It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election
And May being crap.
And Hammond flouncing off and not skewering Labour on their fantasy "spending without taxing Jo Average" bollocks.
But that was a function of May being less than wonderful at man management.
That's a myth that needs correcting, Mrs May and her cretinous staff kept on pulling Hammond, so he couldn't have a good campaign, so it would be easier to sack him.
Another complaint was the lack of Cabinet ministers going on regional visits. Well-known faces such as Justine Greening, Liz Truss and Andrea Leadsom were hidden away. Hammond was allowed one outing. Boris Johnson was deployed to key marginals but rarely on the national stage.
Hill, it is alleged, was purging the campaign of May’s rivals. “Fi would see the names of Cabinet ministers on the Grid [the planning board of regional outings] and she would take them off,” said a campaign official. “Sometimes we would put Philip Hammond on the Grid just to see what we could get away with, but she always removed him.”
Make no mistake, the Labour vote went up because of Corbyn. I had not seen the enthusiasm for a leader both amongst activists and labour voters since(ironically) 1997. A different Labour leader would have been trounced by TM.
Chukka a & Co will only get their party back if Labour goes into a GE in full Corbyn mode and gets thrashed. How likely is that? Another narrow defeat will not change the dynamics imo. The Left is too well dug in now.
If it gets to that, the Common's ain't going to have a choice in the matter. They can't make a deal without one existing.
Yes, it's a completely irrational position. If we do get to that point, what on earth will they propose as an alternative? Sending in the SAS to grab Michael Barnier and waterboarding him until he signs a deal?
Lol - I could see some of the Tory ultras backing that!
It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election
And May being crap.
A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign
Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?
There wasn't a huge Tory to Labour swing amongst Remainers that wasn't largely countered by the Labour to Tory swing amongst working class Leavers and the Tories gaining over half the 2015 UKIP vote.
Indeed Ford's own figures show a majority of the Remain swing to Labour in the campaign came from non Tories.
As I said the main net loss of the Tories in 2017 was over the dementia tax and not Brexit
The 2017 election was a response to the Tories going for full Brexit and ignoring almost half the country. If Labour had a Remainer as leader they would have done better, but maybe not hugely better since most voters seemed to think that Labour were for Remain anyway.
Rewriting history seems to be a favourite pastime amongst some unreconstructed Remainers on this site. The 2017 election was a near Brexit free zone, craftily managed as such by a clever Labour campaign anxious to keep their Remain and Leave support on board.
Make no mistake, the Labour vote went up because of Corbyn. I had not seen the enthusiasm for a leader both amongst activists and labour voters since(ironically) 1997. A different Labour leader would have been trounced by TM.
Chukka a & Co will only get their party back if Labour goes into a GE in full Corbyn mode and gets thrashed. How likely is that? Another narrow defeat will not change the dynamics imo. The Left is too well dug in now.
Unless Corbyn resigns post defeat, a Labour members poll earlier this year had Umunna and Starmer just 1% behind McDonnell for next Labour leader and Cooper level with him
OFGEM extending the prepayment cap to 1m SVR customers in reciept of the Warm Homes Discount. Interesting down payment on May's wider cap in advance of the legislation needed. I've yet to hear an explaination of how all this doesn't end with the savvy third of consumers who currently fix paying more to compensate for the two thirds who don't fix paying less. But doubtless the government will be happy to cross that bridge when it comes to it if it means speedy implementation of it's manifesto commitment.
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.
Displacement activity, like tidying your cupboards when an essay is due.
Or disputing the bar bill as the ship hits the iceberg.
That is a kind way of putting it. What is the medical term for a complete denial of reality?
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.
And it perhaps reflects the lack of ability and capacity of our current set of career politicians to run anything and do deals - because they have never really run anything or done deals in the real world.
You sort of wonder how we coped a century ago running a third of the world with so few civil servants. Are our politicians today just not in the same league at all?
Rewriting history seems to be a favourite pastime amongst some unreconstructed Remainers on this site. The 2017 election was a near Brexit free zone, craftily managed as such by a clever Labour campaign anxious to keep their Remain and Leave support on board.
And this was the case despite Brexit being the explicit reason for calling it. It's logical to conclude that the public does not see completing Brexit as a pressing concern.
"At this moment of enormous national significance there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division. The country is coming together, but Westminster is not.
"In recent weeks Labour has threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union. The Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill.
"The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union. And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way.
"Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course. They are wrong.
"They underestimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country.
"Because what they are doing jeopardises the work we must do to prepare for Brexit at home and it weakens the government's negotiating position in Europe.
"If we do not hold a general election now their political game-playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election.
"Division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty and instability to the country.
"So we need a general election and we need one now, because we have at this moment a one-off chance to get this done while the European Union agrees its negotiating position and before the detailed talks begin.
It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election
And May being crap.
A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign
Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?
There wasn't a huge Tory to Labour swing amongst Remainers that wasn't largely countered by the Labour to Tory swing amongst working class Leavers and the Tories gaining over half the 2015 UKIP vote.
Indeed Ford's own figures show a majority of the Remain swing to Labour in the campaign came from non Tories.
As I said the main net loss of the Tories in 2017 was over the dementia tax and not Brexit
The 2017 election was a response to the Tories going for full Brexit and ignoring almost half the country. If Labour had a Remainer as leader they would have done better, but maybe not hugely better since most voters seemed to think that Labour were for Remain anyway.
Rewriting history seems to be a favourite pastime amongst some unreconstructed Remainers on this site. The 2017 election was a near Brexit free zone, craftily managed as such by a clever Labour campaign anxious to keep their Remain and Leave support on board.
I agree. Though I think not so much craftiness concerning Brexit, but rather down to Corbyn's lack of interest in it. He would far rather concentrate on the domestic agenda, and did so on the subject of austerity.
I am with @valleyboy in that Jezza was widely seen as a positive. I am sure that some were put off by the IRA links etc, but far more were willing to give a chance to someone who upsets and challenged orthodoxy. He also comes across as polite and principled in a way rare in a spun world of politics. Chauncey Gardner quite possibly...
Rewriting history seems to be a favourite pastime amongst some unreconstructed Remainers on this site. The 2017 election was a near Brexit free zone, craftily managed as such by a clever Labour campaign anxious to keep their Remain and Leave support on board.
And this was the case despite Brexit being the explicit reason for calling it. It's logical to conclude that the public does not see completing Brexit as a pressing concern.
In theory Mr Smithson's premise makes perfect sense. However in practice I suspect someone like Burnham or even Cooper would have finished with not dissimilar numbers to Miliband in 2015. Perhaps with either of those people leading Labour Mrs May would never have been 24 points ahead in the polls and she would not have risked her majority with a vanity GE.
Corbyn's relative success has more to do with the Trump/Brexit anti-establishment narrative than his credentials compared to a moderate anti-Brexit Labour leader. Therefore I stand by my assertion that he did better than someone else would have.
Corbyn? I hate the ****er and I had Labour under Corbyn garnering a maximum vote share of 28%. I still don't understand where the 40% came from. My head says he'll never achieve 40% again and Labour will get hammered by a Tory party led by Boris or Mr Davis or Mr Rees-Mogg, simply because Corbyn is unelectable to most people as PM even if they disagree with Brexit and how the Tories are handling it.
