a plan we are yet to hear it rather than the vague objectives that he blusters about.

    Executive summary: I cannot think of a role he is fit for, but PM is not it. If he worked me I would fire him.

    You’re far too soft. I’d never have hired him. He’d make a good subject for one of my investigations.
    Well ... yes! I doubt he would ever pass the interview, but if I had inherited him he would be gone at the first opportunity.

    I look at his cabinet and the list of non-entities he is packing it with - Raab, Leadsome, Patel, etc and the only upside I can see is pure entertainment along the lines of the Keystone Cops.
    That’s why women usually make better managers than men: they can spot the shits that are going to ruin any hope of teamwork.
    Hmm. I've lost track of the number of bosses I have had over the years, some were male, some were female, and although you could split them into types, I don't think I could say woman better than man, or vice versa.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    viewcode said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
    Countercyclical spending assumes that there is a period of saving between the periods of spending. Brown spent in the bad times, but he also spent in the good. That's not countercyclical spending. It's just spending.
    Brown also "paid down Tory debt" as he put it, and was the last Chancellor with a surplus (not that that is necessarily a good thing).
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited July 2019
    tpfkar said:

    Baxtering those percentages gives:

    Lib Dem 508
    Lab 47
    SNP 37
    Con 27
    Green 1
    NI 18

    We can but dream....

    Just as an armchair exercise, what would be on PM Swinson’s agenda with such a stunning landslide behind her, and five years of power ahead of her?
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    viewcode said:

    StuartDickson said:

    Beibheirli_C said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Beibheirli_C said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    I'd like to see some detailed polling about how Boris Johnson is regarded by older women. My anecdotal experience is that even fervent Leavers in that group are not impressed.

    Define "Older" ...

    Being on the wrong side of 50 :( my detailed assessment is that I believe he lacks a spine (reportedly run away from too many awkward situations), his pronouncements on race and colour convince me that he is anything but tolerant and if he has a plan we are yet to hear it rather than the vague objectives that he blusters about.

    Executive summary: I cannot think of a role he is fit for, but PM is not it. If he worked me I would fire him.

    You’re far too soft. I’d never have hired him. He’d make a good subject for one of my investigations.
    Well ... yes! I doubt he would ever pass the interview, but if I had inherited him he would be gone at the first opportunity.

    I look at his cabinet and the list of non-entities he is packing it with - Raab, Leadsome, Patel, etc and the only upside I can see is pure entertainment along the lines of the Keystone Cops.
    That’s why women usually make better managers than men: they can spot the shits that are going to ruin any hope of teamwork.
    Hmm. I've lost track of the number of bosses I have had over the years, some were male, some were female, and although you could split them into types, I don't think I could say woman better than man, or vice versa.
    I’ve had a poor female boss, but she was very young and listened to idiots. I’ve had a psychopath as a boss, and he was a man. Looking at other organisations, and listening to friends, I’d say that on average you are likely to be better served by a female boss. Less likely to be totally deranged for a start.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,579
    StuartDickson said:

    tpfkar said:

    Baxtering those percentages gives:

    Lib Dem 508
    Lab 47
    SNP 37
    Con 27
    Green 1
    NI 18

    We can but dream....

    Just as an armchair exercise, what would be on PM Swinson’s agenda with such a stunning landslide behind her, and five years of power ahead of her?
    Ironically, PR, which would wipe that stunning majority away straight away.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,560
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    viewcode said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
    Countercyclical spending assumes that there is a period of saving between the periods of spending. Brown spent in the bad times, but he also spent in the good. That's not countercyclical spending. It's just spending.
    Brown also "paid down Tory debt" as he put it, and was the last Chancellor with a surplus (not that that is necessarily a good thing).
    I think that was in term 1, when they were still sticking to Tory spending plans.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,629
    Interesting take on Boris in the New Yok Times:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/opinion/boris-johnson-britain.html
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    tpfkar said:

    StuartDickson said:

    tpfkar said:

    Baxtering those percentages gives:

    Lib Dem 508
    Lab 47
    SNP 37
    Con 27
    Green 1
    NI 18

    We can but dream....

