Sorry to hear, Mr. NorthWales, that hunting is a totemic issue for you and that's put you off Hunt.
From the little I've seen, it sounds to me like Hunt was trying to give a deliberately ambiguous answer to avoid losing support. If this is a key issue for you, then fair enough, but I'd say Hunt isn't advocating a change to the law, and that Boris will be a disastrous PM.
Except that sensibly enough the price of that would be Corbyn's head and that can't happen.
I think LD and SNP might suck it up and let Corbyn be PM, in exchange for basically everything else they care about. The upside of Corbyn being way out of the mainstream of MPs is that he doesn't care that much either way about a lot of the thing everyone else cares about, so he might actually be quite easy to cut a deal with.
After all, if you're a new LD MP who just got elected off the back of Corbyn repelling centre-left voters in your constituency, why would you want to make Labour replace Corbyn and change your Winning Here formula?
How do Labour sign a coalition/C&S agreement with the SNP, the price of which is a winnable re-run of the independence referendum, if winning that referendum results in Labour losing its working majority?
To your second point, because the Lib Dems might fancy holding their seats for more than five years this time, and being tarred with the brush of enabling a useless racist Marxist PM might be worse than voting for tuition fees.
Notable betting steer from Nick Cohen (though do read the rest of the article as well):
An alliance between the soft and hard left opens the prospect of Corbynism surviving Corbyn. There are rumours of a deal circulating among Labour MPs. McDonnell would offer his and Momentum’s support to Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner, depending on who would be most likely to win. They would promise to keep him as shadow chancellor and promote his protégés Rebecca Long-Bailey and Richard Burgon.
Bill Cash is the modern Conservative Party? Bill Cash has been an MP since I was just 1 year old. He was an MP for 16 years before Boles was elected.
Doesn't make him right, though. In fact, as my family point out to me, increasing age doesn't necessarily mean increasing wisdom. Further, of course, if we hadn't been playing silly beggars over the past few years several of those posts might well have gone to Brits.
I think Mr Thompson's point is that Bill Cash is a relic whose views are tangential to the position of most Conservative voters, members and MPs today.
Ok, certainly the first and the last, and hopefully an increasing proportion of the middle one as well.
Exactly my point. He's been a dinosaur for decades, he's not modern Conservativism.
Bill Cash is the modern Conservative Party? Bill Cash has been an MP since I was just 1 year old. He was an MP for 16 years before Boles was elected.
He was an outcast maverick who everyone thought was a bit mad for most of those years. Now he is mainstream, yes this is the modern Bluekip party.
No he's still an outcast maverick.
If you think otherwise I am happy to do a charity bet £20 at evens that after the leadership election he is still a backbencher, as he has been for his entire political tenure besides IDS's leadership.
An alliance between the soft and hard left opens the prospect of Corbynism surviving Corbyn. There are rumours of a deal circulating among Labour MPs. McDonnell would offer his and Momentum’s support to Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner, depending on who would be most likely to win. They would promise to keep him as shadow chancellor and promote his protégés Rebecca Long-Bailey and Richard Burgon.
The article is suffused with the author's personal opinions, making it very dodgy as a basis for betting. For example, Tom Watson has zero chance of winning a leadership challenge. But I also don't think he plans to mount one personally - his likely role is in kingmaking.
Electoral Calculus is useful, Tim Shipman is not treating it as gospel merely saying it is a potential outcome of a poll. Not sure why Rob Ford wants to sensor this, most people interested will realise there are plenty of caveats.
"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.
Agreed. Shame for those affected but this is not bad news.
For the people who are losing their jobs it's bad news but as a whole they should have been banned years ago...
Indeed. If we take seriously the analogy that these terminals are the "crack cocaine" of gambling, then the job losses because people aren't using them any more are analogous to saying that 4500 drug dealers have stopped selling drugs because people have stopped buying cocaine.
Of course the individuals working in the betting shops were entirely legally working and not drug dealers, but that is the popular analogy used for these machines and that is what was facilitated by the shops.
Except that sensibly enough the price of that would be Corbyn's head and that can't happen.
I think LD and SNP might suck it up and let Corbyn be PM, in exchange for basically everything else they care about. The upside of Corbyn being way out of the mainstream of MPs is that he doesn't care that much either way about a lot of the thing everyone else cares about, so he might actually be quite easy to cut a deal with.
After all, if you're a new LD MP who just got elected off the back of Corbyn repelling centre-left voters in your constituency, why would you want to make Labour replace Corbyn and change your Winning Here formula?
How do Labour sign a coalition/C&S agreement with the SNP, the price of which is a winnable re-run of the independence referendum, if winning that referendum results in Labour losing its working majority?
To your second point, because the Lib Dems might fancy holding their seats for more than five years this time, and being tarred with the brush of enabling a useless racist Marxist PM might be worse than voting for tuition fees.
Nice to see a rare admission that IndyRef2 is winnable. Most folk on here, and in the media, think that BetterTogether2 is a slam-dunk.
I despair every time I see people quote Electoral Calculus, which is a moderately worthwhile tool in times of stability, but hopeless in times of upheaval as at present.
Any seat forecast which does not use demographic data is, I would submit, basically not going to work right now. Flavible is almost useful though still a bit of a blunt instrument. EC needs a ground-up reworking for the current climate.
What is the point of the whinge about it being madness then?
Either he means that it will be bad but not as bad as all that or he thinks that loyalty to his party compels him to do something which he thinks utterly stupid ie he puts party before country.
Or he considers Corbynism to be worse even than that.
