The GE2017 BBC leaders debate that TMay dodged – politicalbetting.com
The GE2017 BBC leaders debate that TMay dodged – politicalbetting.com
There has been a lot of coverage in the past day also about out a YouGov poll that was said to have been carried out after the BBC leaders debate at the 2017 general election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Correct me where wrong. On the one hand they are private firms - on the other they have to abide by some industry regulation? So between the two, has to be possible not to break any rules doing what you like in face of internal and external pressure.
The other thing that leaps out, hadn’t Amber suffered bearevment but still stood in for cowardly May? The Conservative Party treated Rudd very poorly overall. 😕
FIFA World Cup - Group B
Khalifa International Stadium
21 November
England 2/5
Draw 4/1
Iran 11/1
(The countries have never met before.)
For cancellation 53
Against cancellation 67
Abstention 1
The Unionists are running out of road.
As a trade union rep in the rail industry myself (and former signaller), albeit in an EU country with lower inflation than England & Her Satellite States*, I’d be bloody delighted with 4.2%.
Inflation rates February:
Sweden 4.3%
England etc 6.2%
Mind you, the BBC headlines this morning are a shit-show for the economy. It was just a stream of appalling stories for people’s wallets. They rounded it off by saying that inflation will soon be over 10%. You can understand why signalling staff etc are apprehensive.
The mistake was sending Amber Rudd in her place. It made her just look like she'd chickened out and couldn't face the music, and when you send an underlying it gives a terrible message about your leadership.
She'd have done better if she'd insisted the Conservatives didn't attend altogether.
That's astonishing.
Exports to the EU in 2021 were down almost 12 per cent on 2018. UK exports to the rest of the world fell by about half that percentage. In January the City broker IG said exports to the EU may fall by almost 8 per cent again by 2025.
There’s no use some of my fellow Brexiteers putting their fingers in their ears and humming Rule Britannia. To deny the downsides of Brexit on trade with the EU is to deny reality.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/painful-as-it-is-we-need-to-talk-about-brexit-fj7bg2nql
The comments are not universally kind.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/772df7ea-e775-11ec-aa87-2eea7c6e5b01?shareToken=8710a22eb5ba6627c6dc8b7827a94a84
Boris latest Scottish rating (-71) is the same as Putin's UK wide rating according to Yougov.
If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.
Anything else is just Project Unicorn.
The people who voted for Nigel Fucking Farage and his racist posters didn't care about economic trade
PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
Both campaigns were run terribly but "We can do anything" (while hopelessly optimistic and obviously wrong) was a better approach than "We'll all die in poverty and the country will fall into the sea without Mother EU to protect us".
Sometimes, in my more masochistic moments, I'm tempted to compare the Remain and May 2017 campaigns to see which was worse.
This is not the case !
The EU single market is something you really really want to be inside if possible due to the way VAT works within it.
I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
This does all seem to come down, once again, to which leading politician is going to be brave enough to finally tell voters that the current Brexit deal, as specified and agreed by both sides , just isn't working, and not because of the cartoony "evil EU" or dastardly foreigners.
this, from the party of labour.
What a joke
Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove says there will be a cap on the number of people on housing benefits who can benefit from right to buy extension
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1534781114115579904
The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
I doubt ToryBoy earns that sort of dosh. A minimum wage earner, if ever I saw one! And his contribution to the nation is worth way, way more than someone who keeps the nations trains running like a Swiss watch.
A large part of the Brexit vote came from Working Class voters wanting secure jobs with a living wage. That is what they want from "levelling up".
The RMT is now fighting for those workers. The government is wanting the operating companies to contine to pay bonuses to management and dividends to foreign owners.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1534785899195777025
What would Thatcher do....?
"Can we have a referendum?"
"No"
If the electorate deems Brexit to be a failure then they will eventually vote to overturn it.
Then Brexiteers will be like the Japanese civilians on Okinawa in May/June 1945.
The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
Ex-manager claims pollster was put under pressure by Tory MP founder
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-labour-yougov-2017-election-b2096555.html
See this thread.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1534444485907779584
I mean this story was doing the rounds at the time.
But since Tories were mostly running the show and that’s the style of campaigning that they are used to, perhaps it was no surprise?
A series of ONS stats out on Twitter showing just how badly both our economy and performance metrics like labour are tanking. The front page of The Times showing our performance is now worst in the G20 bar Russia.
So we really have shit the bed here. And the tragedy is the government - aided and abetted by pliant lickspittles - keep denying this reality because the facts get in the way of their beliefs. So we can't do anything about it as the situation just gets worse.
Economic predictions are normally nonsense
Sentence 2: "economic predictions are nonsense"
I always said that it would be economically disruptive, but I think it will be worth it in the long run.
The disruption though is up front, while the benefits are for the long term. Like a "hockey stick" chart.
Sean made an analogy of it being painful "like childbirth".
In fact the only people I've ever seen repeat a claim there'd be no pain, is Remainers talking to themselves about fictional windmill Leavers they're tilting at.
The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.
The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.
According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.