    Just as an armchair exercise, what would be on PM Swinson’s agenda with such a stunning landslide behind her, and five years of power ahead of her?
    Ironically, PR, which would wipe that stunning majority away straight away.
    Is that it??? Five years of unadulterated power, and she only has one piece of legislation?? No wonder you guys struggle to get MPs elected.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,715
    Through the indifference of English Tories and the repudiation of Remainer centrist dads, that's how the Union will end.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1154722746217226240
  • eekeek Posts: 30,941
    edited July 2019
    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    Not quite by asking for an election on September 3rd - it's just about possible to have an election on October 10th - the 24th October date Parliament had yesterday comes from Boris losing a VoNC on September 3rd / 4th...

  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,403
    StuartDickson said:

    tpfkar said:

    Baxtering those percentages gives:

    Lib Dem 508
    Lab 47
    SNP 37
    Con 27
    Green 1
    NI 18

    We can but dream....

    Just as an armchair exercise, what would be on PM Swinson’s agenda with such a stunning landslide behind her, and five years of power ahead of her?
    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5909d4366ad575794c000000/attachments/original/1495020157/Manifesto-Final.pdf?1495020157

    Here is the manifesto from two years ago, so presumably this with a few changes to reflect newly adopted policies.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    StuartDickson said:

    tpfkar said:

    Baxtering those percentages gives:

    Lib Dem 508
    Lab 47
    SNP 37
    Con 27
    Green 1
    NI 18

    We can but dream....

    Just as an armchair exercise, what would be on PM Swinson’s agenda with such a stunning landslide behind her, and five years of power ahead of her?
    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5909d4366ad575794c000000/attachments/original/1495020157/Manifesto-Final.pdf?1495020157

    Here is the manifesto from two years ago, so presumably this with a few changes to reflect newly adopted policies.
    Er... I was thinking more of a few brief bullet points that could fit on a modest Pledge Card, a la Tony. Not a mass of meaningless waffle.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,403
    StuartDickson said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    StuartDickson said:

    tpfkar said:

    Baxtering those percentages gives:

    Lib Dem 508
    Lab 47
    SNP 37
    Con 27
    Green 1
    NI 18

    We can but dream....

    Just as an armchair exercise, what would be on PM Swinson’s agenda with such a stunning landslide behind her, and five years of power ahead of her?
    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5909d4366ad575794c000000/attachments/original/1495020157/Manifesto-Final.pdf?1495020157

    Here is the manifesto from two years ago, so presumably this with a few changes to reflect newly adopted policies.
    Er... I was thinking more of a few brief bullet points that could fit on a modest Pledge Card, a la Tony. Not a mass of meaningless waffle.
    First you complain about insufficient detail. Then you complain about too much. Then I give up and ignore you. Have a pleasant day.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,479
    edited July 2019
    viewcode said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    viewcode said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
    Countercyclical spending assumes that there is a period of saving between the periods of spending. Brown spent in the bad times, but he also spent in the good. That's not countercyclical spending. It's just spending.
    Brown also "paid down Tory debt" as he put it, and was the last Chancellor with a surplus (not that that is necessarily a good thing).
    I think that was in term 1, when they were still sticking to Tory spending plans.
    Correct. Things were going very well until the second term, and with Blair busy playing as some sort of deputy for Bush it left Brown free to start undoing the good he had done.

    I quite often wonder where we'd be if Brown had kept to the strategy of 1997 to 2001. Economically and politically things seemed pretty good over those years, why tinker? I suspect we would have been a lot better off come the crash, and Brown himself might well have had the confidence to call and win an election before 2010.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    tpfkar said:

    Baxtering those percentages gives:

    Lib Dem 508
    Lab 47
    SNP 37
    Con 27
    Green 1
    NI 18

    We can but dream....

    Corbyn still secure in his position as leader of the opposition then.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    eek said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    Not quite by asking for an election on September 3rd - it's just about possible to have an election on October 10th - the 24th October date Parliament had yesterday comes from Boris losing a VoNC on September 3rd / 4th...

    Doesn't change my point - Boris needs Labour to vote for an election and they will demand an A50 extension as the price of doing so.