If a no deal Brexit is threatening to shoot yourself with a gun (where and how it doesn't say, could be survived), Corbynism is the economic equivalent of jumping in front of a high speed train.
An alliance between the soft and hard left opens the prospect of Corbynism surviving Corbyn. There are rumours of a deal circulating among Labour MPs. McDonnell would offer his and Momentum’s support to Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner, depending on who would be most likely to win. They would promise to keep him as shadow chancellor and promote his protégés Rebecca Long-Bailey and Richard Burgon.
The article is suffused with the author's personal opinions, making it very dodgy as a basis for betting. For example, Tom Watson has zero chance of winning a leadership challenge. But I also don't think he plans to mount one personally - his likely role is in kingmaking.
Of course Nick Cohen is coming from his long-standing [correct, imo, but your mileage may vary] position. And a Watson leadership challenge would be very much a last-gasp near-kamikaze option. He's more likely to be challenged for the deputy leadership, surely? It was McDonnell's supposed offer that I found particularly interesting: it suggests RLB should be nowhere near as short as she is.
Except that sensibly enough the price of that would be Corbyn's head and that can't happen.
I think LD and SNP might suck it up and let Corbyn be PM, in exchange for basically everything else they care about. The upside of Corbyn being way out of the mainstream of MPs is that he doesn't care that much either way about a lot of the thing everyone else cares about, so he might actually be quite easy to cut a deal with.
After all, if you're a new LD MP who just got elected off the back of Corbyn repelling centre-left voters in your constituency, why would you want to make Labour replace Corbyn and change your Winning Here formula?
How do Labour sign a coalition/C&S agreement with the SNP, the price of which is a winnable re-run of the independence referendum, if winning that referendum results in Labour losing its working majority?
To your second point, because the Lib Dems might fancy holding their seats for more than five years this time, and being tarred with the brush of enabling a useless racist Marxist PM might be worse than voting for tuition fees.
Nice to see a rare admission that IndyRef2 is winnable. Most folk on here, and in the media, think that BetterTogether2 is a slam-dunk.
If we leave without a deal IndyRef2 and Scottish independence is inevitable...
Electoral Calculus is useful, Tim Shipman is not treating it as gospel merely saying it is a potential outcome of a poll. Not sure why Rob Ford wants to sensor this, most people interested will realise there are plenty of caveats.
Most people are utterly godawful at understanding or appreciating caveats, in my experience.
And Shipman's words are "this is what Electoral Calculus says would happen" - which is not close to your interpretation of a "potential outcome".
If Johnson gets a re-packaged May WDA through parliament by 31 October (not likely) or kicks the can with an extension (quite likely) then these recent polls are not very relevant because there won't be a general election in the foreseeable future.
If, on the other hand, he doesn't get a deal or an extension so we are faced with a no deal, then following a VONC, a GE in October or November is highly likely.
In that case recent polls are relevant. Corbyn will still be Labour leader and Johnson is priced in to the current Tory share. Labour may do a little better if Corbyn is clearly for EUref2 supporting Remain.
Current shares are roughly Tory 23%, Labour 24%, LD 19%, Brexit 21%.
Labour do much better in seats than Tory in this scenario taking about 240 - 250 seats against about 150 - 160 for the Tories with LDs on 60 -70 and Brexit on 110 - 120.
If Labour go for EUref2, they may get 10-20 extra seats at LD expense. Whether Labour goes for EUref2 or not, it doesn't significantly change the parliamentary arithmetic. Labour would be the largest party but could only govern with C&S from both the LDs and SNP who would insist on EUref2.
No, regardless of what you think of leaving prior to agreeing full terms with the EU, that is an utterly crap analogy.
If you shoot yourself dead, that is the end of it, finito.
If you leave on 31st October, that is not the end of it. A subsequent agreement can be struck at any point, and potentially very quickly, as soon as there is the will on both sides to put in place something that will suit them better.
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38% LD 30% Grn 11% Bxp 10% Con 9% oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
What is the point of the whinge about it being madness then?
Either he means that it will be bad but not as bad as all that or he thinks that loyalty to his party compels him to do something which he thinks utterly stupid ie he puts party before country.
Or he considers Corbynism to be worse even than that.
If a no deal Brexit is threatening to shoot yourself with a gun (where and how it doesn't say, could be survived), Corbynism is the economic equivalent of jumping in front of a high speed train.
Except that sensibly enough the price of that would be Corbyn's head and that can't happen.
I think LD and SNP might suck it up and let Corbyn be PM, in exchange for basically everything else they care about. The upside of Corbyn being way out of the mainstream of MPs is that he doesn't care that much either way about a lot of the thing everyone else cares about, so he might actually be quite easy to cut a deal with.
After all, if you're a new LD MP who just got elected off the back of Corbyn repelling centre-left voters in your constituency, why would you want to make Labour replace Corbyn and change your Winning Here formula?
How do Labour sign a coalition/C&S agreement with the SNP, the price of which is a winnable re-run of the independence referendum, if winning that referendum results in Labour losing its working majority?
To your second point, because the Lib Dems might fancy holding their seats for more than five years this time, and being tarred with the brush of enabling a useless racist Marxist PM might be worse than voting for tuition fees.
Nice to see a rare admission that IndyRef2 is winnable. Most folk on here, and in the media, think that BetterTogether2 is a slam-dunk.
If we leave without a deal IndyRef2 and Scottish independence is inevitable...
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38% LD 30% Grn 11% Bxp 10% Con 9% oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
This is a pretty good illustration of why Electoral Calculus is of limited use in the current climate. No, it's not possible.
