Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New poll highlights the danger for Corbyn if LAB is perceived

24

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Mortimer said:

    Blue_rog said:

    O/T As I'm retiring in the next couple of months, I'm really glad I changed my pension pot to a cash fund on 10 Jan :)

    The FTSE is actually rebounding quite well after opening, by the looks of it*

    *Though I don't have a bloomberg terminal, so am probably a bit behind...
    I imagine the front page of https://www.ig.com/uk reflects the real time situation quite well.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    While that's true, an alternative government might struggle to win a vote of confidence.
  • Essexit said:

    The trouble with this poll is that Labour did support Brexit at the last GE, and they polled at 39%, not 30%.

    Agree, I'm skeptical of a pool focusing all the attention on one of several issues that actually motivated people to vote.
    Yep, in effect i'd argue that it wasn't Brexit which caused the tories trouble at the election. It was May herself, the botched social care policy and the lacklustre manifesto.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    https://twitter.com/classicgoldbug/status/960785784713424896

    Yet ‘centrist’ parties aren’t doing so well....

    Interesting poll, rather bearing out the idea that Labour has greatest prospects not among the very young but the 35-54 range, especially among women. Increasingly, men lean right, almost as much as the 65+ group.
    Alas shows why Blair did better than Corbyn.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
  • Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    While that's true, an alternative government might struggle to win a vote of confidence.
    If I were Labour, I'd take that risk.

    Imagine the scene. Theresa May has just seen her Brexit deal voted down by Parliament, with Conservative rebels. Labour takes over in government. The recriminations in the Conservative party would be colossal. Are the Conservatives really going to want to go to the electorate in that state? How would the manifesto be drawn up? Would rebels be deselected and how would that be effected?

    And even if the Conservatives did vote down the government, they would look like nihilists. I'd be happy if I were the Labour leadership to see an election forced through in those circumstances.

    Labour has no interest in helping Theresa May enforce party discipline.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Doesn’t it expire in 2020? That might give some room for manoeuvre
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Dura_Ace said:

    I feel like the tories are placing too much faith in the Corbyn Firewall to keep them in power and are consequently indulging in being even bigger twats than normal.

    They are complacent ,even after the last election.Their mindset is they can not lose due to the fear of a Corbyn government, and how easy it will be to stoke it.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited February 2018
    Charles said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Doesn’t it expire in 2020? That might give some room for manoeuvre
    Oooh, I'd forgotten about that. Ta.

    Edit: isn't it a review rather than an expiry, per se?
  • RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    The trouble with this poll is that Labour did support Brexit at the last GE, and they polled at 39%, not 30%.

    Labour was non committal, promising to respect the Brexit vote and get single market and customs union equivalence and end free movement ie all things to Remain and Leave voters.

    Next time that will be more difficult, especially if post Brexit and post transition Britain is not a land of milk and honey economically but say immigration has still fallen
    What? Why?
    The UK will have Brexited and left the single market and customs union by 2022,Labour will then have to either support that status quo position or promise to reverse it or at least parts of it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    The trouble with this poll is that Labour did support Brexit at the last GE, and they polled at 39%, not 30%.

    Labour was non committal, promising to respect the Brexit vote and get single market and customs union equivalence and end free movement ie all things to Remain and Leave voters.

    Next time that will be more difficult, especially if post Brexit and post transition Britain is not a land of milk and honey economically but say immigration has still fallen
    If you’re respecting the voting and basically admitting that you’re leaving the single market and the customs union that is hardly non-commital.

    Labour’s strategy so far is working fairly well for them. They are still polling 40%+ after the GE, so still keeping their coalition together.
    While Starmer promises customs union equivalence etc
  • Charles said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Doesn’t it expire in 2020? That might give some room for manoeuvre
    I don't think expires then. It does have to be reviewed in 2020.
  • Wasn’t the first scenario what happened at the last general election with a much different result?

    Colour me sceptical about this poll.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    HYUFD said:

    The trouble with this poll is that Labour did support Brexit at the last GE, and they polled at 39%, not 30%.

    Labour was non committal, promising to respect the Brexit vote and get single market and customs union equivalence and end free movement ie all things to Remain and Leave voters.

    Next time that will be more difficult, especially if post Brexit and post transition Britain is not a land of milk and honey economically but say immigration has still fallen
    If you’re respecting the voting and basically admitting that you’re leaving the single market and the customs union that is hardly non-commital.

    Labour’s strategy so far is working fairly well for them. They are still polling 40%+ after the GE, so still keeping their coalition together.
    Labour have done very well at the old Lib Dem trick of pretending to be all things to all people. If I was a Tory press baron, I would be very publicly thanking them for Brexit.
  • Mortimer said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:


    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.