    Boris is going to crash and burn and he is going to take Brexit down with him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,566
    edited July 2019
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Through the indifference of English Tories and the repudiation of Remainer centrist dads, that's how the Union will end.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1154722746217226240

    64% of Scottish Leave voters still oppose Scottish independence even if 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back it, putting No to Scottish independence still narrowly ahead despite Brexit

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2019/07/could-brexit-yet-undermine-the-future-of-the-british-state/
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1154732803399061504
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,839
    Cricket going to be all done by lunch...
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    Not quite by asking for an election on September 3rd - it's just about possible to have an election on October 10th - the 24th October date Parliament had yesterday comes from Boris losing a VoNC on September 3rd / 4th...

    Doesn't change my point - Boris needs Labour to vote for an election and they will demand an A50 extension as the price of doing so.

    Boris is going to crash and burn and he is going to take Brexit down with him.
    Boris will go for an election after 31st Oct. Either with his new deal or a no deal brexit, which he will term a 17 deal brexit. In 17 deal brexit he has a window of 3 to 9 months before the slow down in the economy makes headline news.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Cricket going to be all done by lunch...

    Good job we bowl deep.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,629
    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    We could have a one clause Bill to repeal the FTPA on day one of the new sitting, with Boris imposing a three-line whip. Why would Labour want to keep it? It hedges round restrictions on the very election they say they want.

    That would provide plenty of time to call an election befoe 31st October. Where Boris goes for No Deal (although, ironically, with a deal with Farage that the Brexit Party won't stand candidates). Whilst Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP and Plaid can all fight over whether they would revoke Article 50, have a second referendum (which they might or might not honour, depending on the outcome) or Rejoin if Boris wins.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    ralphmalph said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    Not quite by asking for an election on September 3rd - it's just about possible to have an election on October 10th - the 24th October date Parliament had yesterday comes from Boris losing a VoNC on September 3rd / 4th...

    Doesn't change my point - Boris needs Labour to vote for an election and they will demand an A50 extension as the price of doing so.

    Boris is going to crash and burn and he is going to take Brexit down with him.
    Boris will go for an election after 31st Oct. Either with his new deal or a no deal brexit, which he will term a 17 deal brexit. In 17 deal brexit he has a window of 3 to 9 months before the slow down in the economy makes headline news.
    No, Boris will be brought down by a VONC if he tries to go for no deal. And the chances of him getting a new deal from the EU are vanishingly small and he is busy making them smaller by the day.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    I think the Lib Dem surge is partly the result of the emergence of a new voter species called Homo remainicus. These guys calmly and rationally examine the voting options and pick the vote most likely to at least soften and preferably frustrate Brexit. They voted Labour in 2017, except in Scotland. They voted Lib Dem or Green in the Euro elections. And they will usually vote Lib Dem in locals, but might vote for the Greens or Labour if there is a good local case for doing so.

    Every time Boris opens his mouth he is likely to create more of them.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    edited July 2019
    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    eek said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    Not quite by asking for an election on September 3rd - it's just about possible to have an election on October 10th - the 24th October date Parliament had yesterday comes from Boris losing a VoNC on September 3rd / 4th...

    But Corbyn would only agree to that on condition of an extension beyond 31st October.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited July 2019
    The Lib Dems have had half an hour to outline a five year programme... and managed to come up with one piece of legislation: PR. Which was the only well-known LD policy back in the 1980s.

    You guys have a problem: we all know what you are against, Brexit. But what on earth are you for? Short and snappy, a la Tony. Don’t be shy.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Through the indifference of English Tories and the repudiation of Remainer centrist dads, that's how the Union will end.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1154722746217226240

    Not to mention the votes of "civic nationalists" like yourself.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kjh said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    kjh said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    PeterMannion said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1154716173080117248

    The No Deal diehards like Baker and Francois are basically Brexit Party anyway, even refusing to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 thus resulting in us still being in the EU.

    Much like the diehard Remainers like Greening and Grieve who voted against both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and are basically LDs who want to stop Brexit
    I agree about SB and MF being BXP, but JG and DG being remainers doesn't make them 'basically Lib Dems'
    Greening is, Grieve isn't.
    Given the 2019 LDs are simply the "bollocks to Brexit" party, Grieve is.
    What nonsense. It just happens to be the most important issue currently (and sadly for the last few years).

