BoJo’s Tories are arguably more vulnerable to the LDs at the next election than LAB – politicalbetti

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

So Kenny MacAskill, who has been an SNP MSP and was an SNP MP until this year is now a BritNat?

Denial about the deep divide now emerging in Scottish Nationalism between Sturgeon and Salmond supporters

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;

a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;

the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.

It's literally right there.

Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.

You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.

We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.

Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.

Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.

Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.

And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.

We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2

DougSeal said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

DougSeal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.

Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...

'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'

In more cutting off nose to spite face news..

This is just so much bollocks. Firstly, it’s the Express. Secondly the seven year old quote in the headline comes from some random “risk analyst” commenting on something Ed Davey said during the referendum. So the Express reheats some old quotes as click bait to enrage Independence supporters and fire up its own English Nationalist base you are willing to play along. Round of applause.

Remind me who the Express supports?...

The embarassing element is that Davey may have started it....

They were quoting him from a 2014 interview with Good Morning Scotland, when he was energy secretary, talking about the prospects for a pan GB energy market after Scottish Independence. Given he was on the “No” side his interpretation was that this would not be straightforward nor necessarily in the interests of rUK. Given that he’s a unionist politician, and known to be one, that’s hardly surprising nor embarrassing.

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;

a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;

the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.

It's literally right there.

Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.

You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.

We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.

Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.

Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.

Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.

And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.

We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;

a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;

the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.

It's literally right there.

Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.

You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.

We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.

Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.

Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.

Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.

And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.

We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2

The one thing the EU is unwilling to fudge these days is EMU convergence criteria. They've been burned by it too many times.

I personally don't care whether Scotland stays or goes. My gut feeling is that they would bottle it again by a fairly similar margin as last time because letting go of English taxpayer money would impoverish them and losing Sterling would mean 20 years of very, very hard graft to build an entirely new economy.

eek said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;

a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;

the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.

It's literally right there.

Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.

You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.

We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.

Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.

Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.

Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.

And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.

We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2

The one thing the EU is unwilling to fudge these days is EMU convergence criteria. They've been burned by it too many times.

I personally don't care whether Scotland stays or goes. My gut feeling is that they would bottle it again by a fairly similar margin as last time because letting go of English taxpayer money would impoverish them and losing Sterling would mean 20 years of very, very hard graft to build an entirely new economy.

I'm actually not so sure they will bottle it. The fact we left the EU against the expressed desire of the Scottish electorate is probably worth a fair number of Yes votes.

Equally from memory younger scottish voters are in favour of independence so it's inevitable unless other things change.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alistair, doesn't Sweden have a specific opt-out from the single currency?

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

Alistair said:

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/euro/which-countries-use-euro_en

The Treaty does not specify a particular timetable for joining the euro area, but leaves it to member states to develop their own strategies for meeting the condition for euro adoption.

ridaligo said:

tlg86 said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.

So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.

There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;

a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;

the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.

It's literally right there.

Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.

You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.

We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.

Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.

Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.

Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.

And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.

We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2

If that was the case then the Scots would already have voted for independence in 2014 if heart always ruled over head

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Charles said:

noneoftheabove said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

In big doms interview he constantly talks about we did this, we put boris in place, we might set up a new party, we took over an existing party....

Who is the we?

Michael Gove.

I'm currently on holiday but I took a call from an old friend who moves in these circles.

Says Cummings is concentrating on wiping out Johnson and Sunak (whom he recently gave the kiss of death) and others.

Gove is clearing the decks, hence the divorce, expect a few other revelations before conference season.

Gove is more of a committed Unionist than he is a Brexiteer, he doesn't want to be remembered as the midwife of Scottish independence.

It is no coincidence that Cummings was Gove's consigliere.

The talk of replacing/ousting Johnson after the 2019 GE was reminiscent of Gove taking out Johnson after winning the referendum of 2016.

Now back to my holiday and sweating like a 70s DJ in a police station.

Have to wonder what Rishi has done that's so terrible.

As for PM Gove, as Jim Hacker's Chief Whip put it- who is suitable for the job? The only way to find out is to suck it and see.

Whats Sunak done thats terrible? From Gove's perspective simply be ahead of him in the next leadership betting.

According to Unherd this morning it’s because he puts fiscal sanity ahead of levelling up

NerysHughes said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister

Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year

NerysHughes said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.

A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

No he isn't, no libertarian would have imposed a lockdown, now require Covid passports for nightclubs and large events and ended free movement from the EU and have increased spending as Boris is while also increasing NI and corporation tax.

No libertarian would have introduced Section 28 as Thatcher did either.

Cameron maybe and certainly Osborne and Truss but libertarians are only a relatively small wing of the party now.

No Conservative is a "libertarian". It is a totally conflicting philosophy. One can be a liberal Conservative, which I would have once described myself as . Cameron Osborne and Truss fit that label.

NerysHughes said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister

Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

NerysHughes said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

NerysHughes said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.

it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister

Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year

ridaligo said:

tlg86 said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.

So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.

There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Just done leg day in this heat, can I have a virtual high five?

