Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Command syndrome: Brexit and Covid have defined Johnson’s leadership style – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,173

    Good morning all from sunny Buchan! Just been out for my first bike ride in about 6 months (oww). On a sunny morning this really is a beautiful place - lean the bike up against our granite portico, helmet on, out the gate. Literally cross the road and down the next street and within 30 seconds you've ridden out the bottom of the village and into open countryside where all you can hear is birds and the breeze.

    Bliss. Utter bliss...

    Excellent news. But - take care. Those birds you can hear? Ravens....
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 10,298

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Have you not heard the news we are in the middle of a pandemic and the economy is about to tank?

    Throw away the form book.
  • I've been a Johnson-sceptic for many years on the simple grounds that anyone who appears on the telly must be a trivial, meretricious figure unworthy of serious consideration. From this lofty perspective I would just as soon have Ian Hislop or Paul Merton as PM. In other words, not at all.

    But since Covid I have begun to detect just the tiniest glint of steel. His necessary daily involvement in the crisis has, I think, been the making of a new, better Boris. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

    The glint of steel has always been there. It is Boris who ruthlessly purged his party opponents (not Corbyn or Brown: Boris!); Boris who defied the law; Boris who ignored democratic conventions like being interviewed by Andrew Neil. But it is personal: it is about Boris, not Borisism.
    Boris ruthlessly purged the deadwood.

    Pruning away the dead wood allows healthy new growth.

    Boris didn't ignore conventions like ignoring Neil. All successful PMs have played that game - Blair, Cameron etc managed which interviews or debates they attended (or no debates at all).
    ETA Boris did not purge the dead wood. Boris purged his opponents. Like Stalin.

    Which other party leader in modern history was not interviewed by the BBC during an election campaign? Gladstone? Mrs Thatcher might have preferred Jimmy Young to Robin Day but she did not hide in a fridge to avoid questions.
    He didn't purge his opponents he purged the deadwood. The bedblocker MPs so out of touch they were incapable of taking the country forwards.

    Plus of course they expelled themselves, he told them it was a confidence vote and any MP who voted No would be expelled, not like Stalin but exactly the same as John Major did with Maastricht. Any MP that wanted to keep the whip could have voted with it, they chose not to despite losing the referendum, losing the leadership election and everything else.
    Sadly my view is that if he had purged the deadwood there would, with a very few honourable exceptions, have been almost no one left in either his cabinet or his Parliamentary party.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 22,149

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:


    Not having his own clan, and therefore only being able to gather about him comparative inadequates, will be his undoing, which is probably what David was trying to get at.

    Boris
    "When he does go, he can be relaxed there will be somebody competent to take over"

    Do you really think he would care!! Really? All he'll care about his place in the history books. It would suit him if his successor is a dumbo.
    Of course he cares. Whatever you might think of the man, the Conservative Party is a huge part of his life. He wants what is best for it. Because deep down, his ultimate belief is that the interests of the country he loves, the United Kingdom, and the interests of the people of that country, are best served by the Conservative Party over the capabilities of other offers.

    That he could get a majority of 80 from that electorate is a mystery to so many. Well, have you perhaps considered that maybe political prognostication really isn't for you, huh? Anybody that laid Boris as leader and PM really hasn't got the insights into modern politics required to be putting down hard cash.
    Having a crooked voting system helped hugely.
    How is our voting system crooked?

    We don't have voter ID. We have free access to postal ballots. We count on the same night all ballots. There are loads of independent watchers and verifiers from all parties. We have an impartial electoral services commission. We don't have partisan gerrymandering. Everyone starts from zero every 4-5 years in each election. You can freely campaign for any candidate. Ultra-safe seats can and do change, Leigh, Sellafield, Finchley etc. The only thing I'm uncomfortable about is political party donations and the influence of donors, which needs reform, but even there it's nothing like as bad as in the USA.

    Voting systems? Sure, prefer PR etc. But I don't think you can call FPTP "crooked". I don't think PR would save the Liberal Democrats either, only you and your party can do that.
    Point of order: voter ID is coming...
    Sinn Fein seem to be quite exercised (or is it exorcised) by that one.
    Labour will make a noise about it too.

    In both cases, it is probably because they assume that voter ID will be a net suppressor of voting amongst poor people, and it's likely that they are correct.

    Insofar as I'm aware, electoral fraud is minimal in the UK (and to the extent that there's any problem at all, it's with postal rather than in-person voting.) So if the inconvenience of imposing voter ID (people have to remember to bring it with them, and the staff at the polling stations have to check all this documentation) has no role to play in preventing impersonation, then we have to look for an alternative reason for doing it. Voter suppression is the only explanation that occurs.
    Anybody that believes in democracy should surely want to get the level of electoral fraud down to as close to zero as possible?

    Somebody casting a fraudulent vote has the ability to negate my vote. It's MY vote they are robbing.
    As far as we know..... number of proven cases ...... there's very little voter fraud in the UK.

    Wisps of smoke here and there, chiefly around postal voting, but very, very little fire.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,452
    Mr. Rook, I'm not sure what your opposition to voting being more secure is.

    There are many, many types of accepted ID and, from memory, the local council will provide one free of charge to anyone who asks.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,882

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:


    Not having his own clan, and therefore only being able to gather about him comparative inadequates, will be his undoing, which is probably what David was trying to get at.

    "comparative inadequates"? Prime Ministers are generally surrounded by comparative inadequates - in that, most will not reach the top of the greasy poll themselves. Some make room for their heir presumptive - someone who will neither outshine nor set about demolishing their legacy. For some PMs, they have an obvious successor - Blair had Brown (although, arguably, he should have canned him for Labour to prosper). Some seem to prevent the appointment of any who might be a successor - Brown and May. Some are in charge of such a lost cause, you have no idea who might be your successor when your party next gains power (Major). Some have no fear about their legacy being dismantled, it doesn't really matter who follows on (Thatcher).

    Boris has around him those who could be natural successors. Sunak, obviously. Truss, if she carries on cheerfully delivering. Maybe Dowden, if Boris goes long. Having secured the top job, Boris doesn't exude the air that nobody could possibly do the job as well as them. You won't have to prise each finger off the door jamb of Number 10. When he does go, he can be relaxed there will be somebody competent to take over.
    "When he does go, he can be relaxed there will be somebody competent to take over"

    Do you really think he would care!! Really? All he'll care about his place in the history books. It would suit him if his successor is a dumbo.
    Of course he cares. Whatever you might think of the man, the Conservative Party is a huge part of his life. He wants what is best for it. Because deep down, his ultimate belief is that the interests of the country he loves, the United Kingdom, and the interests of the people of that country, are best served by the Conservative Party over the capabilities of other offers.

    That he could get a majority of 80 from that electorate is a mystery to so many. Well, have you perhaps considered that maybe political prognostication really isn't for you, huh? Anybody that laid Boris as leader and PM really hasn't got the insights into modern politics required to be putting down hard cash.
    I followed HY and bet on Boris as leader and PM.
    The huge part of Johnson's life is himself.
    He wants what is best for himself. Because deep down, his ultimate belief is that the interests of the country he loves, the United Kingdom, and the interests of the people of that country, are best served by himself over the capabilities of other offers.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,452
    Mr. Barnesian, aye. His own self is the sun around which all the PM's words, thoughts, and deed revolve. He's the centre of his own universe.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 20,763

    David Cameron's original concept of "sharing the proceeds of growth".

    I think it will be viable over the next decade as I think we will see some stonking high growth in the next few years. A roaring twenties.

    PS for any on the loony left who still believe the ludicrous notion that austerity or the Brexit result choked off economic growth it's worth remembering in the real world that Britain grew faster than Europe in the past decade.

    What does make me laugh is how selective people's memories were. Brown definitely was a Bad Man and Cameron would have done it all differently apparently. Yet, as you say, the alternative Tory economic plan was to "match Labour spending plans pound for pound" - because people feared Tory cuts - and inflate the bubble even faster so that he could "share the proceeds of [even more] growth" in the form of tax cuts which would drive spending and inflate the bubble even faster.

    Yet after the event people seemed to be under the impression that Cameron and Osbrown were sagely warning against (their own policies) and planning to regulate the banks by deregulating them even further than Darling had. Not that Darling had deregulated *that* far - Barclays were prevented from buying Leeman remember...
    Well said. It's beyond tedious, all these years after the 08 crash, to still encounter the fictional Tory Story about it.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,316
    edited February 20

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 10,298

    I've been a Johnson-sceptic for many years on the simple grounds that anyone who appears on the telly must be a trivial, meretricious figure unworthy of serious consideration. From this lofty perspective I would just as soon have Ian Hislop or Paul Merton as PM. In other words, not at all.

    But since Covid I have begun to detect just the tiniest glint of steel. His necessary daily involvement in the crisis has, I think, been the making of a new, better Boris. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

    The glint of steel has always been there. It is Boris who ruthlessly purged his party opponents (not Corbyn or Brown: Boris!); Boris who defied the law; Boris who ignored democratic conventions like being interviewed by Andrew Neil. But it is personal: it is about Boris, not Borisism.
    Boris ruthlessly purged the deadwood.

    Pruning away the dead wood allows healthy new growth.

    Boris didn't ignore conventions like ignoring Neil. All successful PMs have played that game - Blair, Cameron etc managed which interviews or debates they attended (or no debates at all).
    ETA Boris did not purge the dead wood. Boris purged his opponents. Like Stalin.