So logically speaking Corbyn hasn't got a hope of being PM, but then Trump was a hopeless GOP candidate, and Brexit just wouldn't happen. I am not sure I understand the extent of the widespread disdain there is for the Tory party, and the reading by younger people that Corbyn is a political genius rather than the mad old Trot that older people understand him to be.
So no, Corbyn did better than any of the tired Blairites that would have become leader in his place.
Rewriting history seems to be a favourite pastime amongst some unreconstructed Remainers on this site. The 2017 election was a near Brexit free zone, craftily managed as such by a clever Labour campaign anxious to keep their Remain and Leave support on board.
And this was the case despite Brexit being the explicit reason for calling it. It's logical to conclude that the public does not see completing Brexit as a pressing concern.
Rewriting history seems to be a favourite pastime amongst some unreconstructed Remainers on this site. The 2017 election was a near Brexit free zone, craftily managed as such by a clever Labour campaign anxious to keep their Remain and Leave support on board.
And this was the case despite Brexit being the explicit reason for calling it. It's logical to conclude that the public does not see completing Brexit as a pressing concern.
I've yet to hear an explaination of how all this doesn't end with the savvy third of consumers who currently fix paying more to compensate for the two thirds who don't fix paying less. But doubtless the government will be happy to cross that bridge when it comes to it if it means
There isn't an explanation, because that is precisely the idea: to prevent the elderly, the vulnerable and the non-savvy from subsisiding the often better-off savvy consumers. Presumably you support that.
Make no mistake, the Labour vote went up because of Corbyn. I had not seen the enthusiasm for a leader both amongst activists and labour voters since(ironically) 1997. A different Labour leader would have been trounced by TM.
I'm sceptical that Corbyn was the cause of the Labour surge. It could have been a vote against the Tories' decision to hold a Brexit referendum by middle-class voters.
It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election
And May being crap.
And Hammond flouncing off and not skewering Labour on their fantasy "spending without taxing Jo Average" bollocks.
But that was a function of May being less than wonderful at man management.
That's a myth that needs correcting, Mrs May and her cretinous staff kept on pulling Hammond, so he couldn't have a good campaign, so it would be easier to sack him.
Another complaint was the lack of Cabinet ministers going on regional visits. Well-known faces such as Justine Greening, Liz Truss and Andrea Leadsom were hidden away. Hammond was allowed one outing. Boris Johnson was deployed to key marginals but rarely on the national stage.
Hill, it is alleged, was purging the campaign of May’s rivals. “Fi would see the names of Cabinet ministers on the Grid [the planning board of regional outings] and she would take them off,” said a campaign official. “Sometimes we would put Philip Hammond on the Grid just to see what we could get away with, but she always removed him.”
Leaving aside your not exactly neutral source, the more I hear about that campaign, the more everyone at the centre should have been whacked about the head with an inflated puffer fish.
Locally, we were doing great stuff. Nationally, it was poor. The quality of the leaflets in 2015 were excellent. In 2017, they were shite - both in content and in terms of the quality of the paper they were printed on.
Still, none of that excuses the supine position taken by Cabinet Ministers who were hidden/hiding when it was clear that Labour's bollocks was getting a free hand - and causing damage. There should have been a pow-wow with 2 weeks to go - "this isn't working!".
Rewriting history seems to be a favourite pastime amongst some unreconstructed Remainers on this site. The 2017 election was a near Brexit free zone, craftily managed as such by a clever Labour campaign anxious to keep their Remain and Leave support on board.
And this was the case despite Brexit being the explicit reason for calling it. It's logical to conclude that the public does not see completing Brexit as a pressing concern.
In the sense of 'we must deal with Brexit' rather than 'we must get out of the European Union at any cost'.
Regardless, it's still viewed as a top issue.
A top issue - but as big as austerity, student fees, dementia tax and housing which probably played big in London and the south east where Labour saw big swings and housing in terms if its cost and taxability for social care play bigger.
Was the demographic most likely to vote remain - the young, renters, older voters with property wealth and liberal progressives who live in London and university towns also just more likely to be attracted to Labour's message on austerity and housing and also hate the dementia tax and the plans to cut benefits for wealthier pensioners?
Rewriting history seems to be a favourite pastime amongst some unreconstructed Remainers on this site. The 2017 election was a near Brexit free zone, craftily managed as such by a clever Labour campaign anxious to keep their Remain and Leave support on board.
And this was the case despite Brexit being the explicit reason for calling it. It's logical to conclude that the public does not see completing Brexit as a pressing concern.
"At this moment of enormous national significance there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division. The country is coming together, but Westminster is not.
"In recent weeks Labour has threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union. The Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill.
"The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union. And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way.
"Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course. They are wrong.
"They underestimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country.
"Because what they are doing jeopardises the work we must do to prepare for Brexit at home and it weakens the government's negotiating position in Europe.
"If we do not hold a general election now their political game-playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election.
"Division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty and instability to the country.
"So we need a general election and we need one now, because we have at this moment a one-off chance to get this done while the European Union agrees its negotiating position and before the detailed talks begin.
The Conservatives and DUP, unequivocally pro-Brexit parties, won a Commons majority.
I've yet to hear an explaination of how all this doesn't end with the savvy third of consumers who currently fix paying more to compensate for the two thirds who don't fix paying less. But doubtless the government will be happy to cross that bridge when it comes to it if it means
There isn't an explanation, because that is precisely the idea: to prevent the elderly, the vulnerable and the non-savvy from subsisiding the often better-off savvy consumers. Presumably you support that.
As one of those frequent switchers, I think it's absolute mince. I'm not sure the "savvy" customers are (in the round) better off either.
Rewriting history seems to be a favourite pastime amongst some unreconstructed Remainers on this site. The 2017 election was a near Brexit free zone, craftily managed as such by a clever Labour campaign anxious to keep their Remain and Leave support on board.
And this was the case despite Brexit being the explicit reason for calling it. It's logical to conclude that the public does not see completing Brexit as a pressing concern.
In the sense of 'we must deal with Brexit' rather than 'we must get out of the European Union at any cost'.
Regardless, it's still viewed as a top issue.
A top issue - but as big as austerity, student fees, dementia tax and housing which probably played big in London and the south east where Labour saw big swings and housing in terms if its cost and taxability for social care play bigger.
Was the demographic most likely to vote remain - the young, renters, older voters with property wealth and liberal progressives who live in London and university towns also just more likely to be attracted to Labour's message on austerity and housing and also hate the dementia tax and the plans to cut benefits for wealthier pensioners?
Check on page three, it's the most important issue by quite a margin. Social care is only stated as the most important issue by 2%, housing 4% (compared with 25% for the EU/Brexit).
This is very much in line with what I have believed since June 8. It wasnt people voting for Corbyn that cost the Tories their majority, it was remainers voting Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop a Tory lasndslide for a hard Brexit which brought about the result.
So there is Corbyn hard left conference triumphalising at Brighton, believing there the election was an endorsement of Corbynite hard left Labour, when it was really about people holding their noses and voting Labour to stop a hard Brexit.