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38% LD 30% Grn 11% Bxp 10% Con 9% oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
This is a pretty good illustration of why Electoral Calculus is of limited use in the current climate. No, it's not possible.
Of course its possible - any result is possible haven't we had that demonstrated endlessly?
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38% LD 30% Grn 11% Bxp 10% Con 9% oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
This is a pretty good illustration of why Electoral Calculus is of limited use in the current climate. No, it's not possible.
Indeed. That would be like Gordon Brown's seat going to the SNP.
He's been a dinosaur for decades, he's not modern Conservativism.
That is exactly the point
He's been a dinosaur for decades, and is now the face of modern conservatism.
The modern conservative party looks and thinks like Bill Cash. Which is why there are fcked.
No. It. Does. Not.
Which is why Cash is still languishing on the backbenches and not in the Cabinet.
You don't see Bill joining Boris in government then?
No. I don't see Boris inviting him to do so.
I think Cash describes himself as a right-wing Liberal and has said he realised decades ago that he belonged to the Thatcherites, not the One-Nation Tories.
Luckily for him, the One Nation tendency have now been vanquished and it's a different party. It's still misrepresentation to call themselves Conservatives though and it has been since the Thatcher takeover.
If Johnson gets a re-packaged May WDA through parliament by 31 October (not likely) or kicks the can with an extension (quite likely) then these recent polls are not very relevant because there won't be a general election in the foreseeable future.
If, on the other hand, he doesn't get a deal or an extension so we are faced with a no deal, then following a VONC, a GE in October or November is highly likely.
In that case recent polls are relevant. Corbyn will still be Labour leader and Johnson is priced in to the current Tory share. Labour may do a little better if Corbyn is clearly for EUref2 supporting Remain.
Current shares are roughly Tory 23%, Labour 24%, LD 19%, Brexit 21%.
Labour do much better in seats than Tory in this scenario taking about 240 - 250 seats against about 150 - 160 for the Tories with LDs on 60 -70 and Brexit on 110 - 120.
If Labour go for EUref2, they may get 10-20 extra seats at LD expense. Whether Labour goes for EUref2 or not, it doesn't significantly change the parliamentary arithmetic. Labour would be the largest party but could only govern with C&S from both the LDs and SNP who would insist on EUref2.
Good summary, although I don't think Brexit will do as well, due to lack of organisation. Not sure a lot of their supporters will be prepared/able to do some of the leg-work TBH.
Notable betting steer from Nick Cohen (though do read the rest of the article as well):
An alliance between the soft and hard left opens the prospect of Corbynism surviving Corbyn. There are rumours of a deal circulating among Labour MPs. McDonnell would offer his and Momentum’s support to Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner, depending on who would be most likely to win. They would promise to keep him as shadow chancellor and promote his protégés Rebecca Long-Bailey and Richard Burgon.
Is it just me, or does it feel like the spectator write the most articles about internal Labour politics/battles? Despite the fact that they surely have the worst sources of any publication!?
Maybe this hare brained scheme is true, but there are some pretty obvious flaws in the plan like: McDonnell can't just deliver the Momentum vote, any future Labour leader could sack him as shadow chancellor, a Tom Watson leadership challenge looks very unlikely to work...
A quick look at the history of Glasgow North East should dissuade us from casting off any particular seat result as 'impossible'. Well except Labour losing Knowsley maybe.
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38% LD 30% Grn 11% Bxp 10% Con 9% oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
I think when the campaign comes the three established parties will be able to get their vote out, while the Brexit Party won't. It will come down to how efficiently the centre and left vote tactically to beat the Tories.
More precisely, it will be about whether Labour supporters in rural and southern seats they are never going to win will be prepared to vote LibDem to beat the Tories. This will be hindered by the LibDems starting third in many seats where they are now better placed to win. And on whether the LDs and Greens can be grown up and co-operate.
I can’t see the Labour Party in its current state picking up much tactical support.
That depends what you mean by "tactical support". There are quite a lot of voters who are prepared to either vote LD or Labour, depending on current and local situations. The priority is to keep the tories out of government. With FPTP in constituencies with 75% Con+Lab and at most 15% LD (in 2017), there will be very little incentive for such voters to vote LD.
But that's my point - things have changed so much since 2017 (several political earthquakes since), that the 2017 results are no guide at all as to how best to play a tactical vote in the next GE.
I disagree. When it comes to the next GE, there will still be a large number of seats will have the threat of "Vote LD, get Boris"
Its a card that will be played, for sure. But the effect will be to knock back LibDem performance in seats where they are clearly - on current trends - going to be in second place contending for first.
If the LibDems do near treble their vote, those extra votes have to appear somewhere. And the swathe of seats where pre-2011 they were regularly chasing the Tories will do better than average.
The Tories' Little Helper card will also be played by Labour in due course to make sure the LDs share the blame for austerity etc.
If the EU wants to see the back of MEPs like Widdecombe there's a very simple solution. Renegotiate the WDA in the time available so it can pass Parliament.
(As an aside, I've started seeing many more women fishing. Years ago I'd never see any, but anecdotally I'm seeing more and more as I wander around the countryside. Including one on the Cam on Sunday.)
I've always been vocally opposed to sports fishing of the kind where you put the fish in a glass case. If you eat what you catch, fine. As for your class, it's irrelevant.
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38% LD 30% Grn 11% Bxp 10% Con 9% oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Considering both got over 50% last time I highly doubt either will in reality.