    Which other party leader in modern history was not interviewed by the BBC during an election campaign? Gladstone? Mrs Thatcher might have preferred Jimmy Young to Robin Day but she did not hide in a fridge to avoid questions.
    Can't we just put the fridge incident down to comedic genius, like Monty Python's pet shop sketch?
  • MaxPB said:

    The main problem with Boris is that he dithers and values loyalty above competence. The Cabinet is full of idiots who have sworn fealty to him rather than people who could make the country work properly but would put the nation ahead of Boris' personal ambitions.

    Being clubbable or not doesn't really come into it.

    The interesting thing- which David alludes to in the header- is what happens next?

    For most of his Premiership, Johnson has had single, overtowering issues defining British politics. First, it was Get You-Know-What Done. Then, after a short interval where he was away a lot, it was Manage Covid.

    Normal life isn't like that. Normally, there are a dozen issues bubbling round, and who knows what tomorrow will bring? That needs a set of skills that BoJo has never really had to hone, and a quality team of ministers across the board.

    Whilst there are clearly huge challenges for Government in managing a pandemic, in terms of pure politics, the agenda defines itself, ministers are on telly a lot looking statesman-like and people want to rally round the flag. Purely politically, it is playing on easy mode. What happens when we go back to normality?
  • I've been a Johnson-sceptic for many years on the simple grounds that anyone who appears on the telly must be a trivial, meretricious figure unworthy of serious consideration. From this lofty perspective I would just as soon have Ian Hislop or Paul Merton as PM. In other words, not at all.

    But since Covid I have begun to detect just the tiniest glint of steel. His necessary daily involvement in the crisis has, I think, been the making of a new, better Boris. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

    The glint of steel has always been there. It is Boris who ruthlessly purged his party opponents (not Corbyn or Brown: Boris!); Boris who defied the law; Boris who ignored democratic conventions like being interviewed by Andrew Neil. But it is personal: it is about Boris, not Borisism.
    Boris ruthlessly purged the deadwood.

    Pruning away the dead wood allows healthy new growth.

    Boris didn't ignore conventions like ignoring Neil. All successful PMs have played that game - Blair, Cameron etc managed which interviews or debates they attended (or no debates at all).
    ETA Boris did not purge the dead wood. Boris purged his opponents. Like Stalin.

    Which other party leader in modern history was not interviewed by the BBC during an election campaign? Gladstone? Mrs Thatcher might have preferred Jimmy Young to Robin Day but she did not hide in a fridge to avoid questions.
    He didn't purge his opponents he purged the deadwood. The bedblocker MPs so out of touch they were incapable of taking the country forwards.

    Plus of course they expelled themselves, he told them it was a confidence vote and any MP who voted No would be expelled, not like Stalin but exactly the same as John Major did with Maastricht. Any MP that wanted to keep the whip could have voted with it, they chose not to despite losing the referendum, losing the leadership election and everything else.
    Sadly my view is that if he had purged the deadwood there would, with a very few honourable exceptions, have been almost no one left in either his cabinet or his Parliamentary party.
    That would apply to most governments and political parties since 2000.

    Has there been a general deterioration in the political class or is it just a nostalgia factor ?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 16,003

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:


    Not having his own clan, and therefore only being able to gather about him comparative inadequates, will be his undoing, which is probably what David was trying to get at.

    Boris
    "When he does go, he can be relaxed there will be somebody competent to take over"

    Do you really think he would care!! Really? All he'll care about his place in the history books. It would suit him if his successor is a dumbo.
    Of course he cares. Whatever you might think of the man, the Conservative Party is a huge part of his life. He wants what is best for it. Because deep down, his ultimate belief is that the interests of the country he loves, the United Kingdom, and the interests of the people of that country, are best served by the Conservative Party over the capabilities of other offers.

    That he could get a majority of 80 from that electorate is a mystery to so many. Well, have you perhaps considered that maybe political prognostication really isn't for you, huh? Anybody that laid Boris as leader and PM really hasn't got the insights into modern politics required to be putting down hard cash.
    Having a crooked voting system helped hugely.
    How is our voting system crooked?

    We don't have voter ID. We have free access to postal ballots. We count on the same night all ballots. There are loads of independent watchers and verifiers from all parties. We have an impartial electoral services commission. We don't have partisan gerrymandering. Everyone starts from zero every 4-5 years in each election. You can freely campaign for any candidate. Ultra-safe seats can and do change, Leigh, Sellafield, Finchley etc. The only thing I'm uncomfortable about is political party donations and the influence of donors, which needs reform, but even there it's nothing like as bad as in the USA.

    Voting systems? Sure, prefer PR etc. But I don't think you can call FPTP "crooked". I don't think PR would save the Liberal Democrats either, only you and your party can do that.
    Point of order: voter ID is coming...
    Sinn Fein seem to be quite exercised (or is it exorcised) by that one.
    Labour will make a noise about it too.

    In both cases, it is probably because they assume that voter ID will be a net suppressor of voting amongst poor people, and it's likely that they are correct.

    Insofar as I'm aware, electoral fraud is minimal in the UK (and to the extent that there's any problem at all, it's with postal rather than in-person voting.) So if the inconvenience of imposing voter ID (people have to remember to bring it with them, and the staff at the polling stations have to check all this documentation) has no role to play in preventing impersonation, then we have to look for an alternative reason for doing it. Voter suppression is the only explanation that occurs.
    Exactly - sums it up well. It's a bit of an odd issue to push, since the Conservatives now do OK among poorer people, so the edge that it will give them is only modest, and it's not really in anyone's interest that there's part of the population who feels that democracy isn't really designed to be open to them.
  • ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Have you not heard the news we are in the middle of a pandemic and the economy is about to tank?

    Throw away the form book.
    Actually the economy is about to get significantly better.

    In the short term.

    What happens in the longer term is anyone's guess.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 22,149

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
    One of the disadvantages of todays opinion polls is there's no figures for the Will Not Votes', or any evidence of 'Certainty to Vote'.
    I'm Certain to Vote, but, apart from 'Not Conservative' I could vote Lab, LD or Green.I generally reply Lab nowadays, but it'll be Green at the County Council. Probably.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 1,401

    I've been a Johnson-sceptic for many years on the simple grounds that anyone who appears on the telly must be a trivial, meretricious figure unworthy of serious consideration. From this lofty perspective I would just as soon have Ian Hislop or Paul Merton as PM. In other words, not at all.

    But since Covid I have begun to detect just the tiniest glint of steel. His necessary daily involvement in the crisis has, I think, been the making of a new, better Boris. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

    The glint of steel has always been there. It is Boris who ruthlessly purged his party opponents (not Corbyn or Brown: Boris!); Boris who defied the law; Boris who ignored democratic conventions like being interviewed by Andrew Neil. But it is personal: it is about Boris, not Borisism.
    Boris ruthlessly purged the deadwood.

    Pruning away the dead wood allows healthy new growth.

    Boris didn't ignore conventions like ignoring Neil. All successful PMs have played that game - Blair, Cameron etc managed which interviews or debates they attended (or no debates at all).
    ETA Boris did not purge the dead wood. Boris purged his opponents. Like Stalin.

    Which other party leader in modern history was not interviewed by the BBC during an election campaign? Gladstone? Mrs Thatcher might have preferred Jimmy Young to Robin Day but she did not hide in a fridge to avoid questions.
    'Wasn't interviewed by the BBC'
    'Gladstone' [?!]
    'Hid in a fridge'

    I love the way the voters illustrated the absolute irrelevance of these tedious talking-points. Within 24 hours of Boris 'hiding in a fridge', they gave him the largest majority for any party since Blair in 2001, the largest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987, and the highest share of the popular vote since Thatcher in 1979.

    But do tell us more about the fridge and Andrew Neil. Because people really seem to care about those things.
    You're quite right, voters really don't care about such things. And they really don't care, either, that the government plays fast and loose with the law, or the constitution. DHSC/Hancock has broken the law? So what? The Home Secretary has breached the code of conduct and is a bully? So what? Lucrative contracts land on the desk of the government's mates? So what? Illegal prorogation of parliament? So what? I could go on.

    We live in a political/populist culture now where stuff that used to get some traction simply doesn't, so you're right. The risk for the government, of course, is that the narrative of dodgy practices builds up over time and becomes a meta-narrative and damages the PM.

    Meanwhile, an erudite commentator like you contributes to the demeaning of political culture by going on about Starmer and zoos. Surely you can do better? It may be that integrity will win out in the long term.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,070

    Mr. Rook, the trial of voter ID had dozens of acceptable forms, and if somebody had none of them they could apply to their local council for one specifically for voting.

    Is the Post Office suppressing mail delivery by asking people to confirm their ID?

    No, but that's not the point. Government must be introducing voter ID for a reason. If there's no fraud problem to be addressed, then what alternative explanation is there for going to all the trouble?
    Because there is a problem to be addressed. There have been prosecutions and court cases in recent years. Look at all the fraud that happened in Tower Hamlets.

    Prevention is better than cure at ensuring that the process is secure.

    Plus everyone has ID nowadays. The idea of will put off anyone is farcical. Young people can't even enter a nightclub or buy a pint nowadays without ID.
    You would presumably be surprised but a lot of people don't.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,460
    I'm in favour of vaccine passports, but not voter ID...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,116
    edited February 20
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 38,115
    edited February 20
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm in favour of vaccine passports, but not voter ID...

