The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
Just as in 2017 the elements were in place for Labour's extraordinary rise during the campaign (easy to spot with hindsight of course), there is a sense that this campaign is also unpredictable and could run away in an odd direction. Of those odd directions, it seems to me, the most, though not very, likely is the Establishment, Remain, anti Boris, anti Tory, anti Corbyn and non extreme left vote coalescing around the extremely personable Jo Swinson and the LDs.
One might well ask: Where else is there for them to go that might actually change anything?
^^^ This is a really good post ^^^
It is a good post. I am certainly not "Establishment" ( I think that applies more to two twits with the initials BJ and JRM), and certainly not instinctively Anti-Tory (used to be one), but all the other things apply. I will be voting LD, and many other people I know who were once Conservative voters will do the same. The CINO Party cannot be rewarded for what it has done.
Corbyn is constantly emphasising his breaking of a cardinal rule in serious politics: It's about getting into power and exercising it in ways which make the country a better place. Jo Swinson appears much more serious about both power and influence than Corbyn does. If JC ran our Rugby team he would talk about winning the World Cup but decline to turn up against the Springboks on Saturday. You grasp and take and maximise every chance. His acolytes may comprehend this nuance, but C1s and C2s in the East Midlands won't. Nor do I.
Guildford is still 44% lead with a massive Tory majority. A lot depends on the new Tory candidate but I'd say its more 50/50 than a certain LD gain.
1. UNS says:
Tory hold
2. Remainy?
Surprisingly
3. Local elections?
LD win on a big increased vote share
4. The squeeze
Not so great.
rcs1000 says Con Hold, but LDs get a decent second place (still 5-7,000 votes off the lead mind)
Why remain surprisingly?
Re local elections - There were special circumstances. Even Tories weren't voting Tory and the Mole Valley Tories and Guildford Tories weren't getting on and there are a few Mole Valley wards in the Guildford Borough. There has a been a fair bit of scandal re the Tories in Guildford. I won't go into the details here (long and boring), but the main gainers were independent groups, but they didn't have numbers so LDs did well also and it is a LD/Ind council, but mainly LD.
To give a flavour in the early days of the on going disruption, a by election was held in a seat the Tories had never lost. It was in the Mole Valley constituency, but Guildford Borough. Mole Valley Tories put up the candidate and the Guildford Tories refused to help. LDs won with 70ish percent. LD winner and Tory candidate then both defected to Indies!
What fun.
I would have put the LDs as clear favourite in Guildford.
If they cant win a seat like that, significantly remain, held in the past, and with good organisation on the ground, then the Remain surge isn't going to get very far...
I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that from afar the local election results are not all what they seem. Of course the scandals will help the LDs here as well in the GE when the indies won't be standing.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
Boris was sacked twice for lying. Firstly in 1988 from The Times over fabricating quotes from historian Colin Lucas (his own godfather), and then in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over the Petronella Wyatt affair.
And Cameron allegedly took drugs and may or may not have allegedly shagged a dead pig at university but that's got nothing to do with his time in office, nor does Boris's history have anything to do with his time in office.
I dont have a problem with MPs having taken drugs as long as they are not hypocritical over it and vote for longer sentences ala M Gove.
Call me old fashioned but I do think shagging dead pigs should disqualify someone from being PM, if just for potential blackmail by foreign powers reasons.
Jesus if we had to disqualify everyone who has shagged a dead pig from becoming Prime Minister who would that leave??
We might even have to choose yet another one who doesnt come from Eton! Hell, they might not even have been to Oxford!
But it is amusing how quickly Remainers have switched from "Boris does not want a deal and is trying to trick us into No Deal" to "Boris was so desperate for a deal he signed up for the worst one in human history".
I'm not sure what a 'Remainer' is, but sensible people change their minds when the facts change. And it was a massively big change of facts when Boris suddenly switched from his 'final offer, take it or leave it' of a complex system of border checks between the Republic and NI, to accepting the EU's original offer of checks between GB and NI, with cosmetic changes. Just a week between the two positions, wasn't it?
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
Boris's opponents said Boris would get no deal, had no intention of getting a deal and was only interested in pushing for No Deal.
Who will history paint as the liars?
We have said this before. We didn't expect him to cave in so thoroughly and revert to something he himself said no British Prime Minister could ever sign up to.
That was our bad. We got wrapped up in the hype and didn't think that he could be quite so shameless.
And I think history will paint him as a gigantic liar fwiw.
It's called compromise in international negotiation. The EU backed down from their red lines of Level Playing Field and requirements and Northern Ireland in the EU Tariff regime. Compromise is a virtue, not a vice.
But it is amusing how quickly Remainers have switched from "Boris does not want a deal and is trying to trick us into No Deal" to "Boris was so desperate for a deal he signed up for the worst one in human history".
What is more, I think Remainers genuinely believed both of these lines. And when the People's Vote campaign starts pumping out media towards the end of the extension, you will flip into "Boris is tricking us into No Deal" again. And you'll all believe it, as quick as they swallowed "We have always been at war with Eastasia!"
I didn't comment on whether it was a good or a bad deal. I just said that Boris had said it was one that "no British Prime Minister could accept." And then he accepted it. I mean there is negotiation, no running commentary, a bit of give and take, I get it.
But his comment, a bit like his do or die pledge aspiration, was pretty clear. Or was that also just Boris being Boris, colourful rhetoric an' all?
Johnson and Cummings DID have a working majority in fact.
They booted out 21 rebels, including Churchill's grandson and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
And then they decided to throw Northern Ireland under a bus, thus losing the support of the DUP.
Clueless idiots. Neither has ever been a team player.
The post-election Conservative Party will be a much, much easier beast to manage with the headbanger Europhiles exorcised from it.
"Headbanger Europhiles," That's not one of your finest moments. 1/3rd of your membership voted to Remain in the EU, and for long one nation pro-European Conservatism helped win you General Elections.
Lurch to the right and you will lose. Always happens. Always will.
Boris's opponents said Boris would get no deal, had no intention of getting a deal and was only interested in pushing for No Deal.
Who will history paint as the liars?
We have said this before. We didn't expect him to cave in so thoroughly and revert to something he himself said no British Prime Minister could ever sign up to.
That was our bad. We got wrapped up in the hype and didn't think that he could be quite so shameless.