Which is why in 2022, I believe the exit poll on election night is going to hit Labour for six between the eyes.
I've yet to hear an explaination of how all this doesn't end with the savvy third of consumers who currently fix paying more to compensate for the two thirds who don't fix paying less. But doubtless the government will be happy to cross that bridge when it comes to it if it means
There isn't an explanation, because that is precisely the idea: to prevent the elderly, the vulnerable and the non-savvy from subsisiding the often better-off savvy consumers. Presumably you support that.
As one of those frequent switchers, I think it's absolute mince. I'm not sure the "savvy" customers are (in the round) better off either.
Look on the bright side, you won't have to waste time researching the best deal.
As a thought experiment, imagine how the Conservatives would have performed had they gone into the election saying they rejected the Referendum vote?
This is a highly dynamic situation, notwithstanding the appearance of stasis in the Remain/Leave polls. What held for 2017 will not hold for 2018 following a catastrophic loss of confidence in delivering Brexit.
As a thought experiment, imagine how the Conservatives would have performed had they gone into the election saying they rejected the Referendum vote?
This is a highly dynamic situation, notwithstanding the appearance of stasis in the Remain/Leave polls. What held for 2017 will not hold for 2018 following a catastrophic loss of confidence in delivering Brexit.
Just as some Leavers are barking up the wrong tree by expecting Remainers to recant, so you're making the same mistake in reverse.
This is very much in line with what I have believed since June 8. It wasnt people voting for Corbyn that cost the Tories their majority, it was remainers voting Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop a Tory lasndslide for a hard Brexit which brought about the result.
So there is Corbyn hard left conference triumphalising at Brighton, believing there the election was an endorsement of Corbynite hard left Labour, when it was really about people holding their noses and voting Labour to stop a hard Brexit.
Which is why in 2022, I believe the exit poll on election night is going to hit Labour for six between the eyes.
A post-Brexit election is impossible to read this side of that Brexit. The Remainers making so much noise now means that ANY Brexit that does not deliver the Full Venkman is gonna be "Meh.... It wasn't so bad after all. Now, Mr. Corbyn - about that Manifesto of yours...."
The Brexit Bar is currently set so low, even Mrs. May might get over it.
I don't see how a "No Deal" Brexit would end up going to a vote.
What I suppose could happen is that Parliament could vote to revoke A. 50, in the hope that the EU would agree to such revocation, but I doubt if there would be a majority for that.
As a thought experiment, imagine how the Conservatives would have performed had they gone into the election saying they rejected the Referendum vote?
This is a highly dynamic situation, notwithstanding the appearance of stasis in the Remain/Leave polls. What held for 2017 will not hold for 2018 following a catastrophic loss of confidence in delivering Brexit.
Just as some Leavers are barking up the wrong tree by expecting Remainers to recant, so you're making the same mistake in reverse.
There's a difference between recanting and admitting defeat. The latter is already happening. Look at comments from people like RoyalBlue on here saying that Brexit is turning into an 'utter disaster' that is 'doomed to failure'.
As a thought experiment, imagine how the Conservatives would have performed had they gone into the election saying they rejected the Referendum vote?
This is a highly dynamic situation, notwithstanding the appearance of stasis in the Remain/Leave polls. What held for 2017 will not hold for 2018 following a catastrophic loss of confidence in delivering Brexit.
Just as some Leavers are barking up the wrong tree by expecting Remainers to recant, so you're making the same mistake in reverse.
There's a difference between recanting and admitting defeat. The latter is already happening. Look at comments from people like RoyalBlue on here saying that Brexit is turning into an 'utter disaster' that is 'doomed to failure'.
So far as one can tell, the vast majority of Leave voters are quite happy with their choice.
A post-Brexit election is impossible to read this side of that Brexit. The Remainers making so much noise now means that ANY Brexit that does not deliver the Full Venkman is gonna be "Meh.... It wasn't so bad after all. Now, Mr. Corbyn - about that Manifesto of yours...."
The Brexit Bar is currently set so low, even Mrs. May might get over it.
That is certainly quite possible. Alternatively, if it's a disaster, there will be some world-class blame-shifting, the outcome of which is unpredictable but is more likely to benefit Labour than any other party.
This is very much in line with what I have believed since June 8. It wasnt people voting for Corbyn that cost the Tories their majority, it was remainers voting Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop a Tory lasndslide for a hard Brexit which brought about the result.
So there is Corbyn hard left conference triumphalising at Brighton, believing there the election was an endorsement of Corbynite hard left Labour, when it was really about people holding their noses and voting Labour to stop a hard Brexit.
Which is why in 2022, I believe the exit poll on election night is going to hit Labour for six between the eyes.
The big assumption is that people still think of themselves strongly enough as Remainers or Leavers over a year after the referendum, that it's still how they define themselves politically. That wasn't how it felt during the election.
Even if Brexit is still the biggest concern for the majority of people, it isn't as Remainers versus Leavers, but for how Brexit will impact upon all the other many concerns people have. I don't think it's even 'hard Brexit' versus 'soft Brexit' for most people, being such a vague division, as if the intricacies of whether we're actually members of the single market, or what kind of access we have, matters to most people in the absence of concrete consequences.
Just because we re-fight the June 2016 referendum on here every day doesn't mean most people are. There's no reason to look at a young Remain voter who switched to Labour and inflate their Remain vote as a cause, ignoring everything else that might have attracted them as a young voter, for instance.
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered. The delivery of Brexit should have been almost trivial: The EU created a state that was always intended as a transitionary state between being out of the EU and being in the EU - the state of being in the EEA. As it happens, it suits certain countries down to the ground and they've chosen to remain in it long-term.
It would work just as well on the way out as on the way in. - The majority of EU legislation doesn't apply - Members have the opportunity to shape legislation that does apply to them - The regulatory, agreement, and organisational structures are already in place and tested and work - There are no deadlines that could expire to end up giving us a no-deal disaster - We would regain the ability to negotiate our own trade deals but could pick up existing ones as well. - We could exit after giving 12 months notice if it didn't fit after all, or if and when we'd created all the various deals and structures we'll need.
But no, that would be too easy
Agree entirely. I still don't understand why this has not been pursued as the immediate destination after which we can discuss further changes.
I don't see how a "No Deal" Brexit would end up going to a vote.
What I suppose could happen is that Parliament could vote to revoke A. 50, in the hope that the EU would agree to such revocation, but I doubt if there would be a majority for that.
This would be a situation of very high political tension. I expect much would depend on how soon in advance of the March 2019 expiry it became clear tha there would be no deal, as well as on the state of preparedness on the ground. I could imagine a motion before the House such as "in light of the collapse of the EU negotiations this House regrets the failure of HMG to explore the possibility of revoking A50. " How that would go down I really don't know.
As a thought experiment, imagine how the Conservatives would have performed had they gone into the election saying they rejected the Referendum vote?
This is a highly dynamic situation, notwithstanding the appearance of stasis in the Remain/Leave polls. What held for 2017 will not hold for 2018 following a catastrophic loss of confidence in delivering Brexit.
Just as some Leavers are barking up the wrong tree by expecting Remainers to recant, so you're making the same mistake in reverse.
