Sensible left of centre folk need to ask why, after nearly a decade of Tory rule, victory is not assured at the next general election. In fact, they may even go backwards. After six+ years of cuts, the divisive referendum and three years of post-referendum stagnation, why?
Obvious answer include; the last lab government was the longest ever and that legacy will take time to recover from, UK (mainly England) is innately conversative, in 2015 the LDs rather than the tories got a lot of the blame, The EU ref remodeled the political landscape into leave/remain rather than left/right.
Then I saw a post, it was either here or on twitter (kudos to whoever it was) that made me think. It's about adaptability. The Tory party is adept at change which makes it a formidable foe. Just look at where we have come from 2010 to now. The socially liberal fiscally conservative coalition, the key message was compromise and competence - almost dull by today standards. Contrast that with the current gov - inflamed rhetoric, prepared to countenance a hard brexit and the subsequent economic hit, splashing cash left and right.
Just goes to show, you don't always need an election for a fundamental shift in the direction of the government....
Utter bollocks. Use your brain. How could the EU even begin to negotiate with Scotland when Scotland’s relationship with England - including debt, currency, central bank, deficit, border, trade - was still in flux? The EU would refuse to get involved until Scotland was fully indy.
It amazes me how those Remainers who (rightly) pointed out that quitting the EU would be a political and bureaucratic nightmare, simultaneously insist that Scotland quitting the UK AND rejoining the EU would be a stroll in the park.
You're arguing against straw men. I specifically said it would be challenging -- not a stroll in the park -- for Scotland to rejoin. I am merely saying that your assertion that it would be a case of starting from scratch is wrong and that a break between independence and joining as a member is far from certain.
A break is certain. Because of the unusual situation with currency, bank, debt and borders, for a start. The EU could not negotiate with an actor whose position was so obscure and legally problematic. The only solution would be: go fully INDY first, Edinburgh, then get back to us. All else is gibberish.
Sensible left of centre folk need to ask why, after nearly a decade of Tory rule, victory is not assured at the next general election. In fact, they may even go backwards. After six+ years of cuts, the divisive referendum and three years of post-referendum stagnation, why?
Obvious answer include; the last lab government was the longest ever and that legacy will take time to recover from, UK (mainly England) is innately conversative, in 2015 the LDs rather than the tories got a lot of the blame, The EU ref remodeled the political landscape into leave/remain rather than left/right.
Then I saw a post, it was either here or on twitter (kudos to whoever it was) that made me think. It's about adaptability. The Tory party is adept at change which makes it a formidable foe. Just look at where we have come from 2010 to now. The socially liberal fiscally conservative coalition, the key message was compromise and competence - almost dull by today standards. Contrast that with the current gov - inflamed rhetoric, prepared to countenance a hard brexit and the subsequent economic hit, splashing cash left and right.
Just goes to show, you don't always need an election for a fundamental shift in the direction of the government....
I am amazed that an answer to the first sentence does not include Jeremy Corbyn.
Regarding Bolsover, it is a good example of the sort of Midlands mining seat that is shifting demographically from Lab to Con.
A while ago I tried to do a Cook PI for various seats.
In 1992 Bolsover was 47 points more Labour than the nation. In 2005, it was still 45 points more Labour than the nation. However, by 2017 this had shrunk to only 13 points more Labour than the nation (Con have to be 13 points ahead of Lab to win this seat on UNS)
It's probably still just about out of reach for the Cons but I can see them picking it up in the next 10-20 years. Skinner going in due course will also help them.
Sensible left of centre folk need to ask why, after nearly a decade of Tory rule, victory is not assured at the next general election. In fact, they may even go backwards. After six+ years of cuts, the divisive referendum and three years of post-referendum stagnation, why?
Obvious answer include; the last lab government was the longest ever and that legacy will take time to recover from, UK (mainly England) is innately conversative, in 2015 the LDs rather than the tories got a lot of the blame, The EU ref remodeled the political landscape into leave/remain rather than left/right.
Then I saw a post, it was either here or on twitter (kudos to whoever it was) that made me think. It's about adaptability. The Tory party is adept at change which makes it a formidable foe. Just look at where we have come from 2010 to now. The socially liberal fiscally conservative coalition, the key message was compromise and competence - almost dull by today standards. Contrast that with the current gov - inflamed rhetoric, prepared to countenance a hard brexit and the subsequent economic hit, splashing cash left and right.
Just goes to show, you don't always need an election for a fundamental shift in the direction of the government....
I don't think it's that fundamental, I think it's just that there's generally a cycle of
Lose election -> Interfere with yourself in a gentleman's manner -> Lose another couple of elections -> Choose a leader based on who can actually win -> Win
However Labour went with someone pretty moderate early on and started the self-indulgence part late, and they're going to need at least one more defeat before they're ready to leave their bedroom.
GNU does look tricky. Once we dismiss Corbyn on numbers, even candidates like Beckett would struggle when you have Soames saying he wont vote down 'my government', others of the 21 less pearl clutched than Grieve, Gauke and Greening may feel the same
VONCing Boris (and HMG) might depend on Boris quietly encouraging some on his own side to vote against him, as he is rumoured to have done in the leadership election.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
GNU does look tricky. Once we dismiss Corbyn on numbers, even candidates like Beckett would struggle when you have Soames saying he wont vote down 'my government', others of the 21 less pearl clutched than Grieve, Gauke and Greening may feel the same
Leaving Johnson in place for a period after he has been forced to extend would probably be beneficial to opposition parties anyway - Farage would be in full betrayal mode and all the "do or die" rhetoric would be thrown back at him. I'm not sure that blaming parliament would wash - it's a kind of "dog ate my homework" excuse.
GNU does look tricky. Once we dismiss Corbyn on numbers, even candidates like Beckett would struggle when you have Soames saying he wont vote down 'my government', others of the 21 less pearl clutched than Grieve, Gauke and Greening may feel the same
GNU does look tricky. Once we dismiss Corbyn on numbers, even candidates like Beckett would struggle when you have Soames saying he wont vote down 'my government', others of the 21 less pearl clutched than Grieve, Gauke and Greening may feel the same
Bear in mind that not only was the government's majority basically zero *before* the 21 became available, also the pool of people voting to VONC the old government doesn't have to be exactly the same as the pool of people voting to sustain the new one. I think the general project (certainly replacing the PM, probably GNU) now has the votes quite easily if it's needed, although it may still all fall apart when it comes to the detail.
Sensible left of centre folk need to ask why, after nearly a decade of Tory rule, victory is not assured at the next general election.
Fundamentally it's down to the FPTP voting system.
It certainly is. Without PR many millions of people might as well not bother. As they live in safe seats , which never change.
I live in a safe Conservative seat. Where if you vote Lib Dem or Labour , is just wasted and does not count in reality. The system in England is a f ing disgrace, in a so called modern democracy.
GNU does look tricky. Once we dismiss Corbyn on numbers, even candidates like Beckett would struggle when you have Soames saying he wont vote down 'my government', others of the 21 less pearl clutched than Grieve, Gauke and Greening may feel the same
Yes which is why I think it has to be an all-but-gone tory ... or John Bercow
Sensible left of centre folk need to ask why, after nearly a decade of Tory rule, victory is not assured at the next general election.