Oh well, perhaps they lost for some other reason...
(Guardian blog) Police investigating an allegation of the burning of ballots in the Peterborough by-election have concluded that no offences were committed, the Press Association reports. Cambridgeshire Police previously said no crimes were revealed in respect of one allegation of bribery and two relating to postal votes. The force said that it had concluded its investigation into an allegation of the burning of ballots, with no crime found to be committed. The investigation into a fifth allegation, of a breach of the privacy of the vote, is continuing. The Brexit party claimed last month that vote-rigging may have played a role in Labour’s wafer-thin victory in the by-election.
If the EU wants to see the back of MEPs like Widdecombe there's a very simple solution. Renegotiate the WDA in the time available so it can pass Parliament.
UKIP MEPs had some of the worst attendance records of the last parliament with garage one of the worst, the new incarnation TBP Ltd are already not seen in the chamber for hours on end as a block and it’s only day four. They are an embarrassment to the UK and the sooner we can be rid of THEM the better.
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38% LD 30% Grn 11% Bxp 10% Con 9% oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
Notable betting steer from Nick Cohen (though do read the rest of the article as well):
An alliance between the soft and hard left opens the prospect of Corbynism surviving Corbyn. There are rumours of a deal circulating among Labour MPs. McDonnell would offer his and Momentum’s support to Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner, depending on who would be most likely to win. They would promise to keep him as shadow chancellor and promote his protégés Rebecca Long-Bailey and Richard Burgon.
Is it just me, or does it feel like the spectator write the most articles about internal Labour politics/battles? Despite the fact that they surely have the worst sources of any publication!?
Maybe this hare brained scheme is true, but there are some pretty obvious flaws in the plan like: McDonnell can't just deliver the Momentum vote, any future Labour leader could sack him as shadow chancellor, a Tom Watson leadership challenge looks very unlikely to work...
Burgon really is the living equivalent of Ben Swain from the Thick of It. An utter utter moron with delusions of talent
One of the problems voters will face at the next election is tactical voting.
Normally, when the changes in support between elections are not so great, it is clear to a tactical-voting inclined voter which party is best placed to prevent the outcome they most fear. When the changes in support are large, as now, then this is not obvious.
My assumption is that this will create a certain amount of inertia in the system, so Labour and the Conservatives are likely to do better than their opinion poll shares would suggest.
It will also lead to some odd results where the vote is split, because tactical-voting voters will make the wrong choice to prevent their least-favoured outcome. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of disappointed tactical voters who had voted Labour to stop the Tories (or Tory to stop Labour) only to see those parties come third anyway.
If the EU wants to see the back of MEPs like Widdecombe there's a very simple solution. Renegotiate the WDA in the time available so it can pass Parliament.
UKIP MEPs had some of the worst attendance records of the last parliament with garage one of the worst, the new incarnation TBP Ltd are already not seen in the chamber for hours on end as a block and it’s only day four. They are an embarrassment to the UK and the sooner we can be rid of THEM the better.
The last two Westminster elections about Brexit turned out not to be about Brexit. Maybe next time it will be different.
TBH when you look at the turnout in Euro elections and the percentages each party got it doesn't exactly make you think a huge chunk of the electorate is obsessed by Brexit...
Even with Brexit party I'm sure a Farage led party would get votes without Brexit being any kind of issue, obviously lots of Brexit related votes there. Similarly Lib Dems would always get some votes, although a big Brexit related vote there as well.
But with many of the other parties you'd assume other reasons outweighed Brexit, that is in a Euro election. In a general election with the greater turnout that would probably be lessened again.
But its about more than just Brexit as a process or event.
As in Scotland, the referendum - and more specifically its extended and bitter political aftermath - is re-casting how people see themselves. The Brexit divide goes wider than people's views on future political and trading arrangements with our neighbours, drawing on deep issues of culture and identity.
And we see similar processes underway elsewhere, in Trump's America, and the rise of the AfD and Greens in Germany.
People who hope this all ends when 'Brexit' as a political decision is made are likely to be disappointed.
For Corbyn Labour, read Melenchon in France, Podemos in Spain, Die Linke in Germany, and so on. Voters across Europe are saying No to the far left. It turns out that if you want to defeat the nationalist, hard right, you have to do it from the centre, not from the extremes. The LibDems have a real opportunity here, but it will need the party to do a lot of very careful thinking. A Charlie Kennedy-like leader and approach now would see them cleaning up.
A party so closely in alliance with the Right for five years is not well placed to do that. Much LD - and Brexit Party - support is likely to be froth anyway. As it is, they are polling well below the levels reached in 2010 , 2005 - and Alliance levels in 1987 and 1983. Currently their polling level is similar to what was achieved by Thorpe's Liberals in the 1974 elections - the major difference being that the two big parties are now much lower.
A party so closely in alliance with the Right for five years is not well placed to do that. Much LD - and Brexit Party - support is likely to be froth anyway. As it is, they are polling well below the levels reached in 2010 , 2005 - and Alliance levels in 1987 and 1983. Currently their polling level is similar to what was achieved by Thorpe's Liberals in the 1974 elections - the major difference being that the two big parties are now much lower.
"Froth" might well be true in that there are certainly voters who are flitting between the four parties, rather than a well-founded core vote.
But it would be a mistake to assume that they will go home to their "natural parties" at the next GE. Corbyn's Labour is no longer a natural home for centre-left voters, and that an ERG-influenced Conservative Party is no longer a natural home for centre-right voters.
Put another way, maybe we're in the era of permanent froth.
