Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

On the face of this should be a safe CON by-election hold – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 9 in General
imageOn the face of this should be a safe CON by-election hold – politicalbetting.com

Following the very sad demise at such a young age of James Brokenshire we now have another Conservative Westminster by-election defence in the offing. The GE2019 outcome from Old Bexley and Sidcup makes it look a very safe seat indeed and it would be a sensation if the Tories do not hold on.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,255
    It's a disaster for Scotland (again).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,282
    edited October 9
    kinabalu said:

    ping said:



    Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;

    They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*

    A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.

    I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).

    Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.

    Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).

    Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
    I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.

    So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
    No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
    Absolutely 100% yes.

    The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.

    The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.

    It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.

    In the words of John Stuart Mill:

    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,462
    edited October 9

    The header illustrates the problem in getting sensible informal arrangements beteween Labour and LibDems. In C&A, Labour only ran a token campaign to give the LibDems a good shot. Here we have a seat where Labour starts with nearly three times the LibDem vote (indeed they lost their deposit in 2017). Do the LibDems hold back? Not if they take Mike's advice.

    If followed, this will militate against Labour holding back in Blue Wall seats - it simply can't be reasonable to make it one-way traffic. TimS, a London LibDem member, on the last thread said that he hadn't seen any sign of LD mobilisation for an effort here. Let's hope he's right.

    You just need to pull the anchors up and vote Tory Dr P.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,462
    DavidL said:

    It's a disaster for Scotland (again).

    Odd that. It seems that the common factor is Scotland.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,508
    indeed
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,282
    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,508

    The header illustrates the problem in getting sensible informal arrangements beteween Labour and LibDems. In C&A, Labour only ran a token campaign to give the LibDems a good shot. Here we have a seat where Labour starts with nearly three times the LibDem vote (indeed they lost their deposit in 2017). Do the LibDems hold back? Not if they take Mike's advice.

    If followed, this will militate against Labour holding back in Blue Wall seats - it simply can't be reasonable to make it one-way traffic. TimS, a London LibDem member, on the last thread said that he hadn't seen any sign of LD mobilisation for an effort here. Let's hope he's right.

    Way too simplistic. Whereas Labour does help the LibDems by opting out, the same isn't true in reverse. If the Tories were defeatable in this seat - which they aren't - what Labour would need is an energetic LibDem campaign focused on areas and voters of the seat that lean middle class remain. Not that Bexley is awash with those.

    If the LibDems simply made no effort, it wouldn't help Labour much at all.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,180

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,282
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21
  • DavidL said:

    It's a disaster for Scotland (again).

    Serves Scotland right, you deserved to be punished for earworming me and the world with 'Yes Sir, I Can Boogie.'
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,462
    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,361
    Late afternoon all :)

    From an LD perspective, this is a poor area. The party has never finished second in the seat - got to within five points of Labour in 2010. Decent improvement to save the deposit in 2019.

    Rather like neighbouring Bromley, the LDs enjoyed a brief period of electoral strength locally in the 1990s but lost their last councillor in 2006. In 2018, the party put up a handful of candidates and won 6% of the vote.

    I wouldn't describe it as a strong prospect. Labour are, by most measures, the obvious second-placed party but they have an enormous task.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 557
    Yes, would advise punters to bet on the Lib Dems as soon as the market opens, should be a good price, suspect thay may open higher than Labour,
    "Remember the Maine" was the cry to encourage an invasion of Cuba, remember Sutton and Cheam 1972, very similat situation. Liberal landslide.
  • Ted Heath's old seat so this seat does like unabashed pro EU types.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,404

    kinabalu said:

    ping said:



    Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;

    They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*

    A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.

    I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).

    Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.

    Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).

    Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
    I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.

    So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
    No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
    Absolutely 100% yes.

    The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.

    The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.

    It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.

    In the words of John Stuart Mill:

    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
    I see. Well hopefully rapping out a stream of simple simon posts on a niche internet form saying "The Burqa is evil! But it shouldn't be banned!" means you are JS Mill's idea of a Good Man.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,823
    edited October 9
    My word, what a goal by Scotland.

    Edit - Oh dear.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,206

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Did anyone apart from you say "but what about the Jews" or are you putting words into other people's mouths (or posts) again?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,255
    edited October 9

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    If the EU is not a nation state and is a trade organisation or similar then absolutely national constitutions should have primacy. Interestingly the German constitutional court has made a similar ruling, but that wasn't as controversial as the Poles saying the same thing as the Germans since the EU won't stand up to the Germans in the same way as it would to the Poles.

    One irony is that the UK far more than any other nation treated the supremacy of EU law as unchallengeable. In part because we embedded the EU into our own unwritten constitution but the Poles haven't to the same extent.

    Certainly in America if there's a conflict between their own Constitution and an international 'law' or agreement then their Constitution remains supreme. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be the same for the Germans and Poles and anyone else.

    If that cuts the EU back down to size and makes the principle of subsidiarity actually mean something, then the EU might be better in the long-run for it.
    The problem with that that Philip is, to take an example, if German law says that Beer can only have 4 ingredients and EU law allows other ingredients then German law is a barrier to trade and an infringement of the SM. Without the supremacy of EU law the EU on its current form cannot therefore operate. Of course a much looser trade arrangement might seek to resolve such disputes by arbitration etc but that is not the way that the EU is set up now nor is it how it has been set up since the Treaty of Rome.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,361
    dixiedean said:

    Opposition SPOLU gone ahead in Czech election with 98.33% counted.
    Well. On votes. One behind on seats. D'Hondt to blame I guess.
    Most votes to come in Prague where government is third by some way. Looks like billionaire Babis is for the chop.

    Indeed - now level on 71 seats each with STAN on 38 and Freedom & Direct Democracy on 20.

    12,000 miles away, a dreadful poll for Judith Collins and National showing them a country mile behind Jacinda Ardern's Labour and also losing ground to ACT under David Seymour. Could the unthinkable happen and National drop to third ? Seems inconceivable but the current numbers:

    Changes on 2020 election:

    Labour: 45.5% (-4.5)
    National: 23% (-2.6)
    ACT: 16% (+8.4)
    Green 9.5% (+1.6)
    Māori: 2.0% (+0.8)
    New Zealand First: 1.5% (-1.1)
    The Opportunities Party: 1.5% (nc)
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,268

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    I've got (some) wealth. Which I have worked for. 👍
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,255

    DavidL said:

    It's a disaster for Scotland (again).

    Serves Scotland right, you deserved to be punished for earworming me and the world with 'Yes Sir, I Can Boogie.'
    Scotland get an excellent equaliser only to throw it away with some catastrophic defending. Its not easy watching Scotland.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It's a disaster for Scotland (again).

    Serves Scotland right, you deserved to be punished for earworming me and the world with 'Yes Sir, I Can Boogie.'
    Scotland get an excellent equaliser only to throw it away with some catastrophic defending. Its not easy watching Scotland.
    As a long time watcher of England's cricket test team you must be used to this?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757
    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    It's a fight the EU must have and win. Presumably neither side wants other countries to leave, so what's the endgame compromise?
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,268
    Old Bexley and Sidcup: completely different to Chesham and Amersham. Ordinary mixed outer London constituency. No great love of LAB negativity or LD Remain type policies.

    CON will be down about 50% (62% last time)? LAB and LD fighting for the rest maybe 30% LAB 20% LD?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,282

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Did anyone apart from you say "but what about the Jews" or are you putting words into other people's mouths (or posts) again?
    You're the one who's literally edited posts to say things the author didn't write aren't you?

    "Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. "

    This is what was brought up in a conversation about the burqa, a grossly misogynistic outfit purely design for the oppression of women.

    Is Hasidic Jews clothing designed to oppress people? Or was this just rancid whataboutery reaching for Jews as an "other"?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,255
    Not sure that was in the box tbh.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,206

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Did anyone apart from you say "but what about the Jews" or are you putting words into other people's mouths (or posts) again?
    You're the one who's literally edited posts to say things the author didn't write aren't you?

    "Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. "

    This is what was brought up in a conversation about the burqa, a grossly misogynistic outfit purely design for the oppression of women.