    The truth is, we should have a chip and pin ID card, not to carry at all times, but to access government services. Voting. Driving licences. Travel abroad where no visa is required. Benefits. Banking. Healthcare. Vaccine status...

    And that should also come with the ability to log in to our accounts using chip and pin to see who has accessed our data in the last three months, and get anyone sacked if they access it illegally.

    But I don’t think it will happen. Too many people are too suspicious of ID cards.
  • kinabalu said:

    David Cameron's original concept of "sharing the proceeds of growth".

    I think it will be viable over the next decade as I think we will see some stonking high growth in the next few years. A roaring twenties.

    PS for any on the loony left who still believe the ludicrous notion that austerity or the Brexit result choked off economic growth it's worth remembering in the real world that Britain grew faster than Europe in the past decade.

    What does make me laugh is how selective people's memories were. Brown definitely was a Bad Man and Cameron would have done it all differently apparently. Yet, as you say, the alternative Tory economic plan was to "match Labour spending plans pound for pound" - because people feared Tory cuts - and inflate the bubble even faster so that he could "share the proceeds of [even more] growth" in the form of tax cuts which would drive spending and inflate the bubble even faster.

    Yet after the event people seemed to be under the impression that Cameron and Osbrown were sagely warning against (their own policies) and planning to regulate the banks by deregulating them even further than Darling had. Not that Darling had deregulated *that* far - Barclays were prevented from buying Leeman remember...
    Well said. It's beyond tedious, all these years after the 08 crash, to still encounter the fictional Tory Story about it.
    I predict it will stop two decades after the "Fatcha shut down all the minesandfactories and schoolsandhospitals" talk ends.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,452
    Mr. Doethur, I'm suspicious of the Government having an ID card scheme, and of associated databases.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,316

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Have you not heard the news we are in the middle of a pandemic and the economy is about to tank?

    Throw away the form book.
    On the contrary: the economy has already tanked, and is primed for a rebound. Let's wait for the post-Covid boom to kick away the last leg of your argument and then assess the matter again.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,560
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm in favour of vaccine passports, but not voter ID...

    The truth is, we should have a chip and pin ID card, not to carry at all times, but to access government services. Voting. Driving licences. Travel abroad where no visa is required. Benefits. Banking. Healthcare. Vaccine status...

    And that should also come with the ability to log in to our accounts using chip and pin to see who has accessed our data in the last three months, and get anyone sacked if they access it illegally.

    But I don’t think it will happen. Too many people are too suspicious of ID cards.
    Sounds a bit dystopian.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Mr. Rook, the trial of voter ID had dozens of acceptable forms, and if somebody had none of them they could apply to their local council for one specifically for voting.

    Is the Post Office suppressing mail delivery by asking people to confirm their ID?

    No, but that's not the point. Government must be introducing voter ID for a reason. If there's no fraud problem to be addressed, then what alternative explanation is there for going to all the trouble?
    Because there is a problem to be addressed. There have been prosecutions and court cases in recent years. Look at all the fraud that happened in Tower Hamlets.

    Prevention is better than cure at ensuring that the process is secure.

    Plus everyone has ID nowadays. The idea of will put off anyone is farcical. Young people can't even enter a nightclub or buy a pint nowadays without ID.
    You would presumably be surprised but a lot of people don't.
    True many applying for Universal Credit do not have a passport or driving licence.
    So struggle with the system especially in a lockdown when access to citizens advice and libraries is constricted.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 38,115

    Mr. Doethur, I'm suspicious of the Government having an ID card scheme, and of associated databases.

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm in favour of vaccine passports, but not voter ID...

    The truth is, we should have a chip and pin ID card, not to carry at all times, but to access government services. Voting. Driving licences. Travel abroad where no visa is required. Benefits. Banking. Healthcare. Vaccine status...

    And that should also come with the ability to log in to our accounts using chip and pin to see who has accessed our data in the last three months, and get anyone sacked if they access it illegally.

    But I don’t think it will happen. Too many people are too suspicious of ID cards.
    Sounds a bit dystopian.
    QED :smile:
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,882
    Yorkcity said:

    What noise ?
    The last two have Labour within 3 .
    Using an Exponential Moving Average (EMA) to reduce the noise shows the Tories 3 points ahead of Labour and five seats short of an overall majority.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,560
    This is the problem with Labour. Everything required some kind of new government intervention. This is a situation which doesn't because once this is over everything goes back to where it was pre-2020 with normal visits resumed. Unless she's suggesting that the government should legislate to allow potentially COVID positive people into care homes regardless of the circumstances which is ridiculous.

    Everyone is having to make sacrifices during this pandemic but for whatever reason Labour seems to think some legislation will make that all go away. It won't.
  • Mr. Rook, the trial of voter ID had dozens of acceptable forms, and if somebody had none of them they could apply to their local council for one specifically for voting.

    Is the Post Office suppressing mail delivery by asking people to confirm their ID?

    No, but that's not the point. Government must be introducing voter ID for a reason. If there's no fraud problem to be addressed, then what alternative explanation is there for going to all the trouble?
    Because there is a problem to be addressed. There have been prosecutions and court cases in recent years. Look at all the fraud that happened in Tower Hamlets.

    Prevention is better than cure at ensuring that the process is secure.

    Plus everyone has ID nowadays. The idea of will put off anyone is farcical. Young people can't even enter a nightclub or buy a pint nowadays without ID.
    You would presumably be surprised but a lot of people don't.
    Anyone who doesn't it's a personal choice and they can very easily get one. It isn't difficult to get one in this country and it works well in NI.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,560
    ydoethur said:

    Mr. Doethur, I'm suspicious of the Government having an ID card scheme, and of associated databases.

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm in favour of vaccine passports, but not voter ID...

    The truth is, we should have a chip and pin ID card, not to carry at all times, but to access government services. Voting. Driving licences. Travel abroad where no visa is required. Benefits. Banking. Healthcare. Vaccine status...

    And that should also come with the ability to log in to our accounts using chip and pin to see who has accessed our data in the last three months, and get anyone sacked if they access it illegally.

    But I don’t think it will happen. Too many people are too suspicious of ID cards.
    Sounds a bit dystopian.
    QED :smile:
    I think I'd be ok with it if there was no chip and pin aspect. The latter just seems like population tracking writ large. It's the chip and pin that would put me off. My ideological opposition to ID cards has definitely gone down over the last few years and having lived in a country which requires an ID card to be carried at all times it's not such a big deal.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    edited February 20

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
    I thought their was a rally for the government when Darling stepped in so the cash machines could open the following morning at certain banks.
    Also their was praise for Brown on his handling of the crisis.
    The polls improved for the government.
    Cameron and Osborne were initially saying let the market decide and the moral hazard was to let banks fail.They soon changed their mind.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,663
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
  • MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Mr. Doethur, I'm suspicious of the Government having an ID card scheme, and of associated databases.

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm in favour of vaccine passports, but not voter ID...

    The truth is, we should have a chip and pin ID card, not to carry at all times, but to access government services. Voting. Driving licences. Travel abroad where no visa is required. Benefits. Banking. Healthcare. Vaccine status...

    And that should also come with the ability to log in to our accounts using chip and pin to see who has accessed our data in the last three months, and get anyone sacked if they access it illegally.

    But I don’t think it will happen. Too many people are too suspicious of ID cards.
    Sounds a bit dystopian.
    QED :smile:
    I think I'd be ok with it if there was no chip and pin aspect. The latter just seems like population tracking writ large. It's the chip and pin that would put me off. My ideological opposition to ID cards has definitely gone down over the last few years and having lived in a country which requires an ID card to be carried at all times it's not such a big deal.
    I'm ok with ID cards - they already exist - I am not ok with being required to carry them.
  • HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    There's no requirement to have a border and if they want peace in Northern Ireland then they should do what the GFA did and fudge it. Turn a blind eye and have NI in both areas simultaneously.

    Put peace in Northern Ireland before dogma.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,882

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    There's no requirement to have a border and if they want peace in Northern Ireland then they should do what the GFA did and fudge it. Turn a blind eye and have NI in both areas simultaneously.

    Put peace in Northern Ireland before dogma.
    The border in the Irish Sea is not threatening peace in NI. No need for the EU to fudge it. The UK chose it and needs to live with it.
  • HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    Just to make it clear there was no way the UK could stay in the Customs Union. That had nothing at all to do with the desire for a clean break or hard Brexit on the part of the UK and everything to do with fundamental EU law. It is the same reason that none of the EFTA countries are in the Customs Union (although Liechtenstein is so small the EU just pretends they are and turns a blind eye to the fact that bends the rules).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,116

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    Just to make it clear there was no way the UK could stay in the Customs Union. That had nothing at all to do with the desire for a clean break or hard Brexit on the part of the UK and everything to do with fundamental EU law. It is the same reason that none of the EFTA countries are in the Customs Union (although Liechtenstein is so small the EU just pretends they are and turns a blind eye to the fact that bends the rules).
    Indeed, we could return to the single market and EFTA, or something closer aligned to it under a PM Starmer which would largely resolve the Irish Sea border issue anyway but not the EU Customs Union now
  • Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    There's no requirement to have a border and if they want peace in Northern Ireland then they should do what the GFA did and fudge it. Turn a blind eye and have NI in both areas simultaneously.