And I think history will paint him as a gigantic liar fwiw.
It's called compromise in international negotiation. The EU backed down from their red lines of Level Playing Field and requirements and Northern Ireland in the EU Tariff regime. Compromise is a virtue, not a vice.
But it is amusing how quickly Remainers have switched from "Boris does not want a deal and is trying to trick us into No Deal" to "Boris was so desperate for a deal he signed up for the worst one in human history".
What is more, I think Remainers genuinely believed both of these lines. And when the People's Vote campaign starts pumping out media towards the end of the extension, you will flip into "Boris is tricking us into No Deal" again. And you'll all believe it, as quick as they swallowed "We have always been at war with Eastasia!"
You do realise that Remainers are not one entity operating under a hive mind.
Some thought "Boris does not want a deal and is trying to trick us into No Deal", others thought "Boris was so desperate for a deal he signed up for the worst one in human history" and others thought "Boris was so desperate for a deal he signed up for a bad deal" others thought "Boris was so desperate for a deal he was prepared to push the country over the cliff edge into no deal" and some thought "Ooohh, biscuits"
317-325 looks about right for the Tories, to me. I'd buy Labour a bit. Sell Lib Dems big time.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
I'd put the LDs as favourites to win seats like Wimbledon, Finchley, Guildford, St Albans, Putney, etc.
St Albans is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't bear repeating. I'd say it's an 85% chance for the LDs. Wimbledon is possible, especially if Stephen Hammond were to be the LD candidate. Still it's a 30-40% chance at most. Finchley & Golders Green. 20% chance. Guilford. 15% chance Putney. 5% chance.
Are those figures based on anything in particular, Mr RCS, or just an inspired hunch?
Might think they can get Labour support now as they desperately try an avoid an election. Although an election clearly appears the more likely option if anything 'happens'. Equally the more Lab frustrate Brexit in the election run up the better for Boris.
317-325 looks about right for the Tories, to me. I'd buy Labour a bit. Sell Lib Dems big time.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
I'd put the LDs as favourites to win seats like Wimbledon, Finchley, Guildford, St Albans, Putney, etc.
St Albans is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't bear repeating. I'd say it's an 85% chance for the LDs. Wimbledon is possible, especially if Stephen Hammond were to be the LD candidate. Still it's a 30-40% chance at most. Finchley & Golders Green. 20% chance. Guilford. 15% chance Putney. 5% chance.
Are those figures based on anything in particular, Mr RCS, or just an inspired hunch?
Inspired hunch.
Also, my patented four part methodology for assessing libdem election success.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
He got them to do it by conceding on his red lines and giving them a better deal.
It isn't a better deal for the EU, given there is more risk for them in Northern Ireland being able to vote out every four years, the UK can avoid LPF if it doesn't sign an FTA, and Northern Ireland is clearly a better place to invest than the member state next door.
Removing the UK-wide backstop gives the EU far more leverage in trade negotiations. May's deal limited the size of the cliff edge at the end of transition, but Johnson has made it a sheer drop, which give the EU the whip hand.
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
Mr/Ms "Gabs2": Keep clutching at those straws, keep taking the tablets, and look into my eyes and repeat after me "Boris is a really good PM" .
You run out of arguments so you start personal attacks.
I am unlikely to be someone who runs out of arguments, anymore than most who post on here! My comment falls into the" taking the mickey/piss" category, not a personal attack, you snowflake (that was more like one).
I will happily engage with argument, so if you think you can frame an argument that doesn't sound as though it is a press release from Dominic Cummings please try. Your attempts to suggest that Boris Johnson is a sincere man of integrity just open you up to as much ridicule as if you were suggesting Pol Pot was a man of peace and reconciliation. If you want to have a debate, fine, but try not to come over as someone who is competing with HYUFD for the Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf Memorial Prize.
I will be in tomorrow afternoon if you would like a five minute argument or the full half hour. In between time, keep convincing yourself of Bozo's virtue. Someone has to.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
He got them to do it by conceding on his red lines and giving them a better deal.
It isn't a better deal for the EU, given there is more risk for them in Northern Ireland being able to vote out every four years, the UK can avoid LPF if it doesn't sign an FTA, and Northern Ireland is clearly a better place to invest than the member state next door.
Removing the UK-wide backstop gives the EU far more leverage in trade negotiations. May's deal limited the size of the cliff edge at the end of transition, but Johnson has made it a sheer drop, which give the EU the whip hand.
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
Might think they can get Labour support now as they desperately try an avoid an election. Although an election clearly appears the more likely option if anything 'happens'.
I don't really understand why they are so keen to try to get the WAIB through before an election, unless they are nervous about not having actually delivered. But, as we have been discussing, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver oorries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
Boris was sacked twice for lying. Firstly in 1988 from The Times over fabricating quotes from historian Colin Lucas (his own godfather), and then in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over the Petronella Wyatt affair.
And Cameron allegedly took drugs and may or may not have allegedly shagged a dead pig at university but that's got nothing to do with his time in office, nor does Boris's history have anything to do with his time in office.
I dont have a problem with MPs having taken drugs as long as they are not hypocritical over it and vote for longer sentences ala M Gove.
Call me old fashioned but I do think shagging dead pigs should disqualify someone from being PM, if just for potential blackmail by foreign powers reasons.
Jesus if we had to disqualify everyone who has shagged a dead pig from becoming Prime Minister who would that leave??
Reminds me of that moment in the glorious sketch by Peter Cook:
"It would be a sad day for this country when a leading politician cannot spend his election expenses in any way he sees fit."
Johnson and Cummings DID have a working majority in fact.
They booted out 21 rebels, including Churchill's grandson and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
And then they decided to throw Northern Ireland under a bus, thus losing the support of the DUP.
Clueless idiots. Neither has ever been a team player.
The post-election Conservative Party will be a much, much easier beast to manage with the headbanger Europhiles exorcised from it.
Probably. In the same sense as a patient who has been lobotomised is. In fact based on the fact the party is now typified by the likes of Mark Francois that is probably about right lol.
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
I really do not believe that Labour failing to agree to a December election will damage them - only political anoraks are desperate for that to happen and in doing so are losing a sense of proportion.
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
I really do not believe that Labour failing to agree to a December election will damage them - only political anoraks are desperate for that to happen and in doing so are losing a sense of proportion.