The Hunting ban was really a cultural thing more than worries over the poor fox.
No it wasn't. I was in the core group and it was entirely about the animals, which is why it included hare coursing, which doesn't have any cultural resonance at all. Most of us had a long history of other animal welfare causes and have been pursuing them ever since as well. There's always some nutter who attaches himself to an issue with other motives, but the people who pushed it through over Tony's metaphorical dead body were all animal welfare people.
And they were wrong, as per the Burns report.
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."
And I would also take issue with your point about coursing and cultural resonance. For someone now a born again countryman ("that nice man Mr Gove"), that is ignorance of stunning proportions. Wasn't it you who said you were happy never having been to the countryside or that you had no idea how it functioned? Have I got that wrong?
I don't have the figures to hand but a huge proportion of prosecutions under the Hunting Act have been for coursing, which activity has been a long-standing part of many communities from poshos to travellers.
I suggest you get out in the fields more, Nick.
“Insufficient evidence”? Aren’t you doing a Trump with that conclusion, claiming exoneration when it isn’t saying that at all?
It is what it is. Insufficient evidence. The report could not say that hunting was cruel to foxes. I'm sure if they could have said it was they would have done. They didn't say it wasn't cruel, but couldn't say it was.
"could not say that hunting was cruel to foxes". Isn't it bleeding obvious that it's cruel?
The few scraps given to minorities are overwhelmingly white–occupied by white cisgender women or LGBT+ individuals. The few PoC who are given access to institutional space are most often light skinned and non-Black while also exoticised and tokenised.
And that led me to my second article, “Escaping the Mold of Oriental Fantasy“–a personal history of isolation and colonization, of how Western classical music participates in the act of destroying culture and replaces it with its own white supremacist narrative.
The last two Westminster elections about Brexit turned out not to be about Brexit. Maybe next time it will be different.
TBH when you look at the turnout in Euro elections and the percentages each party got it doesn't exactly make you think a huge chunk of the electorate is obsessed by Brexit...
Even with Brexit party I'm sure a Farage led party would get votes without Brexit being any kind of issue, obviously lots of Brexit related votes there. Similarly Lib Dems would always get some votes, although a big Brexit related vote there as well.
But with many of the other parties you'd assume other reasons outweighed Brexit, that is in a Euro election. In a general election with the greater turnout that would probably be lessened again.
But its about more than just Brexit as a process or event.
As in Scotland, the referendum - and more specifically its extended and bitter political aftermath - is re-casting how people see themselves. The Brexit divide goes wider than people's views on future political and trading arrangements with our neighbours, drawing on deep issues of culture and identity.
And we see similar processes underway elsewhere, in Trump's America, and the rise of the AfD and Greens in Germany.
People who hope this all ends when 'Brexit' as a political decision is made are likely to be disappointed.
For Corbyn Labour, read Melenchon in France, Podemos in Spain, Die Linke in Germany, and so on. Voters across Europe are saying No to the far left. It turns out that if you want to defeat the nationalist, hard right, you have to do it from the centre, not from the extremes. The LibDems have a real opportunity here, but it will need the party to do a lot of very careful thinking. A Charlie Kennedy-like leader and approach now would see them cleaning up.
A party so closely in alliance with the Right for five years is not well placed to do that. Much LD - and Brexit Party - support is likely to be froth anyway. As it is, they are polling well below the levels reached in 2010 , 2005 - and Alliance levels in 1987 and 1983. Currently their polling level is similar to what was achieved by Thorpe's Liberals in the 1974 elections - the major difference being that the two big parties are now much lower.
I'm not sure that the Tory association means that much any more. The paradigm is leave/remain now, not Lab/Con, and the LibDems associated with driving the coalition have largely all gone
"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.
I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.
He's been a dinosaur for decades, he's not modern Conservativism.
That is exactly the point
He's been a dinosaur for decades, and is now the face of modern conservatism.
The modern conservative party looks and thinks like Bill Cash. Which is why there are fcked.
No. It. Does. Not.
Which is why Cash is still languishing on the backbenches and not in the Cabinet.
You don't see Bill joining Boris in government then?
No. I don't see Boris inviting him to do so.
I think Cash describes himself as a right-wing Liberal and has said he realised decades ago that he belonged to the Thatcherites, not the One-Nation Tories.
Luckily for him, the One Nation tendency have now been vanquished and it's a different party. It's still misrepresentation to call themselves Conservatives though and it has been since the Thatcher takeover.
Thatcher was a pro national sovereignty, social conservative, not a liberal. It was Thatcher after all too who fought to preserve the Falkland islands, one of the last bastions of the British Empire, from Argentine invasion
Thatcher would have been perfectly at home in the Tory Party of Lord Salisbury, Bonar Law or the Duke of Wellington.
The supposed 'One Nation' Toryism was only really prominent from the 1950sto mid 1970s under Eden, Macmillan, Home and Heath. Even Disraeli who originally coined the phrase spent much of his career backing tariffs and supporting the Empire
The Hunting ban was really a cultural thing more than worries over the poor fox.
No it wasn't. I was in the core group and it was entirely about the animals, which is why it included hare coursing, which doesn't have any cultural resonance at all. Most of us had a long history of other animal welfare causes and have been pursuing them ever since as well. There's always some nutter who attaches himself to an issue with other motives, but the people who pushed it through over Tony's metaphorical dead body were all animal welfare people.
And fishing? That great working-class 'sport' ?
(As an aside, I've started seeing many more women fishing. Years ago I'd never see any, but anecdotally I'm seeing more and more as I wander around the countryside. Including one on the Cam on Sunday.)