    Is Hasidic Jews clothing designed to oppress people? Or was this just rancid whataboutery reaching for Jews as an "other"?
    You really verge on the tediously deranged sometimes.
    You can quote me on that.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,364
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    If the EU is not a nation state and is a trade organisation or similar then absolutely national constitutions should have primacy. Interestingly the German constitutional court has made a similar ruling, but that wasn't as controversial as the Poles saying the same thing as the Germans since the EU won't stand up to the Germans in the same way as it would to the Poles.

    One irony is that the UK far more than any other nation treated the supremacy of EU law as unchallengeable. In part because we embedded the EU into our own unwritten constitution but the Poles haven't to the same extent.

    Certainly in America if there's a conflict between their own Constitution and an international 'law' or agreement then their Constitution remains supreme. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be the same for the Germans and Poles and anyone else.

    If that cuts the EU back down to size and makes the principle of subsidiarity actually mean something, then the EU might be better in the long-run for it.
    The problem with that that Philip is, to take an example, if German law says that Beer can only have 4 ingredients and EU law allows other ingredients then German law is a barrier to trade and an infringement of the SM. Without the supremacy of EU law the EU on its current form cannot therefore operate. Of course a much looser trade arrangement might seek to resolve such disputes by arbitration etc but that is not the way that the EU is set up now nor is it how it has been set up since the Treaty of Rome.
    Yes. It is set up to create a clash of sovereignties, with a view (others disagree) to being the overriding sovereignty in due course. That is the meaning of ever closer union.

    Each nation preserves its own sovereignty but (as we now know) only in that it can unilaterally leave the union. It has no other way of overriding the EU or the ECJ. This was thought to be a theoretical sovereignty only, until it wasn't.

    If it had been set up only on a basis of a customs union and single market in goods and services, but not people (leaving that to states) we would still be in it by acclamation. No flag, no Euro, no 'parliament'. The ECJ similar to any other international tribunal. In trying to do too much it may still end up destroying itself.

    Brexit does rather let the cat out of the bag.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,887
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    It's a fight the EU must have and win. Presumably neither side wants other countries to leave, so what's the endgame compromise?
    I think a lot rests on member states, who are waking up to the dangers. It's easier to take on the EU as an institution than the EU and member states acting together and separately.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    in another article I read this morning, a Polish government spokesman flat-out says "Poland would like to copy Britain and Brexit, but Poland is not as as strong as Britain"

    So they REALLY do want to quit, theoretically, but in practice how on earth can they, when they are so reliant on EU trade, subsidies, free movement.

    And yet now we see this double-down from Hungary. Where on earth does the compromise come from? I can't see Warsaw simply folding, but then Brussels cannot yield an inch, either
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,965

    Old Bexley and Sidcup: completely different to Chesham and Amersham. Ordinary mixed outer London constituency. No great love of LAB negativity or LD Remain type policies.

    CON will be down about 50% (62% last time)? LAB and LD fighting for the rest maybe 30% LAB 20% LD?

    Sounds about right. Tories o/u 50 could be a decent betting line, would tentatively go for over to start with. Tricast order must be short odds on.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,255
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    If the EU is not a nation state and is a trade organisation or similar then absolutely national constitutions should have primacy. Interestingly the German constitutional court has made a similar ruling, but that wasn't as controversial as the Poles saying the same thing as the Germans since the EU won't stand up to the Germans in the same way as it would to the Poles.

    One irony is that the UK far more than any other nation treated the supremacy of EU law as unchallengeable. In part because we embedded the EU into our own unwritten constitution but the Poles haven't to the same extent.

    Certainly in America if there's a conflict between their own Constitution and an international 'law' or agreement then their Constitution remains supreme. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be the same for the Germans and Poles and anyone else.

    If that cuts the EU back down to size and makes the principle of subsidiarity actually mean something, then the EU might be better in the long-run for it.
    The problem with that that Philip is, to take an example, if German law says that Beer can only have 4 ingredients and EU law allows other ingredients then German law is a barrier to trade and an infringement of the SM. Without the supremacy of EU law the EU on its current form cannot therefore operate. Of course a much looser trade arrangement might seek to resolve such disputes by arbitration etc but that is not the way that the EU is set up now nor is it how it has been set up since the Treaty of Rome.
    Yes. It is set up to create a clash of sovereignties, with a view (others disagree) to being the overriding sovereignty in due course. That is the meaning of ever closer union.

    Each nation preserves its own sovereignty but (as we now know) only in that it can unilaterally leave the union. It has no other way of overriding the EU or the ECJ. This was thought to be a theoretical sovereignty only, until it wasn't.

    If it had been set up only on a basis of a customs union and single market in goods and services, but not people (leaving that to states) we would still be in it by acclamation. No flag, no Euro, no 'parliament'. The ECJ similar to any other international tribunal. In trying to do too much it may still end up destroying itself.

    Brexit does rather let the cat out of the bag.

    True, what the UK was looking for from Maastricht onwards was a more semi autonomous membership. But it was not the way that the institutions were set up and eventually we had to choose between ever closer union or leaving. And we made our choice.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,361
    Almost done in the Czech election.

    ANO 72 seats (-6)
    SPOLU 71 (+29)
    Pirates & Mayors 37 (+9)
    Freedom & Direct Democracy 20 (-2)
    Communists 0 (-15)
    Social Democrats 0 (-15)

    SPOLU have outpolled ANO by 0.5% or roughly 27,000 votes.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    If the EU is not a nation state and is a trade organisation or similar then absolutely national constitutions should have primacy. Interestingly the German constitutional court has made a similar ruling, but that wasn't as controversial as the Poles saying the same thing as the Germans since the EU won't stand up to the Germans in the same way as it would to the Poles.

    One irony is that the UK far more than any other nation treated the supremacy of EU law as unchallengeable. In part because we embedded the EU into our own unwritten constitution but the Poles haven't to the same extent.

    Certainly in America if there's a conflict between their own Constitution and an international 'law' or agreement then their Constitution remains supreme. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be the same for the Germans and Poles and anyone else.

    If that cuts the EU back down to size and makes the principle of subsidiarity actually mean something, then the EU might be better in the long-run for it.
    The problem with that that Philip is, to take an example, if German law says that Beer can only have 4 ingredients and EU law allows other ingredients then German law is a barrier to trade and an infringement of the SM. Without the supremacy of EU law the EU on its current form cannot therefore operate. Of course a much looser trade arrangement might seek to resolve such disputes by arbitration etc but that is not the way that the EU is set up now nor is it how it has been set up since the Treaty of Rome.
    Yes. It is set up to create a clash of sovereignties, with a view (others disagree) to being the overriding sovereignty in due course. That is the meaning of ever closer union.

    Each nation preserves its own sovereignty but (as we now know) only in that it can unilaterally leave the union. It has no other way of overriding the EU or the ECJ. This was thought to be a theoretical sovereignty only, until it wasn't.

    If it had been set up only on a basis of a customs union and single market in goods and services, but not people (leaving that to states) we would still be in it by acclamation. No flag, no Euro, no 'parliament'. The ECJ similar to any other international tribunal. In trying to do too much it may still end up destroying itself.

    Brexit does rather let the cat out of the bag.

    Brexit is pretty unique, tho. We were always semi detached, we are a major middle power in our own right, we have global alliances, we are the home of the world language, our capital is a world city, we have a feeling of ourselves as different, an island, with a big if flawed economy, blah blah

    Even then about 1/3 of the UK thinks we are incapable if being independent and soon we will be eating gravel

    No other EU nation matches our profile. To feel the need, and have the ability, to escape the EU you need to be rich, confident, culturally different, and - surely - not already in the euro, which makes departure near impossible.

    Denmark? Too small. Sweden? Ditto, but just possibly

    If and when the Eastern European countries get richer, as Ireland did, then I reckon they WILL leave. Poland is too proud, as we see
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,404
    edited October 9

    The header illustrates the problem in getting sensible informal arrangements beteween Labour and LibDems. In C&A, Labour only ran a token campaign to give the LibDems a good shot. Here we have a seat where Labour starts with nearly three times the LibDem vote (indeed they lost their deposit in 2017). Do the LibDems hold back? Not if they take Mike's advice.

    If followed, this will militate against Labour holding back in Blue Wall seats - it simply can't be reasonable to make it one-way traffic. TimS, a London LibDem member, on the last thread said that he hadn't seen any sign of LD mobilisation for an effort here. Let's hope he's right.