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

eek said:

Alistair said:

DougSeal said:

Alistair said:

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;

a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;

the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.

“…adherence to the aims of…monetary union” is what people are on about. New members have to adhere to the aim of monetary union, which means joining the Euro. Sure, there’s no timetable, but you can’t join the EU with a commitment to keep your own currency indefinitely.

Tell that to Sweden.

Sweden and Denmark is why those rules have been made clearer for members that came along later..

And again since Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries have dodged the Euro. It's now impossible to join the EU without a very tight set of deadlines on when convergence criteria for EMU membership must be met.

There is no deadline.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Just done leg day in this heat, can I have a virtual high five?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ridaligo said:

tlg86 said:

ridaligo said:

On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).

He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.

That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).

But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.

Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.

Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.

On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).

Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.

So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.

There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.

Here is a 2019 Arsenal payslip for [since moved to Everton] Alex Iwobi.
https://twitter.com/footyawayday/status/1220080879982333952/photo/1

And net pay is almost exactly 50 per cent of gross.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1417806465272799235

Bye Rishi!

And Johnson now almost as unpopular as Starmer

Brom said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.

Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.

"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.

After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.

Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.

IanB2 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.

I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.

algarkirk said:

ClippP said:

This list of Lib Dem "target seats" does, I think, rather reflect the amount of effort and resources that the Lib Dems put into them at the last election, as they attempted to save the political skins of their recent big-name converts to liberalism.

The whole Lib Dem campaign was attuned in 2019 to mitigating or even reversing the disastrous Boris policy of leaving the EU, with no idea of the consequences or plans for dealing with the problems. Whether this particular line will be so prominent next time I do not know. I do not think it was so in the two recent byelections.

What really did for the Tories in these bye-elections, in addition to the incompetence and corruption, was the impression that Boris and his gang were arrogant authoritarians who did not pay any attention to the needs and aspirations of local people. It is very hard to see how the Tories can reverse this impression, except by clearing out the present Cabinet. Including Gove, of course.

The list of LD target seats with a Tory MP is an index of educated poshness with a certain style attached.

Questions to puzzle over would include these: If poshness and education are enough for LDs to come close why are seats like Arundel so Tory and the LDs so distant?

Whatever the answer is - and I think the question is significant - I think there are a very finite number of seats which LDs can aspire to.

It is also possible that when the next election comes the options will be stark: You are voting for two possibilities only, a Tory majority government or an unknown form of centre left alliance in which Lab, LD, Green and SNP are essential to its working.

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1417806465272799235

Bye Rishi!

And Johnson now almost as unpopular as Starmer

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.

Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.

"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.

After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.

Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.

Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.

Nigel_Foremain said:

NorthofStoke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

algarkirk said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.

Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.

That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.

On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.

Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.

I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.

More loved than the others.

‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’

Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.

By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054486.nicola-sturgeon-popular-leader-uk-poll-finds/

Only because she has now gone soft on pushing indyref2, which is why the hardline Nats in Alba hate her
https://twitter.com/KennyMacAskill/status/1415344843862298635?s=20

The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.

HYUFD is a Conservative,

Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.

Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.

You are a libertarian not a conservative

As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.

The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.

So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?

Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.

You're a liar, or pig ignorant.

I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.

I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.

As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.

Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.

Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brom said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1417806465272799235

Bye Rishi!

And Johnson now almost as unpopular as Starmer

and yet still averaging around a 10 point lead. Hmmm.

As I recall, last time the polls narrowed, this happened prior. I think we're headed that way by the end of the year.

NickPalmer said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

In big doms interview he constantly talks about we did this, we put boris in place, we might set up a new party, we took over an existing party....

Who is the we?

Michael Gove.

I'm currently on holiday but I took a call from an old friend who moves in these circles.

Says Cummings is concentrating on wiping out Johnson and Sunak (whom he recently gave the kiss of death) and others.

Gove is clearing the decks, hence the divorce, expect a few other revelations before conference season.

Gove is more of a committed Unionist than he is a Brexiteer, he doesn't want to be remembered as the midwife of Scottish independence.

It is no coincidence that Cummings was Gove's consigliere.

The talk of replacing/ousting Johnson after the 2019 GE was reminiscent of Gove taking out Johnson after winning the referendum of 2016.

Now back to my holiday and sweating like a 70s DJ in a police station.

Gove is however electoral poison - especially for younger age groups.

I'm first in line to be impervious to the charms of the Gover but I'm mildly intrigued by the voters of Surrey Heath; do they back him in spite of his Govieness 'cos he's a Con, or does he have some personal following? He increased his majority every GE from 2005 except interestingly the last one which I suppose was the great efflorescence of English nationalism.

Gove does have his fans - I'm one on a non-political basis. He is a politician who is really interested in doing stuff, and I'm allergic to politicians who just want to BE something. I can well imagine that he'd be a great constituency MP - if I had some personal problem that an MP could help resolve, I would absolutely trust Gove to do the necessary.

Brom said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Brom said:

It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.

Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.

"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.

After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.

Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.

Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.

Can tell you're not a football fan that's for sure!