What is to be gained by not having an election?
What on earth can now be achieved? We have the extension. The only way for Labour to now stop the ‘dangerous Tory Brexit’ is to win an election.
Might think they can get Labour support now as they desperately try an avoid an election. Although an election clearly appears the more likely option if anything 'happens'.
I don't really understand why they are so keen to try to get the WAIB through before an election, unless they are nervous about not having actually delivered. But, as we have been discussing, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
Is the thought process (I know, I'm giving them credit for thinking) if we put the WAB to the house and it is passed without amendments we win. If we put WAB to the house and it is amended out of recognition we withdraw and we win.
The second option opens them up to scrutiny more that the first, and there may be some nervous Ministers thinking that scrutiny and success at the election are incompatible.
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
Johnson and Cummings DID have a working majority in fact.
They booted out 21 rebels, including Churchill's grandson and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
And then they decided to throw Northern Ireland under a bus, thus losing the support of the DUP.
Clueless idiots. Neither has ever been a team player.
The post-election Conservative Party will be a much, much easier beast to manage with the headbanger Europhiles exorcised from it.
LOL! Wait till we get on the FTA and the transition extension.
There'll be 21 less squawking chickens.
...replaced by a whole load of thickheads like Mark Francois. Parliament will be what most Leavers want, a rubber stamp for an authoritarian executive. This is what they mean by "taking back control"
At 2.32 NOM is I think value. The vast majority of people will revert to their long-held political allegiances and vote as they always have done. The UK is not a hugely tactical voting kind of place and if Lab get as many willing helpers as they did previously out onto the streets (especially on election night, the place was full of them) then that will also bolster the Lab vote.
Now, while I appreciate that I am no huge brain sitting in No.10 with spreadsheets and eight-dimensional models, I think that an election is far from a foregone conclusion.
And who in their right mind wouldn't want some kind of brake mechanism on any of the parties, frankly.
Edit: where that leaves Brexit........F*** KNOWS!!
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
I really do not believe that Labour failing to agree to a December election will damage them - only political anoraks are desperate for that to happen and in doing so are losing a sense of proportion.
Justin, in the nicest possible way you're as partisan as Phillip Thompson and HYUFD.
Sometimes it's good to remember that not everything your own party does is particularly smart.
I don't know how racing survives at all when their town centre courses are worth a fortune as venues for combined retail parks and/or thousands of new houses.
I may be wrong but in the light of my previous, I suspect Newton Abbot racecourse is in the flood plain of the Teign River and for all it is very well situated near the station, I can't help but feel that's a disadvantage to future development.
Exeter is well outside the city on the top of Haldon Hill as I recall. Taunton is on the outskirts (Green Belt?) and Wincanton is in the middle of nowhere.
Kempton Park (to the west of Kingston) has been the subject of development interest for quite a while. Greyhound tracks (Wimbledon, Walthamstow and others) have been closed and sold for redevelopment but racecourses aren't so straightforward.
Sandown Park (Esher) is worth millions but has powerful friends in high places and Elmbridge BC would never grant permission for its redevelopment.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
If I buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, he is responsible for achieving that. If he told me he will do what he can to achieve that date, he is responsible for doing what he can.
They are simply different promises.
If you buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, but then an Act of Parliament makes it illegal to deliver sofas prior to November then is he still responsible or is that force majeure?
He is still responsible, given he knew an Act of Parliament was quite possibly going to make it illegal (yet promised nevertheless)
I don't know how racing survives at all when their town centre courses are worth a fortune as venues for combined retail parks and/or thousands of new houses.
I may be wrong but in the light of my previous, I suspect Newton Abbot racecourse is in the flood plain of the Teign River and for all it is very well situated near the station, I can't help but feel that's a disadvantage to future development.
Exeter is well outside the city on the top of Haldon Hill as I recall. Taunton is on the outskirts (Green Belt?) and Wincanton is in the middle of nowhere.
Kempton Park (to the west of Kingston) has been the subject of development interest for quite a while. Greyhound tracks (Wimbledon, Walthamstow and others) have been closed and sold for redevelopment but racecourses aren't so straightforward.
Sandown Park (Esher) is worth millions but has powerful friends in high places and Elmbridge BC would never grant permission for its redevelopment.
Within 10 years, there will be a number of "land-swap" schemes that take the existing courses further away from population centres and allow the current courses to be built upon. It is a business opportunity I have considered following up myself.....
So, the brilliant strategic wheeze of getting Murphy out of the way in the Leader's Office by shunting her off to run the GE campaign is looking a little hasty tonight.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
Just as in 2017 the elements were in place for Labour's extraordinary rise during the campaign (easy to spot with hindsight of course), there is a sense that this campaign is also unpredictable and could run away in an odd direction. Of those odd directions, it seems to me, the most, though not very, likely is the Establishment, Remain, anti Boris, anti Tory, anti Corbyn and non extreme left vote coalescing around the extremely personable Jo Swinson and the LDs.
One might well ask: Where else is there for them to go that might actually change anything?
Extremely personable Slow Jimson - ha!
She may have her strengths, but that ain't one of 'em
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
I really do not believe that Labour failing to agree to a December election will damage them - only political anoraks are desperate for that to happen and in doing so are losing a sense of proportion.
Justin, in the nicest possible way you're as partisan as Phillip Thompson and HYUFD.
Sometimes it's good to remember that not everything your own party does is particularly smart.
I am not a party member and will spoil my Ballot Paper whether the election happens in December or later.
317-325 looks about right for the Tories, to me. I'd buy Labour a bit. Sell Lib Dems big time.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
I'd put the LDs as favourites to win seats like Wimbledon, Finchley, Guildford, St Albans, Putney, etc.
St Albans is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't bear repeating. I'd say it's an 85% chance for the LDs. Wimbledon is possible, especially if Stephen Hammond were to be the LD candidate. Still it's a 30-40% chance at most. Finchley & Golders Green. 20% chance. Guilford. 15% chance Putney. 5% chance.
Are those figures based on anything in particular, Mr RCS, or just an inspired hunch?
Inspired hunch.
Also, my patented four part methodology for assessing libdem election success.