    Put peace in Northern Ireland before dogma.
    The border in the Irish Sea is not threatening peace in NI. No need for the EU to fudge it. The UK chose it and needs to live with it.
    Sadly, although you are right in the second part concerning it being the UK choice, you are wrong on the first. The border in the Irish Sea is threatening peace in Northern Ireland. Everyone was so focused on stopping Republican violence they forgot about the potential response from the Loyalists.
  • Morning folks

    Apropos of nothing I thought I’d let you know about these guys:
    https://battleguide.co.uk/

    I’m not connected to them or anything, but there seem to be plenty on here interested in military history so I thought I’d pass the website link on.

    They do virtual battlefield tours. I guess the pandemic has been the driver. I did one the other week looking at the storming of the Reichstag, which I was very impressed with. They made really good use of drone footage and google maps to give you a really good perspective on what happened.

    I was so impressed I’ve booked two more tours, both related to the Somme.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,116
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    There's no requirement to have a border and if they want peace in Northern Ireland then they should do what the GFA did and fudge it. Turn a blind eye and have NI in both areas simultaneously.

    Put peace in Northern Ireland before dogma.
    The border in the Irish Sea is not threatening peace in NI. No need for the EU to fudge it. The UK chose it and needs to live with it.
    https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/new-loyalist-group-says-it-behind-anti-irish-sea-border-posters-across-northern-ireland-and-says-businesses-are-funding-it-3134647

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9212593/NI-border-checks-suspended-menacing-loyalist-threats.html
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Have you not heard the news we are in the middle of a pandemic and the economy is about to tank?

    Throw away the form book.
    On the contrary: the economy has already tanked, and is primed for a rebound. Let's wait for the post-Covid boom to kick away the last leg of your argument and then assess the matter again.
    Yes but even a die hard tory like yourself.
    Many people and businesses will never recover when all the compensation schemes end.
    It will not be back to normal it will certainly be a new normal.
    Like recovering from a serious illness for many.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,744
    On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

  • Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    There's no requirement to have a border and if they want peace in Northern Ireland then they should do what the GFA did and fudge it. Turn a blind eye and have NI in both areas simultaneously.

    Put peace in Northern Ireland before dogma.
    The border in the Irish Sea is not threatening peace in NI. No need for the EU to fudge it. The UK chose it and needs to live with it.
    Sadly, although you are right in the second part concerning it being the UK choice, you are wrong on the first. The border in the Irish Sea is threatening peace in Northern Ireland. Everyone was so focused on stopping Republican violence they forgot about the potential response from the Loyalists.
    Which is why the EU have turned to telling their staff who are supposed to check the border is operating properly to not go into work as the risk of violence is too great.

    Welcome to NI politics Europe. There's two sides not one to deal with.

    The eventual solution, what the solution should have always been, is to fudge it for both sides. That's the true spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

    It will happen eventually. TINA.
  • Yorkcity said:

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
    I thought their was a rally for the government when Darling stepped in so the cash machines could open the following morning at certain banks.
    Also their was praise for Brown on his handling of the crisis.
    The polls improved for the government.
    Cameron and Osborne were initially saying let the market decide and the moral hazard was to let banks fail.They soon changed their mind.
    They should not have changed their mind. The Government should have differentiated between the deposits of customers and the institutions themselves. They could have underwritten the savings but let the banks collapse. Instead they chose to prop up the institutions and reward utter failure.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,116
    Barnesian said:

    Yorkcity said:

    What noise ?
    The last two have Labour within 3 .
    Using an Exponential Moving Average (EMA) to reduce the noise shows the Tories 3 points ahead of Labour and five seats short of an overall majority.

    Irony of ironies, DUP back holding balance of power then in another hung parliament on the EMA
  • Yorkcity said:

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
    I thought their was a rally for the government when Darling stepped in so the cash machines could open the following morning at certain banks.
    Also their was praise for Brown on his handling of the crisis.
    The polls improved for the government.
    Cameron and Osborne were initially saying let the market decide and the moral hazard was to let banks fail.They soon changed their mind.
    They should not have changed their mind. The Government should have differentiated between the deposits of customers and the institutions themselves. They could have underwritten the savings but let the banks collapse. Instead they chose to prop up the institutions and reward utter failure.
    The deposit protection scheme existed for a reason.
  • Yorkcity said:

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
    I thought their was a rally for the government when Darling stepped in so the cash machines could open the following morning at certain banks.
    Also their was praise for Brown on his handling of the crisis.
    The polls improved for the government.
    Cameron and Osborne were initially saying let the market decide and the moral hazard was to let banks fail.They soon changed their mind.
    They should not have changed their mind. The Government should have differentiated between the deposits of customers and the institutions themselves. They could have underwritten the savings but let the banks collapse. Instead they chose to prop up the institutions and reward utter failure.
    The deposit protection scheme existed for a reason.
    Yep although to be fair it was only limited in its scope and would have needed extending to all balances otherwise businesses would have gone bust as well.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,813
    BEL MOONEY: My dad Ted passed three Covid tests and died of a chronic illness yet he's officially one of Britain's 120,000 victims of the virus and is far from alone... so how many more are there?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9279767/BEL-MOONEY-dad-died-chronic-illness-hes-officially-Covid-victim.html
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 697

    IanB2 said:


    Having a crooked voting system helped hugely.

    You just disbarred yourself from being taken seriously.
    On the contrary. Mr IanB2 is absolutely right. I would have said the system was "broken" rather than "crooked" though, as a system. It is the present gang of crooks and incompetents in government who have made the system crooked.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,744

    Yorkcity said:

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
    I thought their was a rally for the government when Darling stepped in so the cash machines could open the following morning at certain banks.
    Also their was praise for Brown on his handling of the crisis.
    The polls improved for the government.
    Cameron and Osborne were initially saying let the market decide and the moral hazard was to let banks fail.They soon changed their mind.
    They should not have changed their mind. The Government should have differentiated between the deposits of customers and the institutions themselves. They could have underwritten the savings but let the banks collapse. Instead they chose to prop up the institutions and reward utter failure.
    The deposit protection scheme existed for a reason.
    Yep although to be fair it was only limited in its scope and would have needed extending to all balances otherwise businesses would have gone bust as well.
    One interesting thing about the deposit scheme. If you are monetising the assets relating to the estate of a deceased person, the guarantee is much higher than the 85 grand level for a period of six months.

    According to my financial advisor.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,560

    Yorkcity said:

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
    I thought their was a rally for the government when Darling stepped in so the cash machines could open the following morning at certain banks.
    Also their was praise for Brown on his handling of the crisis.
    The polls improved for the government.
    Cameron and Osborne were initially saying let the market decide and the moral hazard was to let banks fail.They soon changed their mind.
    They should not have changed their mind. The Government should have differentiated between the deposits of customers and the institutions themselves. They could have underwritten the savings but let the banks collapse. Instead they chose to prop up the institutions and reward utter failure.
    The deposit protection scheme existed for a reason.
    Yep although to be fair it was only limited in its scope and would have needed extending to all balances otherwise businesses would have gone bust as well.
    Yes, stand behind the depositors 100% and let RBS and HBOS go bankrupt. Instead we've got a zombie bank still majority owned by the government and HBOS almost brought a perfectly reasonable retail bank like Lloyds down.

    It was Brown stepping in to bailout Scotland's banking industry because has RBS and HBOS gone bust it would essentially finished any major financial services industry in Scotland.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,173
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Yorkcity said:

    What noise ?
    The last two have Labour within 3 .
    Using an Exponential Moving Average (EMA) to reduce the noise shows the Tories 3 points ahead of Labour and five seats short of an overall majority.

    Irony of ironies, DUP back holding balance of power then in another hung parliament on the EMA
    On old boundaries....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,173

    On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

    No.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,954
    edited February 20

    Yorkcity said:

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
    I thought their was a rally for the government when Darling stepped in so the cash machines could open the following morning at certain banks.
    Also their was praise for Brown on his handling of the crisis.
    The polls improved for the government.
    Cameron and Osborne were initially saying let the market decide and the moral hazard was to let banks fail.They soon changed their mind.
    They should not have changed their mind. The Government should have differentiated between the deposits of customers and the institutions themselves. They could have underwritten the savings but let the banks collapse. Instead they chose to prop up the institutions and reward utter failure.
    The deposit protection scheme existed for a reason.
    Yep although to be fair it was only limited in its scope and would have needed extending to all balances otherwise businesses would have gone bust as well.
    Absolutely but Iceland did it properly.

    Iceland ensured domestic creditors were protected and allowed the banks to fail restructuring new banks to instantly take their place. So speculative foreign creditors and the owners of the bank's lost everything, the banking system continued working even with the old banks wiped out, accounts were protected and moral hazard continued.

    The Icelandic government refused to bail out those who lost money. There was a sharp shock recession as there was elsewhere but they relatively quickly came out of it and recovered.

    Given the international nature of our banks even if you wanted to protect foreign accounts, a similar model could have worked.
  • On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

    I always thought a 'conhome' was a geriatric institution that delivered less than it promised.
  • Yorkcity said:

    ...or MoE, or if you were @BluestBlue a whopping 3 point advantage.
    Lol. Ed Miliband - Ed Miliband! - had a 6-point average lead over Cameron's Tories at this point in the 2010-2015 Parliament. The failure of the Opposition to hold a lead in mid-term, let alone when people's lives are so grim and difficult at the moment, is a terrible omen for their prospects at a GE.