    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.
    In the original scenario, @RoyalBlue was suggesting that Theresa May could enforce discipline on would-be rebels by threatening a general election. I pointed out that she probably can't.

    A lot depends on the deal that is within reach. Right now the Conservatives look like a party where self-immolation is an option that, if not being actively considered, is an idea lurking in the recesses of their lizard brains. They've already abandoned reason in favour of dogma. The dogmatists might decide that Paris isn't worth a mass.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764
    Mortimer said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.
    I'd put it higher than 0.1%, if still remote. Broadly, you'd need 15 Conservatives voting against the government, or a larger number abstaining. That could happen if May had been toppled, and the new PM was pursuing a very hard Brexit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited February 2018

    Wasn’t the first scenario what happened at the last general election with a much different result?

    Colour me sceptical about this poll.

    Labour promised single market and customs union equivalence etc at the last general election and Brexit had not happened yet, next time it will have happened and Labour will either have to accept it or promise to reverse it and say whether they want to get back in the single market and customs union or not given we will also have left both and ended free movement
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Sean_F said:

    Essexit said:

    The trouble with this poll is that Labour did support Brexit at the last GE, and they polled at 39%, not 30%.

    Agree, I'm skeptical of a pool focusing all the attention on one of several issues that actually motivated people to vote.
    On here there was a discussion fairly recently (shortly after the BSE survey came out) about Corbyn’s popularity with young mums, and the role of cuts in leading to mums voting Labour at the GE.

    I think there's a good deal of truth in that. Young men are much more likely to be pro-Conservative than young women.

    This is the end result of the hard left view of judging people by their demographic makeup rather than the soft left view of judging everyone as an individual. For example you cant demand men play an equal role in parenting and then support women being preferentially treated in family courts. Young men coming out of university are most exposed to this thinking and unsurprisingly don't like being bottom of the pile in the ranking system.
  • Electorally, Labour needs to keep itself just to the left of the Tories on Brexit - which, to be fair, is not tricky. That will keep them at 40% or so. But once Brexit is done, if it ever is, everything will change. For as long as Labour sticks with Corbyn and the far left the Tories will remain in power.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Lots of posts from Deludedville which is the capital of Wishfulthinking Land.

  • Elliot said:

    Sean_F said:

    Essexit said:

    The trouble with this poll is that Labour did support Brexit at the last GE, and they polled at 39%, not 30%.

    Agree, I'm skeptical of a pool focusing all the attention on one of several issues that actually motivated people to vote.
    On here there was a discussion fairly recently (shortly after the BSE survey came out) about Corbyn’s popularity with young mums, and the role of cuts in leading to mums voting Labour at the GE.

    I think there's a good deal of truth in that. Young men are much more likely to be pro-Conservative than young women.

    This is the end result of the hard left view of judging people by their demographic makeup rather than the soft left view of judging everyone as an individual. For example you cant demand men play an equal role in parenting and then support women being preferentially treated in family courts. Young men coming out of university are most exposed to this thinking and unsurprisingly don't like being bottom of the pile in the ranking system.
    At the risk of sounding sexist. On the 'whole' women are always going to skew left, in the sense they are more the users/experiencers of public services, mainly Schools and Hospitals, and that's not going to change.

    Labour are always going to outbid the tories on public services, so they are always going to have an advantage here.
  • Mortimer said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.

    It is still possible that there are enough Tory MPs who will put their country before their party and not vote for a ruinous Brexit deal. Possible, but unlikely. The Conservative party is what it is, after all.

  • Mr. Slackbladder, are women also not (more than men) likely to be in the public sector too?
  • Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?
  • Ms. Apocalypse, I believe that was the case during Thatcher's time. Could be wrong, but I think (pre-2017 manifesto collapse) that was the case for May as well.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Mortimer said:

    Not sure if you saw my point yesterday, but Ireland have almost no power in this. Their veto of an orderly Brexit from the SM/CU might trigger a disorderly Brexit from the SM/CU.

    They have literally nothing to gain from using their veto. Its a toy veto.
    Ah yes the hard border which neither side wants to build, nor is planning to build, nor wants to pay to build nor will build...

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Mortimer said:

    Blue_rog said:

    O/T As I'm retiring in the next couple of months, I'm really glad I changed my pension pot to a cash fund on 10 Jan :)

    The FTSE is actually rebounding quite well after opening, by the looks of it*

    *Though I don't have a bloomberg terminal, so am probably a bit behind...
    I’m shocked you don’t consider that the best use of $25,000...
  • Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?