There's a difference between recanting and admitting defeat. The latter is already happening. Look at comments from people like RoyalBlue on here saying that Brexit is turning into an 'utter disaster' that is 'doomed to failure'.
So far as one can tell, the vast majority of Leave voters are quite happy with their choice.
To be charitable to them, this is because events have not yet compelled them to pay attention.
This is an incredibly disingenuous answer. They may have increased the number of seats but the actual number of votes they got went down. Clearly their policies - including their pro EU stance - is not in any way popular with the electorate. Indeed they were less popular in 2017 than in 2015 which one would have thought almost impossible after the dire result under Clegg.
I've yet to hear an explaination of how all this doesn't end with the savvy third of consumers who currently fix paying more to compensate for the two thirds who don't fix paying less. But doubtless the government will be happy to cross that bridge when it comes to it if it means
There isn't an explanation, because that is precisely the idea: to prevent the elderly, the vulnerable and the non-savvy from subsisiding the often better-off savvy consumers. Presumably you support that.
As one of those frequent switchers, I think it's absolute mince. I'm not sure the "savvy" customers are (in the round) better off either.
Look on the bright side, you won't have to waste time researching the best deal.
Your musings on 'milivoidance' circa April 2015 about tilting away from UK equities to RoW have paid off for the moment, ~64% IRR since then on that part of my pension.
Do you think global equities (Blackrock global tracker weighted 60 USA, 40 RoW ex UK) will continue to outperform the UK ?
Make no mistake, the Labour vote went up because of Corbyn. I had not seen the enthusiasm for a leader both amongst activists and labour voters since(ironically) 1997. A different Labour leader would have been trounced by TM.
Corbyn enthused the Labour base, less so swing voters.
Corbyn won 100 fewer seats than Blair did in 2005 for example
In Wales Corbyn definitely was king amongst Labour leaning viters.
This is an incredibly disingenuous answer. They may have increased the number of seats but the actual number of votes they got went down. Clearly their policies - including their pro EU stance - is not in any way popular with the electorate. Indeed they were less popular in 2017 than in 2015 which one would have thought almost impossible after the dire result under Clegg.
And, in most of their former strongholds, they fell further behind.
It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election
And May being crap.
A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign
Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?
If one makes the assumption that Remainers are more internationalist, open-minded, etc etc, then they will have been appalled by the other extreme right-wing policies being put forward by the Conservative Party at the election. So it may nothave nbeen the EU as the single issue that swung them over to Labour, but that as one issue among many. The polling has just picked up that one issue.
If you take into account that the whole Labour campaign was fuzzy, woolly and deliberately non-committal, and electors could read into it whatever interpretation they liked; plus the fact that everybody was saying there was no chance of Corbyn getting into power - then it makes sense that people voted Labour in order to help stop the insanity of the overall Conservative project.
Is our government willing to pay a fee of about €60 billion over a number of years? That fee should decide whether it's a crash out to what the fuck do we do now or a somewhat managed situation Do people think they won't pay it?
It was the dementia tax and not Brexit which hit the Tories in the general election
And May being crap.
A product of the dementia tax and her decision not to put politics first in a campaign, it was a bad policy in my view and an even worse manifesto pledge in a general election campaign
Then how do you account for the huge CON to LAB swing amongst Remainers?
If one makes the assumption that Remainers are more internationalist, open-minded, etc etc, then they will have been appalled by the other extreme right-wing policies being put forward by the Conservative Party at the election. So it may nothave nbeen the EU as the single issue that swung them over to Labour, but that as one issue among many. The polling has just picked up that one issue.
If you take into account that the whole Labour campaign was fuzzy, woolly and deliberately non-committal, and electors could read into it whatever interpretation they liked; plus the fact that everybody was saying there was no chance of Corbyn getting into power - then it makes sense that people voted Labour in order to help stop the insanity of the overall Conservative project.
As a thought experiment, imagine how the Conservatives would have performed had they gone into the election saying they rejected the Referendum vote?
Very badly. However, they did need a less strident pro-Brexit message which sought to assuage the worries and fears of more of the 48%. I'm afraid May's tone missed the mark here. not the only reason for the poor result perhaps but it didn't help. As i said earlier she doesn't do nuance at all well.
As a thought experiment, imagine how the Conservatives would have performed had they gone into the election saying they rejected the Referendum vote?
This is a highly dynamic situation, notwithstanding the appearance of stasis in the Remain/Leave polls. What held for 2017 will not hold for 2018 following a catastrophic loss of confidence in delivering Brexit.
Just as some Leavers are barking up the wrong tree by expecting Remainers to recant, so you're making the same mistake in reverse.
There's a difference between recanting and admitting defeat. The latter is already happening. Look at comments from people like RoyalBlue on here saying that Brexit is turning into an 'utter disaster' that is 'doomed to failure'.
So far as one can tell, the vast majority of Leave voters are quite happy with their choice.
I think that's true. But the full consequences of their choice have not yet become clear and when they do leave voters may well become much less happy.
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.
And it perhaps reflects the lack of ability and capacity of our current set of career politicians to run anything and do deals - because they have never really run anything or done deals in the real world.
You sort of wonder how we coped a century ago running a third of the world with so few civil servants. Are our politicians today just not in the same league at all?
Apparently not. Having said that, the world was simpler a century ago and less rushed. News of events took weeks or months to travel and lots of time was thus available to consider issues. These days, we are aware of events within minutes and responses are required on the same timescale. Snap judgements are now used more than ever before.
Make no mistake, the Labour vote went up because of Corbyn. I had not seen the enthusiasm for a leader both amongst activists and labour voters since(ironically) 1997. A different Labour leader would have been trounced by TM.
Do you think Rhodri's passing/Carwyn in Wales had an effect. I note that Labour held Bridgend whereas they lost Mansfield for instance, there was definite outperformance in Wales compared to provincial England.
I dont think so, although it may have lit a small flame under the activists! I could sense something stirring in Wales 3 weeks out. In fact I tipped Gower to Labour on this blog. Certainly Corbyn was received more enthusiastically than in parts of England, but i also think Wales labour, particularly Carwyn, engaged better than in 2015.
Your musings on 'milivoidance' circa April 2015 about tilting away from UK equities to RoW have paid off for the moment, ~64% IRR since then on that part of my pension.
Do you think global equities (Blackrock global tracker weighted 60 USA, 40 RoW ex UK) will continue to outperform the UK ?
TINIA of course ^_~
If Brexit goes very well, then it is possible that the UK will (in sterling terms) outperform the global markets, but I continue to think that the balance of risks is very much to the downside for the UK. In the optimistic scenario where we conclude a reasonably good deal with the EU and do so early enough to avoid disruption, UK equities might do a bit better, with sterling rising and confidence returning in the UK. In the more pessimistic scenarios, a toxic combination of political chaos, possible Corbynomics, significant Brexit disruption, and general panic would simultaneously hit UK-focused shares, clobber sterling, and (for those who are employed in the UK) hit your household finances, in the extreme case leading to unemployment for some.