This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
The original solution promised by some Brexiteers was massive deregulation and open trade with the rest of the world to replace lost EU business and deliver a boom. This deregulation has not happened and is not going to happen, because this government is afraid of the impact on domestic industries such as agriculture. A successor government won’t deregulate much either and the voters don’t want it. This being the reality, Britain needs a better trading relationship with the EU.
MP Bob Seely explains why he voted confidence in the PM:
"I talked again with ministers about why a fair funding package has not yet been forthcoming for the Isle of Wight Council. I have been assured they will look at this again and will do so in the very near future, ahead of the ongoing review of local government finance."
Two key passages highlighted. The government have already looked at the funding settlement, not described by the MP as "fair". He is promised that if you vote for the boss, then we will "look again" "ahead of the review" - an out of process review of the decision made.
His own words m'lud. Posted here on his website https://www.bobseely.org.uk/news/bob-seely-explains-his-vote-confidence-prime-minister.
We then have a row in the commons where Nandy quotes Seely and suggests that if you do what we want we will consider giving your area money out of cycle sounds like corruption. "Outrageous" screams the MP. "“She completely misunderstands and she gets it completely wrong.” "“I said to the prime minister: will you commit to rectifying this wrong, which is a policy flaw, and he said yes – and I reminded him of that promise beforehand. So did I ask for a bag of cash? No".
The problem is that the practical result of "rectifying this wrong" would be a "bag of cash". It reads like a very simple negotiation:
If YOU: vote for the boss
THEN WE: will "look at this [a fair funding package] again" "ahead of the review" - funding which in his own words would deliver a "big bag of cash".
Now in the real world we know that is how politics works. But it IS corruption. Do x for cash y. And he posted it on his own website. Bit silly really.
They didn't tell the truth on the economy, the Remain campaign was a pack of economically illiterate lies. Where is the massive surge of unemployment that was predicted? Instead people are crying havoc that they can't find staff, where was that predicted?
I think everyone inconvenienced by the strikes (including me) will feel it's a nuisance, but it's perfectly clear why they're doing it - if I was asked to accept a 3-year pay freeze, worsening conditions and possible impending redundancy , I'd consider it too. Wouldn't you? And the RMT aren't trying to run the country so there's no special reason why they should have to be subject to our approval.
Since the strikers want to withdraw their labour, that's their right, but the employer ought to be able to replace the withdrawn labour if they want to and are able to do so.
The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.
Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
Unedifying, yes. Never pleasant to watch sausages being made. But not corruption.
It’s just the Seely seelying like they’ve done for the last 150 years
If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.
Management need to do their bloody jobs.
Firstly, revealing that he's prepared to make a decision of national strategic importance on the basis of an entirely unrelated purely local matter.
Secondly, by believing that a promise from the clown is of any value whatsoever.
Thirdly by revealing himself a political prostitute prepared to do the wrong thing for the right inducement, placing a huge ? over his fitness for office and advancement.
Fourthly by revealing the potential corruption behind the way our local councils are funded.
And finally by inviting questions of other MPs as to what they got for their areas in return for their votes, and making his colleagues that got nothing look naive.
I’m not commenting on whether it’s justified or not. But there is a case to make that railways are critical infrastructure and so strikes should not be possible
Laugh a minute that guy.
https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1534711492637081601?s=21&t=uEF2QR0hManiOGZ28FEbMQ
Deutschland hinter alles
Most people don't feel an emotional attachment to the European project. What you describe is of passionate interest to perhaps 10-15% of the population, mainly internationalists in metropolitan areas, but they are highly unrepresentative of the broader electorate.
Par for our European relationship has been, and remains, membership of a broader "common market" for trade, with a say in its technical rules, but respecting our traditions and sensitivities, a level of reciprocal free movement for work - but with clear limits to it and a brake if excessive - and absolutely no part in political, social, fiscal or economic union.
Rejoiners have no better answers as they simply hope that Brexit will fail and vindicate them so we can go back "all in" but that won't be the basis of a sustainable settlement - it will just trade one set of problems for another.
Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.
And good morning everyone; nice and bright and sunny here today.
I agree with StillWaters here (a rare event). I think most people would define "corruption" as receiving money personally in return for political actions. To be fair, Bob Seely hasn't done that. If we accuse people of nasty things that they haven't done, we undermine outrage at the real crimes (which corruption is). He's made an unedifying deal, no more and no less.
But this won’t be “add £xm to the Isle of Wight” it will be “due to staff shortages we need to preserve transport links. Therefore we are giving an extra £xm to be shared out between all English islands with a population of >50,000 and less than 200,000”
We are in, or out.
There is no flex. That is a unicorn.
Amber Rudd, of course, finished that Parliament as the independent member for Hastings and Rye, a seat she had held onto by the skin of her teeth in 2017. She wisely did not even stand in 2019. An interesting choice for a substitute, you might think.
A one-size-fits-all EU model was never going to work for Britain and that's what they insisted on providing through the Lisbon Treaty (yes, I know Maastricht opt-out on the euro - not enough) and wanted to take it even further through further social, fiscal and political union in future.
Have they learned any lessons? Would they be willing to flex?
“Istanbul 1,715 km”
Useful
A bit like driving around Kent and seeing a sign for Madrid
Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.
The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).
The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.
Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.
That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.