    This is a big factor to consider when trying to predict the GE. The Holy Grail of a Hung Parliament - oh the poverty of reduced expectations! - is hard to envisage unless we and the LDs work together on seat by seat targeting.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,887
    edited October 9
    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    It's a fight the EU must have and win. Presumably neither side wants other countries to leave, so what's the endgame compromise?
    I think a lot rests on member states, who are waking up to the dangers. It's easier to take on the EU as an institution than the EU and member states acting together and separately.
    You asked about the endgame. I suspect Hungary and Poland being more circumspect about how they deal with EU matters while still not being real democracies or maintaining rule of law for domestic law.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,523

    Old Bexley and Sidcup: completely different to Chesham and Amersham. Ordinary mixed outer London constituency. No great love of LAB negativity or LD Remain type policies.

    CON will be down about 50% (62% last time)? LAB and LD fighting for the rest maybe 30% LAB 20% LD?

    Any local NIMBY issue for the LibDems to milk? Not going to be HS2 though, is it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,523
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,282

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Did anyone apart from you say "but what about the Jews" or are you putting words into other people's mouths (or posts) again?
    You're the one who's literally edited posts to say things the author didn't write aren't you?

    "Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. "

    This is what was brought up in a conversation about the burqa, a grossly misogynistic outfit purely design for the oppression of women.

    Is Hasidic Jews clothing designed to oppress people? Or was this just rancid whataboutery reaching for Jews as an "other"?
    You really verge on the tediously deranged sometimes.
    You can quote me on that.
    Just to be clear which element do you think is "tediously deranged"?

    Is it viewing the burqa as a grossly misogynistic outfit purely designed for the oppression of women that you object to?

    Or objecting to then talking about Hasidic Jews as equivalent that you object to?

    PS its worth remembering that the burqa is not a traditional Muslim outfit. It is a garment that has been promoted by Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. And what was the Saudi Arabian views of women? Oh yes . . . illegal for women to be out without men, illegal for women to drive, illegal for women to [etc]
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757
    By elections of the 2019 Parliament:

    Hartlepool - Con Gain
    Airdrie and Shotts - SNP Hold
    Chesham and Mersham - LD Gain
    Batley and Spen - Lab Hold

    An interesting mix of results.

    With Old Bexley and Sidcup (which is a great name just with the simple addition of Old) it means someone at least, probably Con, will get their second win.

    According to wiki number of by-elections looks on the face of it to be relatively steady, though 2001 was low (cause being death in brackets):

    2019-: 5 (2)
    2017-19: 5 (1)
    2015-17: 10 (3)
    2010-15: 21 (6)
    2005-10: 14 (8)
    2001-05: 6 (4)
    1997-2001: 17 (10)
    1992-97: 18 (15)
    1987-92: 24 (20)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    This is so obvious when you look around the world today. Young men are like boys. Polite, meek, feminised


    "TESTOSTERONE FREEFALL: AVERAGE 21YO TODAY HAS SAME LEVELS AS AVG 67YO IN 2001"


    https://twitter.com/AndySwan/status/1446531899560767489?s=20
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
    The Bulgarians are a loose cannon. Quite close to Putin
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,965

    The header illustrates the problem in getting sensible informal arrangements beteween Labour and LibDems. In C&A, Labour only ran a token campaign to give the LibDems a good shot. Here we have a seat where Labour starts with nearly three times the LibDem vote (indeed they lost their deposit in 2017). Do the LibDems hold back? Not if they take Mike's advice.

    If followed, this will militate against Labour holding back in Blue Wall seats - it simply can't be reasonable to make it one-way traffic. TimS, a London LibDem member, on the last thread said that he hadn't seen any sign of LD mobilisation for an effort here. Let's hope he's right.

    As an outsider I think that is fair comment, the LDs should not seek to be active here, although it would be a much bigger problem if the Tories were not going to win it anyway.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,523
    kinabalu said:

    The header illustrates the problem in getting sensible informal arrangements beteween Labour and LibDems. In C&A, Labour only ran a token campaign to give the LibDems a good shot. Here we have a seat where Labour starts with nearly three times the LibDem vote (indeed they lost their deposit in 2017). Do the LibDems hold back? Not if they take Mike's advice.

    If followed, this will militate against Labour holding back in Blue Wall seats - it simply can't be reasonable to make it one-way traffic. TimS, a London LibDem member, on the last thread said that he hadn't seen any sign of LD mobilisation for an effort here. Let's hope he's right.

    This is a big factor to consider when trying to predict the GE. The Holy Grail of a Hung Parliament - oh the poverty of reduced expectations! - is hard to envisage unless we and the LDs work together on seat by seat targeting.
    For all the talk of seat by seat targeting of tactical voting, you still find voters who find it very distasteful - and markedly more inclined to vote for the party being "ganged up on". Especially at general elections.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,268

    Old Bexley and Sidcup: completely different to Chesham and Amersham. Ordinary mixed outer London constituency. No great love of LAB negativity or LD Remain type policies.

    CON will be down about 50% (62% last time)? LAB and LD fighting for the rest maybe 30% LAB 20% LD?

    Any local NIMBY issue for the LibDems to milk? Not going to be HS2 though, is it?
    I don't even think it is that close to places like Abbey Wood for the continuing delays to CrossRail to be an issue! It will be a typical pre Christmas low turnout by-election with CON winning - probably.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,282

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Philip, you're out of order. This is what you wrote:

    The burqa is dehumanising. It does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers. If someone can say that but still says it shouldn't be banned, that carries more weight that those in denial who pretend there's nothing wrong with the burqa and its all sunshine and roses.

    And this was my response:

    Ye gods, for a libertarian that's a bit rich. You say that the burqa "does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers". It really, really doesn't, does it? Letter box? Bank robber? Look again at a red letter box. It's a bit of poetic licence by Boris, but I don't think he meant it to be taken as literally as you do.

    To me, the burqa makes people who wear it look like conservative/traditional Muslim women.

    Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. But even Boris wouldn't really go there, would he?


    You really can't accuse me of either a) misogyny, or b) antisemitism.

    I took no view on wearing the burqa. I was merely pointing out that while Boris is quite comfortable mocking (yes, mocking) Muslim women, he would not dream of doing the same the same with, for example, Hasidic Jews. Why not? Because he would be accused of anti-Semitism, which is of course a much greater crime than Islamophobia. Of course, he should not mock either.

    I didn't want to pursue this, but your slurs are not on.
    There is nothing "Islamophobic" about objecting to the burqa. It is entirely appropriate to mock the burqa because it is a disgusting, misogynistic garb that has no place in a liberal country.

    To equate that to Hasidic Judaism is entirely antisemitic.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,418
    IanB2 said:

    The header illustrates the problem in getting sensible informal arrangements beteween Labour and LibDems. In C&A, Labour only ran a token campaign to give the LibDems a good shot. Here we have a seat where Labour starts with nearly three times the LibDem vote (indeed they lost their deposit in 2017). Do the LibDems hold back? Not if they take Mike's advice.

    If followed, this will militate against Labour holding back in Blue Wall seats - it simply can't be reasonable to make it one-way traffic. TimS, a London LibDem member, on the last thread said that he hadn't seen any sign of LD mobilisation for an effort here. Let's hope he's right.

    Way too simplistic. Whereas Labour does help the LibDems by opting out, the same isn't true in reverse. If the Tories were defeatable in this seat - which they aren't - what Labour would need is an energetic LibDem campaign focused on areas and voters of the seat that lean middle class remain. Not that Bexley is awash with those.

    If the LibDems simply made no effort, it wouldn't help Labour much at all.
    I follow your argument, but I don't think it works in today's politics - Lab and LD fish in the same pool of middle-class Remainers. Also, note that Mike's argument is merely that by trying hard the LDs might just get into 2nd place, i.e. split the non-Tory vote pretty much down the middle.

    If we're all honest, it's going to be a Tory hold, so tactical voting arguments should be ignored from whichever side they come.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757
    Leon said:

    This is so obvious when you look around the world today. Young men are like boys. Polite, meek, feminised


    "TESTOSTERONE FREEFALL: AVERAGE 21YO TODAY HAS SAME LEVELS AS AVG 67YO IN 2001"


    https://twitter.com/AndySwan/status/1446531899560767489?s=20

    This gives me hope that I could still express dominance over a young person, in that meek as I am they would be meeker.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,751

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
    French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Philip, you're out of order. This is what you wrote:

    The burqa is dehumanising. It does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers. If someone can say that but still says it shouldn't be banned, that carries more weight that those in denial who pretend there's nothing wrong with the burqa and its all sunshine and roses.