Given that analysis, even without attributing a particularly high probability to the nasty scenarios, it seems prudent to maintain a substantial tilt towards global markets. This is especially true because of the fact that, if the US markets fall substantially, they'll take the UK markets down with them anyway, so fears about US valuations being overstretched aren't really an argument for tilting towards the UK.
The other point for long-term investors is that I think sterling would be likely to drift downwards over the medium to long term even in the absence of political and Brexit risk, simply because of the current-account deficit.
Of course, as you say this is not investment advice, do your own research, I know nothing guv, etc etc.
The analysis at the top of this thread is spot on IMO. Canvassing in London it was clear that substantial numbers of Tory voters were switching to Labour because of Brexit. It's not at all likely that the rolling disaster that is the Brexit process will win them back to the Tories.
One of the interesting things about GE2017 was that the Lib Dem seat count facing Labour completely collapsed to zero (Corbyn DOMINATED the red/yellow contests utterly), against the SNP Ruth Davidson doing damage allowed some seats through the middle, though former highland strength is much diminished now.
Facing the blues though the LD vote worked pretty well in very strong remain areas (Oxwab, Bath) - but historic leave strongholds such as Yeovil are now very Tory areas. Interestingly neither Stephen Lloyd nor Norman Lamb would rerun the referendum, and their results were the strongest adjusting for remain/leave factors relative to Lib Dem/Tory contests.
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.
And it perhaps reflects the lack of ability and capacity of our current set of career politicians to run anything and do deals - because they have never really run anything or done deals in the real world.
You sort of wonder how we coped a century ago running a third of the world with so few civil servants. Are our politicians today just not in the same league at all?
Never been a huge believer in this "real world job" argument - most jobs within politics and without consist of putting on a suit and going to Powerpoint presentations; it's only the labels on the axes of the Pp graphs which change. Is being a lawyer a real job? an accountant? an in house lawyer at a manufacturing company? Working for Big Oil like Vince, or Big Sugar like Davis? Or doing so many deals in the real world that you write a best selling book about it?
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.
And it perhaps reflects the lack of ability and capacity of our current set of career politicians to run anything and do deals - because they have never really run anything or done deals in the real world.
You sort of wonder how we coped a century ago running a third of the world with so few civil servants. Are our politicians today just not in the same league at all?
Never been a huge believer in this "real world job" argument - most jobs within politics and without consist of putting on a suit and going to Powerpoint presentations; it's only the labels on the axes of the Pp graphs which change. Is being a lawyer a real job? an accountant? an in house lawyer at a manufacturing company? Working for Big Oil like Vince, or Big Sugar like Davis? Or doing so many deals in the real world that you write a best selling book about it?
It consists of doing something other than studying PPE at Oxford, working as a Spad for some minor minister and then getting elected on the 3rd of 4th attempt. It consists of actually having to work for a living in a situation where failure means you do actually lose your job and possibly your house. It also means being outside the Westminster bubble and seeing how real people live their lives and struggle to survive.
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.
And it perhaps reflects the lack of ability and capacity of our current set of career politicians to run anything and do deals - because they have never really run anything or done deals in the real world.
You sort of wonder how we coped a century ago running a third of the world with so few civil servants. Are our politicians today just not in the same league at all?
Apparently not. Having said that, the world was simpler a century ago and less rushed. News of events took weeks or months to travel and lots of time was thus available to consider issues. These days, we are aware of events within minutes and responses are required on the same timescale. Snap judgements are now used more than ever before.
This time a century ago, we were only a year and a month away from Brexit.
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.
And it perhaps reflects the lack of ability and capacity of our current set of career politicians to run anything and do deals - because they have never really run anything or done deals in the real world.
You sort of wonder how we coped a century ago running a third of the world with so few civil servants. Are our politicians today just not in the same league at all?
Never been a huge believer in this "real world job" argument - most jobs within politics and without consist of putting on a suit and going to Powerpoint presentations; it's only the labels on the axes of the Pp graphs which change. Is being a lawyer a real job? an accountant? an in house lawyer at a manufacturing company? Working for Big Oil like Vince, or Big Sugar like Davis? Or doing so many deals in the real world that you write a best selling book about it?
It consists of doing something other than studying PPE at Oxford, working as a Spad for some minor minister and then getting elected on the 3rd of 4th attempt. It consists of actually having to work for a living in a situation where failure means you do actually lose your job and possibly your house. It also means being outside the Westminster bubble and seeing how real people live their lives and struggle to survive.
The problem with your definition is that it includes my job and career as real.
I don't see how a "No Deal" Brexit would end up going to a vote.
What I suppose could happen is that Parliament could vote to revoke A. 50, in the hope that the EU would agree to such revocation, but I doubt if there would be a majority for that.
If it's 'No Deal' or 'Revoke A 50' I wouldn't at all be surprised to see 'Revoke' winning in the Commons, with Hammond and many other tories on the Revoke side.
The analysis at the top of this thread is spot on IMO. Canvassing in London it was clear that substantial numbers of Tory voters were switching to Labour because of Brexit. It's not at all likely that the rolling disaster that is the Brexit process will win them back to the Tories.
Yes, it's the only explanation for how the Tories almost lost Putney to Labour.
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.
And it perhaps reflects the lack of ability and capacity of our current set of career politicians to run anything and do deals - because they have never really run anything or done deals in the real world.
You sort of wonder how we coped a century ago running a third of the world with so few civil servants. Are our politicians today just not in the same league at all?
Never been a huge believer in this "real world job" argument - most jobs within politics and without consist of putting on a suit and going to Powerpoint presentations; it's only the labels on the axes of the Pp graphs which change. Is being a lawyer a real job? an accountant? an in house lawyer at a manufacturing company? Working for Big Oil like Vince, or Big Sugar like Davis? Or doing so many deals in the real world that you write a best selling book about it?
It consists of doing something other than studying PPE at Oxford, working as a Spad for some minor minister and then getting elected on the 3rd of 4th attempt. It consists of actually having to work for a living in a situation where failure means you do actually lose your job and possibly your house. It also means being outside the Westminster bubble and seeing how real people live their lives and struggle to survive.
The problem with your definition is that it includes my job and career as real.
I don't see how a "No Deal" Brexit would end up going to a vote.
What I suppose could happen is that Parliament could vote to revoke A. 50, in the hope that the EU would agree to such revocation, but I doubt if there would be a majority for that.
If it's 'No Deal' or 'Revoke A 50' I wouldn't at all be surprised to see 'Revoke' winning in the Commons, with Hammond and many other tories on the Revoke side.
But what are the mechanics of it actually getting to a vote? There is no further vote required for us to actually leave the EU. How does one get tabled if the Government does not support it?
The analysis at the top of this thread is spot on IMO. Canvassing in London it was clear that substantial numbers of Tory voters were switching to Labour because of Brexit. It's not at all likely that the rolling disaster that is the Brexit process will win them back to the Tories.
Yes, it's the only explanation for how the Tories almost lost Putney to Labour.
Red Ken probably saved Hendon & Finchley to be fair to him.
If I was making the case, I might try arguing that on the way in, we first decided to go in under our existing constitutional process (vote in the House of Commons - which was, I understand, a free vote), committed to going in, signed for going in - and then, a couple of years later, when we had real information as to what it involved held a confirmatory referendum which gave us the option to abort and pull out if it wasn't what was promised.