    Maybe due to the linkage between the 'working classes/union' which would be hugely skewed to being men, and the labour party.

    Just a thought.
  • Some good UK news:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/06/uk-built-half-of-europes-offshore-wind-power-in-2017

    The tories need to make more of things like this. Mr Gove?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited February 2018
    Mortimer said:

    Charles said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Doesn’t it expire in 2020? That might give some room for manoeuvre
    Oooh, I'd forgotten about that. Ta.

    Edit: isn't it a review rather than an expiry, per se?
    It’s a review, but (without checking) my impression was it is a sunset clause unless it is renewed

    Edit: wiki says that it is a review with provisions for repeal or amendment “if appropriate”

    I’d imagine the government could get it repealed
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    Charles said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Doesn’t it expire in 2020? That might give some room for manoeuvre
    Oooh, I'd forgotten about that. Ta.

    Edit: isn't it a review rather than an expiry, per se?
    It’s a review, but (without checking) my impression was it is a sunset clause unless it is renewed
    Good morning all.

    The review has to take place between June and November 2020, and a recommendation made as to repeal or amendment. The makeup of the review committee is part of the sitting PM's remit.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    Blue_rog said:

    O/T As I'm retiring in the next couple of months, I'm really glad I changed my pension pot to a cash fund on 10 Jan :)

    The FTSE is actually rebounding quite well after opening, by the looks of it*

    *Though I don't have a bloomberg terminal, so am probably a bit behind...
    I’m shocked you don’t consider that the best use of $25,000...
    :)
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    edited February 2018
    I think there is a ~30% the Commons rejects the deal. You only need 7 Tory MPs to vote against for it to fail. How many Labour MPs would vote for the deal if it meant foregoing a chance to change the government? I think only the 2 who supported them on the meaningful vote amendment. That lets a maximum of 8 Tory MPs indulge themselves without risking catastrophe.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    ...
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.

    It is still possible that there are enough Tory MPs who will put their country before their party and not vote for a ruinous Brexit deal. Possible, but unlikely. The Conservative party is what it is, after all.

    Hyperbole much?

    Conservatives believe in democracy. Letting that slide is far more ruinous than even the worst prediction of stifled growth.

    Votes are more important than lattes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/classicgoldbug/status/960785784713424896

    Yet ‘centrist’ parties aren’t doing so well....

    Many people see themselves as centrists, but in reality are quite partisan.
    Personally I take the sensible middle position between the extremes of Anarcho-Syndicalism and Communism...
  • Off topic.

    Belated Happy Birthday to Dr Nick Palmer for yesterday. Hope you had a good day Nick.
  • Blue_rog said:

    O/T As I'm retiring in the next couple of months, I'm really glad I changed my pension pot to a cash fund on 10 Jan :)

    Since equities would usually carry a 3+ year, probably more like 5+ unless you are independently wealthy, horizon, not a bad call...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    Charles said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Doesn’t it expire in 2020? That might give some room for manoeuvre
    Oooh, I'd forgotten about that. Ta.

    Edit: isn't it a review rather than an expiry, per se?
    It’s a review, but (without checking) my impression was it is a sunset clause unless it is renewed

    Edit: wiki says that it is a review with provisions for repeal or amendment “if appropriate”

    I’d imagine the government could get it repealed
    Indeed, though what it is replaced by is another thing. I suspect getting the royal prerogative back is nigh on impossible...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:



    Lol @ Tory members unhappy with an MP who speaks against her party getting their revenge by passing information to the Labour Party!

    Personal factors count with some activists who know the candidates more than you'd think. There were also Labour people who really liked Anna for being courageous on gay marriage, though I'm not aware of any who actually voted for her. Her problem with some members was and perhaps still is that they found her gratuitously rude to them (and felt that I was politically wrong but at least polite, a sort of reverse Rees-Mogg).

    O/T: The AfD now look as though they've definitely picked up some support since the German election, as do the Greens (though beware of INSA, whose results bearly always differ from everyone else's for some reason). The SPD and liberal FDP are fractionally down, the Left fractionally up, but no obvious big losers.

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
    You shouldn't run yourself down like that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764

    Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?

    Certainly, when fewer women were in the workforce, and the culture of trade unions was very masculine.
  • I can see Mike's point, but even New Labour didn't feel the need to broadcast its (supposed) pro-EU credentials too loudly when gentleman's John's government was tearing itself to shreds. Best just to sit back and enjoy the show. (Yes, New Labour made a few pro-EU noises, but I've always felt that was just to tempt Tory defectors than any real demonstration of principle.)
  • Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    ...
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.