    But don't worry, I'm sure Captain 'Close the Zoos!' will turn it around for them in no time...
    Bush is arguing in the Newstatesman this weekend that actually given the 'rally around our national leader' effect of the covid crisis the Tories should be further ahead.
    And it's bollocks. Why didn't Brown get that kind of rally effect during the GFC? Why didn't Cameron when he was digging Britain out of the wreckage? Why didn't it save Trump in the US?

    We Brits are a pretty cynical bunch - we rarely do 'rally effects', certainly not for a sustained period of time. The Tories are ahead in the polls because they're leading the world in vaccines and because Starmer is as boring as watching paint that's already dried.
    I thought their was a rally for the government when Darling stepped in so the cash machines could open the following morning at certain banks.
    Also their was praise for Brown on his handling of the crisis.
    The polls improved for the government.
    Cameron and Osborne were initially saying let the market decide and the moral hazard was to let banks fail.They soon changed their mind.
    They should not have changed their mind. The Government should have differentiated between the deposits of customers and the institutions themselves. They could have underwritten the savings but let the banks collapse. Instead they chose to prop up the institutions and reward utter failure.
    The deposit protection scheme existed for a reason.
    Yep although to be fair it was only limited in its scope and would have needed extending to all balances otherwise businesses would have gone bust as well.
    Absolutely but Iceland did it properly.

    Iceland ensured domestic creditors were protected and allowed the banks to fail restructuring new banks to instantly take their place. So speculative foreign creditors and the owners of the bank's lost everything, the banking system continued working even with the old banks wiped out, accounts were protected and moral hazard continued.

    The Icelandic government refused to bail out those who lost money. There was a sharp shock recession as there was elsewhere but they relatively quickly came out of it and recovered.

    Given the international nature of our banks even if you wanted to protect foreign accounts, a similar model could have worked.
    Yep. Easy to see after the event I suppose but I agree entirely.
  • On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...
  • ClippP said:

    IanB2 said:


    Having a crooked voting system helped hugely.

    You just disbarred yourself from being taken seriously.
    On the contrary. Mr IanB2 is absolutely right. I would have said the system was "broken" rather than "crooked" though, as a system. It is the present gang of crooks and incompetents in government who have made the system crooked.
    Yet another blow to IanB2's credibility.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,744
    edited February 20

    On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

    I always thought a 'conhome' was a geriatric institution that delivered less than it promised.
    That's because the conservatives' core vote is geriatric.

    Why do you think untold billions have been spent trying to preserve and extend their lives while young people have been thrown to the dogs?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,946

    On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...

    I think that is right. Frankly, if my stroll around the village this morning is anything to go by, people are meeting people outside on park benches already. Lord knows what it will be like if we get even warmer weather in March.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,173
    ClippP said:

    IanB2 said:


    Having a crooked voting system helped hugely.

    You just disbarred yourself from being taken seriously.
    On the contrary. Mr IanB2 is absolutely right. I would have said the system was "broken" rather than "crooked" though, as a system. It is the present gang of crooks and incompetents in government who have made the system crooked.
    LibDems don't exactly have the moral high-ground when talking about a crooked system.

    Paid back that huge donation from the crook yet?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 53,294

    On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

    I always thought a 'conhome' was a geriatric institution that delivered less than it promised.
    That's because the conservatives' core vote is geriatric.

    Why do you think untold billions have been spent trying to preserve and extend their lives while young people have been thrown to the dogs?
    That’s bollocks. Any party would have done broadly the same thing.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,744

    On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...

    Absolutely. And you can see the beginnings of this in the news, in the social media and on conservative sites today. The mood is turning swiftly.

    Wait until Sunak gives us the bill on March 03. It will turn again.

    Johnson has a problem, in my view.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 31,500

    A bit of a rambling piece. It doesn't seem to head anywhere. However, if lack of 'clubbability and collegiality' is the main driver for the thesis then it begs a question. Which Prime Ministers have been? And is it a requirement? And is this really suggesting that to be PM you aren't supposed to be all about yourself?!!

    Theresa May was notoriously tricky to work with. I don't know anyone who would describe her as clubbable.

    David Cameron most certainly was NOT clubbable. He was aloof, operated in his own clan and if you weren't in the inner circle then you were nobody.

    Gordon Brown was self-obsessed and not clubbable.

    Tony Blair was affable and genial but I think it was a charade and it was still all about him. He was something of a cult figure, as evidenced since he stood down.

    John Major was probably the most clubbable PM of my lifetime and one of the worst PM's.

    Margaret Thatcher was the most aloof, unclubbable and least collegiate PM of my lifetime ... and the best PM by a country mile.

    I could go, but you get the point.

    To be PM you need to be up yourself, aloof, un-collegiate and un-clubbable. It's a lonely job. You don't get there by being luvvie.

    Johnson's biggest problem is that he's insecure. He has been much better since showing Cummings the door but he needs to rein in his ministers who are loose canons and frequently contradicting one another as they pitch for power.

    Boris Johnson needs to be less collegiate and clubbable and more aloof from the herd. He has the makings of a fine Prime Minister.

    I like the image of loose canons.

    Vicars going out on the lash 😂
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 33,670
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Yorkcity said:

    What noise ?
    The last two have Labour within 3 .
    Using an Exponential Moving Average (EMA) to reduce the noise shows the Tories 3 points ahead of Labour and five seats short of an overall majority.

    Irony of ironies, DUP back holding balance of power then in another hung parliament on the EMA
    Not on sub 20% they won't
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,744
    RobD said:

    On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

    I always thought a 'conhome' was a geriatric institution that delivered less than it promised.
    That's because the conservatives' core vote is geriatric.

    Why do you think untold billions have been spent trying to preserve and extend their lives while young people have been thrown to the dogs?
    That’s bollocks. Any party would have done broadly the same thing.
    LOL, including Corbyn, as is being pointed out on Conhome today...!!

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,882
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    There's no requirement to have a border and if they want peace in Northern Ireland then they should do what the GFA did and fudge it. Turn a blind eye and have NI in both areas simultaneously.

    Put peace in Northern Ireland before dogma.
    The border in the Irish Sea is not threatening peace in NI. No need for the EU to fudge it. The UK chose it and needs to live with it.
    https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/new-loyalist-group-says-it-behind-anti-irish-sea-border-posters-across-northern-ireland-and-says-businesses-are-funding-it-3134647

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9212593/NI-border-checks-suspended-menacing-loyalist-threats.html
    It's a UK issue not an EU one. It's not part of the GFA.

    If it got really serious then the solution is for the UK to join the CU. It's a UK issue. Our choice.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,882

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    There's no requirement to have a border and if they want peace in Northern Ireland then they should do what the GFA did and fudge it. Turn a blind eye and have NI in both areas simultaneously.

    Put peace in Northern Ireland before dogma.
    The border in the Irish Sea is not threatening peace in NI. No need for the EU to fudge it. The UK chose it and needs to live with it.
    Sadly, although you are right in the second part concerning it being the UK choice, you are wrong on the first. The border in the Irish Sea is threatening peace in Northern Ireland. Everyone was so focused on stopping Republican violence they forgot about the potential response from the Loyalists.
    Which is why the EU have turned to telling their staff who are supposed to check the border is operating properly to not go into work as the risk of violence is too great.

    Welcome to NI politics Europe. There's two sides not one to deal with.

    The eventual solution, what the solution should have always been, is to fudge it for both sides. That's the true spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

    It will happen eventually. TINA.
    TIAA. Join the CU.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,744
    edited February 20
    RobD said:

    On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

    I always thought a 'conhome' was a geriatric institution that delivered less than it promised.
    That's because the conservatives' core vote is geriatric.

    Why do you think untold billions have been spent trying to preserve and extend their lives while young people have been thrown to the dogs?
    That’s bollocks. Any party would have done broadly the same thing.
    French children are in school. They don;t have the vaccine. Do the math.

    Meanwhile Ron de Santis in Florida is showing us how conservatives should have responded to the pandemic. Small businesses? we have your back. Children? you have a right to an education, whatever.

    This is coming down the line at CarrieBojo apologists such as yourself. And other fake conservatives. It isn't going to be pretty,
  • Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    There's no requirement to have a border and if they want peace in Northern Ireland then they should do what the GFA did and fudge it. Turn a blind eye and have NI in both areas simultaneously.

    Put peace in Northern Ireland before dogma.
    The border in the Irish Sea is not threatening peace in NI. No need for the EU to fudge it. The UK chose it and needs to live with it.
    https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/new-loyalist-group-says-it-behind-anti-irish-sea-border-posters-across-northern-ireland-and-says-businesses-are-funding-it-3134647

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9212593/NI-border-checks-suspended-menacing-loyalist-threats.html
    It's a UK issue not an EU one. It's not part of the GFA.

    If it got really serious then the solution is for the UK to join the CU. It's a UK issue. Our choice.
    No.

    That's like saying the GFA solution to the Troubles should Northern Ireland joining the Republic of Ireland.

    0/10 try again.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,813
    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:


    Not having his own clan, and therefore only being able to gather about him comparative inadequates, will be his undoing, which is probably what David was trying to get at.