Not a fan of constituency polling? Finchley looking good for the yellow peril
I have just been looking at Labour Majorities in london and a lot of them are vast. In some seats where you would think the Lib dems may have a sniff they polled in the hundreds last time versus majs of 30k
Yes it's in the peripheries and West Country that the LDs have the best prospects. London itself is pretty solidly Labour.
Other than St Ives, I would have thought the West Country would be far from easy territory for the libdems.
Cheltenham? Wells? Bath? Even the Cotswolds if its Blimpish MP cooperates.
I think they'll do OK, but it's outer London and surrounds that offer most chances.
Bath is a good call.
I'm not sure the Cotswolds count as the West Country
The Lib Dems already hold Bath...
I'm not sure even the most LD-sceptic is predicting them to lose seats they already hold (except North Norfolk if Norman Lamb is standing down?).
In terms of gains, I'd only say they're favourites in Sheffield Hallam, Richmond Park and Cheltenham. Maybe St Albans and Lewes at a push. I think St Ives will be a tough nut to crack, despite the small majority.
There is talk of Zac Goldsmith moving to Sam Gymiahs seat
Sam Gymiah has a majority of 23,914 in East Surrey. I wonder if Zac can lose that to a LibDem. He lost his majority of 23,015 in Richmond Park to Sarah Olney (majority 1,872) in the Richmond Park by election in 2016 so he certainly has the talent to do so.
East Surrey is not Richmond. Also Sam is not well liked in the constituency even with that majority
If Zac does move to East Surrey, it will be interesting to see if the Tories simply give up on Richmond Park as a lost cause, and focus efforts elsewhere such as Wimbledon and Putney.
Might think they can get Labour support now as they desperately try an avoid an election. Although an election clearly appears the more likely option if anything 'happens'.
I don't really understand why they are so keen to try to get the WAIB through before an election, unless they are nervous about not having actually delivered. But, as we have been discussing, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
Maybe they believe it will shoot the LibDem fox in the South East. Why risk JC if all hope of remaining is gone?
317-325 looks about right for the Tories, to me. I'd buy Labour a bit. Sell Lib Dems big time.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
I'd put the LDs as favourites to win seats like Wimbledon, Finchley, Guildford, St Albans, Putney, etc.
St Albans is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't bear repeating. I'd say it's an 85% chance for the LDs. Wimbledon is possible, especially if Stephen Hammond were to be the LD candidate. Still it's a 30-40% chance at most. Finchley & Golders Green. 20% chance. Guilford. 15% chance Putney. 5% chance.
Are those figures based on anything in particular, Mr RCS, or just an inspired hunch?
Inspired hunch.
Also, my patented four part methodology for assessing libdem election success.
Not a fan of constituency polling? Finchley looking good for the yellow peril
That poll was not far off being 'push polling' with just two candidates mentioned!
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Let us cut the crap. It can help.
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
Might think they can get Labour support now as they desperately try an avoid an election. Although an election clearly appears the more likely option if anything 'happens'.
I don't really understand why they are so keen to try to get the WAIB through before an election, unless they are nervous about not having actually delivered. But, as we have been discussing, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
Maybe they believe it will shoot the LibDem fox in the South East. Why risk JC if all hope of remaining is gone?
Maybe, yes. And I suppose definitively removing the lingering risk of No (Withdrawal) Deal might help as well, although that's now less of an issue.
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
I really do not believe that Labour failing to agree to a December election will damage them - only political anoraks are desperate for that to happen and in doing so are losing a sense of proportion.
Like a lot of things, not agreeing now probably does no harm.
But continually not agreeing, while Brexit drags on will act like a constant drip, drip, drip...
The current @PrivateEyeNews reports that the latest inquiry into Scotland Yard's "investigation" of the Carl Beech fantasies ordered by Priti Patel is to be conducted by Sir Tom Winsor. As HMCIC he would seem the ideal person ...
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
I'd put the LDs as favourites to win seats like Wimbledon, Finchley, Guildford, St Albans, Putney, etc.
St Albans is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't bear repeating. I'd say it's an 85% chance for the LDs.
Wimbledon is possible, especially if Stephen Hammond were to be the LD candidate. Still it's a 30-40% chance at most.
Finchley & Golders Green. 20% chance.
Guilford. 15% chance
Putney. 5% chance.
Current odds on LD win
Wimbledon 13/8 St Albans 4/9 Watford 21/5 Richmond Park 1/8 London and Westminster 7/4
Current odds on BXP win
Thurrock 21/5
Wimbledon 13/8 - Wouldn't touch with a bargepole St Albans 4/9 - Value. Daisy will win easily. Watford 21/5 - A difficult call. Those odds are probably about right. Richmond Park 1/8 - I think the LDs could lose overall in this election, and still gain Richmond Park. London and Westminster 7/4 - A difficult call. Those odds are probably about right.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
If I buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, he is responsible for achieving that. If he told me he will do what he can to achieve that date, he is responsible for doing what he can.
They are simply different promises.
If you buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, but then an Act of Parliament makes it illegal to deliver sofas prior to November then is he still responsible or is that force majeure?
He is still responsible, given he knew an Act of Parliament was quite possibly going to make it illegal (yet promised nevertheless)
I am not a lawyer but to the best of my knowedge any contract I've ever signed has exclusions for changes of the law.
I am finding it really tough to decide how this election goes.
I think it is often the case that generals are obsessed with fighting the last war and in that sense I can’t see beyond a hung parliament with a similar result for last time (with less Labour and more LD). But every general election is different. Every campaign is different. And this time we’re sitting on a Brexit powder keg.
I can’t call it. It could be anything from a Tory majority of 40-50 through to a Lab-LD-SNP coalition. The only thing I can’t see now is a labour majority government.
Slightly different take from Beth Rigby but I'm not sure she's always very accurate. I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
I really do not believe that Labour failing to agree to a December election will damage them - only political anoraks are desperate for that to happen and in doing so are losing a sense of proportion.
Justin, in the nicest possible way you're as partisan as Phillip Thompson and HYUFD.
Sometimes it's good to remember that not everything your own party does is particularly smart.
How am I a partisan? If I was a Tory partisan I'd have supported May's deal.
317-325 looks about right for the Tories, to me. I'd buy Labour a bit. Sell Lib Dems big time.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
I'd put the LDs as favourites to win seats like Wimbledon, Finchley, Guildford, St Albans, Putney, etc.