Fundamentally it's down to the FPTP voting system.
It certainly is. Without PR many millions of people might as well not bother. As they live in safe seats , which never change.
I live in a safe Conservative seat. Where if you vote Lib Dem or Labour , is just wasted and does not count in reality. The system in England is a f ing disgrace, in a so called modern democracy.
Furthermore it doesn't seem to do what it's supposed to do any more, which is create "stable one-party government" [sic] (RIP 2010)
Cummings probably doesn't care too much about the future of the Tory party
I think this is a flaw in an otherwise perceptive post. He very much does care about the future of the tory party in that he doesn't want it to have one. He absolutely despises its core values of continuity, tradition, veneration of establishment and wolfbagging the downstairs staff.
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
Corbyn in Swinson's pocket maybe not in Sturgeon's who is seen as an anti English Scottish nationalist and every poll anyway has Swinson as Kingmaker not Sturgeon now if the Tories do not win a majority
People down south are very ignorant of anything outside England, hence the stupidity of thinking Swinson is of any importance, the 4th party will be hangers on and an impotent Swinson less than useless.
If she isn't of any importance why do you keep attacking her?
Because she is like a wasp round your pint.
Insignificant in the grand scheme of things but very annoying.
In my view the Opposition are playing a very dangerous game. Johnson will defy the Benn Act - he will simply ignore it. Which cuts it very fine indeed for a successful VONC and extension, even if Parliament sits and isn't prorogued.
They have one clear course of action, which is to have the courage and unity to install a caretaker.
Bicker and / or dither amongst themselves and they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'm jittery. In that kind-of-SeanT way just before the climax.
GNU does look tricky. Once we dismiss Corbyn on numbers, even candidates like Beckett would struggle when you have Soames saying he wont vote down 'my government', others of the 21 less pearl clutched than Grieve, Gauke and Greening may feel the same
Yes which is why I think it has to be an all-but-gone tory ... or John Bercow
Rudd is probably the logical choice. Grieve has burned too many bridges, letwin is a cartoon character, Gauke is possible I suppose Bercow would be taking the piss royally
Cummings probably doesn't care too much about the future of the Tory party
I think this is a flaw in an otherwise perceptive post. He very much does care about the future of the tory party in that he doesn't want it to have one. He absolutely despises its core values of continuity, tradition, veneration of establishment and wolfbagging the downstairs staff.
Cummings may be a sociopath but there’s no doubt he’s very very bright.
I'll have to ask you what evidence you have for that. His record in education, Brexit, constitutional affairs is that of somebody with very limited intellect albeit boundless arrogance.
Nephew of a judge, son-in-law of a baronet, he has the typical arrogance of a member of the establishment elite.
Don’t be pathetic
The Wakefields are among the loveliest most down to earth people you could hope to meet
(Disclosure: I’ve known Jack, Mary’s brother, since I was 3 or 4)
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
Regarding Bolsover, it is a good example of the sort of Midlands mining seat that is shifting demographically from Lab to Con.
A while ago I tried to do a Cook PI for various seats.
In 1992 Bolsover was 47 points more Labour than the nation. In 2005, it was still 45 points more Labour than the nation. However, by 2017 this had shrunk to only 13 points more Labour than the nation (Con have to be 13 points ahead of Lab to win this seat on UNS)
It's probably still just about out of reach for the Cons but I can see them picking it up in the next 10-20 years. Skinner going in due course will also help them.
I'm sure Skinner has his fans, but isn't he getting a bit long in the tooth now for the job? I would have voted for him once, but now.......
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Johnson just needs to bring something back from the EU. When the opposition vote it down and use tricksies to force an extension their utter roasting at a GE becomes guaranteed. 'How did you catch them all in the one bear trap?' 'They had a meeting and agreed to walk into it together'
Does anyone do any polling about views of SNP south of the border? I'm wondering how many English and Welsh voters view the SNP positively now? If the SNP were seen as a moderating force on Corbynism, I could imagine a Tory advertising campaign of Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket massively backfiring.
Corbyn in Swinson's pocket maybe not in Sturgeon's who is seen as an anti English Scottish nationalist and every poll anyway has Swinson as Kingmaker not Sturgeon now if the Tories do not win a majority
People down south are very ignorant of anything outside England, hence the stupidity of thinking Swinson is of any importance, the 4th party will be hangers on and an impotent Swinson less than useless.
If she isn't of any importance why do you keep attacking her?
Because she is like a wasp round your pint.
Insignificant in the grand scheme of things but very annoying.
Still will soon be swatted.
In this analogy you're a person with a wasp sting allergy, so the presence draws real fear. Those without ignore wasps.
I guess using "non papers" instead of papers is a way to make things true and not true at the same time, which is the first principle of the brexiteer religion.
Cummings probably doesn't care too much about the future of the Tory party
I think this is a flaw in an otherwise perceptive post. He very much does care about the future of the tory party in that he doesn't want it to have one. He absolutely despises its core values of continuity, tradition, veneration of establishment and making out with the downstairs staff [edited to remove your vulgarity]
This is a little loose imho. There is a part of the Conservative and Unionist Party which represents that sort of core value. David Cameron came closest of recent leaders to it.
However, there's also a much more anti-conservative, radical, element which has held the fore for quite some time. It's economically progressive whilst socially conservative. Margaret Thatcher was the epitome, whom I imagine Cummings admires. It rips up anything that stands in the way of the free market - even setting sail with the bow doors open if that means you can shave a second off your time.
In my view the Opposition are playing a very dangerous game. Johnson will defy the Benn Act - he will simply ignore it. Which cuts it very fine indeed for a successful VONC and extension, even if Parliament sits and isn't prorogued.
They have one clear course of action, which is to have the courage and unity to install a caretaker.
Bicker and / or dither amongst themselves and they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'm jittery. In that kind-of-SeanT way just before the climax.
Oh and good morning Byronic.
Yeah.. as I posted yesterday, the current opposition stance would be OK if the plan was agreed but they were just waiting for the moment.
Given that it seems the plan is “ah.. we’ll probably wing it when the chips are *really* down”, I can see why Boris thinks he can outsmart them.
Portsmouth South is a good example of a seat where "tactical" voting could hand the seat to the Conservatives.
The Electoral Calculus polling average (with changes on GE2017) is: Conservative 32.3 (-11.2) Labour 25.4 (-15.6) Liberal Democrat 19.6 (+12) Brexit Party 12.7 (+12.7)
Applying these changes in support to the GE2017 result in Portsmouth South would give you a result of: Liberal Democrat 29.3 Conservatives 26.4 Labour 25.4 Brexit Party 12.7
Who is best placed to defeat the Tories? Various attempts to encourage people to vote tactically could end up with a result like this (with tactical vote change): Conservative 28.4 (+2) Labour 27.4 (+2) Liberal Democrat 27.3 (-2) Brexit Party 10.7 (-2) Tactical voting for Labour (and between the Leave parties) has handed the seat to the Tories. Tactical voting for the Liberal Democrats would see otherwise.
How can voters be sure which way is the best to vote? I don't know. I do know that using the 2017GE results as a guide, when the national vote has changed so dramatically, will often lead a tactical voter astray.
