JohnO
-
Re: Meeks and Rentoul argue over Davey’s “No deals with CON” – politicalbetting.com
You are so spectacularly wrong that I find your delusion mildly amusing. But you’d better have the last word as I’m also getting mildly bored. (View Post)1 -
Re: Meeks and Rentoul argue over Davey’s “No deals with CON” – politicalbetting.com
Where is the slightest shred of evidence among current Conservative MPs, or even the Prime Minister himself, that they would support manifesto commitment that would bind them all to supporting a spec… (View Post)1 -
Re: Meeks and Rentoul argue over Davey’s “No deals with CON” – politicalbetting.com
Many Tory MPs might support a reduction but a significant number would not and of those who do, a lot would be horrified that it would be a whipped vote. The proposal would crash and burn (majority a… (View Post)3 -
Re: Meeks and Rentoul argue over Davey’s “No deals with CON” – politicalbetting.com
I agree but would put the threshold just a tad lower, perhaps 310 in which the Tories could just about stagger on as a deflated minority government surviv You have now not only crashed into the buffe… (View Post)2 -
Re: Meeks and Rentoul argue over Davey’s “No deals with CON” – politicalbetting.com
In those circumstances, sure, they could offer a vote but no Tory MP will be whipped to support it. And you were talking about the manifesto which patently is published before the election. That will… (View Post)2