    You might as well say the Conservative party is the 'Bollocks to Remain' party.

    Oh I see your point!
    Yes 100% the Conservative Party should be the 'Bollocks to Remain' party. Remain was ruled out as an option three years ago and every Tory MP bar Ken Clarke to my knowledge was elected on a mandate to Leave. I don't think Ken Clarke personally pledged to Leave so he is the exception to the rule but Soubry, Boles, Heidi Allen, Grieve etc did.
    Not disagreeing with you there. Just having fun.

    Disagree with your description of the 2109 LDs, but understand why you said it.

    Its entirely possible at this rate Britain will still be arguing over Brexit in 2109!!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/dsonpolitics/status/1154733713512706048
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    And another one - 14.1 overs - is that some sort of record ?
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    anothernick said:

    ralphmalph said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    Not quite by asking for an election on September 3rd - it's just about possible to have an election on October 10th - the 24th October date Parliament had yesterday comes from Boris losing a VoNC on September 3rd / 4th...

    Doesn't change my point - Boris needs Labour to vote for an election and they will demand an A50 extension as the price of doing so.

    Boris is going to crash and burn and he is going to take Brexit down with him.
    Boris will go for an election after 31st Oct. Either with his new deal or a no deal brexit, which he will term a 17 deal brexit. In 17 deal brexit he has a window of 3 to 9 months before the slow down in the economy makes headline news.
    No, Boris will be brought down by a VONC if he tries to go for no deal. And the chances of him getting a new deal from the EU are vanishingly small and he is busy making them smaller by the day.
    Does Corbyn want to win an election before or after brexit is done?

    I would argue after and especially in the case of no deal, he will be on the stump with the message that the country needs lots of money spent and nationalisations galore to protect jobs because of the Nasty Tory do deal Brexit.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    StuartDickson said:

    The Lib Dems have had half an hour to outline a five year programme... and managed to come up with one piece of legislation: PR. Which was the only well-known LD policy back in the 1980s.

    You guys have a problem: we all know what you are against, Brexit. But what on earth are you for? Short and snappy, a la Tony. Don’t be shy.

    They're pro-weed, dopey.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/dsonpolitics/status/1154733713512706048

    If only we had more than two constituencies priced up (Islington N and Uxbridge).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    PS if "economic growth" is the solution @DecrepitJohnL why did Brown not have a balanced budget in any of the years prior to the recession while we were growing?

    The fact is he consistently overspent for years and then when the recession hit that blew the finances apart.

    Brown did not overspend; Brown was the last Chancellor to run a surplus; a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing anyway.

    But deficit hawks should look away now if Boris actually means any of the spending commitments he has given, even without the effects of a possible crash-out Brexit.
    Brown in 2001 was not overspending. Then he turned the taps on.

    Given 2001 Brown was able to run a surplus, why did he run a maxed-out deficit continually for half a decade prior to the financial crisis?

    We were growing, there had been no downturn. So why wasn't there a balanced budget? Why were there no savings put aside for the next inevitable recession?

    Or did Brown eliminate boom and bust so there would be no future recession and no need to put aside for it? Pah!
    Part of the reason there was no downturn was Brown's countercyclical spending.
    Countercyclical to what? 2005, 2006 etc was a year of high global economic growth. In fact in 2005 Blair and Brown were boasting on the campaign trail about how well the economy was growing and how long a period of growth the country had sustained.

    So why enter the recession with an already maxed out deficit?
    Erm, you do remember Gordon Brown steering us around this recession?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

    And "maxed out deficit" is not an economic term. There is no actual credit card. Household economics does have its limits.
    Yes there was a very minor global recession in 2000-2001, yet the UK at that time was running a surplus. Great!

    The deficit expanded between 2002 onwards, so was not countercyclical. Come 2007 we'd had over half a decade of global economic boom.

    And yes given the commitment we had made to keep deficits below 3%, Brown had maxed out the deficit. It was permanently above 2% so he could say it was below 3% which is fine as a long term average but not as a boomtime deficit to enter a recession with.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    StuartDickson said:

    The Lib Dems have had half an hour to outline a five year programme... and managed to come up with one piece of legislation: PR. Which was the only well-known LD policy back in the 1980s.