    And this was my response:

    Ye gods, for a libertarian that's a bit rich. You say that the burqa "does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers". It really, really doesn't, does it? Letter box? Bank robber? Look again at a red letter box. It's a bit of poetic licence by Boris, but I don't think he meant it to be taken as literally as you do.

    To me, the burqa makes people who wear it look like conservative/traditional Muslim women.

    Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. But even Boris wouldn't really go there, would he?


    You really can't accuse me of either a) misogyny, or b) antisemitism.

    I took no view on wearing the burqa. I was merely pointing out that while Boris is quite comfortable mocking (yes, mocking) Muslim women, he would not dream of doing the same the same with, for example, Hasidic Jews. Why not? Because he would be accused of anti-Semitism, which is of course a much greater crime than Islamophobia. Of course, he should not mock either.

    I didn't want to pursue this, but your slurs are not on.
    The hiding of the face, sometimes the entire face, eyes included, is unique to highly conservative forms of Islamic dress, however. Jews don't do that. Orthodox Jewry can be seriously patriarchal, but creeds like Wahhabism are way beyond that

    I despise the burqa and the niqab, and I agree with Philip that they are tools of misogynistic oppression. It is ludicrous to deny this. They are cages to keep women shrouded, to hide away their sexuality. I'm sure some of the wearers get used to them and even like them, but some slaves enjoyed their pampered conditions inside the Big Plantation House. They were still slaves

    Would I ban them - like France, Holland, Austria, Switzerland, and others?

    Probably not, but I can certainly see the argument. A better focus would be banning places that promote this evil crap, stopping Saudis funding wahhabi mosques and imams, and so on
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526

    The header illustrates the problem in getting sensible informal arrangements beteween Labour and LibDems. In C&A, Labour only ran a token campaign to give the LibDems a good shot. Here we have a seat where Labour starts with nearly three times the LibDem vote (indeed they lost their deposit in 2017). Do the LibDems hold back? Not if they take Mike's advice.

    If followed, this will militate against Labour holding back in Blue Wall seats - it simply can't be reasonable to make it one-way traffic. TimS, a London LibDem member, on the last thread said that he hadn't seen any sign of LD mobilisation for an effort here. Let's hope he's right.

    The LibDems live off the oxygen of publicity. Unless they can convince people they are not a wasted vote, they will continue to struggle. This means that they must fight tooth and nail in every by-election.

    A failure to do this is one of the reasons the Greens have consistently struggled. They need to have hundreds of volunteers, and their job has to be get past the LibDems. Because if they can't start chalking up some victories, then they won't be supplanting the LibDems.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,698
    edited October 9

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    The issue Philip is you have made a personal slur on an individual poster which is unacceptable.

    That is wholly different from criticising the Labour Party as anti-Semitic because of Corbyn's foolish conflation of Israeli foreign/domestic policy with Jewish Labour MPs.

    Unless you make a personal apology you are way out of order.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,691

    Old Bexley and Sidcup: completely different to Chesham and Amersham. Ordinary mixed outer London constituency. No great love of LAB negativity or LD Remain type policies.

    CON will be down about 50% (62% last time)? LAB and LD fighting for the rest maybe 30% LAB 20% LD?

    Any local NIMBY issue for the LibDems to milk? Not going to be HS2 though, is it?
    The one thing coming up (before the election) is the expansion of ULEZ:

    https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion

    It doesn’t reach this seat, but might annoy some people who travel into it.

    But that’s the Mayor’s doing.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
    French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
    There was a fascinating breakdown by a French academic on Twitter of very recent statements by all the main French presidential candidates. All of them (Macron apart) are calling for France to quit NATO (after the AUKUS humiliation). Even the centrists. So they obviously see political advantage in this and Macron might well follow suit.

    Some want France to ally with Russia, Zemmour is a big fan of Brexit (ironically) and wants France to forge its own path like the UK

    Major turbulence is approaching, in Paris
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,801

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
    French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
    It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,965
    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Philip, you're out of order. This is what you wrote:

    The burqa is dehumanising. It does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers. If someone can say that but still says it shouldn't be banned, that carries more weight that those in denial who pretend there's nothing wrong with the burqa and its all sunshine and roses.

    And this was my response:

    Ye gods, for a libertarian that's a bit rich. You say that the burqa "does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers". It really, really doesn't, does it? Letter box? Bank robber? Look again at a red letter box. It's a bit of poetic licence by Boris, but I don't think he meant it to be taken as literally as you do.

    To me, the burqa makes people who wear it look like conservative/traditional Muslim women.

    Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. But even Boris wouldn't really go there, would he?


    You really can't accuse me of either a) misogyny, or b) antisemitism.

    I took no view on wearing the burqa. I was merely pointing out that while Boris is quite comfortable mocking (yes, mocking) Muslim women, he would not dream of doing the same the same with, for example, Hasidic Jews. Why not? Because he would be accused of anti-Semitism, which is of course a much greater crime than Islamophobia. Of course, he should not mock either.

    I didn't want to pursue this, but your slurs are not on.
    The hiding of the face, sometimes the entire face, eyes included, is unique to highly conservative forms of Islamic dress, however. Jews don't do that. Orthodox Jewry can be seriously patriarchal, but creeds like Wahhabism are way beyond that

    I despise the burqa and the niqab, and I agree with Philip that they are tools of misogynistic oppression. It is ludicrous to deny this. They are cages to keep women shrouded, to hide away their sexuality. I'm sure some of the wearers get used to them and even like them, but some slaves enjoyed their pampered conditions inside the Big Plantation House. They were still slaves

    Would I ban them - like France, Holland, Austria, Switzerland, and others?

    Probably not, but I can certainly see the argument. A better focus would be banning places that promote this evil crap, stopping Saudis funding wahhabi mosques and imams, and so on
    Howay the toon!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,418
    stodge said:

    Almost done in the Czech election.

    ANO 72 seats (-6)
    SPOLU 71 (+29)
    Pirates & Mayors 37 (+9)
    Freedom & Direct Democracy 20 (-2)
    Communists 0 (-15)
    Social Democrats 0 (-15)

    SPOLU have outpolled ANO by 0.5% or roughly 27,000 votes.

    Massacre of the left there, and not good for the centre-left but unscrupulously populist ANO either - I think the pirates will go with SPOLU, who are a mixture of populist right-wingers (Vaclav Klaus is the best known) and moderate liberals.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,551
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    in another article I read this morning, a Polish government spokesman flat-out says "Poland would like to copy Britain and Brexit, but Poland is not as as strong as Britain"

    So they REALLY do want to quit, theoretically, but in practice how on earth can they, when they are so reliant on EU trade, subsidies, free movement.

    And yet now we see this double-down from Hungary. Where on earth does the compromise come from? I can't see Warsaw simply folding, but then Brussels cannot yield an inch, either
    It's nonsense though. The EU favourability rating in Poland is amongst the highest on the continent:



  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Philip, you're out of order. This is what you wrote:

    The burqa is dehumanising. It does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers. If someone can say that but still says it shouldn't be banned, that carries more weight that those in denial who pretend there's nothing wrong with the burqa and its all sunshine and roses.

    And this was my response:

    Ye gods, for a libertarian that's a bit rich. You say that the burqa "does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers". It really, really doesn't, does it? Letter box? Bank robber? Look again at a red letter box. It's a bit of poetic licence by Boris, but I don't think he meant it to be taken as literally as you do.

    To me, the burqa makes people who wear it look like conservative/traditional Muslim women.

    Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. But even Boris wouldn't really go there, would he?


    You really can't accuse me of either a) misogyny, or b) antisemitism.

    I took no view on wearing the burqa. I was merely pointing out that while Boris is quite comfortable mocking (yes, mocking) Muslim women, he would not dream of doing the same the same with, for example, Hasidic Jews. Why not? Because he would be accused of anti-Semitism, which is of course a much greater crime than Islamophobia. Of course, he should not mock either.