I strongly suspect that the electoral dynamics of this seat have changed. Following Mike Hancock's win as an SDP candidate at the 1984 by election , this was very muvch a Tory v Alliance then LibDem contest until 2017. Labour was not perceived to be in contention , and many Labour voters supported the LibDems on an anti-Tory tactical basis. Labour's win in 2017 from third place was a shock - and achieved in spite of some continued - if misguided - tactical voting. Had it not been for the latter, Labour's majority would have been more comfortable. As it is, Labour can expect a first term incumbency boost there next time - as well as tactical voters returning home to support an incumbent Labour MP.
That's a shame. He's my former MP before I moved away from there in 2011. The infighting between Labour on the County Council and the town councils within his constituency means I'm not entirely surprised though.
Just heard Charles Moore's biography of Margaret Thatcher on radio. Hagiography doesn't begin to describe it. The woman is a saint! There is no issue national or international that she wasn't responsible for dealing with. From her meeting in a hotel bedroom with Lech Walensa which removed the Polish Communist Party to teaching Reagan and Bush how to lead.
Re: downthread on Cummings intellect, it’s almost impossible to get a concession from someone who vehemently opposes his actions and his politics that he’s bright because the conclusion has already been reaching, and it’s actually a shooting exercise. Even if I posted a link to his MENSA certificate showing his IQ score the retort would still be that it’s not evidence, and IQ scores aren’t a measure of real intelligence either.
As it happens his educational record, the fact he took over a year off just to read and absorb hundreds of books, his fluency in maths, Russian, his record in successive campaigns (no to NE assembly, business for Britain, No 2 AV and Vote Leave) plus the depth and lateral thinking of his blogposts are evidence enough for me.
That doesn’t mean he’s not capable of acting extremely unwisely, politically, which can come across as crass stupidity to those more savvy. You can be too bright and too ideological where you assume others must logically reach the same conclusions you have.
Two points.
Firstly, taking a year off to read does not betoken intelligence, it betokens wealthy and indulgent parents. The rest of us cannot afford to do that.
Secondly, he is good at the big picture stuff and can put together a small team, inspire loyalty and Get Things Done. But his emphasies (Sun-Tzu, the 1960s NASA administrator) indicate that he is not good at the low-level stuff - logistics, personal relationships, managing large organisations long-term. He is a good revolutionary but a poor administrator.
Regarding Bolsover, it is a good example of the sort of Midlands mining seat that is shifting demographically from Lab to Con.
A while ago I tried to do a Cook PI for various seats.
In 1992 Bolsover was 47 points more Labour than the nation. In 2005, it was still 45 points more Labour than the nation. However, by 2017 this had shrunk to only 13 points more Labour than the nation (Con have to be 13 points ahead of Lab to win this seat on UNS)
It's probably still just about out of reach for the Cons but I can see them picking it up in the next 10-20 years. Skinner going in due course will also help them.
I'm sure Skinner has his fans, but isn't he getting a bit long in the tooth now for the job? I would have voted for him once, but now.......
I'd never have voted for him as wrong party. But if someone is Labour or generally if the left, then why not back him? He's an honest chap, and certified Big Beast which matters with casework and getting officialdom to do something for a resident.
Cummings probably doesn't care too much about the future of the Tory party
I think this is a flaw in an otherwise perceptive post. He very much does care about the future of the tory party in that he doesn't want it to have one. He absolutely despises its core values of continuity, tradition, veneration of establishment and wolfbagging the downstairs staff.
“Wolf-bagging”?!?!
That’s brilliant. Never heard it before.
Oh god. Cue a reference in a novel.
Do we have to drag this place down to Guido Fawkes' gutter muck?
Portsmouth South is a good example of a seat where "tactical" voting could hand the seat to the Conservatives.
The Electoral Calculus polling average (with changes on GE2017) is: Conservative 32.3 (-11.2) Labour 25.4 (-15.6) Liberal Democrat 19.6 (+12) Brexit Party 12.7 (+12.7)
Applying these changes in support to the GE2017 result in Portsmouth South would give you a result of: Liberal Democrat 29.3 Conservatives 26.4 Labour 25.4 Brexit Party 12.7
Who is best placed to defeat the Tories? Various attempts to encourage people to vote tactically could end up with a result like this (with tactical vote change): Conservative 28.4 (+2) Labour 27.4 (+2) Liberal Democrat 27.3 (-2) Brexit Party 10.7 (-2) Tactical voting for Labour (and between the Leave parties) has handed the seat to the Tories. Tactical voting for the Liberal Democrats would see otherwise.
How can voters be sure which way is the best to vote? I don't know. I do know that using the 2017GE results as a guide, when the national vote has changed so dramatically, will often lead a tactical voter astray.
I strongly suspect that the electoral dynamics of this seat have changed. Following Mike Hancock's win as an SDP candidate at the 1984 by election , this was very muvch a Tory v Alliance then LibDem contest until 2017. Labour was not perceived to be in contention , and many Labour voters supported the LibDems on an anti-Tory tactical basis. Labour's win in 2017 from third place was a shock - and achieved in spite of some continued - if misguided - tactical voting. Had it not been for the latter, Labour's majority would have been more comfortable. As it is, Labour can expect a first term incumbency boost there next time - as well as tactical voters returning home to support an incumbent Labour MP.
Leaving Johnson in place for a period after he has been forced to extend would probably be beneficial to opposition parties anyway - Farage would be in full betrayal mode and all the "do or die" rhetoric would be thrown back at him. I'm not sure that blaming parliament would wash - it's a kind of "dog ate my homework" excuse.
This could be ideal, yes. If after all the bluster the extension happens and he does not resign in a blaze of principled glory he could easily become a rather risible figure. In which case it might be sensible to hold station and let things percolate for a while.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
That's a shame. He's my former MP before I moved away from there in 2011. The infighting between Labour on the County Council and the town councils within his constituency means I'm not entirely surprised though.
A YES vote in 2014 would have ejected Scotland from the EU overnight, with no guarantee of rejoining any time soon. The SNP’s position on this is insulting and ludicrous. It takes the Scottish people for fools.
You don't know that. The Scottish government would have attempted to negotiate entry as a new member state. Such negotiations would have been expedited considerably by the fact that the acquis communautaire -- the body of EU law -- has already been implemented in Scotland. There would still have been challenges but it's a million miles away from a new state going through the full joining process.
The EU said, explicitly, that newly INDY Scotland would leave immediately, and would then have to negotiate membership from scratch, confronting several thorny issues, like Schenghen, the Euro, central bank, government debt, etc. This is clearly the case and anyone telling the Scots otherwise is lying.
It was not an issue , given it already meets almost all the requirements and the Euro is optional as is well known , some countries in over 20 years. Central bank is the same, how do other countries in the world manage it, on debt it depends on how much of England's debt we took on after negotiations ( trident rent would pay for them anyway and Schengen is not an issue.
Regarding Bolsover, it is a good example of the sort of Midlands mining seat that is shifting demographically from Lab to Con.
A while ago I tried to do a Cook PI for various seats.