    "comparative inadequates"? Prime Ministers are generally surrounded by comparative inadequates - in that, most will not reach the top of the greasy poll themselves. Some make room for their heir presumptive - someone who will neither outshine nor set about demolishing their legacy. For some PMs, they have an obvious successor - Blair had Brown (although, arguably, he should have canned him for Labour to prosper). Some seem to prevent the appointment of any who might be a successor - Brown and May. Some are in charge of such a lost cause, you have no idea who might be your successor when your party next gains power (Major). Some have no fear about their legacy being dismantled, it doesn't really matter who follows on (Thatcher).

    Boris has around him those who could be natural successors. Sunak, obviously. Truss, if she carries on cheerfully delivering. Maybe Dowden, if Boris goes long. Having secured the top job, Boris doesn't exude the air that nobody could possibly do the job as well as them. You won't have to prise each finger off the door jamb of Number 10. When he does go, he can be relaxed there will be somebody competent to take over.
    "When he does go, he can be relaxed there will be somebody competent to take over"

    Do you really think he would care!! Really? All he'll care about his place in the history books. It would suit him if his successor is a dumbo.
    Of course he cares. Whatever you might think of the man, the Conservative Party is a huge part of his life. He wants what is best for it. Because deep down, his ultimate belief is that the interests of the country he loves, the United Kingdom, and the interests of the people of that country, are best served by the Conservative Party over the capabilities of other offers.

    That he could get a majority of 80 from that electorate is a mystery to so many. Well, have you perhaps considered that maybe political prognostication really isn't for you, huh? Anybody that laid Boris as leader and PM really hasn't got the insights into modern politics required to be putting down hard cash.
    Having a crooked voting system helped hugely.
    Canada?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,316

    I've been a Johnson-sceptic for many years on the simple grounds that anyone who appears on the telly must be a trivial, meretricious figure unworthy of serious consideration. From this lofty perspective I would just as soon have Ian Hislop or Paul Merton as PM. In other words, not at all.

    But since Covid I have begun to detect just the tiniest glint of steel. His necessary daily involvement in the crisis has, I think, been the making of a new, better Boris. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

    The glint of steel has always been there. It is Boris who ruthlessly purged his party opponents (not Corbyn or Brown: Boris!); Boris who defied the law; Boris who ignored democratic conventions like being interviewed by Andrew Neil. But it is personal: it is about Boris, not Borisism.
    Boris ruthlessly purged the deadwood.

    Pruning away the dead wood allows healthy new growth.

    Boris didn't ignore conventions like ignoring Neil. All successful PMs have played that game - Blair, Cameron etc managed which interviews or debates they attended (or no debates at all).
    ETA Boris did not purge the dead wood. Boris purged his opponents. Like Stalin.

    Which other party leader in modern history was not interviewed by the BBC during an election campaign? Gladstone? Mrs Thatcher might have preferred Jimmy Young to Robin Day but she did not hide in a fridge to avoid questions.
    'Wasn't interviewed by the BBC'
    'Gladstone' [?!]
    'Hid in a fridge'

    I love the way the voters illustrated the absolute irrelevance of these tedious talking-points. Within 24 hours of Boris 'hiding in a fridge', they gave him the largest majority for any party since Blair in 2001, the largest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987, and the highest share of the popular vote since Thatcher in 1979.

    But do tell us more about the fridge and Andrew Neil. Because people really seem to care about those things.
    You're quite right, voters really don't care about such things. And they really don't care, either, that the government plays fast and loose with the law, or the constitution. DHSC/Hancock has broken the law? So what? The Home Secretary has breached the code of conduct and is a bully? So what? Lucrative contracts land on the desk of the government's mates? So what? Illegal prorogation of parliament? So what? I could go on.

    We live in a political/populist culture now where stuff that used to get some traction simply doesn't, so you're right. The risk for the government, of course, is that the narrative of dodgy practices builds up over time and becomes a meta-narrative and damages the PM.

    Meanwhile, an erudite commentator like you contributes to the demeaning of political culture by going on about Starmer and zoos. Surely you can do better? It may be that integrity will win out in the long term.
    @Northern_Al

    That the political machine should operate in an orderly manner is obviously important to you, but in my case at least, the priorities are simply different, which makes divergent approaches to various areas of life quite compatible with one another. One can be as elitist as one likes about certain aspects of culture and still favour a distinctly populist approach to politics – no lack of historical precedent for that. More to the point, Labour and the woke left as a whole threaten the foundations of our culture in a manner so profound that in the long view what Hancock does with contracts or whether Priti obeys the ministerial code merits little more than the most languid indifference from me. I want those aspects of British and Western culture that I love and care about the most to endure for the rest of my life and beyond, and that means keeping the modern left away from the levers of power by any and all means necessary – piling a little scorn upon Starmer that's rather milder than what Aristophanes used to excoriate Cleisthenes and Cleon is really the least of it.
  • DougSeal said:
    There will be some who have been both infected and vaccinated.

    On the other hand there are also people who have been neither infected nor vaccinated but have little to fear from covid.

    Plus those who have been neither infected nor vaccinated nor at minimal risk but still want an end to restrictions.

    The tipping point is going to come soon.
  • RobD said:

    On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

    I always thought a 'conhome' was a geriatric institution that delivered less than it promised.
    That's because the conservatives' core vote is geriatric.

    Why do you think untold billions have been spent trying to preserve and extend their lives while young people have been thrown to the dogs?
    That’s bollocks. Any party would have done broadly the same thing.
    French children are in school. They don;t have the vaccine. Do the math.

    Meanwhile Ron de Santis in Florida is showing us how conservatives should have responded to the pandemic. Small businesses? we have your back. Children? you have a right to an education, whatever.

    This is coming down the line at CarrieBojo apologists such as yourself. And other fake conservatives. It isn't going to be pretty,
    You do realise the French have a draconianly strict curfew don't you?

    It's against the law for you to be outside your home between 6pm and 6am.

    Is that what you want in this country? I don't think so.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,946

    On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...

    Absolutely. And you can see the beginnings of this in the news, in the social media and on conservative sites today. The mood is turning swiftly.

    Wait until Sunak gives us the bill on March 03. It will turn again.

    Johnson has a problem, in my view.
    For once I largely agree with you. I am not in any way familiar with the internal dynamics of the Conservative Party but on our village green, and I am sure on village greens across Kent, I saw lockdown fracturing in ways I have never seen it do before in this or its previous iterations. The messaging is shite - “Vaccines will set us free. Great! Sun’s out for the first time in ages! I’ll grab a coffee at the Farmers’ Market with Bob and Linda.” The Govt have to factor in the psychological weariness from all of this. - I’d hope they have some behaviour modelling going on.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,173
    Charles said:

    A bit of a rambling piece. It doesn't seem to head anywhere. However, if lack of 'clubbability and collegiality' is the main driver for the thesis then it begs a question. Which Prime Ministers have been? And is it a requirement? And is this really suggesting that to be PM you aren't supposed to be all about yourself?!!

    Theresa May was notoriously tricky to work with. I don't know anyone who would describe her as clubbable.

    David Cameron most certainly was NOT clubbable. He was aloof, operated in his own clan and if you weren't in the inner circle then you were nobody.

    Gordon Brown was self-obsessed and not clubbable.

    Tony Blair was affable and genial but I think it was a charade and it was still all about him. He was something of a cult figure, as evidenced since he stood down.

    John Major was probably the most clubbable PM of my lifetime and one of the worst PM's.

    Margaret Thatcher was the most aloof, unclubbable and least collegiate PM of my lifetime ... and the best PM by a country mile.

    I could go, but you get the point.

    To be PM you need to be up yourself, aloof, un-collegiate and un-clubbable. It's a lonely job. You don't get there by being luvvie.

    Johnson's biggest problem is that he's insecure. He has been much better since showing Cummings the door but he needs to rein in his ministers who are loose canons and frequently contradicting one another as they pitch for power.

    Boris Johnson needs to be less collegiate and clubbable and more aloof from the herd. He has the makings of a fine Prime Minister.

    I like the image of loose canons.

    Vicars going out on the lash 😂
    Even racier, now we have lady vicars.....
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,882

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It's pragmatic, fiscally conservative, puts the national interest first, and prefers gradual reform to radical change.

    It's been exactly none of those things since 2015.
    Yes it has.

    Despite all the sound and fury Brexit will result in less change for Britain than remaining in an ever changing Europe.
    Do you think substantially greater chances of Irish reunification and Scottish Indy weren’t caused by Brexit or that they wouldn’t really count as ‘change for Britain’?
    I don't think Brexit has led to substantially greater chances of either.

    The SNP won all but three MPs in 2015, before Brexit. They were never going to let sleeping dogs lie and if it wasn't Brexit they would have latched upon anything else instead.

    You don't want Sindy because of Brexit. You want Sindy because you've always wanted Sindy.

    As for the Irish it will depend as it has for decades upon demographics.
    I suggest we can add Northern Irish politics to the list of things you don't really understand.
    If we stopped people commenting on things they don’t understand most threads would be about a tenth of their normal length.

    Anyway no one really understands Northern Irish politics; it’s the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day.
    All true. Nevertheless you don't have to put much effort in to unearth all manner of commentary - from both sides of the divide - setting out how Brexit has changed the political climate in the North. And the last poll I saw had the DUP down at 19%.
    The DUP are facing the same fate as the UUP. They made compromises with Sinn Fein so now a harder more unionist party is seeking to take their votes.