    I didn't want to pursue this, but your slurs are not on.
    The hiding of the face, sometimes the entire face, eyes included, is unique to highly conservative forms of Islamic dress, however. Jews don't do that. Orthodox Jewry can be seriously patriarchal, but creeds like Wahhabism are way beyond that

    I despise the burqa and the niqab, and I agree with Philip that they are tools of misogynistic oppression. It is ludicrous to deny this. They are cages to keep women shrouded, to hide away their sexuality. I'm sure some of the wearers get used to them and even like them, but some slaves enjoyed their pampered conditions inside the Big Plantation House. They were still slaves

    Would I ban them - like France, Holland, Austria, Switzerland, and others?

    Probably not, but I can certainly see the argument. A better focus would be banning places that promote this evil crap, stopping Saudis funding wahhabi mosques and imams, and so on
    Howay the toon!
    Haddaway and shiite, sunni jim
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    in another article I read this morning, a Polish government spokesman flat-out says "Poland would like to copy Britain and Brexit, but Poland is not as as strong as Britain"

    So they REALLY do want to quit, theoretically, but in practice how on earth can they, when they are so reliant on EU trade, subsidies, free movement.

    And yet now we see this double-down from Hungary. Where on earth does the compromise come from? I can't see Warsaw simply folding, but then Brussels cannot yield an inch, either
    It's nonsense though. The EU favourability rating in Poland is amongst the highest on the continent:



    Yes, absolutely. I'm talking about the Polish GOVERNMENT, not the people
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,404
    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    If the EU is not a nation state and is a trade organisation or similar then absolutely national constitutions should have primacy. Interestingly the German constitutional court has made a similar ruling, but that wasn't as controversial as the Poles saying the same thing as the Germans since the EU won't stand up to the Germans in the same way as it would to the Poles.

    One irony is that the UK far more than any other nation treated the supremacy of EU law as unchallengeable. In part because we embedded the EU into our own unwritten constitution but the Poles haven't to the same extent.

    Certainly in America if there's a conflict between their own Constitution and an international 'law' or agreement then their Constitution remains supreme. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be the same for the Germans and Poles and anyone else.

    If that cuts the EU back down to size and makes the principle of subsidiarity actually mean something, then the EU might be better in the long-run for it.
    The problem with that that Philip is, to take an example, if German law says that Beer can only have 4 ingredients and EU law allows other ingredients then German law is a barrier to trade and an infringement of the SM. Without the supremacy of EU law the EU on its current form cannot therefore operate. Of course a much looser trade arrangement might seek to resolve such disputes by arbitration etc but that is not the way that the EU is set up now nor is it how it has been set up since the Treaty of Rome.
    Yes. It is set up to create a clash of sovereignties, with a view (others disagree) to being the overriding sovereignty in due course. That is the meaning of ever closer union.

    Each nation preserves its own sovereignty but (as we now know) only in that it can unilaterally leave the union. It has no other way of overriding the EU or the ECJ. This was thought to be a theoretical sovereignty only, until it wasn't.

    If it had been set up only on a basis of a customs union and single market in goods and services, but not people (leaving that to states) we would still be in it by acclamation. No flag, no Euro, no 'parliament'. The ECJ similar to any other international tribunal. In trying to do too much it may still end up destroying itself.

    Brexit does rather let the cat out of the bag.

    Brexit is pretty unique, tho. We were always semi detached, we are a major middle power in our own right, we have global alliances, we are the home of the world language, our capital is a world city, we have a feeling of ourselves as different, an island, with a big if flawed economy, blah blah

    Even then about 1/3 of the UK thinks we are incapable if being independent and soon we will be eating gravel

    No other EU nation matches our profile. To feel the need, and have the ability, to escape the EU you need to be rich, confident, culturally different, and - surely - not already in the euro, which makes departure near impossible.

    Denmark? Too small. Sweden? Ditto, but just possibly

    If and when the Eastern European countries get richer, as Ireland did, then I reckon they WILL leave. Poland is too proud, as we see
    Poland is "too proud" to pool sovereignty to make the Single Market work? Like us then. But, as you point out, they are not blessed with being an island.

    "We're not European, how can we be? Europe is miles away over the sea!"

    It gets better and better, this one. At first you think "doggerel" then you realize it is actually summing up in a simple but not simplistic way what lies at the very heart of why we've left the EU.
  • Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Philip, you're out of order. This is what you wrote:

    The burqa is dehumanising. It does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers. If someone can say that but still says it shouldn't be banned, that carries more weight that those in denial who pretend there's nothing wrong with the burqa and its all sunshine and roses.

    And this was my response:

    Ye gods, for a libertarian that's a bit rich. You say that the burqa "does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers". It really, really doesn't, does it? Letter box? Bank robber? Look again at a red letter box. It's a bit of poetic licence by Boris, but I don't think he meant it to be taken as literally as you do.

    To me, the burqa makes people who wear it look like conservative/traditional Muslim women.

    Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. But even Boris wouldn't really go there, would he?


    You really can't accuse me of either a) misogyny, or b) antisemitism.

    I took no view on wearing the burqa. I was merely pointing out that while Boris is quite comfortable mocking (yes, mocking) Muslim women, he would not dream of doing the same the same with, for example, Hasidic Jews. Why not? Because he would be accused of anti-Semitism, which is of course a much greater crime than Islamophobia. Of course, he should not mock either.

    I didn't want to pursue this, but your slurs are not on.
    The hiding of the face, sometimes the entire face, eyes included, is unique to highly conservative forms of Islamic dress, however. Jews don't do that. Orthodox Jewry can be seriously patriarchal, but creeds like Wahhabism are way beyond that

    I despise the burqa and the niqab, and I agree with Philip that they are tools of misogynistic oppression. It is ludicrous to deny this. They are cages to keep women shrouded, to hide away their sexuality. I'm sure some of the wearers get used to them and even like them, but some slaves enjoyed their pampered conditions inside the Big Plantation House. They were still slaves

    Would I ban them - like France, Holland, Austria, Switzerland, and others?

    Probably not, but I can certainly see the argument. A better focus would be banning places that promote this evil crap, stopping Saudis funding wahhabi mosques and imams, and so on
    Howay the toon!
    Apparently it's more normally "Halal the Toon" these days
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,206



    Just to be clear which element do you think is "tediously deranged"?

    Is it viewing the burqa as a grossly misogynistic outfit purely designed for the oppression of women that you object to?

    Or objecting to then talking about Hasidic Jews as equivalent that you object to?

    PS its worth remembering that the burqa is not a traditional Muslim outfit. It is a garment that has been promoted by Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. And what was the Saudi Arabian views of women? Oh yes . . . illegal for women to be out without men, illegal for women to drive, illegal for women to [etc]

    Can I ask, are you in any way Jewish or are you that weird development, a Tory goysplainer?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,206
    Always loved VAR
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    If the EU is not a nation state and is a trade organisation or similar then absolutely national constitutions should have primacy. Interestingly the German constitutional court has made a similar ruling, but that wasn't as controversial as the Poles saying the same thing as the Germans since the EU won't stand up to the Germans in the same way as it would to the Poles.

    One irony is that the UK far more than any other nation treated the supremacy of EU law as unchallengeable. In part because we embedded the EU into our own unwritten constitution but the Poles haven't to the same extent.

    Certainly in America if there's a conflict between their own Constitution and an international 'law' or agreement then their Constitution remains supreme. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be the same for the Germans and Poles and anyone else.

    If that cuts the EU back down to size and makes the principle of subsidiarity actually mean something, then the EU might be better in the long-run for it.
    The problem with that that Philip is, to take an example, if German law says that Beer can only have 4 ingredients and EU law allows other ingredients then German law is a barrier to trade and an infringement of the SM. Without the supremacy of EU law the EU on its current form cannot therefore operate. Of course a much looser trade arrangement might seek to resolve such disputes by arbitration etc but that is not the way that the EU is set up now nor is it how it has been set up since the Treaty of Rome.
    Yes. It is set up to create a clash of sovereignties, with a view (others disagree) to being the overriding sovereignty in due course. That is the meaning of ever closer union.

    Each nation preserves its own sovereignty but (as we now know) only in that it can unilaterally leave the union. It has no other way of overriding the EU or the ECJ. This was thought to be a theoretical sovereignty only, until it wasn't.

    If it had been set up only on a basis of a customs union and single market in goods and services, but not people (leaving that to states) we would still be in it by acclamation. No flag, no Euro, no 'parliament'. The ECJ similar to any other international tribunal. In trying to do too much it may still end up destroying itself.

    Brexit does rather let the cat out of the bag.