St Albans is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't bear repeating. I'd say it's an 85% chance for the LDs. Wimbledon is possible, especially if Stephen Hammond were to be the LD candidate. Still it's a 30-40% chance at most. Finchley & Golders Green. 20% chance. Guilford. 15% chance Putney. 5% chance.
Are those figures based on anything in particular, Mr RCS, or just an inspired hunch?
Inspired hunch.
Also, my patented four part methodology for assessing libdem election success.
Not a fan of constituency polling? Finchley looking good for the yellow peril
There's a potential bias with that poll.
We don't know whether they conducted several polls in the seats of their defectors: Totnes, South Cambridgeshire, etc, and then only chose to release the most favourable poll.
If they did so then it greatly increases the probability that it looked good by chance.
Right, thanks. Smarkets is an exchange rather like Betfair. I used it a bit a while back but there was very little liquidity. I don't know what it is like now.
FWIW I think Watford at 21/5 would be a fantastic bet. Richard Harrington lost the whip and in any case is standing down, the local Conservative party is a mess, and the LibDems have strong local roots.
If Zac does move to East Surrey, it will be interesting to see if the Tories simply give up on Richmond Park as a lost cause, and focus efforts elsewhere such as Wimbledon and Putney.
I would have thought Zac's departure would increase the chance of a Conservative hold.
I'm also struggling to see why the East Surrey Conservative Association would want Zac Goldsmith.
If Zac does move to East Surrey, it will be interesting to see if the Tories simply give up on Richmond Park as a lost cause, and focus efforts elsewhere such as Wimbledon and Putney.
I would have thought Zac's departure would increase the chance of a Conservative hold.
I'm also struggling to see why the East Surrey Conservative Association would want Zac Goldsmith.
As a staunch Brexiteer, wouldn't he serve the Conservatives better by standing in somewhere like Kingston upon Hull East?
That's the end of Jim the washing machine salemans then?
Just out of curiosity, supposing hypothetically that a senior politician admitted not just a willingness to buy cocaine for the use of others, but that he had used cocaine himself, would he also be suspended from the Commons?
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Let us cut the crap. It can help.
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
He didn't break it, he got outvoted, he had no choice and he did not consent to the extension.
You can not hold somebody accountable for that which they did not consent to. If someone says they will remain a virgin until marriage then they get raped are they a liar? Of course not! They didn't consent!
Boris didn't consent to the extension, he got outvoted by his opponents in Parliament who left him no choice in the matter, with opponents like Joanna Cherry MP even using the courts to make it abundantly clear that Boris had no say in the matter.
If Zac does move to East Surrey, it will be interesting to see if the Tories simply give up on Richmond Park as a lost cause, and focus efforts elsewhere such as Wimbledon and Putney.
I would have thought Zac's departure would increase the chance of a Conservative hold.
I'm also struggling to see why the East Surrey Conservative Association would want Zac Goldsmith.
I assume he would only get that sort of favourable treatment by virtue of being a friend of the Prime Minister. That could be valuable for the next five years.
@stodge Newcastle Racecourse is also right in leafy middle-class Gosforth. I bet that land is also worth a fortune.
Yes but it's called High Gosforth Park which makes me think in planning terms it's not considered a site for potential redevelopment but recreational land or public open space.
Worcester and York have racecourses close to the centre of the city - both are in flood plains and flood regularly in the winter. Most racecourses aren't in the middle of towns or cities but I look at Hereford, Musselburgh, Hamilton, Lingfield and Wolverhampton and I would suggest all of those could be redeveloped if sold off by their owners but any redevelopment would be politically courageous locally.
That's the end of Jim the washing machine salemans then?
Just out of curiosity, supposing hypothetically that a senior politician admitted not just a willingness to buy cocaine for the use of others, but that he had used cocaine himself, would he also be suspended from the Commons?
Depends, are you talking about while they're an MP or in the past prior to being an MP. One is relevant, one is not.
That's the end of Jim the washing machine salemans then?
Just out of curiosity, supposing hypothetically that a senior politician admitted not just a willingness to buy cocaine for the use of others, but that he had used cocaine himself, would he also be suspended from the Commons?
How many MPs do you think we would still have? Especially in metropolitan seats where it is all the rage, dontcha know?
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Let us cut the crap. It can help.
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
He didn't break it, he got outvoted, he had no choice and he did not consent to the extension.
You can not hold somebody accountable for that which they did not consent to. If someone says they will remain a virgin until marriage then they get raped are they a liar? Of course not! They didn't consent!
Boris didn't consent to the extension, he got outvoted by his opponents in Parliament who left him no choice in the matter, with opponents like Joanna Cherry MP even using the courts to make it abundantly clear that Boris had no say in the matter.
That's all fine. But anyone with eyes and a brain new the PM would have to obey the law. So on saying "we're leaving come what may" he was lying. And in lying to the stupid encouraging others to propagate a lie that he knew was a lie
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Let us cut the crap. It can help.
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
He didn't break it, he got outvoted, he had no choice and he did not consent to the extension.
You can not hold somebody accountable for that which they did not consent to. If someone says they will remain a virgin until marriage then they get raped are they a liar? Of course not! They didn't consent!
Boris didn't consent to the extension, he got outvoted by his opponents in Parliament who left him no choice in the matter, with opponents like Joanna Cherry MP even using the courts to make it abundantly clear that Boris had no say in the matter.
That's all fine. But anyone with eyes and a brain new the PM would have to obey the law. So on saying "we're leaving come what may" he was lying. And in lying to the stupid encouraging others to propagate a lie that he knew was a lie
He didn't give up, he kept pushing trying to get Brexit done even getting the Irish and EU to agree a new backstopless deal by the deadline opposition MPs had given him to get a deal done by. It was only when MPs chose to reject his deal in a timely fashion despite it having been reached by an artificial deadline his duplicitous opponents had chosen that he conceded defeat.
I am finding it really tough to decide how this election goes.
I think it is often the case that generals are obsessed with fighting the last war and in that sense I can’t see beyond a hung parliament with a similar result for last time (with less Labour and more LD). But every general election is different. Every campaign is different. And this time we’re sitting on a Brexit powder keg.
I can’t call it. It could be anything from a Tory majority of 40-50 through to a Lab-LD-SNP coalition. The only thing I can’t see now is a labour majority government.