    You guys have a problem: we all know what you are against, Brexit. But what on earth are you for? Short and snappy, a la Tony. Don’t be shy.

    They're pro-weed, dopey.
    That would explain their tardiness.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    MarqueeMark said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    We could have a one clause Bill to repeal the FTPA on day one of the new sitting, with Boris imposing a three-line whip. Why would Labour want to keep it? It hedges round restrictions on the very election they say they want.

    That would provide plenty of time to call an election befoe 31st October. Where Boris goes for No Deal (although, ironically, with a deal with Farage that the Brexit Party won't stand candidates). Whilst Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP and Plaid can all fight over whether they would revoke Article 50, have a second referendum (which they might or might not honour, depending on the outcome) or Rejoin if Boris wins.
    That won't work . The Lords would certinly block it never mind the Opposition.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,354
    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Through the indifference of English Tories and the repudiation of Remainer centrist dads, that's how the Union will end.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1154722746217226240

    64% of Scottish Leave voters still oppose Scottish independence even if 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back it, putting No to Scottish independence still narrowly ahead despite Brexit

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2019/07/could-brexit-yet-undermine-the-future-of-the-british-state/
    I think there's quite a bit wishful thinking at work. A lot of people seem to think that the breakup of the UK would be a fitting punishment for having voted to leave the EU.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    The Podsmead local by-election result is very interesting. It's an example of exactly what I, and others, were arguing about in terms of tactical voting. If a few voters who had voted Lib Dem had decided to vote "tactically" for Labour, because Labour won the ward at the previous election, then the Conservatives would have sneaked it just ahead of the Lib Dems.

    I think that potential for confusion gives Johnson a great chance of winning a majority.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Shorty Blitz used to be my start of the weekend but they he doesn't do it anymore; and they don't even do the hotmix anymore, for shame 4music.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,715
    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1154728256672866305

    'the greatest political union ever'

    Reminiscent of the style of another hyperbolist, can't quite put my finger on who it is though.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Through the indifference of English Tories and the repudiation of Remainer centrist dads, that's how the Union will end.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1154722746217226240

    64% of Scottish Leave voters still oppose Scottish independence even if 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back it, putting No to Scottish independence still narrowly ahead despite Brexit

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2019/07/could-brexit-yet-undermine-the-future-of-the-british-state/
    I think there's quite a bit wishful thinking at work. A lot of people seem to think that the breakup of the UK would be a fitting punishment for having voted to leave the EU.
    Well, you have been naughty boys. How would you like to be punished?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,839
    Thibaut Pinot is in huge trouble in tour de france. Looks done for.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    England win the test match - never in doubt I guess
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,403
    StuartDickson said:

    The Lib Dems have had half an hour to outline a five year programme... and managed to come up with one piece of legislation: PR. Which was the only well-known LD policy back in the 1980s.

    You guys have a problem: we all know what you are against, Brexit. But what on earth are you for? Short and snappy, a la Tony. Don’t be shy.

    I have, but you were too lazy to read it. Your problem, not the Lib Dems'.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    So is the cricket some sort of political omen?

    Under PM May the Irish were crushing the English.

    Under PM Boris the tables were swiftly turned and led to an Irish collapse.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    StuartDickson said:

    The Lib Dems have had half an hour to outline a five year programme... and managed to come up with one piece of legislation: PR. Which was the only well-known LD policy back in the 1980s.

    You guys have a problem: we all know what you are against, Brexit. But what on earth are you for? Short and snappy, a la Tony. Don’t be shy.

    You haven't been listening Stuart .....

    "BOLLOCKS"
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    OblitusSumMe said:

    The Podsmead local by-election result is very interesting. It's an example of exactly what I, and others, were arguing about in terms of tactical voting. If a few voters who had voted Lib Dem had decided to vote "tactically" for Labour, because Labour won the ward at the previous election, then the Conservatives would have sneaked it just ahead of the Lib Dems.

    I think that potential for confusion gives Johnson a great chance of winning a majority.