    The DUP made their name as the No No No party but then had to make compromises. Now there's a new No No No party. It's what they do.

    Nothing to do with Brexit. Correlation does not equal causation.
    That's just denial. Go do a bit of reading up on what politicians, academics and commentators actually living there are saying.
    Philip is right on this, in the 2015 general election in NI before Brexit the DUP got 25%, SF got 24%, the SDLP got 13% and the UUP got 16% and the Alliance got 8%.

    At the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote the DUP got 30%, SF got 22%, the SDLP got 14%, the Alliance got 16% and the UUP got 11%.

    So the DUP is actually up on where it was before the Brexit vote, SF is down as is the UUP and the main gainers are the SDLP and particularly the non sectarian Alliance. Any changes since then have been Unionist hardliners moving from DUP to the even harder line TUV over opposition to the NI protocol.

    In Scotland in 2015 before Brexit the SNP got 50%, Labour got 24%, the Tories got 14% and the LDs got 7%. In 2019 after the Brexit vote the SNP got 45%, the Tories got 25%, Labour got 18% and the LDs got 9%.

    So the SNP is actually down in Scotland since the Brexit vote as are Labour and the Tories and LDs have been the main gainers.
    But it isn't a question that can be answered with VI polls. The question is whether Brexit has, and will, make NI's position in the UK more precarious, and advance the likelihood of a united Ireland.
    Brexit itself won't make any difference to people's views on a United Ireland.

    However the fact the EU demanded a form of border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK does make a return to loyalist paramilitary violence more likely as shown by the threats to border guards at NI ports, just as if Boris had imposed a hard border in Ireland and gone to No Deal would have made a return to violence by the IRA more likely. Boris however always put the peace process first and agreed a deal with the EU and no hard border in Ireland.

    The ball is in the EU's court now to similarly make greater efforts to remove the Irish Sea border and amend the NI Protocol, the EU made the mistake of just focusing on Nationalist violence as a risk and ignoring the risk of Loyalist violence
    Absolutely ridiculous. There is a border because the UK left the customs union. The only question was whether that border should be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. The UK government agreed for it to be in the Irish sea. If you think the EU is suddenly going to start focusing on solving this forget it. They have plenty of other things to worry about.
    There's no requirement to have a border and if they want peace in Northern Ireland then they should do what the GFA did and fudge it. Turn a blind eye and have NI in both areas simultaneously.

    Put peace in Northern Ireland before dogma.
    The border in the Irish Sea is not threatening peace in NI. No need for the EU to fudge it. The UK chose it and needs to live with it.
    https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/new-loyalist-group-says-it-behind-anti-irish-sea-border-posters-across-northern-ireland-and-says-businesses-are-funding-it-3134647

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9212593/NI-border-checks-suspended-menacing-loyalist-threats.html
    It's a UK issue not an EU one. It's not part of the GFA.

    If it got really serious then the solution is for the UK to join the CU. It's a UK issue. Our choice.
    No.

    That's like saying the GFA solution to the Troubles should Northern Ireland joining the Republic of Ireland.

    0/10 try again.
    No. We have a GFA solution to the Troubles. It is in place with agreement from all parties. No need for NI to join the ROI.

    0/10 try again.

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 3,082
    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:


    Not having his own clan, and therefore only being able to gather about him comparative inadequates, will be his undoing, which is probably what David was trying to get at.

    "comparative inadequates"? Prime Ministers are generally surrounded by comparative inadequates - in that, most will not reach the top of the greasy poll themselves. Some make room for their heir presumptive - someone who will neither outshine nor set about demolishing their legacy. For some PMs, they have an obvious successor - Blair had Brown (although, arguably, he should have canned him for Labour to prosper). Some seem to prevent the appointment of any who might be a successor - Brown and May. Some are in charge of such a lost cause, you have no idea who might be your successor when your party next gains power (Major). Some have no fear about their legacy being dismantled, it doesn't really matter who follows on (Thatcher).

    Boris has around him those who could be natural successors. Sunak, obviously. Truss, if she carries on cheerfully delivering. Maybe Dowden, if Boris goes long. Having secured the top job, Boris doesn't exude the air that nobody could possibly do the job as well as them. You won't have to prise each finger off the door jamb of Number 10. When he does go, he can be relaxed there will be somebody competent to take over.
    "When he does go, he can be relaxed there will be somebody competent to take over"

    Do you really think he would care!! Really? All he'll care about his place in the history books. It would suit him if his successor is a dumbo.
    Of course he cares. Whatever you might think of the man, the Conservative Party is a huge part of his life. He wants what is best for it. Because deep down, his ultimate belief is that the interests of the country he loves, the United Kingdom, and the interests of the people of that country, are best served by the Conservative Party over the capabilities of other offers.

    That he could get a majority of 80 from that electorate is a mystery to so many. Well, have you perhaps considered that maybe political prognostication really isn't for you, huh? Anybody that laid Boris as leader and PM really hasn't got the insights into modern politics required to be putting down hard cash.
    Having a crooked voting system helped hugely.
    Canada?
    Union registers and ballots must count as well
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,383

    DougSeal said:
    There will be some who have been both infected and vaccinated.

    On the other hand there are also people who have been neither infected nor vaccinated but have little to fear from covid.

    Plus those who have been neither infected nor vaccinated nor at minimal risk but still want an end to restrictions.

    The tipping point is going to come soon.
    Hope so, because I've had enough of all this.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,316

    RobD said:

    On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

    I always thought a 'conhome' was a geriatric institution that delivered less than it promised.
    That's because the conservatives' core vote is geriatric.

    Why do you think untold billions have been spent trying to preserve and extend their lives while young people have been thrown to the dogs?
    That’s bollocks. Any party would have done broadly the same thing.
    French children are in school. They don;t have the vaccine. Do the math.

    Meanwhile Ron de Santis in Florida is showing us how conservatives should have responded to the pandemic. Small businesses? we have your back. Children? you have a right to an education, whatever.

    This is coming down the line at CarrieBojo apologists such as yourself. And other fake conservatives. It isn't going to be pretty,
    French children have had to wear masks in school since October, and from this month only 'Category 1' masks (FFP2 and equivalent) are permitted:

    https://www.thelocal.fr/20210208/france-bans-the-use-of-fabric-face-masks-in-schools-over-concerns-about-efficiency

    I take it you're totally in favour of the French approach then?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,946

    DougSeal said:
    There will be some who have been both infected and vaccinated.

    On the other hand there are also people who have been neither infected nor vaccinated but have little to fear from covid.

    Plus those who have been neither infected nor vaccinated nor at minimal risk but still want an end to restrictions.

    The tipping point is going to come soon.
    Yes - I was pondering how much overlap between infected and vaccinated there had been. In the medical profession I would wager quite a lot.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 2,453
    Thanks David. As someone who recommended Esther McVey as the next Conservative leader back in 2019, I'm slightly wary of suggesting who might follow Johnson. But the logic of what I thought then still holds now, if not more - namely, that the future leader of the Conservative party will come from the Blue Collar Conservatism wing. One thing that is crucially important here - and what I missed last time - was the "electorate" that choose the next Conservative leader has fundamentally changed, with a greater proportion coming from Red Wall seats which favours such a candidate. It's why I don't think Sunak will do it but possibly someone like Patel might.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,383

    On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...

    Absolutely. And you can see the beginnings of this in the news, in the social media and on conservative sites today. The mood is turning swiftly.

    Wait until Sunak gives us the bill on March 03. It will turn again.

    Johnson has a problem, in my view.
    "meeting one other family outside by Easter"

    I'm not a behaviour scientist on SAGE but imho once the over 50s and vulnerables are done by end of March/early April, then there are millions of families who will ignore this restriction and meet up (at least in gardens) and to hell with if it's three or four households technically.

    People have had enough of this.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 2,453

    RobD said:

    On conhome and on twitter there are some restless conservatives out there today. And not just the usual suspects.

    One critique on conhome is very very bitter and the fact they published it is quite an eyebrow raiser.

    Is Johnson sitting on a powder keg?

    I always thought a 'conhome' was a geriatric institution that delivered less than it promised.
    That's because the conservatives' core vote is geriatric.

    Why do you think untold billions have been spent trying to preserve and extend their lives while young people have been thrown to the dogs?
    That’s bollocks. Any party would have done broadly the same thing.
    French children are in school. They don;t have the vaccine. Do the math.

    Meanwhile Ron de Santis in Florida is showing us how conservatives should have responded to the pandemic. Small businesses? we have your back. Children? you have a right to an education, whatever.

    This is coming down the line at CarrieBojo apologists such as yourself. And other fake conservatives. It isn't going to be pretty,
    You do realise the French have a draconianly strict curfew don't you?

    It's against the law for you to be outside your home between 6pm and 6am.

    Is that what you want in this country? I don't think so.
    Swerved the point about DeSantis and Florida, didn't you? Essentially reopened, a successful vaccination programme for the older age groups and not seeing a resurgence of cases. Compare with lockdown California and New York.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,316

    On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...

    Absolutely. And you can see the beginnings of this in the news, in the social media and on conservative sites today. The mood is turning swiftly.

    Wait until Sunak gives us the bill on March 03. It will turn again.

    Johnson has a problem, in my view.
    Trump followed your 'true conservative' strategy in the US. Now he's the one with the problem - being out of power.