I agree. The campaign will decide how it goes. Max Tory maj = 50.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Let us cut the crap. It can help.
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
He didn't break it, he got outvoted, he had no choice and he did not consent to the extension.
You can not hold somebody accountable for that which they did not consent to. If someone says they will remain a virgin until marriage then they get raped are they a liar? Of course not! They didn't consent!
Boris didn't consent to the extension, he got outvoted by his opponents in Parliament who left him no choice in the matter, with opponents like Joanna Cherry MP even using the courts to make it abundantly clear that Boris had no say in the matter.
That's all fine. But anyone with eyes and a brain new the PM would have to obey the law. So on saying "we're leaving come what may" he was lying. And in lying to the stupid encouraging others to propagate a lie that he knew was a lie
It’s shrewd politics. No more and no less. He was saying what his supporters wanted him to say, and allowed them to discover the parliamentary arithmetic “with” him. By doing so he showed them that Parliament caused an extension and not him.
Cynical, but good politics. And not a broken promise as such.
I don't know how racing survives at all when their town centre courses are worth a fortune as venues for combined retail parks and/or thousands of new houses.
I may be wrong but in the light of my previous, I suspect Newton Abbot racecourse is in the flood plain of the Teign River and for all it is very well situated near the station, I can't help but feel that's a disadvantage to future development.
Exeter is well outside the city on the top of Haldon Hill as I recall. Taunton is on the outskirts (Green Belt?) and Wincanton is in the middle of nowhere.
Kempton Park (to the west of Kingston) has been the subject of development interest for quite a while. Greyhound tracks (Wimbledon, Walthamstow and others) have been closed and sold for redevelopment but racecourses aren't so straightforward.
Sandown Park (Esher) is worth millions but has powerful friends in high places and Elmbridge BC would never grant permission for its redevelopment.
Within 10 years, there will be a number of "land-swap" schemes that take the existing courses further away from population centres and allow the current courses to be built upon. It is a business opportunity I have considered following up myself.....
It is not just race courses. Maidenhead golf club is just across the road from the railway station. The council paid the golf club millions to end their lease early. The golf club then found a new site in the green belt but not enough members voted for it (perhaps some of them are hoping the club is dissolved and they cash in). The council is hoping to build c2,000 homes on the site
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Let us cut the crap. It can help.
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
He didn't break it, he got outvoted, he had no choice and he did not consent to the extension.
You can not hold somebody accountable for that which they did not consent to. If someone says they will remain a virgin until marriage then they get raped are they a liar? Of course not! They didn't consent!
Boris didn't consent to the extension, he got outvoted by his opponents in Parliament who left him no choice in the matter, with opponents like Joanna Cherry MP even using the courts to make it abundantly clear that Boris had no say in the matter.
That's all fine. But anyone with eyes and a brain new the PM would have to obey the law. So on saying "we're leaving come what may" he was lying. And in lying to the stupid encouraging others to propagate a lie that he knew was a lie
He didn't give up, he kept pushing trying to get Brexit done even getting the Irish and EU to agree a new backstopless deal by the deadline opposition MPs had given him to get a deal done by. It was only when MPs chose to reject his deal in a timely fashion despite it having been reached by an artificial deadline his duplicitous opponents had chosen that he conceded defeat.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
If I buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, he is responsible for achieving that. If he told me he will do what he can to achieve that date, he is responsible for doing what he can.
They are simply different promises.
If you buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, but then an Act of Parliament makes it illegal to deliver sofas prior to November then is he still responsible or is that force majeure?
He is still responsible, given he knew an Act of Parliament was quite possibly going to make it illegal (yet promised nevertheless)
I am not a lawyer but to the best of my knowedge any contract I've ever signed has exclusions for changes of the law.
Johnson continued to promise the October 31st date after the Benn Act became law and we were constantly told there was a way round it.
Within 10 years, there will be a number of "land-swap" schemes that take the existing courses further away from population centres and allow the current courses to be built upon. It is a business opportunity I have considered following up myself.....
I would be very surprised. Many of the courses as businesses thrive on transport links so the question is simply going to be how many racecourses do we want to have rather then where do we want to have them?
There's a fair argument we don't need BOTH Sandown and Kempton.
The point about Newton Abbot is it will still be in the flood plain of the Teign and whoever takes on that site is going to have a spend a huge amount to alleviate that issue. The 1960s saw courses at Manchester, Salford, Birmingham and Hurst Park all go.
Would you advocate selling off Ascot and Windsor for development - I'm trying to think who owns Ascot - face on the coins might be a clue?
That's the end of Jim the washing machine salemans then?
Just out of curiosity, supposing hypothetically that a senior politician admitted not just a willingness to buy cocaine for the use of others, but that he had used cocaine himself, would he also be suspended from the Commons?
Depends, are you talking about while they're an MP or in the past prior to being an MP. One is relevant, one is not.
That's the end of Jim the washing machine salemans then?
Just out of curiosity, supposing hypothetically that a senior politician admitted not just a willingness to buy cocaine for the use of others, but that he had used cocaine himself, would he also be suspended from the Commons?
How many MPs do you think we would still have? Especially in metropolitan seats where it is all the rage, dontcha know?
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Let us cut the crap. It can help.
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
He didn't break it, he got outvoted, he had no choice and he did not consent to the extension.
You can not hold somebody accountable for that which they did not consent to. If someone says they will remain a virgin until marriage then they get raped are they a liar? Of course not! They didn't consent!
Boris didn't consent to the extension, he got outvoted by his opponents in Parliament who left him no choice in the matter, with opponents like Joanna Cherry MP even using the courts to make it abundantly clear that Boris had no say in the matter.
That's all fine. But anyone with eyes and a brain new the PM would have to obey the law. So on saying "we're leaving come what may" he was lying. And in lying to the stupid encouraging others to propagate a lie that he knew was a lie
It’s shrewd politics. No more and no less. He was saying what his supporters wanted him to say, and allowed them to discover the parliamentary arithmetic “with” him. By doing so he showed them that Parliament caused an extension and not him.
Cynical, but good politics. And not a broken promise as such.
I am sorry I dont agree. BJ cynically played Leavers and those of us astute enough to realise his nefarious misrepresentations were greated with hubris...