They have to do something while their husbands are watching the women's football.
If the EU wants to see the back of MEPs like Widdecombe there's a very simple solution. Renegotiate the WDA in the time available so it can pass Parliament.
Why do you think the EU want to see the back of her? As I've frequently pointed out. The European Parliament had had far worse, as you would expect from an institution that had actual fascists and communists in it. It's only people who get their news from right-wing Anglosphere sources who think this is a big deal...oh. Oh, I see. Ah. Ok. (is briefly sad).
Except that sensibly enough the price of that would be Corbyn's head and that can't happen.
I think LD and SNP might suck it up and let Corbyn be PM, in exchange for basically everything else they care about. The upside of Corbyn being way out of the mainstream of MPs is that he doesn't care that much either way about a lot of the thing everyone else cares about, so he might actually be quite easy to cut a deal with.
After all, if you're a new LD MP who just got elected off the back of Corbyn repelling centre-left voters in your constituency, why would you want to make Labour replace Corbyn and change your Winning Here formula?
How do Labour sign a coalition/C&S agreement with the SNP, the price of which is a winnable re-run of the independence referendum, if winning that referendum results in Labour losing its working majority?
To your second point, because the Lib Dems might fancy holding their seats for more than five years this time, and being tarred with the brush of enabling a useless racist Marxist PM might be worse than voting for tuition fees.
Nice to see a rare admission that IndyRef2 is winnable. Most folk on here, and in the media, think that BetterTogether2 is a slam-dunk.
If we leave without a deal IndyRef2 and Scottish independence is inevitable...
Not inevitable no, Yougov last October had No still ahead 52% to 48% in any indyref2 even in the even of No Deal though it would certainly be closer than 2014 with some diehard Remainers switching from No in 2014 to Yes now
I think when the campaign comes the three established parties will be able to get their vote out, while the Brexit Party won't. It will come down to how efficiently the centre and left vote tactically to beat the Tories.
More precisely, it will be about whether Labour supporters in rural and southern seats they are never going to win will be prepared to vote LibDem to beat the Tories. This will be hindered by the LibDems starting third in many seats where they are now better placed to win. And on whether the LDs and Greens can be grown up and co-operate.
I can’t see the Labour Party in its current state picking up much tactical support.
That depends what you mean by "tactical support". There are quite a lot of voters who are prepared to either vote LD or Labour, depending on current and local situations. The priority is to keep the tories out of government. With FPTP in constituencies with 75% Con+Lab and at most 15% LD (in 2017), there will be very little incentive for such voters to vote LD.
But that's my point - things have changed so much since 2017 (several political earthquakes since), that the 2017 results are no guide at all as to how best to play a tactical vote in the next GE.
I disagree. When it comes to the next GE, there will still be a large number of seats will have the threat of "Vote LD, get Boris"
Its a card that will be played, for sure. But the effect will be to knock back LibDem performance in seats where they are clearly - on current trends - going to be in second place contending for first.
If the LibDems do near treble their vote, those extra votes have to appear somewhere. And the swathe of seats where pre-2011 they were regularly chasing the Tories will do better than average.
The Tories' Little Helper card will also be played by Labour in due course to make sure the LDs share the blame for austerity etc.
Barry Gardiner’s “we’re trying to bail you guys out” quote to the Tories on Brexit may also make an appearance....
If the EU wants to see the back of MEPs like Widdecombe there's a very simple solution. Renegotiate the WDA in the time available so it can pass Parliament.
"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.
I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.
The moves to radically liberalise the laws on gambling made by the Labour government 1997-2010 were a mistake. It's not "banning" gambling to think that we would be better reversing that liberalisation, and extending a greater degree of regulation to online gambling.
But in the last few months something latent in Britain has become manifest, catalysed by Brexit. It is the realisation that we don’t have to choose between the Conservative Party or the Labour Party to govern us in perpetuity.
If the EU wants to see the back of MEPs like Widdecombe there's a very simple solution. Renegotiate the WDA in the time available so it can pass Parliament.
Except that sensibly enough the price of that would be Corbyn's head and that can't happen.
I think LD and SNP might suck it up and let Corbyn be PM, in exchange for basically everything else they care about. The upside of Corbyn being way out of the mainstream of MPs is that he doesn't care that much either way about a lot of the thing everyone else cares about, so he might actually be quite easy to cut a deal with.
After all, if you're a new LD MP who just got elected off the back of Corbyn repelling centre-left voters in your constituency, why would you want to make Labour replace Corbyn and change your Winning Here formula?
I can't speak for all, but I would consider resigning my membership if the parliamentary party did that. Gains due to the sheer inadequacy of Corbyn as a potential PM would be no mandate to put him into number 10. Not fit to lead on Brexit, anti-Semitism, foreign policy views etc etc. I'd rather have a second GE personally if that was the only alternative. A more pragmatic Labour leader could be a starting point for negotiations.
But in the last few months something latent in Britain has become manifest, catalysed by Brexit. It is the realisation that we don’t have to choose between the Conservative Party or the Labour Party to govern us in perpetuity.
How do Labour sign a coalition/C&S agreement with the SNP, the price of which is a winnable re-run of the independence referendum, if winning that referendum results in Labour losing its working majority?
Bird in the hand.
Try not to lose the referendum, and if you do give it a long implementation period, the SNP will probably be agreeable as it makes the enterprise sound less dangerous.
Because remainers don't want their kids to go into the army.