    It depends what the tactics are trying to achieve. If your primary aim was to send a message on Brexit then voting Lib Dem in a local council makes sense - regardless of whether or not they actually win. At a general election the same impulse would lead to voting with whoever might reduce the size of the Tories' majority.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    ralphmalph said:



    Does Corbyn want to win an election before or after brexit is done?

    I would argue after and especially in the case of no deal, he will be on the stump with the message that the country needs lots of money spent and nationalisations galore to protect jobs because of the Nasty Tory do deal Brexit.

    If Boris goes for no deal Corbyn will have a never-to-be-repeated opportunity to bring him down with a VONC, which in those circumstances, and those circumstances only, would be supported by quite a few Tory MPs. It's quite possible that this could result in Corbyn becoming PM and going into an election on that basis. There is no doubt whatever that he would take such an opportunity.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,294
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Through the indifference of English Tories and the repudiation of Remainer centrist dads, that's how the Union will end.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1154722746217226240

    64% of Scottish Leave voters still oppose Scottish independence even if 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back it, putting No to Scottish independence still narrowly ahead despite Brexit

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2019/07/could-brexit-yet-undermine-the-future-of-the-british-state/
    I think there's quite a bit wishful thinking at work. A lot of people seem to think that the breakup of the UK would be a fitting punishment for having voted to leave the EU.
    I don’t want the break up of the Union.

    What I want is Brexit is seen as such an error that UK ends up rejoining the EU replete with membership of the Euro PDQ.

    The reaction of Leavers would be awesome.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,464
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?

    How close to a record is getting 85 first time out and still winning a completed match?
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Shame Brexit party haven't got any seats yet - they were my euro election vote but I was too agoraphobic on the day.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Sandpit said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?

    How close to a record is getting 85 first time out and still winning a completed match?
    Interesting question.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,715
    Fake growth.

    https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/1154732465711435777

    Q4 adjusted from 2.2% to 1.1% seems pretty substantial.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Theuniondivvie said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1154728256672866305

    'the greatest political union ever'

    Reminiscent of the style of another hyperbolist, can't quite put my finger on who it is though.

    Il Duce was fond of that “Mare Nostrum” shit.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_Fascist_Italy
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Through the indifference of English Tories and the repudiation of Remainer centrist dads, that's how the Union will end.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1154722746217226240

    64% of Scottish Leave voters still oppose Scottish independence even if 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back it, putting No to Scottish independence still narrowly ahead despite Brexit

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2019/07/could-brexit-yet-undermine-the-future-of-the-british-state/
    I think there's quite a bit wishful thinking at work. A lot of people seem to think that the breakup of the UK would be a fitting punishment for having voted to leave the EU.
    I don’t want the break up of the Union.

    What I want is Brexit is seen as such an error that UK ends up rejoining the EU replete with membership of the Euro PDQ.

    The reaction of Leavers would be awesome.
    What odds would you put on that happening?
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    edited July 2019
    Sandpit said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?

    How close to a record is getting 85 first time out and still winning a completed match?
    No idea - I just watch the 2020 and ODI mainly and I still don't have much of a clue
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sandpit said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?

    How close to a record is getting 85 first time out and still winning a completed match?
    According to BBC it is "the fifth-lowest first innings score to then win a Test and the lowest since 1907."
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Through the indifference of English Tories and the repudiation of Remainer centrist dads, that's how the Union will end.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1154722746217226240

    64% of Scottish Leave voters still oppose Scottish independence even if 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back it, putting No to Scottish independence still narrowly ahead despite Brexit

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2019/07/could-brexit-yet-undermine-the-future-of-the-british-state/
    I think there's quite a bit wishful thinking at work. A lot of people seem to think that the breakup of the UK would be a fitting punishment for having voted to leave the EU.
    I don’t want the break up of the Union.

    What I want is Brexit is seen as such an error that UK ends up rejoining the EU replete with membership of the Euro PDQ.

    The reaction of Leavers would be awesome.
    Oh I think deep down the leavers would be relieved. Loads more to moan about and no responsibility for anything.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Fake growth.

    https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/1154732465711435777

    Q4 adjusted from 2.2% to 1.1% seems pretty substantial.