    Whoops!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 13,185

    Purely politically, it is playing on easy mode. What happens when we go back to normality?

    if history is any guide, BoZo runs away
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 2,453

    On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...

    Absolutely. And you can see the beginnings of this in the news, in the social media and on conservative sites today. The mood is turning swiftly.

    Wait until Sunak gives us the bill on March 03. It will turn again.

    Johnson has a problem, in my view.
    "meeting one other family outside by Easter"

    I'm not a behaviour scientist on SAGE but imho once the over 50s and vulnerables are done by end of March/early April, then there are millions of families who will ignore this restriction and meet up (at least in gardens) and to hell with if it's three or four households technically.

    People have had enough of this.
    Totally agree. The first major politician to grasp this and push on with things will see a big surge in support.
  • On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...

    Absolutely. And you can see the beginnings of this in the news, in the social media and on conservative sites today. The mood is turning swiftly.

    Wait until Sunak gives us the bill on March 03. It will turn again.

    Johnson has a problem, in my view.
    "meeting one other family outside by Easter"

    I'm not a behaviour scientist on SAGE but imho once the over 50s and vulnerables are done by end of March/early April, then there are millions of families who will ignore this restriction and meet up (at least in gardens) and to hell with if it's three or four households technically.

    People have had enough of this.
    The vaccinated are already ignoring restrictions in my experience.

    You can't expect people to cower in their own homes when they've been told they're no longer at risk.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,689

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm in favour of vaccine passports, but not voter ID...

    The truth is, we should have a chip and pin ID card, not to carry at all times, but to access government services. Voting. Driving licences. Travel abroad where no visa is required. Benefits. Banking. Healthcare. Vaccine status...

    And that should also come with the ability to log in to our accounts using chip and pin to see who has accessed our data in the last three months, and get anyone sacked if they access it illegally.

    But I don’t think it will happen. Too many people are too suspicious of ID cards.
    When we have all had the vaccine, you can just put your arm against the voting machine....
    The problem with the ID cards is not the ID cards.

    The last time round this was tried, the government (under Labour) wanted to tie all your official records together. Plus commercially available data. So that a council worker, investigating fly tipping would have access to *everything*. Including biometrics.

    When the stark insanity of this approach became apparent - anyone with access to the system would have all the data required for deep identity theft... The fix was interesting. VIPs would have their data sequestered in a separate system. VIPs = politicians, senior civil servants, popular figures...

    Yes, a nomenklatura

    Combined with things likes a block on using decent encryption for NHS records - 40bit! - you'd have to be deranged to trust the system on this.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,946

    On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...

    Absolutely. And you can see the beginnings of this in the news, in the social media and on conservative sites today. The mood is turning swiftly.

    Wait until Sunak gives us the bill on March 03. It will turn again.

    Johnson has a problem, in my view.
    "meeting one other family outside by Easter"

    I'm not a behaviour scientist on SAGE but imho once the over 50s and vulnerables are done by end of March/early April, then there are millions of families who will ignore this restriction and meet up (at least in gardens) and to hell with if it's three or four households technically.

    People have had enough of this.
    Happening today in my village, on the village green, on the park benches outside the old agricultural college, it’s like the sun has come out and a switch has been flicked. I’ve no doubt the cops are concentrating on the towns and on the beaches (Whitstable, Hythe, Joss Bay) while the villages in the interior are enforcement free. It’s lockdown by consent and, to my eye today, it’s slipping already. And it’s going to be broadly this sunny all week.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 6,473
    Boris is politically invincible. You couldn't have someone more suited to prosper in this post-truth world. And what with vast swathes of the media, and other assorted apologists, promoting him without question... I just can't see the tiniest chink in his armour.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 1,401
    edited February 20

    I've been a Johnson-sceptic for many years on the simple grounds that anyone who appears on the telly must be a trivial, meretricious figure unworthy of serious consideration. From this lofty perspective I would just as soon have Ian Hislop or Paul Merton as PM. In other words, not at all.

    But since Covid I have begun to detect just the tiniest glint of steel. His necessary daily involvement in the crisis has, I think, been the making of a new, better Boris. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

    The glint of steel has always been there. It is Boris who ruthlessly purged his party opponents (not Corbyn or Brown: Boris!); Boris who defied the law; Boris who ignored democratic conventions like being interviewed by Andrew Neil. But it is personal: it is about Boris, not Borisism.
    Boris ruthlessly purged the deadwood.

    Pruning away the dead wood allows healthy new growth.

    Boris didn't ignore conventions like ignoring Neil. All successful PMs have played that game - Blair, Cameron etc managed which interviews or debates they attended (or no debates at all).
    ETA Boris did not purge the dead wood. Boris purged his opponents. Like Stalin.

    Which other party leader in modern history was not interviewed by the BBC during an election campaign? Gladstone? Mrs Thatcher might have preferred Jimmy Young to Robin Day but she did not hide in a fridge to avoid questions.
    'Wasn't interviewed by the BBC'
    'Gladstone' [?!]
    'Hid in a fridge'

    I love the way the voters illustrated the absolute irrelevance of these tedious talking-points. Within 24 hours of Boris 'hiding in a fridge', they gave him the largest majority for any party since Blair in 2001, the largest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987, and the highest share of the popular vote since Thatcher in 1979.

    But do tell us more about the fridge and Andrew Neil. Because people really seem to care about those things.
    You're quite right, voters really don't care about such things. And they really don't care, either, that the government plays fast and loose with the law, or the constitution. DHSC/Hancock has broken the law? So what? The Home Secretary has breached the code of conduct and is a bully? So what? Lucrative contracts land on the desk of the government's mates? So what? Illegal prorogation of parliament? So what? I could go on.

    We live in a political/populist culture now where stuff that used to get some traction simply doesn't, so you're right. The risk for the government, of course, is that the narrative of dodgy practices builds up over time and becomes a meta-narrative and damages the PM.

    Meanwhile, an erudite commentator like you contributes to the demeaning of political culture by going on about Starmer and zoos. Surely you can do better? It may be that integrity will win out in the long term.
    @Northern_Al

    That the political machine should operate in an orderly manner is obviously important to you, but in my case at least, the priorities are simply different, which makes divergent approaches to various areas of life quite compatible with one another. One can be as elitist as one likes about certain aspects of culture and still favour a distinctly populist approach to politics – no lack of historical precedent for that. More to the point, Labour and the woke left as a whole threaten the foundations of our culture in a manner so profound that in the long view what Hancock does with contracts or whether Priti obeys the ministerial code merits little more than the most languid indifference from me. I want those aspects of British and Western culture that I love and care about the most to endure for the rest of my life and beyond, and that means keeping the modern left away from the levers of power by any and all means necessary – piling a little scorn upon Starmer that's rather milder than what Aristophanes used to excoriate Cleisthenes and Cleon is really the least of it.
    Thanks for the decent response; and yes, I know that's your view. I can't help but think, though, that you exaggerate the threat to the "foundations of our culture" from a potential mild-mannered dose of Starmerism. I can see why you were so exercised about the risks of Corbynism, but that threat is long gone. Starmer has shown no inclination at all to pander to the 'woke left', unless you are one of those who think his symbolic gesture of kneeling against racism in the USA constitutes an existential threat to western civilisation. And of course you can pour scorn on Starmer. It's just that the scorn you (and others) pour on him is frequently rather puerile and doesn't advance the debate. Your comments otherwise are often really interesting, that's all.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,383
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1362903016739848195

    The medium post has ≈ 30 testimonies from working academics and researchers about problems they are having with academic freedom and free speech in our universities.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,560

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1362903016739848195

    The medium post has ≈ 30 testimonies from working academics and researchers about problems they are having with academic freedom and free speech in our universities.

    But the problem doesn't exist. They're making it all up and universities don't have any issues with free speech. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar or a transphobe.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,383
    DougSeal said:

    On the impact of the vaccine programme on voting intentions... seems certain that currently the speed of vaccinations (relative to other countries) is underpinning Government support... but will that continue if the end to lockdown, as announced on Monday, is thoroughly underwhelming... the one measure briefed to the press today, meeting one other family outside by Easter has left this household very disappointed to say the least... speed of returning to normal (relative to other countries) may overtake % of population jabbed as the driver of public mood...

    Absolutely. And you can see the beginnings of this in the news, in the social media and on conservative sites today. The mood is turning swiftly.

    Wait until Sunak gives us the bill on March 03. It will turn again.

    Johnson has a problem, in my view.
    "meeting one other family outside by Easter"

    I'm not a behaviour scientist on SAGE but imho once the over 50s and vulnerables are done by end of March/early April, then there are millions of families who will ignore this restriction and meet up (at least in gardens) and to hell with if it's three or four households technically.

    People have had enough of this.
    Happening today in my village, on the village green, on the park benches outside the old agricultural college, it’s like the sun has come out and a switch has been flicked. I’ve no doubt the cops are concentrating on the towns and on the beaches (Whitstable, Hythe, Joss Bay) while the villages in the interior are enforcement free. It’s lockdown by consent and, to my eye today, it’s slipping already. And it’s going to be broadly this sunny all week.
    Thanks. It is lock down by consent and SAGE and the roadmappers need to accept that.

    There is no way millions will carry on in this benighted half world once the vulnerable have been vaccinated and the season changes the viral dynamics anyway.
This discussion has been closed.