He didn't give up, he kept pushing trying to get Brexit done even getting the Irish and EU to agree a new backstopless deal by the deadline opposition MPs had given him to get a deal done by. It was only when MPs chose to reject his deal in a timely fashion despite it having been reached by an artificial deadline his duplicitous opponents had chosen that he conceded defeat.
317-325 looks about right for the Tories, to me. I'd buy Labour a bit. Sell Lib Dems big time.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
I'd put the LDs as favourites to win seats like Wimbledon, Finchley, Guildford, St Albans, Putney, etc.
St Albans is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't bear repeating. I'd say it's an 85% chance for the LDs. Wimbledon is possible, especially if Stephen Hammond were to be the LD candidate. Still it's a 30-40% chance at most. Finchley & Golders Green. 20% chance. Guilford. 15% chance Putney. 5% chance.
Are those figures based on anything in particular, Mr RCS, or just an inspired hunch?
Inspired hunch.
Also, my patented four part methodology for assessing libdem election success.
Not a fan of constituency polling? Finchley looking good for the yellow peril
Johnson continued to promise the October 31st date after the Benn Act became law and we were constantly told there was a way round it.
There was. Under section 1 of the Act the PM had a deadline to get a deal. The PM got a deal.
If Parliament had any integrity at really wanting to avoid no deal they would have ratified the deal that was reached prior to their self set deadline that was chosen by Benn and co.
...Boris's opponents said Boris would get no deal, had no intention of getting a deal and was only interested in pushing for No Deal...
Given that Boris i) did not voluntarily ask for an extension, ii) sent another letter saying he did not want an extension, iii) is blaming Labour for asking for an extension, iv) had to be coerced into asking for an extension by an actual Act of Parliament, it may juuust be reasonable to state that he was sincere when he said that he wanted to leave Deal or No-Deal
I don't know how racing survives at all when their town centre courses are worth a fortune as venues for combined retail parks and/or thousands of new houses.
I may be wrong but in the light of my previous, I suspect Newton Abbot racecourse is in the flood plain of the Teign River and for all it is very well situated near the station, I can't help but feel that's a disadvantage to future development.
Exeter is well outside the city on the top of Haldon Hill as I recall. Taunton is on the outskirts (Green Belt?) and Wincanton is in the middle of nowhere.
Kempton Park (to the west of Kingston) has been the subject of development interest for quite a while. Greyhound tracks (Wimbledon, Walthamstow and others) have been closed and sold for redevelopment but racecourses aren't so straightforward.
Sandown Park (Esher) is worth millions but has powerful friends in high places and Elmbridge BC would never grant permission for its redevelopment.
Strangely Lincoln Racecourse is right on the edge of the city, 10 minutes walk from the city centre and although the stand is still there the course closed in 1964 and moved racing to Doncaster.
It is very clearly a prime plot for building on, being close to large university developments at Brayford Pool and with thousands of new houses being built on the suburbs of the city. It is inside the ringroad and would seem obvious as a target. And yet it remains a very nice open space within which it is still possible to se the remains of the fences and hedges delineating the course.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Let us cut the crap. It can help.
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
He didn't break it, he got outvoted, he had no choice and he did not consent to the extension.
You can not hold somebody accountable for that which they did not consent to. If someone says they will remain a virgin until marriage then they get raped are they a liar? Of course not! They didn't consent!
Boris didn't consent to the extension, he got outvoted by his opponents in Parliament who left him no choice in the matter, with opponents like Joanna Cherry MP even using the courts to make it abundantly clear that Boris had no say in the matter.
That's all fine. But anyone with eyes and a brain new the PM would have to obey the law. So on saying "we're leaving come what may" he was lying. And in lying to the stupid encouraging others to propagate a lie that he knew was a lie
It’s shrewd politics. No more and no less. He was saying what his supporters wanted him to say, and allowed them to discover the parliamentary arithmetic “with” him. By doing so he showed them that Parliament caused an extension and not him.
Cynical, but good politics. And not a broken promise as such.
I am sorry I dont agree. BJ cynically played Leavers and those of us astute enough to realise his nefarious misrepresentations were greated with hubris...
I think a lot of leavers (and remainers) on the internet feel the need to be part of the narrative and feed the attack lines. In reality I think a lot of leaver’s honest position is like mine: Boris is the most useful vehicle available to deliver Brexit so I’ll vote to get him a strong Government. If he can win a few other votes lying then great.
I’m looking forward to a future with a bit more choice.
(For clarity I think a lot of remainers are putting up with shabby behaviour from “their side” too, in order to get what they want).
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Let us cut the crap. It can help.
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
He didn't break it, he got outvoted, he had no choice and he did not consent to the extension.
You can not hold somebody accountable for that which they did not consent to. If someone says they will remain a virgin until marriage then they get raped are they a liar? Of course not! They didn't consent!
Boris didn't consent to the extension, he got outvoted by his opponents in Parliament who left him no choice in the matter, with opponents like Joanna Cherry MP even using the courts to make it abundantly clear that Boris had no say in the matter.
That's all fine. But anyone with eyes and a brain new the PM would have to obey the law. So on saying "we're leaving come what may" he was lying. And in lying to the stupid encouraging others to propagate a lie that he knew was a lie
He didn't give up, he kept pushing trying to get Brexit done even getting the Irish and EU to agree a new backstopless deal by the deadline opposition MPs had given him to get a deal done by. It was only when MPs chose to reject his deal in a timely fashion despite it having been reached by an artificial deadline his duplicitous opponents had chosen that he conceded defeat.
Is he still trying now?
Since the problem blocking Brexit has been identified he is trying to fix the problem.
Comments
I think the One-line bill is sure to pass tomorrow, despite Anna Soubry just announcing that the remnants of Change UK won't be supporting it.
Would Labour dare after that to stall it? That really would be the pathway to oblivion.
They're just going to have to suck it up as a LibDem triumph. But Jeremy Corbyn isn't renowned for magnanimity.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1188834811470909440?s=20
But his comment, a bit like his do or die
pledgeaspiration, was pretty clear. Or was that also just Boris being Boris, colourful rhetoric an' all?Lurch to the right and you will lose. Always happens. Always will.