    Brexit is pretty unique, tho. We were always semi detached, we are a major middle power in our own right, we have global alliances, we are the home of the world language, our capital is a world city, we have a feeling of ourselves as different, an island, with a big if flawed economy, blah blah

    Even then about 1/3 of the UK thinks we are incapable if being independent and soon we will be eating gravel

    No other EU nation matches our profile. To feel the need, and have the ability, to escape the EU you need to be rich, confident, culturally different, and - surely - not already in the euro, which makes departure near impossible.

    Denmark? Too small. Sweden? Ditto, but just possibly

    If and when the Eastern European countries get richer, as Ireland did, then I reckon they WILL leave. Poland is too proud, as we see
    Poland is "too proud" to pool sovereignty to make the Single Market work? Like us then. But, as you point out, they are not blessed with being an island.

    "We're not European, how can we be? Europe is miles away over the sea!"

    It gets better and better, this one. At first you think "doggerel" then you realize it is actually summing up in a simple but not simplistic way what lies at the very heart of why we've left the EU.
    I liked that verse, in a way. It is indeed doggerel but it is good doggerel, like some of those kitsch poems about death that are pretty cringe and yet somehow effective, in the right mood and moment

    In fact I googled it to see where it came from. It's in loads of anthologies of generally terrible popular doggerel, but it is hard to find the actual author
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,698

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Philip, you're out of order. This is what you wrote:

    The burqa is dehumanising. It does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers. If someone can say that but still says it shouldn't be banned, that carries more weight that those in denial who pretend there's nothing wrong with the burqa and its all sunshine and roses.

    And this was my response:

    Ye gods, for a libertarian that's a bit rich. You say that the burqa "does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers". It really, really doesn't, does it? Letter box? Bank robber? Look again at a red letter box. It's a bit of poetic licence by Boris, but I don't think he meant it to be taken as literally as you do.

    To me, the burqa makes people who wear it look like conservative/traditional Muslim women.

    Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. But even Boris wouldn't really go there, would he?


    You really can't accuse me of either a) misogyny, or b) antisemitism.

    I took no view on wearing the burqa. I was merely pointing out that while Boris is quite comfortable mocking (yes, mocking) Muslim women, he would not dream of doing the same the same with, for example, Hasidic Jews. Why not? Because he would be accused of anti-Semitism, which is of course a much greater crime than Islamophobia. Of course, he should not mock either.

    I didn't want to pursue this, but your slurs are not on.
    There is nothing "Islamophobic" about objecting to the burqa. It is entirely appropriate to mock the burqa because it is a disgusting, misogynistic garb that has no place in a liberal country.

    To equate that to Hasidic Judaism is entirely antisemitic.
    I give up. The equivalence is entirely in your head.

    Some of your posts are valuable. But on this, and several other issues, you're like the pub bore who just keeps on and on and on repeating the same thing in the hope that you will persuade others to your point of view. It's tedious in the extreme.

    Eventually, those subjected to the pub bore have had enough and go and drink somewhere else.
    Do you remember the Self-Righteous Brothers?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,404

    kinabalu said:

    The header illustrates the problem in getting sensible informal arrangements beteween Labour and LibDems. In C&A, Labour only ran a token campaign to give the LibDems a good shot. Here we have a seat where Labour starts with nearly three times the LibDem vote (indeed they lost their deposit in 2017). Do the LibDems hold back? Not if they take Mike's advice.

    If followed, this will militate against Labour holding back in Blue Wall seats - it simply can't be reasonable to make it one-way traffic. TimS, a London LibDem member, on the last thread said that he hadn't seen any sign of LD mobilisation for an effort here. Let's hope he's right.

    This is a big factor to consider when trying to predict the GE. The Holy Grail of a Hung Parliament - oh the poverty of reduced expectations! - is hard to envisage unless we and the LDs work together on seat by seat targeting.
    For all the talk of seat by seat targeting of tactical voting, you still find voters who find it very distasteful - and markedly more inclined to vote for the party being "ganged up on". Especially at general elections.
    Yes, I can imagine. But net net I think the impact would be more non-Con seats and from where we're coming from it will be needed.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,364
    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
    French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
    It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
    The danger is that the EU has no chance of creating and sustaining the sort of loyalty that makes a nation state in the post enlightenment world, though it's a nice try; but on the other hand has been foolish enough to create the institutions which properly only belong to a nation state; in particular supreme legislative power, ditto juridical power, parliament, Euro and FoM.

    With the UK we were very near the position where it was impossible to leave (and would have been if we were in the Euro); with most of the rest they are already in that position.

    The sane thing would be to renegotiate the stuff now, getting rid of all the things that look like sovereignty before something explodes.

    One day soon the US will ask the question: What's the EU's plan for Finland if Russian troops venture in? And all of a sudden the emperor will have no clothes.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
    The Tory vote is, I suggest, solid but brittle. It is based on being the only party that supports Brexit, the character of Boris and the unelectability of Labour as a party. This is not stable and could fracture any time, but it is solid looking in the absence of a coherent alternative.

    Once it changes, for example if the mood changes to the thought that Labour can live with Brexit and deal OK with it, and the SKS can run the country as decently as anyone else, and there are no third options, it could change fast.

    Look for example at the moment when the public laugh at Boris not with him. That would be the end.

    Hence my view that a Tory majority and NOM are equal in the betting.
    I like this well-argued view of yours that NOM is as likely as another Con majority. I don't agree with it but I like it. I track you as one of my bellweathers. The first time - if it happens - when you flip and say Con majority should be odds on will be a moment of note.
    Very kind comment. The future is pretty uncertain right now. It may look clearer if the government can get through the winter. At the moment it is hard to see a lot of upside for the Tories while the other parties collectively have the insuperable advantage of not being the government.

    Of all the stuff coming our way, I think inflation is top of the pile for the Tories. It's the sort of issue that would make Brexiteers put Brexit down the priority list.

    Inflation is a huge issue as it destroys people's wealth.
    Well, that's not a problem for the poorest 30% who have nothing.
    Well indeed. If you've got lots of debt (and this country now has 100% debt to GDP just for the state) then inflation destroys the debt. That's a good thing.

    If you've got lots of assets and not debt, its a different beast.

    People speak about how under 40s have no problems with inflation as they've not experienced it - but luckily all those elderly people who did but have accumulated wealth and assets have ensured their children and grandchildren had the same opportunities for wealth. And didn't load them down with debt.

    Oh. Oops.
    until you've apologies to Northern_Al, you can fuck right off.
    I have nothing to apologise for.

    Anyone who in a discussion about misogyny says "but what about the Jews" . . . there's a rancid antisemitism that sweeps through the left. Until today I thought Northern_Al was better than that, but he's the one who brought Jews into the conversation in unashamed whatabouterism.
    Philip, you're out of order. This is what you wrote:

    The burqa is dehumanising. It does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers. If someone can say that but still says it shouldn't be banned, that carries more weight that those in denial who pretend there's nothing wrong with the burqa and its all sunshine and roses.

    And this was my response:

    Ye gods, for a libertarian that's a bit rich. You say that the burqa "does make people look like letterboxes and bank robbers". It really, really doesn't, does it? Letter box? Bank robber? Look again at a red letter box. It's a bit of poetic licence by Boris, but I don't think he meant it to be taken as literally as you do.

    To me, the burqa makes people who wear it look like conservative/traditional Muslim women.

    Suffice to say that you could make similarly offensive comparisons about the garb of Hasidic Jews in north London. But even Boris wouldn't really go there, would he?


    You really can't accuse me of either a) misogyny, or b) antisemitism.

    I took no view on wearing the burqa. I was merely pointing out that while Boris is quite comfortable mocking (yes, mocking) Muslim women, he would not dream of doing the same the same with, for example, Hasidic Jews. Why not? Because he would be accused of anti-Semitism, which is of course a much greater crime than Islamophobia. Of course, he should not mock either.

    I didn't want to pursue this, but your slurs are not on.
    The hiding of the face, sometimes the entire face, eyes included, is unique to highly conservative forms of Islamic dress, however. Jews don't do that. Orthodox Jewry can be seriously patriarchal, but creeds like Wahhabism are way beyond that

    I despise the burqa and the niqab, and I agree with Philip that they are tools of misogynistic oppression. It is ludicrous to deny this. They are cages to keep women shrouded, to hide away their sexuality. I'm sure some of the wearers get used to them and even like them, but some slaves enjoyed their pampered conditions inside the Big Plantation House. They were still slaves

    Would I ban them - like France, Holland, Austria, Switzerland, and others?