I have had more than one not-relative (Google "fictive kinship"), my best friend from school, and an uncle in the Army, and one of my nephews is going in later this year, much to our pride and terror. There is a part of me that goes "well we might as well buy the coffin now, just to save time", but Army life does provide good training and pay and for some younger men it may actually be the best option.
But in the last few months something latent in Britain has become manifest, catalysed by Brexit. It is the realisation that we don’t have to choose between the Conservative Party or the Labour Party to govern us in perpetuity.
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."
So Burns can't reach views about cruelty, but fortunately you can:
Except that sensibly enough the price of that would be Corbyn's head and that can't happen.
I think LD and SNP might suck it up and let Corbyn be PM, in exchange for basically everything else they care about. The upside of Corbyn being way out of the mainstream of MPs is that he doesn't care that much either way about a lot of the thing everyone else cares about, so he might actually be quite easy to cut a deal with.
After all, if you're a new LD MP who just got elected off the back of Corbyn repelling centre-left voters in your constituency, why would you want to make Labour replace Corbyn and change your Winning Here formula?
How do Labour sign a coalition/C&S agreement with the SNP, the price of which is a winnable re-run of the independence referendum, if winning that referendum results in Labour losing its working majority?
To your second point, because the Lib Dems might fancy holding their seats for more than five years this time, and being tarred with the brush of enabling a useless racist Marxist PM might be worse than voting for tuition fees.
Nice to see a rare admission that IndyRef2 is winnable. Most folk on here, and in the media, think that BetterTogether2 is a slam-dunk.
If we leave without a deal IndyRef2 and Scottish independence is inevitable...
Not inevitable no, Yougov last October had No still ahead 52% to 48% in any indyref2 even in the even of No Deal though it would certainly be closer than 2014 with some diehard Remainers switching from No in 2014 to Yes now
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."
So Burns can't reach views about cruelty, but fortunately you can:
By the way, when finding that quote, did you happen to read the next few paragraphs? The ones which end:
"we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing."
"Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.
It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.
The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.
Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."
I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.
I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.
The moves to radically liberalise the laws on gambling made by the Labour government 1997-2010 were a mistake. It's not "banning" gambling to think that we would be better reversing that liberalisation, and extending a greater degree of regulation to online gambling.
No it wasn't. The legislation was necessary to prevent bookmakers decamping en-masse to outside the UK and the Gambling Act 2005 and later legislation were necessary to create the Gambling Commission and extend its reach globally, thus enabling a tax stream. You reverse that and the tax will dry up.
And again: one's opinion on a thing should not enable government legislation to ban the thing. There is nothing wrong with gambling (that should be said more often) and given that PB was founded by a gambler and occasionally talks about it (not enough IMHO), such a stance on PB is perverse.
A thought experiment: one worth thinking about because it is quite likely. Imagine Labour tally 265 seats or so, and the Lib Dems have racked up 50. They indicate that they are willing to offer support to a Labour government and agree a progressive programme, but on condition that Jeremy Corbyn does not head the government and a figure acceptable to them does. Do you do that deal?
No. Labour would rather take their chances in another GE. Brenda of Bristol has an aneurysm.
I expect the Lib Dems in parallel discussions would be demanding Boris Johnson’s head too. I wonder which side would crack first.
It’s a little distasteful though
Let’s say that the 2 main parties have 300 each and the LibDems 50 (for simplicity, Nats, don’t get grumpy)
Instead of the voters getting as PM someone who fronted the campaign for one of the parties and who they (presumably) saw in the debates they are getting someone relatively unknown and untested.
At the behest of a party with a fraction of the votes and seats
Comments
From the little I've seen, it sounds to me like Hunt was trying to give a deliberately ambiguous answer to avoid losing support. If this is a key issue for you, then fair enough, but I'd say Hunt isn't advocating a change to the law, and that Boris will be a disastrous PM.
Hope you change your mind.
To your second point, because the Lib Dems might fancy holding their seats for more than five years this time, and being tarred with the brush of enabling a useless racist Marxist PM might be worse than voting for tuition fees.
An alliance between the soft and hard left opens the prospect of Corbynism surviving Corbyn. There are rumours of a deal circulating among Labour MPs. McDonnell would offer his and Momentum’s support to Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner, depending on who would be most likely to win. They would promise to keep him as shadow chancellor and promote his protégés Rebecca Long-Bailey and Richard Burgon.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/revealed-tom-watsons-secret-plan-to-oust-jeremy-corbyn/
If you think otherwise I am happy to do a charity bet £20 at evens that after the leadership election he is still a backbencher, as he has been for his entire political tenure besides IDS's leadership.
Of course the individuals working in the betting shops were entirely legally working and not drug dealers, but that is the popular analogy used for these machines and that is what was facilitated by the shops.
Can't see Con wanting to go there again after the 2017 general election?
He's been a dinosaur for decades, and is now the face of modern conservatism.
The modern conservative party looks and thinks like Bill Cash. Which is why there are fcked.
*FAINTS*
I despair every time I see people quote Electoral Calculus, which is a moderately worthwhile tool in times of stability, but hopeless in times of upheaval as at present.
Any seat forecast which does not use demographic data is, I would submit, basically not going to work right now. Flavible is almost useful though still a bit of a blunt instrument. EC needs a ground-up reworking for the current climate.
So it looks as though hustings and interviews after today may have limited impact.
If a no deal Brexit is threatening to shoot yourself with a gun (where and how it doesn't say, could be survived), Corbynism is the economic equivalent of jumping in front of a high speed train.