In 1992 Bolsover was 47 points more Labour than the nation. In 2005, it was still 45 points more Labour than the nation. However, by 2017 this had shrunk to only 13 points more Labour than the nation (Con have to be 13 points ahead of Lab to win this seat on UNS)
It's probably still just about out of reach for the Cons but I can see them picking it up in the next 10-20 years. Skinner going in due course will also help them.
I'm sure Skinner has his fans, but isn't he getting a bit long in the tooth now for the job? I would have voted for him once, but now.......
I'd never have voted for him as wrong party. But if someone is Labour or generally if the left, then why not back him? He's an honest chap, and certified Big Beast which matters with casework and getting officialdom to do something for a resident.
You know/knew that whether Dennis Skinner voted with or against the Labour Party line it was because that was what he believed in. A lot of people respect him for that.
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
Utter bollocks. Use your brain. How could the EU even begin to negotiate with Scotland when Scotland’s relationship with England - including debt, currency, central bank, deficit, border, trade - was still in flux? The EU would refuse to get involved until Scotland was fully indy.
It amazes me how those Remainers who (rightly) pointed out that quitting the EU would be a political and bureaucratic nightmare, simultaneously insist that Scotland quitting the UK AND rejoining the EU would be a stroll in the park.
You're arguing against straw men. I specifically said it would be challenging -- not a stroll in the park -- for Scotland to rejoin. I am merely saying that your assertion that it would be a case of starting from scratch is wrong and that a break between independence and joining as a member is far from certain.
A break is certain. Because of the unusual situation with currency, bank, debt and borders, for a start. The EU could not negotiate with an actor whose position was so obscure and legally problematic. The only solution would be: go fully INDY first, Edinburgh, then get back to us. All else is gibberish.
Rubbish, all those supposed issues are items that every other country has and handles easily.
That's a shame. He's my former MP before I moved away from there in 2011. The infighting between Labour on the County Council and the town councils within his constituency means I'm not entirely surprised though.
Wasn't he Tony Blair's agent?
Yep - he was nominated (and unsurprisingly won the byelection) as Tony left Parliament in 2007
And as RH1992 states this is all to do with internal Labour infighting in County Durham - to say the single Tier council isn't working is a slight understatement.
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
Leamington’s Labour MP, Matt Western (recently reselected) has a majority of just under 1,000. It will not take many Labour to LD switchers for him to lose. It’s a similar story elsewhere. I suspect it’s seats like this one that will win the Tories their majority - especially as there is also going to be a relatively strong (ie, a few thousand) pro-Corbyn vote in many seats the LDs are targeting. The Electoral Calculus scenario looks about right to me. There’ll be a lot of LD near misses.
On topic, I agree with Nick that there's value in Lab-minority as a bet, though not for the reasons he says.
Nick focuses heavily on the Labour side of the equation but the bigger risk/opportunity is on the Tory one, where the Brexit Party may eat heavily into the Tory vote if October comes and goes and Britain is still in the EU, then Boris has a credibility/delivery problem. Yes, it might be the 'fault' of others but these are known risks and the motto should be 'underpromise and overdeliver'.
I do think that Nick doesn't realise the extent of Labour's unpopularity and the extent to which this is limiting their opportunity for tacitcal voting. The latest poll to ask 'preferred PM' questions is the Opinium one polled on 25-27 Sept. In it, current Lib Dem voters prefer Johnson to Corbyn by the striking percentage of 6 to 5 (yes, that's percent, not a ratio: 85% said 'neither' and the rest 'don't know'). Throw Swinson and Farage into the options and Corbyn's share drops to 1%, though Johnson still polls a marginally-less-miserable 5%.
I don't think a party whose leader is that disliked has much scope for tactical voting.
In any case, I also take issue with Nick's assertion about Portsmouth South. On a UNS swing (yes, I know, but let's go with it just as an example), and using current poll averages, never mind the numbers in the Opinium poll just quoted, the Tories are down around 11 on 2017, Labour is down 16 and the Lib Dems are up about 10. That would give a result in Portsmouth South of LD 27, Con 27, Lab 25. So yes, the Tories might win an exceptionally tight 3-way race but so might the Lib Dems. Indeed, if you are primarily interested in stopping Johnson and Cummings (but don't care about Corbyn and Milne), then your best bet might well still be the Lib Dems.
Where I do agree with Mike is on the bigger picture post-election. If it is a hung parliament and if the Lib Dems are the swing vote then I expect that they would rather enable Corbyn to enter No 10 than to keep Johnson there, partly because of Brexit and partly because offences committed are harder to forgive than those anticipated. Also, it's harder to back a party that's gone backwards rather than one which has gained seats (or, possibly, which has lost fewer seats). It wouldn't take many losses for the Tories to find it impossible to form any kind of majority after a GE. And if they can't, a Labour minority is by far the most likely outcome.
Johnson of course is neither establishment tory nor free-market radical.
He's just a schmuck.
Well quite. If Boris and Dom were re-enacting the movie Bedazzled, with Boris in the Dudley Moore role, how would it look different to what's happened?
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The ballad of fake news
It is only not policy because they deliberately do not have a policy. They use "non-papers" to "advance their thoughts". When those thoughts are described as bunkum they say it was never their policy. That much is true.
How can rational people not see this is ridiculous!
Leaving Johnson in place for a period after he has been forced to extend would probably be beneficial to opposition parties anyway - Farage would be in full betrayal mode and all the "do or die" rhetoric would be thrown back at him. I'm not sure that blaming parliament would wash - it's a kind of "dog ate my homework" excuse.
This could be ideal, yes. If after all the bluster the extension happens and he does not resign in a blaze of principled glory he could easily become a rather risible figure. In which case it might be sensible to hold station and let things percolate for a while.
Johnson's entire career has been dedicated to becoming PM - it's hard to see him departing voluntarily. And since he has never been know to have any principles whatsoever, in either his public or private lives, it seems very unlikely that he will acquire any in the next few weeks. And so a principled resignation is impossible.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
Re: downthread on Cummings intellect, it’s almost impossible to get a concession from someone who vehemently opposes his actions and his politics that he’s bright because the conclusion has already been reaching, and it’s actually a shooting exercise. Even if I posted a link to his MENSA certificate showing his IQ score the retort would still be that it’s not evidence, and IQ scores aren’t a measure of real intelligence either.
As it happens his educational record, the fact he took over a year off just to read and absorb hundreds of books, his fluency in maths, Russian, his record in successive campaigns (no to NE assembly, business for Britain, No 2 AV and Vote Leave) plus the depth and lateral thinking of his blogposts are evidence enough for me.
That doesn’t mean he’s not capable of acting extremely unwisely, politically, which can come across as crass stupidity to those more savvy. You can be too bright and too ideological where you assume others must logically reach the same conclusions you have.
Two points.
Firstly, taking a year off to read does not betoken intelligence, it betokens wealthy and indulgent parents. The rest of us cannot afford to do that.
Secondly, he is good at the big picture stuff and can put together a small team, inspire loyalty and Get Things Done. But his emphasies (Sun-Tzu, the 1960s NASA administrator) indicate that he is not good at the low-level stuff - logistics, personal relationships, managing large organisations long-term. He is a good revolutionary but a poor administrator.
Ho, hum, back to work...