It consists of doing something other than studying PPE at Oxford, working as a Spad for some minor minister and then getting elected on the 3rd of 4th attempt.....
In any other field, getting a formal qualification from the best university course available, working as an apprentice under experienced practitioners, and eventually gaining some success by repeated efforts and hard work, would rightly be seen as an admirable background for doing the job.
The analysis at the top of this thread is spot on IMO. Canvassing in London it was clear that substantial numbers of Tory voters were switching to Labour because of Brexit. It's not at all likely that the rolling disaster that is the Brexit process will win them back to the Tories.
Yes, it's the only explanation for how the Tories almost lost Putney to Labour.
I did some canvassing in Tooting, which at the start of the campaign Labour thought might be at risk, and when residents of prosperous-looking houses in Wandsworth were telling me that they were voting Labour because of Brexit I began to think the election was not going to be the Tory walkover which was widely predicted.
It consists of doing something other than studying PPE at Oxford, working as a Spad for some minor minister and then getting elected on the 3rd of 4th attempt.....
In any other field, getting a formal qualification from the best university course available, working as an apprentice under experienced practitioners, and eventually gaining some success by repeated efforts and hard work, would rightly be seen as an admirable background for doing the job.
There are very few other jobs where one is expected to make decisions on matters completely outside of their field, of which they have no experience at all, with budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds and only having been in the position for a few years having been parachuted into the job.
I've yet to hear an explaination of how all this doesn't end with the savvy third of consumers who currently fix paying more to compensate for the two thirds who don't fix paying less. But doubtless the government will be happy to cross that bridge when it comes to it if it means
There isn't an explanation, because that is precisely the idea: to prevent the elderly, the vulnerable and the non-savvy from subsisiding the often better-off savvy consumers. Presumably you support that.
It's what I'd file under " interesting " rather than say I supported it. But in terms of the politics which is why we are all here.. #1 Will the factors that lead the savvy third to switch and fix mean they are also more likely to register and vote ? #2 Will they notice they are now paying more because the government decided to penalize their savvyness ? #3 Will the unsavvy two thirds notice what's happened and reward a conservative government to compensate for any back lash amongst the savvy ?
Those aren't rhetorical questions. I don't know. Though by sense is it's all a bit can kicking. Giving in to the sense that something must be done and that what that something is is less important than that it is done.
Anyway as a small g Green I find the fixation on end price a distraction. The best way to cut fuel bills is lower consumption. We've parsecs to go insulation and efficiency. Though that is a harder narrative to sell than clobbering the Big 6.
The analysis at the top of this thread is spot on IMO. Canvassing in London it was clear that substantial numbers of Tory voters were switching to Labour because of Brexit. It's not at all likely that the rolling disaster that is the Brexit process will win them back to the Tories.
Yes, it's the only explanation for how the Tories almost lost Putney to Labour.
Red Ken probably saved Hendon & Finchley to be fair to him.
Probably Chipping Barnet and Harrow East, as well.
Plainly, there are people who voted against the Conservatives over Brexit, but given what a near-run thing the election result was, there were dozens of factors that made the difference between winning 318 seats and winning 326 seats.
I'm still staggered at how badly Brexit is being delivered.
The reality is that our politicians are delivering Brexit to the best of their ability. That is the problem. Their major talents appear to be plotting, scheming and fighting like ferrets in a sack. Sadly these are not much good for Brexit.
And it perhaps reflects the lack of ability and capacity of our current set of career politicians to run anything and do deals - because they have never really run anything or done deals in the real world.
You sort of wonder how we coped a century ago running a third of the world with so few civil servants. Are our politicians today just not in the same league at all?
Never been a huge believer in this "real world job" argument - most jobs within politics and without consist of putting on a suit and going to Powerpoint presentations; it's only the labels on the axes of the Pp graphs which change. Is being a lawyer a real job? an accountant? an in house lawyer at a manufacturing company? Working for Big Oil like Vince, or Big Sugar like Davis? Or doing so many deals in the real world that you write a best selling book about it?
It consists of doing something other than studying PPE at Oxford, working as a Spad for some minor minister and then getting elected on the 3rd of 4th attempt. It consists of actually having to work for a living in a situation where failure means you do actually lose your job and possibly your house. It also means being outside the Westminster bubble and seeing how real people live their lives and struggle to survive.
The problem with your definition is that it includes my job and career as real.
You're saying you're a figment of our collective imaginations ?
There are very few other jobs where one is expected to make decisions on matters completely outside of their field, of which they have no experience at all, with budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds and only having been in the position for a few years having been parachuted into the job.
All the more reason, surely, to favour professional politicians?
I've yet to hear an explaination of how all this doesn't end with the savvy third of consumers who currently fix paying more to compensate for the two thirds who don't fix paying less. But doubtless the government will be happy to cross that bridge when it comes to it if it means
There isn't an explanation, because that is precisely the idea: to prevent the elderly, the vulnerable and the non-savvy from subsisiding the often better-off savvy consumers. Presumably you support that.
It's what I'd file under " interesting " rather than say I supported it. But in terms of the politics which is why we are all here.. #1 Will the factors that lead the savvy third to switch and fix mean they are also more likely to register and vote ? #2 Will they notice they are now paying more because the government decided to penalize their savvyness ? #3 Will the unsavvy two thirds notice what's happened and reward a conservative government to compensate for any back lash amongst the savvy ?
Those aren't rhetorical questions. I don't know. Though by sense is it's all a bit can kicking. Giving in to the sense that something must be done and that what that something is is less important than that it is done.
Anyway as a small g Green I find the fixation on end price a distraction. The best way to cut fuel bills is lower consumption. We've parsecs to go insulation and efficiency. Though that is a harder narrative to sell than clobbering the Big 6.
That’s already underway. Domestic energy consumption has been trending down for ten years or so, despite increasing population.
It consists of doing something other than studying PPE at Oxford, working as a Spad for some minor minister and then getting elected on the 3rd of 4th attempt.....
In any other field, getting a formal qualification from the best university course available, working as an apprentice under experienced practitioners, and eventually gaining some success by repeated efforts and hard work, would rightly be seen as an admirable background for doing the job.
At 17/18 I was a politics nerd, but it never crossed my mind to do PPE as a route to politics.
I wanted to do a degree that had a clear job at the end of it.
In those days the people at the top of politics were lawyers, the Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, and Home Secretary were all eminent QCs, as was Tony Blair, leader of the opposition.
I've yet to hear an explaination of how all this doesn't end with the savvy third of consumers who currently fix paying more to compensate for the two thirds who don't fix paying less. But doubtless the government will be happy to cross that bridge when it comes to it if it means
There isn't an explanation, because that is precisely the idea: to prevent the elderly, the vulnerable and the non-savvy from subsisiding the often better-off savvy consumers. Presumably you support that.
As one of those frequent switchers, I think it's absolute mince. I'm not sure the "savvy" customers are (in the round) better off either.
Look on the bright side, you won't have to waste time researching the best deal.