And Shipman's words are "this is what Electoral Calculus says would happen" - which is not close to your interpretation of a "potential outcome".
Which is why Cash is still languishing on the backbenches and not in the Cabinet.
If, on the other hand, he doesn't get a deal or an extension so we are faced with a no deal, then following a VONC, a GE in October or November is highly likely.
In that case recent polls are relevant. Corbyn will still be Labour leader and Johnson is priced in to the current Tory share. Labour may do a little better if Corbyn is clearly for EUref2 supporting Remain.
Current shares are roughly Tory 23%, Labour 24%, LD 19%, Brexit 21%.
Labour do much better in seats than Tory in this scenario taking about 240 - 250 seats against about 150 - 160 for the Tories with LDs on 60 -70 and Brexit on 110 - 120.
If Labour go for EUref2, they may get 10-20 extra seats at LD expense. Whether Labour goes for EUref2 or not, it doesn't significantly change the parliamentary arithmetic. Labour would be the largest party but could only govern with C&S from both the LDs and SNP who would insist on EUref2.
Bill Cash does.
She says it is unclear and disorganised. Just like him.
😎
If you shoot yourself dead, that is the end of it, finito.
If you leave on 31st October, that is not the end of it. A subsequent agreement can be struck at any point, and potentially very quickly, as soon as there is the will on both sides to put in place something that will suit them better.
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38%
LD 30%
Grn 11%
Bxp 10%
Con 9%
oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
Nothing in life is inevitable.
And, of course, periodical reminders that I tipped Verstappen to win the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix at 250/1.
Luckily for him, the One Nation tendency have now been vanquished and it's a different party. It's still misrepresentation to call themselves Conservatives though and it has been since the Thatcher takeover.
Maybe this hare brained scheme is true, but there are some pretty obvious flaws in the plan like: McDonnell can't just deliver the Momentum vote, any future Labour leader could sack him as shadow chancellor, a Tom Watson leadership challenge looks very unlikely to work...
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
(Guardian blog) Police investigating an allegation of the burning of ballots in the Peterborough by-election have concluded that no offences were committed, the Press Association reports. Cambridgeshire Police previously said no crimes were revealed in respect of one allegation of bribery and two relating to postal votes. The force said that it had concluded its investigation into an allegation of the burning of ballots, with no crime found to be committed. The investigation into a fifth allegation, of a breach of the privacy of the vote, is continuing. The Brexit party claimed last month that vote-rigging may have played a role in Labour’s wafer-thin victory in the by-election.
Normally, when the changes in support between elections are not so great, it is clear to a tactical-voting inclined voter which party is best placed to prevent the outcome they most fear. When the changes in support are large, as now, then this is not obvious.
My assumption is that this will create a certain amount of inertia in the system, so Labour and the Conservatives are likely to do better than their opinion poll shares would suggest.
It will also lead to some odd results where the vote is split, because tactical-voting voters will make the wrong choice to prevent their least-favoured outcome. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of disappointed tactical voters who had voted Labour to stop the Tories (or Tory to stop Labour) only to see those parties come third anyway.
But it would be a mistake to assume that they will go home to their "natural parties" at the next GE. Corbyn's Labour is no longer a natural home for centre-left voters, and that an ERG-influenced Conservative Party is no longer a natural home for centre-right voters.
Put another way, maybe we're in the era of permanent froth.
Isn't it bleeding obvious that it's cruel?
https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/its-time-to-let-classical-music-die/
Every. Button. Pressed.
The few scraps given to minorities are overwhelmingly white–occupied by white cisgender women or LGBT+ individuals. The few PoC who are given access to institutional space are most often light skinned and non-Black while also exoticised and tokenised.
And that led me to my second article, “Escaping the Mold of Oriental Fantasy“–a personal history of isolation and colonization, of how Western classical music participates in the act of destroying culture and replaces it with its own white supremacist narrative.
Thatcher would have been perfectly at home in the Tory Party of Lord Salisbury, Bonar Law or the Duke of Wellington.
The supposed 'One Nation' Toryism was only really prominent from the 1950sto mid 1970s under Eden, Macmillan, Home and Heath. Even Disraeli who originally coined the phrase spent much of his career backing tariffs and supporting the Empire
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/no-deal-brexit-pushes-scots-to-break-from-the-uk-shows-poll-5kkpfb2dv
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/corbynism-is-rotting-from-the-head-down-9mg2qm7nm
Try not to lose the referendum, and if you do give it a long implementation period, the SNP will probably be agreeable as it makes the enterprise sound less dangerous.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/03/morris-dancers-fury-plans-switch-may-day-bank-holiday-friday/
New Fred
"we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing."
?
new depths
And again: one's opinion on a thing should not enable government legislation to ban the thing. There is nothing wrong with gambling (that should be said more often) and given that PB was founded by a gambler and occasionally talks about it (not enough IMHO), such a stance on PB is perverse.
https://twitter.com/cj_dinenage/status/1146704467301154817
https://twitter.com/cj_dinenage/status/1146717201862397952
The whole Boris camp just don't want to operate in a world of facts and reality. It is all about posing nonsense as populist and ignoring the truth.
How many poor mums want their kids to be overweight? They are just as likely to be glad the government is doing something as any other parent.
Let’s say that the 2 main parties have 300 each and the LibDems 50 (for simplicity, Nats, don’t get grumpy)
Instead of the voters getting as PM someone who fronted the campaign for one of the parties and who they (presumably) saw in the debates they are getting someone relatively unknown and untested.
At the behest of a party with a fraction of the votes and seats