He's not a revolutionary. He has no platform, no manifesto.
He is an anarchist. He simply wants to do away with existing structures and is not concerned with what follows. It is not his department.
Portsmouth South is a good example of a seat where "tactical" voting could hand the seat to the Conservatives.
The Electoral Calculus polling average (with changes on GE2017) is: Conservative 32.3 (-11.2) Labour 25.4 (-15.6) Liberal Democrat 19.6 (+12) Brexit Party 12.7 (+12.7)
Applying these changes in support to the GE2017 result in Portsmouth South would give you a result of: Liberal Democrat 29.3 Conservatives 26.4 Labour 25.4 Brexit Party 12.7
Who is best placed to defeat the Tories? Various attempts to encourage people to vote tactically could end up with a result like this (with tactical vote change): Conservative 28.4 (+2) Labour 27.4 (+2) Liberal Democrat 27.3 (-2) Brexit Party 10.7 (-2) Tactical voting for Labour (and between the Leave parties) has handed the seat to the Tories. Tactical voting for the Liberal Democrats would see otherwise.
How can voters be sure which way is the best to vote? I don't know. I do know that using the 2017GE results as a guide, when the national vote has changed so dramatically, will often lead a tactical voter astray.
I strongly suspect that the electoral dynamics of this seat have changed. Following Mike Hancock's win as an SDP candidate at the 1984 by election , this was very muvch a Tory v Alliance then LibDem contest until 2017. Labour was not perceived to be in contention , and many Labour voters supported the LibDems on an anti-Tory tactical basis. Labour's win in 2017 from third place was a shock - and achieved in spite of some continued - if misguided - tactical voting. Had it not been for the latter, Labour's majority would have been more comfortable. As it is, Labour can expect a first term incumbency boost there next time - as well as tactical voters returning home to support an incumbent Labour MP.
That's certainly plausible, but how could we know? Tactical voting with FPTP creates such a mess. If we had STV (or SSV) then it would be much easier for voters to cast their votes without so much guesswork.
Just heard Charles Moore's biography of Margaret Thatcher on radio. Hagiography doesn't begin to describe it. The woman is a saint! There is no issue national or international that she wasn't responsible for dealing with. From her meeting in a hotel bedroom with Lech Walensa which removed the Polish Communist Party to teaching Reagan and Bush how to lead.
Does anyone read this rubbish?
John Campbell's Thatcher biographies are the best. His argument that Thatcher's first cabinet was her most effective is very perceptive.
It was her most unpopular cabinet with the public, her least Thatcherite cabinet, and her cabinet which faced unprecedentedly difficult economic challenges.
After the Falklands and the Iron Lady moniker, when she was queen of all she surveyed, more popular, and able to fill her cabinet spots with Thatcherite disciples, Campbell argues she actually achieved less.
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The ballad of fake news
It is only not policy because they deliberately do not have a policy. They use "non-papers" to "advance their thoughts". When those thoughts are described as bunkum they say it was never their policy. That much is true.
How can rational people not see this is ridiculous!
Then the media should not report it as what will be legally proposed later this week. The cancer here is the demand to report every word of negotiation and rip it apart
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The problem with your fake news ballad is that line 3 is probably the fake news - this was the policy (it's crap enough to be Boris's best and only plan) and the Government is now denying it to pretend there is something better (this is Boris so there won't be).
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The ballad of fake news
Let's see.
Governments - and this one especially - have a habit of firmly attesting black is white, when it turns out, in fact, to be quite dark.
The Irish border story last night was a well-sourced piece by one of the better-informed Brussels correspondents. It would be unusual for him to be wrong about it being put forward as policy... even if Boris either didn't tell his ministers or is going to perform a swift reverse ferret when "everyone loses their shit".
To be clear: this government denying a thing does not make the thing "fake news".
Johnson of course is neither establishment tory nor free-market radical.
He's just a schmuck.
Well quite. If Boris and Dom were re-enacting the movie Bedazzled, with Boris in the Dudley Moore role, how would it look different to what's happened?
In practice they're re-enacting Deliverance with Boris tied to the tree while Corbyn plays the guitar.
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The problem with your fake news ballad is that line 3 is probably the fake news - this was the policy (it's crap enough to be Boris's best and only plan) and the Government is now denying it to pretend there is something better (this is Boris so there won't be).
Yes but as ever, everything is informed from personal belief and bias (me, you, everyone) No formal proposal has been made yet, that's the only 'fact'
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The ballad of fake news
It is only not policy because they deliberately do not have a policy. They use "non-papers" to "advance their thoughts". When those thoughts are described as bunkum they say it was never their policy. That much is true.
How can rational people not see this is ridiculous!
Anyway, there will have to be a policy on the issue made public very soon - even if that is a non-policy: a conscious decision not to have any proposals. Pretending that all is going swimmingly behind the scenes has a very limited shelf-life when the next EU summit is in the middle of this month.
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The ballad of fake news
Let's see.
Governments - and this one especially - have a habit of firmly attesting black is white, when it turns out, in fact, to be quite dark.
The Irish border story last night was a well-sourced piece by one of the better-informed Brussels correspondents. It would be unusual for him to be wrong about it being put forward as policy... even if Boris either didn't tell his ministers or is going to perform a swift reverse ferret when "everyone loses their shit".
To be clear: this government denying a thing does not make the thing "fake news".
To be clear- rumour/leaks being reported as truth doesn't make it true The formal proposal will be the formal proposal, anything else is opinion, rumour, innuendo all of which will be coloured by personal bias
Just heard Charles Moore's biography of Margaret Thatcher on radio. Hagiography doesn't begin to describe it. The woman is a saint! There is no issue national or international that she wasn't responsible for dealing with. From her meeting in a hotel bedroom with Lech Walensa which removed the Polish Communist Party to teaching Reagan and Bush how to lead.
Does anyone read this rubbish?
John Campbell's Thatcher biographies are the best. His argument that Thatcher's first cabinet was her most effective is very perceptive.
It was her most unpopular cabinet with the public, her least Thatcherite cabinet, and her cabinet which faced unprecedentedly difficult economic challenges.
After the Falklands and the Iron Lady moniker, when she was queen of all she surveyed, more popular, and able to fill her cabinet spots with Thatcherite disciples, Campbell argues she actually achieved less.
This is a bit of a myth (and also a marked contrast with Johnson). Even towards the end of her term, she was still appointing people like Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind to her cabinet. While she certainly tilted it in her favour, she never lost sight of the twin needs to appoint people who could do the jobs (or to dismiss them if it turned out that they couldn't), and for voices from across the Party to be present at the top table.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
I don't think we have the military might to maintain a naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.
Sensible left of centre folk need to ask why, after nearly a decade of Tory rule, victory is not assured at the next general election.
Fundamentally it's down to the FPTP voting system.
It certainly is. Without PR many millions of people might as well not bother. As they live in safe seats , which never change.
I live in a safe Conservative seat. Where if you vote Lib Dem or Labour , is just wasted and does not count in reality. The system in England is a f ing disgrace, in a so called modern democracy.
Furthermore it doesn't seem to do what it's supposed to do any more, which is create "stable one-party government" [sic] (RIP 2010)
Exactly. Be good to know your vote counted. Blair should have brought it in as he promised to do. With such a majority in 1997 on 43% of the vote. It would have been seen as a magnanimous,thing to do.