    WTF!? How do you make such a mammoth error?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,839
    edited July 2019
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Fake growth.

    twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/1154732465711435777

    Q4 adjusted from 2.2% to 1.1% seems pretty substantial.

    How do you get your estimate quite so wrong? Somebody fat fingered the spreadsheet?
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,403
    Sandpit said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?

    How close to a record is getting 85 first time out and still winning a completed match?
    Fifth lowest first innings in a winning match... but all the others were more than a century ago on (presumably) exceptionally awful wickets.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,969
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Fake growth.

    twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/1154732465711435777

    Q4 adjusted from 2.2% to 1.1% seems pretty substantial.

    How do you get your estimate quite so wrong? Somebody fat fingered the spreadsheet?
    I wonder if Trump will highlight the Q4 error on twitter ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,464
    edited July 2019
    AndyJS said:

    Sandpit said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?

    How close to a record is getting 85 first time out and still winning a completed match?
    Interesting question.
    Another one would be how many times a team has won a match by more than their first innings total? It’s a win by an innings and runs, but based on our second innings score.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    JackW said:

    StuartDickson said:

    The Lib Dems have had half an hour to outline a five year programme... and managed to come up with one piece of legislation: PR. Which was the only well-known LD policy back in the 1980s.

    You guys have a problem: we all know what you are against, Brexit. But what on earth are you for? Short and snappy, a la Tony. Don’t be shy.

    You haven't been listening Stuart .....

    "BOLLOCKS"
    Oki doki, so far the Lib Dem pledgcard has:
    1. PR
    2. take a toke of this Camberwell Carrot man
    3. BOLLOCKS!

    What does PM Vicky Pollard do with the other 4 years 8 months in government?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,839
    edited July 2019
    Pinot abandons...typical French, surrenders when things get a bit tough ;-)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited July 2019
    Joe Root: wicket was sub-standard for a test match.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,479
    Pulpstar said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Fake growth.

    twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/1154732465711435777

    Q4 adjusted from 2.2% to 1.1% seems pretty substantial.

    How do you get your estimate quite so wrong? Somebody fat fingered the spreadsheet?
    I wonder if Trump will highlight the Q4 error on twitter ?
    He's more likely to keep retweeting the old figures.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,827
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    Sandpit said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?

    How close to a record is getting 85 first time out and still winning a completed match?
    Interesting question.
    Another one would be how many times a team has won a match by more than their first innings total? It’s an win by an innings and runs, but based on our second innings score.
    I imagine that's probably been more common.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,969
    Much bigger scores but the England match reminds me of this one in a slightly weird way : https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10682/scorecard/1019985/new-zealand-vs-bangladesh-1st-test-bangladesh-tour-of-new-zealand-2016-17
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Afternoon Morris,

    Shouldn't you be watching FP2 ?

    And remember - don't forget to tip whoever's quickest in FP3 for pole.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,464
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?

    How close to a record is getting 85 first time out and still winning a completed match?
    According to BBC it is "the fifth-lowest first innings score to then win a Test and the lowest since 1907."
    Impressive from England. Not sure the convicts are getting too worried yet though!
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Philip_Thompson said:

    So is the cricket some sort of political omen?

    Under PM May the Irish were crushing the English.

    Under PM Boris the tables were swiftly turned and led to an Irish collapse.

    T May was in the stands yesterday for the best day of English batting. Perhaps she's a good luck charm for the team (and the nation?)
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    AndyJS said:

    Sandpit said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Just turned on the cricket thought it was rained off for today.

    Did anyone seriously think England would let Ireland win this one?

    How close to a record is getting 85 first time out and still winning a completed match?
    Interesting question.
    TMS said the record was 45.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    edited July 2019
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Through the indifference of English Tories and the repudiation of Remainer centrist dads, that's how the Union will end.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1154722746217226240

    64% of Scottish Leave voters still oppose Scottish independence even if 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back it, putting No to Scottish independence still narrowly ahead despite Brexit

    http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2019/07/could-brexit-yet-undermine-the-future-of-the-british-state/
    I think there's quite a bit wishful thinking at work. A lot of people seem to think that the breakup of the UK would be a fitting punishment for having voted to leave the EU.
    I don’t want the break up of the Union.