    Probably not, but I can certainly see the argument. A better focus would be banning places that promote this evil crap, stopping Saudis funding wahhabi mosques and imams, and so on
    Howay the toon!
    Apparently it's more normally "Halal the Toon" these days

    Ashley, wahhabi doin arl that teym wi' the Toon, leyk?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    algarkirk said:

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
    French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
    It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
    The danger is that the EU has no chance of creating and sustaining the sort of loyalty that makes a nation state in the post enlightenment world, though it's a nice try; but on the other hand has been foolish enough to create the institutions which properly only belong to a nation state; in particular supreme legislative power, ditto juridical power, parliament, Euro and FoM.

    With the UK we were very near the position where it was impossible to leave (and would have been if we were in the Euro); with most of the rest they are already in that position.

    The sane thing would be to renegotiate the stuff now, getting rid of all the things that look like sovereignty before something explodes.

    One day soon the US will ask the question: What's the EU's plan for Finland if Russian troops venture in? And all of a sudden the emperor will have no clothes.

    The plan, according to the ex Finnish Prime Minister, is for Finland and the rest of the EU to send the poor, starving British food parcels
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,801
    Petrol crisis seems over, walked past one in suburban north London near my parents, both diesel and petrol no queues.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,197
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    If the EU is not a nation state and is a trade organisation or similar then absolutely national constitutions should have primacy. Interestingly the German constitutional court has made a similar ruling, but that wasn't as controversial as the Poles saying the same thing as the Germans since the EU won't stand up to the Germans in the same way as it would to the Poles.

    One irony is that the UK far more than any other nation treated the supremacy of EU law as unchallengeable. In part because we embedded the EU into our own unwritten constitution but the Poles haven't to the same extent.

    Certainly in America if there's a conflict between their own Constitution and an international 'law' or agreement then their Constitution remains supreme. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be the same for the Germans and Poles and anyone else.

    If that cuts the EU back down to size and makes the principle of subsidiarity actually mean something, then the EU might be better in the long-run for it.
    The problem with that that Philip is, to take an example, if German law says that Beer can only have 4 ingredients and EU law allows other ingredients then German law is a barrier to trade and an infringement of the SM. Without the supremacy of EU law the EU on its current form cannot therefore operate. Of course a much looser trade arrangement might seek to resolve such disputes by arbitration etc but that is not the way that the EU is set up now nor is it how it has been set up since the Treaty of Rome.
    Yes. It is set up to create a clash of sovereignties, with a view (others disagree) to being the overriding sovereignty in due course. That is the meaning of ever closer union.

    Each nation preserves its own sovereignty but (as we now know) only in that it can unilaterally leave the union. It has no other way of overriding the EU or the ECJ. This was thought to be a theoretical sovereignty only, until it wasn't.

    If it had been set up only on a basis of a customs union and single market in goods and services, but not people (leaving that to states) we would still be in it by acclamation. No flag, no Euro, no 'parliament'. The ECJ similar to any other international tribunal. In trying to do too much it may still end up destroying itself.

    Brexit does rather let the cat out of the bag.

    Brexit is pretty unique, tho. We were always semi detached, we are a major middle power in our own right, we have global alliances, we are the home of the world language, our capital is a world city, we have a feeling of ourselves as different, an island, with a big if flawed economy, blah blah

    Even then about 1/3 of the UK thinks we are incapable if being independent and soon we will be eating gravel

    No other EU nation matches our profile. To feel the need, and have the ability, to escape the EU you need to be rich, confident, culturally different, and - surely - not already in the euro, which makes departure near impossible.

    Denmark? Too small. Sweden? Ditto, but just possibly

    If and when the Eastern European countries get richer, as Ireland did, then I reckon they WILL leave. Poland is too proud, as we see
    Poland is "too proud" to pool sovereignty to make the Single Market work? Like us then. But, as you point out, they are not blessed with being an island.

    "We're not European, how can we be? Europe is miles away over the sea!"

    It gets better and better, this one. At first you think "doggerel" then you realize it is actually summing up in a simple but not simplistic way what lies at the very heart of why we've left the EU.
    I liked that verse, in a way. It is indeed doggerel but it is good doggerel, like some of those kitsch poems about death that are pretty cringe and yet somehow effective, in the right mood and moment

    In fact I googled it to see where it came from. It's in loads of anthologies of generally terrible popular doggerel, but it is hard to find the actual author
    Ian McEwan is my bet - a kind of false-flag op.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,364
    edited October 9
    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
    French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
    It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
    The danger is that the EU has no chance of creating and sustaining the sort of loyalty that makes a nation state in the post enlightenment world, though it's a nice try; but on the other hand has been foolish enough to create the institutions which properly only belong to a nation state; in particular supreme legislative power, ditto juridical power, parliament, Euro and FoM.

    With the UK we were very near the position where it was impossible to leave (and would have been if we were in the Euro); with most of the rest they are already in that position.

    The sane thing would be to renegotiate the stuff now, getting rid of all the things that look like sovereignty before something explodes.

    One day soon the US will ask the question: What's the EU's plan for Finland if Russian troops venture in? And all of a sudden the emperor will have no clothes.

    The plan, according to the ex Finnish Prime Minister, is for Finland and the rest of the EU to send the poor, starving British food parcels
    Quite. And if the USA does ask the EU the question about Finland the answer will, I suspect, be: Gosh, us? The EU? We are a trade association dealing in standardisation of bicycle parts. Us a country with a flag, currency, parliament, FOM and defence duties? Perish the thought. Whatever gave you that idea?
  • While I think that @Philip_Thompson is overreacting a bit to @Northern_Al mentioning the Hassidic Jews, I do think raising them is entirely missing the most important thing in the whole "letterbox" sensationalism. Boris wasn't trying to defend the Hassidic Jew outfit from those wanting to ban it. He wasn't writing to an audience with a (probably much) higher than average percentage of people wanting to have it banned.

    But this was the case with his writing about the burqa. He presumably thought he had to show his audience that he was on their side with the "jokes", so that he could persuade them that banning it was a lousy idea.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,534
    MaxPB said:

    Petrol crisis seems over, walked past one in suburban north London near my parents, both diesel and petrol no queues.

    Daily Mail has moved on to food shortages. Panic buying for xmas has begun they say.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 813
    I had to leave my local pub due to the locals (presumably SNP types) - I left at Scotland 2 - Israel 2
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,352
    I have a Polish friend who lives in the UK and is a huge supporter of Brexit and Nigel Farage.

    She says Poland 100% has to be in the EU - as a defence against Russia. That is literally a million times more important to the Polish people than anything else.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,282



    Just to be clear which element do you think is "tediously deranged"?

    Is it viewing the burqa as a grossly misogynistic outfit purely designed for the oppression of women that you object to?

    Or objecting to then talking about Hasidic Jews as equivalent that you object to?

    PS its worth remembering that the burqa is not a traditional Muslim outfit. It is a garment that has been promoted by Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. And what was the Saudi Arabian views of women? Oh yes . . . illegal for women to be out without men, illegal for women to drive, illegal for women to [etc]

    Can I ask, are you in any way Jewish or are you that weird development, a Tory goysplainer?
    Goysplainer?

    Yeah that's perfectly normal language to use. And I'm the deranged one. 🤦‍♂️
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,255

    Always loved VAR

    LOL
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,361
    MaxPB said:

    Petrol crisis seems over, walked past one in suburban north London near my parents, both diesel and petrol no queues.

    Certainly back to normal at my local Tesco's this evening in sharp contrast to two weeks ago when there were long queues.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,179
    One for @TSE

    BBC Headline.

    Zahawi: Pupil absence is a key priority.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,197
    edited October 9

    While I think that @Philip_Thompson is overreacting a bit to @Northern_Al mentioning the Hassidic Jews, I do think raising them is entirely missing the most important thing in the whole "letterbox" sensationalism. Boris wasn't trying to defend the Hassidic Jew outfit from those wanting to ban it. He wasn't writing to an audience with a (probably much) higher than average percentage of people wanting to have it banned.