Your musings on 'milivoidance' circa April 2015 about tilting away from UK equities to RoW have paid off for the moment, ~64% IRR since then on that part of my pension.
Do you think global equities (Blackrock global tracker weighted 60 USA, 40 RoW ex UK) will continue to outperform the UK ?
TINIA of course ^_~
Being all UK equities made sense in the days when information, and dividend cheques, came by post. The fact you are UK based is no longer an argument for being overweight UK any more than it is for being overweight emerging markets, or Japan, or whatever. If you are all UK you don't have to worry about currency hedging, but then having $ and euro incoming and £ outgoing has been an entirely painless experience recently.
There are very few other jobs where one is expected to make decisions on matters completely outside of their field, of which they have no experience at all, with budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds and only having been in the position for a few years having been parachuted into the job.
All the more reason, surely, to favour professional politicians?
Not at all. They have proved even less capable of performing their duties effectively than those with experience outside of politics.
I think that's where the Tory party got it wrong last year, the Remainers should have said, over to you Leavers, time for you to deliver on the Brexit you promised.
So the PM, Foreign Sec, Chancellor, and Brexit Secretary should have all been Leavers.
In theory Mr Smithson's premise makes perfect sense. However in practice I suspect someone like Burnham or even Cooper would have finished with not dissimilar numbers to Miliband in 2015. Perhaps with either of those people leading Labour Mrs May would never have been 24 points ahead in the polls and she would not have risked her majority with a vanity GE.
Corbyn's relative success has more to do with the Trump/Brexit anti-establishment narrative than his credentials compared to a moderate anti-Brexit Labour leader. Therefore I stand by my assertion that he did better than someone else would have.
Corbyn? I hate the ****er and I had Labour under Corbyn garnering a maximum vote share of 28%. I still don't understand where the 40% came from. My head says he'll never achieve 40% again and Labour will get hammered by a Tory party led by Boris or Mr Davis or Mr Rees-Mogg, simply because Corbyn is unelectable to most people as PM even if they disagree with Brexit and how the Tories are handling it.
So logically speaking Corbyn hasn't got a hope of being PM, but then Trump was a hopeless GOP candidate, and Brexit just wouldn't happen. I am not sure I understand the extent of the widespread disdain there is for the Tory party, and the reading by younger people that Corbyn is a political genius rather than the mad old Trot that older people understand him to be.
So no, Corbyn did better than any of the tired Blairites that would have become leader in his place.
Corbyn and Trump had the same facet to give them the success they experienced.
When it looked possible that Trump could win the nomination and be against her Hillaryship, I made the observation that regardless of policy, personality, miss speaking he would out perform expectations because he was fresh, new, didn't have years of entrenched positions to defend, could flip flop and Hillary would have no idea how to fight against him. In her political life she had not come across a similar opponent. Corbyn had all the same advantages and May all the same disadvantages of Hillary.
Will this advantage exist in 4 or 5 years? That is a question to which the answer is either 42 or wait and see.
That Prospect magazine has an indication of the stupidity within the Tory party from the Leavers.
Not everyone’s panicking. At a “Leave means Leave” event at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, Owen Paterson, a prominent Eurosceptic, looked with glee over the cliff edge: “If the European Union is still messing around by Christmas,” Britain should “give notice, on 1st January, that we will be moving to WTO rules.”
This would be a catastrophic error. Paul Daly, a Fellow in Law at Cambridge, tells me that a no-deal outcome “would lead to economic chaos.” The UK “would adopt, overnight, third-country status in the eyes of the European Union.” The result would be mayhem. “Planes would not take off, nuclear fuel would not be imported and haulage traffic to the Continent would grind to a halt.”
The man who drafted Article 50, John Kerr, also told me recently that “flights in and out of continental Europe [will] stop unless we negotiate some replacement for the regime we’re members of.” It’s no exaggeration, then, to say that the new Brexit Britain that is supposed to be soaring into the skies would find itself grounded on the tarmac.
There are very few other jobs where one is expected to make decisions on matters completely outside of their field, of which they have no experience at all, with budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds and only having been in the position for a few years having been parachuted into the job.
All the more reason, surely, to favour professional politicians?
Or better still, professional advisers. By which I mean the civil service. Things started to go downhill seriously when they started bringing in "political advisers", who had no idea about anything except the party line and the correct response.
Yet another Brexiteer looking for someone to blame.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced he thinks he and his ilk are going to be seen in the same light as the guilty men who gave us appeasement in the 1930s which ended up screwing the country.
This is very much in line with what I have believed since June 8. It wasnt people voting for Corbyn that cost the Tories their majority, it was remainers voting Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop a Tory lasndslide for a hard Brexit which brought about the result.
So there is Corbyn hard left conference triumphalising at Brighton, believing there the election was an endorsement of Corbynite hard left Labour, when it was really about people holding their noses and voting Labour to stop a hard Brexit.
Which is why in 2022, I believe the exit poll on election night is going to hit Labour for six between the eyes.
But you are a Corbyn hater and have underestimated him in 3 elections and counting so far
Yes, there's definitely a whiff of panic in the air. The problem is that, although it was glossed over during the referendum campaign, the Leave movement is hopelessly fragmented. Everyone has his own pet theory about the road to Brexit utopia. Now, perhaps that's harmless enough when restricted to discussion groups in dusty church halls, but it hardly amounts to a political blueprint for an issue of national importance. Hence the bickering and paralysis we now see.
It'll be interesting to see how the electorate views how tightly the political class has bound us to the EU over the decades. It makes our departure much harder, but also confirms the suspicion that we should've had a vote in the past to deny such integration.
Comments
Another complaint was the lack of Cabinet ministers going on regional visits. Well-known faces such as Justine Greening, Liz Truss and Andrea Leadsom were hidden away. Hammond was allowed one outing. Boris Johnson was deployed to key marginals but rarely on the national stage.
Hill, it is alleged, was purging the campaign of May’s rivals. “Fi would see the names of Cabinet ministers on the Grid [the planning board of regional outings] and she would take them off,” said a campaign official. “Sometimes we would put Philip Hammond on the Grid just to see what we could get away with, but she always removed him.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-how-theresa-mays-two-aides-seized-control-of-the-tory-campaign-to-calamitous-effect-a3566796.html
Although May didn't give them much ammo to fight with or much of a will to go into battle for her.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/ofgem-energy-price-cap-theresa-may
You sort of wonder how we coped a century ago running a third of the world with so few civil servants. Are our politicians today just not in the same league at all?
These are May's words:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39630009
"At this moment of enormous national significance there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division. The country is coming together, but Westminster is not.
"In recent weeks Labour has threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union. The Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill.
"The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union. And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way.
"Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course. They are wrong.
"They underestimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country.
"Because what they are doing jeopardises the work we must do to prepare for Brexit at home and it weakens the government's negotiating position in Europe.
"If we do not hold a general election now their political game-playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election.
"Division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty and instability to the country.
"So we need a general election and we need one now, because we have at this moment a one-off chance to get this done while the European Union agrees its negotiating position and before the detailed talks begin.