    What I want is Brexit is seen as such an error that UK ends up rejoining the EU replete with membership of the Euro PDQ.

    The reaction of Leavers would be awesome.
    The break up of the UK is the most plausible way that England could end up in the Eurozone. I don't see the UK rejoining as the UK if we leave.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    justin124 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    We could have a one clause Bill to repeal the FTPA on day one of the new sitting, with Boris imposing a three-line whip. Why would Labour want to keep it? It hedges round restrictions on the very election they say they want.

    That would provide plenty of time to call an election befoe 31st October. Where Boris goes for No Deal (although, ironically, with a deal with Farage that the Brexit Party won't stand candidates). Whilst Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP and Plaid can all fight over whether they would revoke Article 50, have a second referendum (which they might or might not honour, depending on the outcome) or Rejoin if Boris wins.
    That won't work . The Lords would certinly block it never mind the Opposition.
    Yes. Boris is skewered - parliament will stop no deal, the EU will not change the deal and he cannot call an election without fatally undermining his credibility. He is completely and utterly f*ck*d.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,466
    Speaking as a SW voter, I really cannot see the Tories pushing for an election in the light of this......across the SW of England there are a stack of seats that could fall in a GE to a targetted LD push...a decade ago all of Cornwall's seats were LD not to mention couple in Somerset. Even a flicker of support for BXP could cause dramas for the Blues....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,464
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Afternoon Morris,

    Shouldn't you be watching FP2 ?

    And remember - don't forget to tip whoever's quickest in FP3 for pole.

    The forecast for tomorrow is thunderstorms. It could be a long day for teams and drivers. Sunday is also looking wet, but not so severely so.

    Hot and sunny today though.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,403
    AndyJS said:

    Joe Root: wicket was sub-standard for a test match.

    That's nonsense. 303 in England second innings. 92 for nightwatchman. Ireland top order all getting a start but not pushing on in first innings. None of these point to batsman's graveyard.

    What we had was England mental fragility in their first innings, Ireland showing inexperience in first innings, England posting adequate total balance n second but some not turning up, and total emotional collapse by Ireland chasing a gettable total for first Test victory. Nothing to do with the man in charge of the roller, for goodness sake.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    How many people are likely to see this?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,464
    anothernick said:

    justin124 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    anothernick said:

    eek said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn might be biased but I don't think he is very impressed by Boris.

    More significantly, perhaps, he calls for a referendum on Brexit or an election.

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1154452449123622915

    Blooming idiot - that means when challenged for an election he will have to accept it...
    Of course he will.

    But there will be a price. Boris will be forced to backtrack on his promise to leave on October 31, and his credibility will thus suffer what in all likelihood will be a fatal blow. Farage will instantly go into betrayal mode and the ERG will follow.

    There is not time for an election by 31 October unless Boris recalls parliament and kicks off the process now. Even if he starts it at the beginning of September the election could not be until mid-October at the earliest and the opposition parties would, quite reasonably, say that we cannot be faced with a no deal cliff edge a few days after polling day. If Boris is to get the required 2/3 majority to call an election he will have to seek an extension of A50 the length of which will be dictated by Labour and the EU - I guess they would probably go for at least 6 months, perhaps longer.

    The FTPA has taken away the PM's power to call an election - it's incredible how many journalists and other chatterers seem not to understand that.
    We could have a one clause Bill to repeal the FTPA on day one of the new sitting, with Boris imposing a three-line whip. Why would Labour want to keep it? It hedges round restrictions on the very election they say they want.

    That would provide plenty of time to call an election befoe 31st October. Where Boris goes for No Deal (although, ironically, with a deal with Farage that the Brexit Party won't stand candidates). Whilst Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP and Plaid can all fight over whether they would revoke Article 50, have a second referendum (which they might or might not honour, depending on the outcome) or Rejoin if Boris wins.
    That won't work . The Lords would certinly block it never mind the Opposition.
    Yes. Boris is skewered - parliament will stop no deal, the EU will not change the deal and he cannot call an election without fatally undermining his credibility. He is completely and utterly f*ck*d.
    How does “Parliament stop no deal”? What are mechanics of how this comes about?
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    I think the EU did well in their first test match in England.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025