Maybe the Lib Dems could have insisted on it in 2010. If not for national elections at least for English council elections.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
I don't think we have the military might to maintain a naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.
Portsmouth South is a good example of a seat where "tactical" voting could hand the seat to the Conservatives.
The Electoral Calculus polling average (with changes on GE2017) is: Conservative 32.3 (-11.2) Labour 25.4 (-15.6) Liberal Democrat 19.6 (+12) Brexit Party 12.7 (+12.7)
Applying these changes in support to the GE2017 result in Portsmouth South would give you a result of: Liberal Democrat 29.3 Conservatives 26.4 Labour 25.4 Brexit Party 12.7
Who is best placed to defeat the Tories? Various attempts to encourage people to vote tactically could end up with a result like this (with tactical vote change): Conservative 28.4 (+2) Labour 27.4 (+2) Liberal Democrat 27.3 (-2) Brexit Party 10.7 (-2) Tactical voting for Labour (and between the Leave parties) has handed the seat to the Tories. Tactical voting for the Liberal Democrats would see otherwise.
How can voters be sure which way is the best to vote? I don't know. I do know that using the 2017GE results as a guide, when the national vote has changed so dramatically, will often lead a tactical voter astray.
I strongly suspect that the electoral dynamics of this seat have changed. Following Mike Hancock's win as an SDP candidate at the 1984 by election , this was very muvch a Tory v Alliance then LibDem contest until 2017. Labour was not perceived to be in contention , and many Labour voters supported the LibDems on an anti-Tory tactical basis. Labour's win in 2017 from third place was a shock - and achieved in spite of some continued - if misguided - tactical voting. Had it not been for the latter, Labour's majority would have been more comfortable. As it is, Labour can expect a first term incumbency boost there next time - as well as tactical voters returning home to support an incumbent Labour MP.
As in all seats local issues have the potential overwhelm sensible analysis. The Tory PPC is embroiled in a local energy company scandal.
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The ballad of fake news
It is only not policy because they deliberately do not have a policy. They use "non-papers" to "advance their thoughts". When those thoughts are described as bunkum they say it was never their policy. That much is true.
How can rational people not see this is ridiculous!
Then the media should not report it as what will be legally proposed later this week. The cancer here is the demand to report every word of negotiation and rip it apart
I would have some sympathy with that view if we were at the start of negotiations. We should know the options available and have a clear policy by now.
Johnson's entire career has been dedicated to becoming PM - it's hard to see him departing voluntarily. And since he has never been know to have any principles whatsoever, in either his public or private lives, it seems very unlikely that he will acquire any in the next few weeks. And so a principled resignation is impossible.
I share your view but not as confidently. If Johnson were to sack 'Dom' and hire me instead I would advise him to go the martyr route when the crunch comes. And I still think he might. 30% chance IMO.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
I don't think we have the military might to maintain a naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.
Why would we need to?
There's no other way that they will accept a proposal that amounts to no deal on the Irish border in return for helping Britain avoid disruption to trade via Dover.
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The ballad of fake news
It is only not policy because they deliberately do not have a policy. They use "non-papers" to "advance their thoughts". When those thoughts are described as bunkum they say it was never their policy. That much is true.
How can rational people not see this is ridiculous!
Then the media should not report it as what will be legally proposed later this week. The cancer here is the demand to report every word of negotiation and rip it apart
I would have some sympathy with that view if we were at the start of negotiations. We should know the options available and have a clear policy by now.
We dont know if we do. We wont until the formal proposal is made. We either have nothing or we have a plan. Which you believe is informed by your personal bias on the matter
Leamington’s Labour MP, Matt Western (recently reselected) has a majority of just under 1,000. It will not take many Labour to LD switchers for him to lose. It’s a similar story elsewhere. I suspect it’s seats like this one that will win the Tories their majority - especially as there is also going to be a relatively strong (ie, a few thousand) pro-Corbyn vote in many seats the LDs are targeting. The Electoral Calculus scenario looks about right to me. There’ll be a lot of LD near misses.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
I don't think we have the military might to maintain a naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.
Why would we need to?
There's no other way that they will accept a proposal that amounts to no deal on the Irish border in return for helping Britain avoid disruption to trade via Dover.
Ok I may have misunderstood what was being discussed
Media report a load of nonsense as policy Everyone loses their shit over it Government confirm this is not policy Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The ballad of fake news
It is only not policy because they deliberately do not have a policy. They use "non-papers" to "advance their thoughts". When those thoughts are described as bunkum they say it was never their policy. That much is true.
How can rational people not see this is ridiculous!
Then the media should not report it as what will be legally proposed later this week. The cancer here is the demand to report every word of negotiation and rip it apart
I would have some sympathy with that view if we were at the start of negotiations. We should know the options available and have a clear policy by now.
We dont know if we do. We wont until the formal proposal is made. We either have nothing or we have a plan. Which you believe is informed by your personal bias on the matter
It is not biased to assume that having failed to produce any policy over several months despite floating several ideas and non papers is an indicator of not having a policy. It is an informed observation, which is all any of us not involved can make.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
I don't think we have the military might to maintain a naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.
As a purely theoretical exercise, it would be very easy. If you have a blockade then you have to be prepared to use lethal force to enforce it (which I assume is why, in international law, a blockade is, of itself, defined as an act of war). If people believe you are prepared to enforce it, they will self-exclude. You don't need to sink every ship; just one or two might well have the necessary effect. Obviously, doing so would not be without repercussions.
Johnson's entire career has been dedicated to becoming PM - it's hard to see him departing voluntarily. And since he has never been know to have any principles whatsoever, in either his public or private lives, it seems very unlikely that he will acquire any in the next few weeks. And so a principled resignation is impossible.
I share your view but not as confidently. If Johnson were to sack 'Dom' and hire me instead I would advise him to go the martyr route when the crunch comes. And I still think he might. 30% chance IMO.
It's a complete no brainer in electoral advantage terms, he'll only avoid it if he values being a pretty much powerless PM with an ego too big to let go of No 10 even for a few months. Oh.
Edit: he'll be VONCed after he extends anyway so no idea why he wouldn't just resign, or (And I think this is riskier still but still superior) deliberately break the law and just face whatever parliament and the courts chuck at him.
Portsmouth South is a good example of a seat where "tactical" voting could hand the seat to the Conservatives.
snip
Who is best placed to defeat the Tories? Various attempts to encourage people to vote tactically could end up with a result like this (with tactical vote change): Conservative 28.4 (+2) Labour 27.4 (+2) Liberal Democrat 27.3 (-2) Brexit Party 10.7 (-2) Tactical voting for Labour (and between the Leave parties) has handed the seat to the Tories. Tactical voting for the Liberal Democrats would see otherwise.
How can voters be sure which way is the best to vote? I don't know. I do know that using the 2017GE results as a guide, when the national vote has changed so dramatically, will often lead a tactical voter astray.