    But this was the case with his writing about the burqa. He presumably thought he had to show his audience that he was on their side with the "jokes", so that he could persuade them that banning it was a lousy idea.

    A cynic might say that Boris's sole motive was to please his audience. And Boris's audience isn't particularly renowned for its passionate concern for women's and ethnic-minority rights.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    If the EU is not a nation state and is a trade organisation or similar then absolutely national constitutions should have primacy. Interestingly the German constitutional court has made a similar ruling, but that wasn't as controversial as the Poles saying the same thing as the Germans since the EU won't stand up to the Germans in the same way as it would to the Poles.

    One irony is that the UK far more than any other nation treated the supremacy of EU law as unchallengeable. In part because we embedded the EU into our own unwritten constitution but the Poles haven't to the same extent.

    Certainly in America if there's a conflict between their own Constitution and an international 'law' or agreement then their Constitution remains supreme. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be the same for the Germans and Poles and anyone else.

    If that cuts the EU back down to size and makes the principle of subsidiarity actually mean something, then the EU might be better in the long-run for it.
    Yeah, but when you sign the treaty to join the EU, you agree to certain things - and that includes areas where EU law is above national law.

    If you don't like them, then you either negotiate to change the treaties, or you leave.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,255
    MikeL said:

    I have a Polish friend who lives in the UK and is a huge supporter of Brexit and Nigel Farage.

    She says Poland 100% has to be in the EU - as a defence against Russia. That is literally a million times more important to the Polish people than anything else.

    So if France decide they want an alliance with Russia?
  • While I think that @Philip_Thompson is overreacting a bit to @Northern_Al mentioning the Hassidic Jews, I do think raising them is entirely missing the most important thing in the whole "letterbox" sensationalism. Boris wasn't trying to defend the Hassidic Jew outfit from those wanting to ban it. He wasn't writing to an audience with a (probably much) higher than average percentage of people wanting to have it banned.

    But this was the case with his writing about the burqa. He presumably thought he had to show his audience that he was on their side with the "jokes", so that he could persuade them that banning it was a lousy idea.

    A cynic might say that Boris's sole motive was to please his audience. And Boris's audience isn't particularly renowned for its passionate concern for women's and ethnic-minority rights.
    What percentage of his audience of Telegraph readers do you think wouldn't have wanted to ban the Burqa at that time?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,255
    This has to be the best Scottish performance in the last 10 years, way better than when they played England off the park in the Euros. And they could still lose.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,282
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    If the EU is not a nation state and is a trade organisation or similar then absolutely national constitutions should have primacy. Interestingly the German constitutional court has made a similar ruling, but that wasn't as controversial as the Poles saying the same thing as the Germans since the EU won't stand up to the Germans in the same way as it would to the Poles.

    One irony is that the UK far more than any other nation treated the supremacy of EU law as unchallengeable. In part because we embedded the EU into our own unwritten constitution but the Poles haven't to the same extent.

    Certainly in America if there's a conflict between their own Constitution and an international 'law' or agreement then their Constitution remains supreme. There's no real reason why it shouldn't be the same for the Germans and Poles and anyone else.

    If that cuts the EU back down to size and makes the principle of subsidiarity actually mean something, then the EU might be better in the long-run for it.
    Yeah, but when you sign the treaty to join the EU, you agree to certain things - and that includes areas where EU law is above national law.

    If you don't like them, then you either negotiate to change the treaties, or you leave.
    Yes but the issue is that the ECJ chooses to extend their authority into areas the treaties did not specify they are above national law.

    There is nothing in the treaties to say that the EU gets a say in national courts and the ECJ ruling was extremely biased to give the EU such a say. In which case I see nothing unreasonable in national courts interpreting the treaties in their own way and saying "no, that's not in the treaty, its not your jurisdiction".
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,418

    While I think that @Philip_Thompson is overreacting a bit to @Northern_Al mentioning the Hassidic Jews, I do think raising them is entirely missing the most important thing in the whole "letterbox" sensationalism. Boris wasn't trying to defend the Hassidic Jew outfit from those wanting to ban it. He wasn't writing to an audience with a (probably much) higher than average percentage of people wanting to have it banned.

    But this was the case with his writing about the burqa. He presumably thought he had to show his audience that he was on their side with the "jokes", so that he could persuade them that banning it was a lousy idea.

    It's a charitable explanation. I think he just can't resist an arresting image that will amuse his audience and make them like him.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 887

    Old Bexley and Sidcup: completely different to Chesham and Amersham. Ordinary mixed outer London constituency. No great love of LAB negativity or LD Remain type policies.

    CON will be down about 50% (62% last time)? LAB and LD fighting for the rest maybe 30% LAB 20% LD?

    Any local NIMBY issue for the LibDems to milk? Not going to be HS2 though, is it?
    The key factor in C&A was not nimbyism, Mr Mark - it was the fact that the Conservatives were taking the electors for granted, as indeed you still are.

    Somebody remarked that the Lib Dems and Labour were fishing in the same pool. This is probably true. But the Lib Dems are also fishing in the same pool as the decent, moderate Conservatives - the ones who are turned off by Johnson and his gang of incompetents. They could be persuaded to vote Lib Dem, but they are most unlikely to go Socialist.

    And somebody else again said that the Lib Dems had not started to mobilise the troops. This is hardly surprising. Mr Brokenshire has only just died.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,140
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    The header illustrates the problem in getting sensible informal arrangements beteween Labour and LibDems. In C&A, Labour only ran a token campaign to give the LibDems a good shot. Here we have a seat where Labour starts with nearly three times the LibDem vote (indeed they lost their deposit in 2017). Do the LibDems hold back? Not if they take Mike's advice.

    If followed, this will militate against Labour holding back in Blue Wall seats - it simply can't be reasonable to make it one-way traffic. TimS, a London LibDem member, on the last thread said that he hadn't seen any sign of LD mobilisation for an effort here. Let's hope he's right.

    This is a big factor to consider when trying to predict the GE. The Holy Grail of a Hung Parliament - oh the poverty of reduced expectations! - is hard to envisage unless we and the LDs work together on seat by seat targeting.
    For all the talk of seat by seat targeting of tactical voting, you still find voters who find it very distasteful - and markedly more inclined to vote for the party being "ganged up on". Especially at general elections.
    Yes, I can imagine. But net net I think the impact would be more non-Con seats and from where we're coming from it will be needed.
    I can only think of one way in which the Conservatives might contrive to lose OB&S - trying to exploit their unassailable majority by parachuting in an unsympathetic non-local candidate, splitting the local party and provoking a dirty fight with a 'genuine local Tory'. In such a situation a resurgent LibDem vote might just edge past the divided Tory factions and take the seat. But I doubt if Labour has any potential to grow further, regardless of the situation. I'd be prepared to have a nibble at the LibDems if the Tories start playing silly buggers. Not otherwise.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    MaxPB said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    This could get quite punchy


    ‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.

    The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1446784290205966338?s=21

    Brexit by other means.

    Very important, but it'll not matter for a while.
    Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
    French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
    It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
    Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.

    A Czech military-political boffin here:

    "Jakub Janda
    @_JakubJanda
    ·
    Oct 7
    Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.

    We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.

    Trust to Paris is low."

    https://twitter.com/_JakubJanda/status/1446021574318977028?s=20


    Meanwhile, a German europundit writes

    "Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."

    https://twitter.com/ulrichspeck/status/1446022230564130819?s=20
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 813
    DavidL said:

    This has to be the best Scottish performance in the last 10 years, way better than when they played England off the park in the Euros. And they could still lose.

    I was enjoying watching the match in my new local - but the SNP types were threatning to cut my foreskin off so I thought it best just to leave.

    What a nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
  • While I think that @Philip_Thompson is overreacting a bit to @Northern_Al mentioning the Hassidic Jews, I do think raising them is entirely missing the most important thing in the whole "letterbox" sensationalism. Boris wasn't trying to defend the Hassidic Jew outfit from those wanting to ban it. He wasn't writing to an audience with a (probably much) higher than average percentage of people wanting to have it banned.

    But this was the case with his writing about the burqa. He presumably thought he had to show his audience that he was on their side with the "jokes", so that he could persuade them that banning it was a lousy idea.

    It's a charitable explanation. I think he just can't resist an arresting image that will amuse his audience and make them like him.
    You think he wrote a piece against banning the burqa just so he could get his jokes about burqas in?
This discussion has been closed.