Some thought "Boris does not want a deal and is trying to trick us into No Deal", others thought "Boris was so desperate for a deal he signed up for the worst one in human history" and others thought "Boris was so desperate for a deal he signed up for a bad deal" others thought "Boris was so desperate for a deal he was prepared to push the country over the cliff edge into no deal" and some thought "Ooohh, biscuits"
Might think they can get Labour support now as they desperately try an avoid an election. Although an election clearly appears the more likely option if anything 'happens'. Equally the more Lab frustrate Brexit in the election run up the better for Boris.
I will happily engage with argument, so if you think you can frame an argument that doesn't sound as though it is a press release from Dominic Cummings please try. Your attempts to suggest that Boris Johnson is a sincere man of integrity just open you up to as much ridicule as if you were suggesting Pol Pot was a man of peace and reconciliation. If you want to have a debate, fine, but try not to come over as someone who is competing with HYUFD for the Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf Memorial Prize.
I will be in tomorrow afternoon if you would like a five minute argument or the full half hour. In between time, keep convincing yourself of Bozo's virtue. Someone has to.
....and failing.
Reminds me of that moment in the glorious sketch by Peter Cook:
"It would be a sad day for this country when a leading politician cannot spend his election expenses in any way he sees fit."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
What on earth can now be achieved? We have the extension. The only way for Labour to now stop the ‘dangerous Tory Brexit’ is to win an election.
The second option opens them up to scrutiny more that the first, and there may be some nervous Ministers thinking that scrutiny and success at the election are incompatible.
https://order-order.com/2019/10/28/standards-committee-reccomends-vaz-suspended-mp-six-months/
Wimbledon 13/8
St Albans 4/9
Watford 21/5
Richmond Park 1/8
London and Westminster 7/4
Current odds on BXP win
Thurrock 21/5
Now, while I appreciate that I am no huge brain sitting in No.10 with spreadsheets and eight-dimensional models, I think that an election is far from a foregone conclusion.
And who in their right mind wouldn't want some kind of brake mechanism on any of the parties, frankly.
Edit: where that leaves Brexit........F*** KNOWS!!
Sometimes it's good to remember that not everything your own party does is particularly smart.
Exeter is well outside the city on the top of Haldon Hill as I recall. Taunton is on the outskirts (Green Belt?) and Wincanton is in the middle of nowhere.
Kempton Park (to the west of Kingston) has been the subject of development interest for quite a while. Greyhound tracks (Wimbledon, Walthamstow and others) have been closed and sold for redevelopment but racecourses aren't so straightforward.
Sandown Park (Esher) is worth millions but has powerful friends in high places and Elmbridge BC would never grant permission for its redevelopment.
She may have her strengths, but that ain't one of 'em
Why risk JC if all hope of remaining is gone?
It's like this -
He made a massively high octane personal promise in order to become PM.
He has broken it.
You say that's no biggie, least he had a bash.
That, I submit, is Leaver bias. That's a prime case of Leaver bias right there.
But continually not agreeing, while Brexit drags on will act like a constant drip, drip, drip...
St Albans 4/9 - Value. Daisy will win easily.
Watford 21/5 - A difficult call. Those odds are probably about right.
Richmond Park 1/8 - I think the LDs could lose overall in this election, and still gain Richmond Park.
London and Westminster 7/4 - A difficult call. Those odds are probably about right.
I think it is often the case that generals are obsessed with fighting the last war and in that sense I can’t see beyond a hung parliament with a similar result for last time (with less Labour and more LD). But every general election is different. Every campaign is different. And this time we’re sitting on a Brexit powder keg.
I can’t call it. It could be anything from a Tory majority of 40-50 through to a Lab-LD-SNP coalition. The only thing I can’t see now is a labour majority government.
In case you didn't notice - I did not.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election-constituencies/st-albans
Smarkets. I'm not familiar with this firm.
We don't know whether they conducted several polls in the seats of their defectors: Totnes, South Cambridgeshire, etc, and then only chose to release the most favourable poll.
If they did so then it greatly increases the probability that it looked good by chance.
FWIW I think Watford at 21/5 would be a fantastic bet. Richard Harrington lost the whip and in any case is standing down, the local Conservative party is a mess, and the LibDems have strong local roots.
I'm also struggling to see why the East Surrey Conservative Association would want Zac Goldsmith.
You can not hold somebody accountable for that which they did not consent to. If someone says they will remain a virgin until marriage then they get raped are they a liar? Of course not! They didn't consent!
Boris didn't consent to the extension, he got outvoted by his opponents in Parliament who left him no choice in the matter, with opponents like Joanna Cherry MP even using the courts to make it abundantly clear that Boris had no say in the matter.
1. UNS?
Con hold by a massive margin
2. Remainy?
Extremely very
3. Local elections?
LD's on less than 10%, and lost their only seat in Barnet
4. Squeezability?
LDs are not seen as challengers and will struggle to get Labour switchers
rcs1000 says... easy Con Hold as opposition vote is split
Worcester and York have racecourses close to the centre of the city - both are in flood plains and flood regularly in the winter. Most racecourses aren't in the middle of towns or cities but I look at Hereford, Musselburgh, Hamilton, Lingfield and Wolverhampton and I would suggest all of those could be redeveloped if sold off by their owners but any redevelopment would be politically courageous locally.
Cynical, but good politics. And not a broken promise as such.
There's a fair argument we don't need BOTH Sandown and Kempton.
The point about Newton Abbot is it will still be in the flood plain of the Teign and whoever takes on that site is going to have a spend a huge amount to alleviate that issue. The 1960s saw courses at Manchester, Salford, Birmingham and Hurst Park all go.
Would you advocate selling off Ascot and Windsor for development - I'm trying to think who owns Ascot - face on the coins might be a clue?
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1188844371598368770
If Parliament had any integrity at really wanting to avoid no deal they would have ratified the deal that was reached prior to their self set deadline that was chosen by Benn and co.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1188759511617679360
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1188786075709444103
It is very clearly a prime plot for building on, being close to large university developments at Brayford Pool and with thousands of new houses being built on the suburbs of the city. It is inside the ringroad and would seem obvious as a target. And yet it remains a very nice open space within which it is still possible to se the remains of the fences and hedges delineating the course.
I’m looking forward to a future with a bit more choice.
(For clarity I think a lot of remainers are putting up with shabby behaviour from “their side” too, in order to get what they want).