I strongly suspect that the electoral dynamics of this seat have changed. Following Mike Hancock's win as an SDP candidate at the 1984 by election , this was very muvch a Tory v Alliance then LibDem contest until 2017. Labour was not perceived to be in contention , and many Labour voters supported the LibDems on an anti-Tory tactical basis. Labour's win in 2017 from third place was a shock - and achieved in spite of some continued - if misguided - tactical voting. Had it not been for the latter, Labour's majority would have been more comfortable. As it is, Labour can expect a first term incumbency boost there next time - as well as tactical voters returning home to support an incumbent Labour MP.
That's certainly plausible, but how could we know? Tactical voting with FPTP creates such a mess. If we had STV (or SSV) then it would be much easier for voters to cast their votes without so much guesswork.
The problem for LibDems is they have two horses to ride, and they are mutually exclusive.
Objective One: Revoke Brexit, To do this dispose of as many Tory MPs as possible: Method: Lab>Lib or Lib>Lab tactical vote as required to defeat Tory MPs
Objective Two: Replace Labour as main party of the left / centre left. To do this dispose of as many Lab MPs as possible.
Method: Lab>Lib Dem which may allow a Tory in where Lab is incumbent or strong second. Also Lab>LibDem where LibDem can beat a Lab MP (London in particular). This means no Lib>Lab tactical votes as LIbDems need Labour to fall to the lowest possible number of seats, as both seats and % of vote go towards establishing the stature of the party and its chances of becoming the preeminent left leaning party.
Do they go full on Revoke and let Labour survive as the main opposition long term or take a once in a generation opportunity to supplant Labour?
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
I don't think we have the military might to maintain a naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.
As a purely theoretical exercise, it would be very easy. If you have a blockade then you have to be prepared to use lethal force to enforce it (which I assume is why, in international law, a blockade is, of itself, defined as an act of war). If people believe you are prepared to enforce it, they will self-exclude. You don't need to sink every ship; just one or two might well have the necessary effect. Obviously, doing so would not be without repercussions.
Brexit will be easy 2016 - Maybe we need to have a naval blockade of Ireland to get No Deal 2019...
This is why nobody takes us seriously. We are trapped in this image of ourselves as a once imperial nation. Any "deal" is too lowly for the likes of us, and there is nothing a gunboat can't fix. Perfidious Albion. If May had just negotiated Norway plus with continued SM and FOM we would be out by now. Those who said Norway is rich and prosperous in 2016 now call such a deal vassalage. We're fucked...
Sensible left of centre folk need to ask why, after nearly a decade of Tory rule, victory is not assured at the next general election.
Fundamentally it's down to the FPTP voting system.
It certainly is. Without PR many millions of people might as well not bother. As they live in safe seats , which never change.
I live in a safe Conservative seat. Where if you vote Lib Dem or Labour , is just wasted and does not count in reality. The system in England is a f ing disgrace, in a so called modern democracy.
Furthermore it doesn't seem to do what it's supposed to do any more, which is create "stable one-party government" [sic] (RIP 2010)
Exactly. Be good to know your vote counted. Blair should have brought it in as he promised to do. With such a majority in 1997 on 43% of the vote. It would have been seen as a magnanimous,thing to do.
Maybe the Lib Dems could have insisted on it in 2010. If not for national elections at least for English council elections.
One of the biggest strategic mistakes in the LDs coalition negotiations was pushing for voting reform for the Commons - which was always going to meet immense resistance from Con MPs - rather than for local councils and the Lords.
I'm quite sure that Cameron would have waved it through for councils (not least because it would have bulked up Tory local representation in some target seats), and while Lords reform might still have proven harder, if that had become the decisive constitutional point in the talks, it'd probably have been conceded.
If we don’t leave on Oct 31, I wouldn’t bank on Boris being blamed by Leavers; the MPs and lawyers who refuse to let us leave will be seen as the embodiment of the Little Britain character saying ‘Computer Says No’
Sensible left of centre folk need to ask why, after nearly a decade of Tory rule, victory is not assured at the next general election.
Fundamentally it's down to the FPTP voting system.
It certainly is. Without PR many millions of people might as well not bother. As they live in safe seats , which never change.
I live in a safe Conservative seat. Where if you vote Lib Dem or Labour , is just wasted and does not count in reality. The system in England is a f ing disgrace, in a so called modern democracy.
Furthermore it doesn't seem to do what it's supposed to do any more, which is create "stable one-party government" [sic] (RIP 2010)
Exactly. Be good to know your vote counted. Blair should have brought it in as he promised to do. With such a majority in 1997 on 43% of the vote. It would have been seen as a magnanimous,thing to do.
Maybe the Lib Dems could have insisted on it in 2010. If not for national elections at least for English council elections.
One of the biggest strategic mistakes in the LDs coalition negotiations was pushing for voting reform for the Commons - which was always going to meet immense resistance from Con MPs - rather than for local councils and the Lords.
I'm quite sure that Cameron would have waved it through for councils (not least because it would have bulked up Tory local representation in some target seats), and while Lords reform might still have proven harder, if that had become the decisive constitutional point in the talks, it'd probably have been conceded.
The mistake was settling for a referendum on a compromise system no one desperately wanted. Which was simultaneously pushing too far, and not far enough.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
I don't think we have the military might to maintain a naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.
As a purely theoretical exercise, it would be very easy. If you have a blockade then you have to be prepared to use lethal force to enforce it (which I assume is why, in international law, a blockade is, of itself, defined as an act of war). If people believe you are prepared to enforce it, they will self-exclude. You don't need to sink every ship; just one or two might well have the necessary effect. Obviously, doing so would not be without repercussions.
Sure, we could impose a blockade, but we couldn't maintain it in the face of opposition from the rest of the EU, and ultimately the US.
Comments
Obvious answer include; the last lab government was the longest ever and that legacy will take time to recover from, UK (mainly England) is innately conversative, in 2015 the LDs rather than the tories got a lot of the blame, The EU ref remodeled the political landscape into leave/remain rather than left/right.
Then I saw a post, it was either here or on twitter (kudos to whoever it was) that made me think. It's about adaptability. The Tory party is adept at change which makes it a formidable foe. Just look at where we have come from 2010 to now. The socially liberal fiscally conservative coalition, the key message was compromise and competence - almost dull by today standards. Contrast that with the current gov - inflamed rhetoric, prepared to countenance a hard brexit and the subsequent economic hit, splashing cash left and right.
Just goes to show, you don't always need an election for a fundamental shift in the direction of the government....
A while ago I tried to do a Cook PI for various seats.
In 1992 Bolsover was 47 points more Labour than the nation. In 2005, it was still 45 points more Labour than the nation. However, by 2017 this had shrunk to only 13 points more Labour than the nation (Con have to be 13 points ahead of Lab to win this seat on UNS)
It's probably still just about out of reach for the Cons but I can see them picking it up in the next 10-20 years. Skinner going in due course will also help them.
Lose election -> Interfere with yourself in a gentleman's manner -> Lose another couple of elections -> Choose a leader based on who can actually win -> Win
However Labour went with someone pretty moderate early on and started the self-indulgence part late, and they're going to need at least one more defeat before they're ready to leave their bedroom.
Also, there is no cliff edge at the end of the transition. That’s what the backstop is for surely?
https://twitter.com/BBCRichardMoss/status/1178783411617570816
Without PR many millions of people might as well not bother.