I am with @valleyboy in that Jezza was widely seen as a positive. I am sure that some were put off by the IRA links etc, but far more were willing to give a chance to someone who upsets and challenged orthodoxy. He also comes across as polite and principled in a way rare in a spun world of politics. Chauncey Gardner quite possibly...
Unless you count A Day at the Races as a sequel to A Night at the Opera.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-07/issues-index-july-17-charts.pdf
Corbyn's relative success has more to do with the Trump/Brexit anti-establishment narrative than his credentials compared to a moderate anti-Brexit Labour leader. Therefore I stand by my assertion that he did better than someone else would have.
Corbyn? I hate the ****er and I had Labour under Corbyn garnering a maximum vote share of 28%. I still don't understand where the 40% came from. My head says he'll never achieve 40% again and Labour will get hammered by a Tory party led by Boris or Mr Davis or Mr Rees-Mogg, simply because Corbyn is unelectable to most people as PM even if they disagree with Brexit and how the Tories are handling it.
So logically speaking Corbyn hasn't got a hope of being PM, but then Trump was a hopeless GOP candidate, and Brexit just wouldn't happen. I am not sure I understand the extent of the widespread disdain there is for the Tory party, and the reading by younger people that Corbyn is a political genius rather than the mad old Trot that older people understand him to be.
So no, Corbyn did better than any of the tired Blairites that would have become leader in his place.
Locally, we were doing great stuff. Nationally, it was poor. The quality of the leaflets in 2015 were excellent. In 2017, they were shite - both in content and in terms of the quality of the paper they were printed on.
Still, none of that excuses the supine position taken by Cabinet Ministers who were hidden/hiding when it was clear that Labour's bollocks was getting a free hand - and causing damage. There should have been a pow-wow with 2 weeks to go - "this isn't working!".
Was the demographic most likely to vote remain - the young, renters, older voters with property wealth and liberal progressives who live in London and university towns also just more likely to be attracted to Labour's message on austerity and housing and also hate the dementia tax and the plans to cut benefits for wealthier pensioners?
As a thought experiment, imagine how the Conservatives would have performed had they gone into the election saying they rejected the Referendum vote?
So there is Corbyn hard left conference triumphalising at Brighton, believing there the election was an endorsement of Corbynite hard left Labour, when it was really about people holding their noses and voting Labour to stop a hard Brexit.
Which is why in 2022, I believe the exit poll on election night is going to hit Labour for six between the eyes.
The Brexit Bar is currently set so low, even Mrs. May might get over it.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2017.1369037
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9943
What I suppose could happen is that Parliament could vote to revoke A. 50, in the hope that the EU would agree to such revocation, but I doubt if there would be a majority for that.
Even if Brexit is still the biggest concern for the majority of people, it isn't as Remainers versus Leavers, but for how Brexit will impact upon all the other many concerns people have. I don't think it's even 'hard Brexit' versus 'soft Brexit' for most people, being such a vague division, as if the intricacies of whether we're actually members of the single market, or what kind of access we have, matters to most people in the absence of concrete consequences.
Just because we re-fight the June 2016 referendum on here every day doesn't mean most people are. There's no reason to look at a young Remain voter who switched to Labour and inflate their Remain vote as a cause, ignoring everything else that might have attracted them as a young voter, for instance.
Do you think global equities (Blackrock global tracker weighted 60 USA, 40 RoW ex UK) will continue to outperform the UK ?
TINIA of course ^_~
If you take into account that the whole Labour campaign was fuzzy, woolly and deliberately non-committal, and electors could read into it whatever interpretation they liked; plus the fact that everybody was saying there was no chance of Corbyn getting into power - then it makes sense that people voted Labour in order to help stop the insanity of the overall Conservative project.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/918110279367643137
not the only reason for the poor result perhaps but it didn't help. As i said earlier she doesn't do nuance at all well.
Given that analysis, even without attributing a particularly high probability to the nasty scenarios, it seems prudent to maintain a substantial tilt towards global markets. This is especially true because of the fact that, if the US markets fall substantially, they'll take the UK markets down with them anyway, so fears about US valuations being overstretched aren't really an argument for tilting towards the UK.
The other point for long-term investors is that I think sterling would be likely to drift downwards over the medium to long term even in the absence of political and Brexit risk, simply because of the current-account deficit.
Of course, as you say this is not investment advice, do your own research, I know nothing guv, etc etc.
Facing the blues though the LD vote worked pretty well in very strong remain areas (Oxwab, Bath) - but historic leave strongholds such as Yeovil are now very Tory areas.
Interestingly neither Stephen Lloyd nor Norman Lamb would rerun the referendum, and their results were the strongest adjusting for remain/leave factors relative to Lib Dem/Tory contests.
https://twitter.com/SJAMcBride/status/918033915973193729
Those aren't rhetorical questions. I don't know. Though by sense is it's all a bit can kicking. Giving in to the sense that something must be done and that what that something is is less important than that it is done.
Anyway as a small g Green I find the fixation on end price a distraction. The best way to cut fuel bills is lower consumption. We've parsecs to go insulation and efficiency. Though that is a harder narrative to sell than clobbering the Big 6.
Plainly, there are people who voted against the Conservatives over Brexit, but given what a near-run thing the election result was, there were dozens of factors that made the difference between winning 318 seats and winning 326 seats.
I wanted to do a degree that had a clear job at the end of it.
In those days the people at the top of politics were lawyers, the Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, and Home Secretary were all eminent QCs, as was Tony Blair, leader of the opposition.
Some may even go so far as to sabotage the prospects of a good deal in the hope that revocation comes in to play.
Dominic Cummings thinks Brexit is going wrong.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/peering-over-the-cliff-edge-why-dominic-cummings-fears-brexit-will-fail
So the PM, Foreign Sec, Chancellor, and Brexit Secretary should have all been Leavers.
When it looked possible that Trump could win the nomination and be against her Hillaryship, I made the observation that regardless of policy, personality, miss speaking he would out perform expectations because he was fresh, new, didn't have years of entrenched positions to defend, could flip flop and Hillary would have no idea how to fight against him. In her political life she had not come across a similar opponent. Corbyn had all the same advantages and May all the same disadvantages of Hillary.
Will this advantage exist in 4 or 5 years? That is a question to which the answer is either 42 or wait and see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3sLhnDJJn0
Not everyone’s panicking. At a “Leave means Leave” event at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, Owen Paterson, a prominent Eurosceptic, looked with glee over the cliff edge: “If the European Union is still messing around by Christmas,” Britain should “give notice, on 1st January, that we will be moving to WTO rules.”
This would be a catastrophic error. Paul Daly, a Fellow in Law at Cambridge, tells me that a no-deal outcome “would lead to economic chaos.” The UK “would adopt, overnight, third-country status in the eyes of the European Union.” The result would be mayhem. “Planes would not take off, nuclear fuel would not be imported and haulage traffic to the Continent would grind to a halt.”
The man who drafted Article 50, John Kerr, also told me recently that “flights in and out of continental Europe [will] stop unless we negotiate some replacement for the regime we’re members of.” It’s no exaggeration, then, to say that the new Brexit Britain that is supposed to be soaring into the skies would find itself grounded on the tarmac.
What about Theresa May Boris Johnson and David Davis 'The Quasimodos of uselessness?'