As they live in safe seats , which never change.
I live in a safe Conservative seat.
Where if you vote Lib Dem or Labour , is just wasted and does not count in reality.
The system in England is a f ing disgrace, in a so called modern democracy.
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1178967205175857153
Insignificant in the grand scheme of things but very annoying.
Still will soon be swatted.
They have one clear course of action, which is to have the courage and unity to install a caretaker.
Bicker and / or dither amongst themselves and they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'm jittery. In that kind-of-SeanT way just before the climax.
Oh and good morning Byronic.
Bercow would be taking the piss royally
That’s brilliant. Never heard it before.
Ah, my coat. Thank you...
I have heard of the technique but I was unaware of the name. I need a cup up tea.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1178967916492009472?s=20
'How did you catch them all in the one bear trap?'
'They had a meeting and agreed to walk into it together'
However, there's also a much more anti-conservative, radical, element which has held the fore for quite some time. It's economically progressive whilst socially conservative. Margaret Thatcher was the epitome, whom I imagine Cummings admires. It rips up anything that stands in the way of the free market - even setting sail with the bow doors open if that means you can shave a second off your time.
Given that it seems the plan is “ah.. we’ll probably wing it when the chips are *really* down”, I can see why Boris thinks he can outsmart them.
He's just a schmuck.
Does anyone read this rubbish?
Firstly, taking a year off to read does not betoken intelligence, it betokens wealthy and indulgent parents. The rest of us cannot afford to do that.
Secondly, he is good at the big picture stuff and can put together a small team, inspire loyalty and Get Things Done. But his emphasies (Sun-Tzu, the 1960s NASA administrator) indicate that he is not good at the low-level stuff - logistics, personal relationships, managing large organisations long-term. He is a good revolutionary but a poor administrator.
Ho, hum, back to work...
Do we have to drag this place down to Guido Fawkes' gutter muck?
Man up! Women
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
Everyone loses their shit over it
Government confirm this is not policy
Everyone says government in chaos and crisis
The ballad of fake news
And as RH1992 states this is all to do with internal Labour infighting in County Durham - to say the single Tier council isn't working is a slight understatement.
Nick focuses heavily on the Labour side of the equation but the bigger risk/opportunity is on the Tory one, where the Brexit Party may eat heavily into the Tory vote if October comes and goes and Britain is still in the EU, then Boris has a credibility/delivery problem. Yes, it might be the 'fault' of others but these are known risks and the motto should be 'underpromise and overdeliver'.
I do think that Nick doesn't realise the extent of Labour's unpopularity and the extent to which this is limiting their opportunity for tacitcal voting. The latest poll to ask 'preferred PM' questions is the Opinium one polled on 25-27 Sept. In it, current Lib Dem voters prefer Johnson to Corbyn by the striking percentage of 6 to 5 (yes, that's percent, not a ratio: 85% said 'neither' and the rest 'don't know'). Throw Swinson and Farage into the options and Corbyn's share drops to 1%, though Johnson still polls a marginally-less-miserable 5%.
I don't think a party whose leader is that disliked has much scope for tactical voting.
In any case, I also take issue with Nick's assertion about Portsmouth South. On a UNS swing (yes, I know, but let's go with it just as an example), and using current poll averages, never mind the numbers in the Opinium poll just quoted, the Tories are down around 11 on 2017, Labour is down 16 and the Lib Dems are up about 10. That would give a result in Portsmouth South of LD 27, Con 27, Lab 25. So yes, the Tories might win an exceptionally tight 3-way race but so might the Lib Dems. Indeed, if you are primarily interested in stopping Johnson and Cummings (but don't care about Corbyn and Milne), then your best bet might well still be the Lib Dems.
Where I do agree with Mike is on the bigger picture post-election. If it is a hung parliament and if the Lib Dems are the swing vote then I expect that they would rather enable Corbyn to enter No 10 than to keep Johnson there, partly because of Brexit and partly because offences committed are harder to forgive than those anticipated. Also, it's harder to back a party that's gone backwards rather than one which has gained seats (or, possibly, which has lost fewer seats). It wouldn't take many losses for the Tories to find it impossible to form any kind of majority after a GE. And if they can't, a Labour minority is by far the most likely outcome.
How can rational people not see this is ridiculous!
I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
He is an anarchist. He simply wants to do away with existing structures and is not concerned with what follows. It is not his department.
It was her most unpopular cabinet with the public, her least Thatcherite cabinet, and her cabinet which faced unprecedentedly difficult economic challenges.
After the Falklands and the Iron Lady moniker, when she was queen of all she surveyed, more popular, and able to fill her cabinet spots with Thatcherite disciples, Campbell argues she actually achieved less.
The cancer here is the demand to report every word of negotiation and rip it apart
Governments - and this one especially - have a habit of firmly attesting black is white, when it turns out, in fact, to be quite dark.
The Irish border story last night was a well-sourced piece by one of the better-informed Brussels correspondents. It would be unusual for him to be wrong about it being put forward as policy... even if Boris either didn't tell his ministers or is going to perform a swift reverse ferret when "everyone loses their shit".
To be clear: this government denying a thing does not make the thing "fake news".
No formal proposal has been made yet, that's the only 'fact'
The formal proposal will be the formal proposal, anything else is opinion, rumour, innuendo all of which will be coloured by personal bias
Having been groped, I can assure you it is not fun.
Be good to know your vote counted.
Blair should have brought it in as he promised to do.
With such a majority in 1997 on 43% of the vote.
It would have been seen as a magnanimous,thing to do.
Maybe the Lib Dems could have insisted on it in 2010.
If not for national elections at least for English council elections.
Edit: he'll be VONCed after he extends anyway so no idea why he wouldn't just resign, or (And I think this is riskier still but still superior) deliberately break the law and just face whatever parliament and the courts chuck at him.
Objective One: Revoke Brexit, To do this dispose of as many Tory MPs as possible:
Method: Lab>Lib or Lib>Lab tactical vote as required to defeat Tory MPs
Objective Two: Replace Labour as main party of the left / centre left. To do this dispose of as many Lab MPs as possible.
Method: Lab>Lib Dem which may allow a Tory in where Lab is incumbent or strong second. Also Lab>LibDem where LibDem can beat a Lab MP (London in particular).
This means no Lib>Lab tactical votes as LIbDems need Labour to fall to the lowest possible number of seats, as both seats and % of vote go towards establishing the stature of the party and its chances of becoming the preeminent left leaning party.
Do they go full on Revoke and let Labour survive as the main opposition long term or take a once in a generation opportunity to supplant Labour?
This is why nobody takes us seriously. We are trapped in this image of ourselves as a once imperial nation. Any "deal" is too lowly for the likes of us, and there is nothing a gunboat can't fix. Perfidious Albion. If May had just negotiated Norway plus with continued SM and FOM we would be out by now. Those who said Norway is rich and prosperous in 2016 now call such a deal vassalage. We're fucked...
I'm quite sure that Cameron would have waved it through for councils (not least because it would have bulked up Tory local representation in some target seats), and while Lords reform might still have proven harder, if that had become the decisive constitutional point in the talks, it'd probably have been conceded.