    It is still possible that there are enough Tory MPs who will put their country before their party and not vote for a ruinous Brexit deal. Possible, but unlikely. The Conservative party is what it is, after all.

    Hyperbole much?

    Conservatives believe in democracy. Letting that slide is far more ruinous than even the worst prediction of stifled growth.

    Votes are more important than lattes.

    If anyone voted to leave the EU to get rid of lattes they are going to sorely be disappointed!!

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited February 2018
    That poll is one of the worst examples of a leading question that I've ever seen. It's like if you asked the question "Imagine at the next election Labour support a huge increase in NHS funding, while the Conservatives propose to continue their NHS policies since 2010" -- I'm pretty sure such a question would produce a thumping Labour lead, because even a wedge of Tory voters prefer Labour on the NHS. But an actual election wouldn't bear that out, because the NHS wouldn't be the one and only issue on voters' minds in a real election in the way that such a question implies, just as Brexit wouldn't be.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    Mortimer said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.

    It is still possible that there are enough Tory MPs who will put their country before their party and not vote for a ruinous Brexit deal. Possible, but unlikely. The Conservative party is what it is, after all.

    It could be worse. I’d much rather be in a party with Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke than Jared O’Mara and Keith Vaz.
  • Sean_F said:

    Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?

    Certainly, when fewer women were in the workforce, and the culture of trade unions was very masculine.
    I'm from a mining family and both of my great-grandmother's husbands were miners who were quite active in the NUM. Observing their activities led my great grandma to conclude something like "that bloody lot couldn't run a booze up in a brewery" and turned her into a lifelong Tory voter. In the distant past I think there were probably many working class wives like that.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The trouble with this poll is that Labour did support Brexit at the last GE, and they polled at 39%, not 30%.

    Labour was non committal, promising to respect the Brexit vote and get single market and customs union equivalence and end free movement ie all things to Remain and Leave voters.

    Next time that will be more difficult, especially if post Brexit and post transition Britain is not a land of milk and honey economically but say immigration has still fallen
    If you’re respecting the voting and basically admitting that you’re leaving the single market and the customs union that is hardly non-commital.

    Labour’s strategy so far is working fairly well for them. They are still polling 40%+ after the GE, so still keeping their coalition together.
    While Starmer promises customs union equivalence etc
    Yes, smart politics. Not sure how long the position can be maintained but as long as it's working, why change?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    ...
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.

    It is still possible that there are enough Tory MPs who will put their country before their party and not vote for a ruinous Brexit deal. Possible, but unlikely. The Conservative party is what it is, after all.

    Hyperbole much?

    Conservatives believe in democracy. Letting that slide is far more ruinous than even the worst prediction of stifled growth.

    Votes are more important than lattes.
    From what I've seen over my years of involvement in elections Conservatives believe in democrcy so long as it's fixed that they win.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    Mortimer said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You'rethe job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.

    It is still possible that there are enough Tory MPs who will put their country before their party and not vote for a ruinous Brexit deal. Possible, but unlikely. The Conservative party is what it is, after all.

    It could be worse. I’d much rather be in a party with Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke than Jared O’Mara and Keith Vaz.

    So would I.

  • HHemmelig said:

    Sean_F said:

    Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?

    Certainly, when fewer women were in the workforce, and the culture of trade unions was very masculine.
    I'm from a mining family and both of my great-grandmother's husbands were miners who were quite active in the NUM. Observing their activities led my great grandma to conclude something like "that bloody lot couldn't run a booze up in a brewery" and turned her into a lifelong Tory voter. In the distant past I think there were probably many working class wives like that.
    On the 100th Anniversary of women getting the vote, it's particularly appropriate to point out that much of the strongest opposition to the suffragette movement came from women.
  • Mr. Eagles, so did Ed Balls and Prince Harry.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    From the BBC on 'Votes for Women'" The following was sent to Emily Davidson, who grabbed at the Kings horse in the Derby.
    'I am glad to hear you are in hospital. I hope you suffer torture until you die, you idiot."

    Signed "an Englishman", this piece of hate mail was sent to votes-for-women campaigner Emily Wilding Davison as she lay dying in hospital in June 1913.'
  • Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/classicgoldbug/status/960785784713424896

    Yet ‘centrist’ parties aren’t doing so well....

    Many people see themselves as centrists, but in reality are quite partisan.
    A large chunk of the population would say that they don't know much about politics so perhaps such people default to the description "centrist" without it really being an accurate description of their views. It would seem that a large proportion of this group has voted Tory in recent elections and for Blair in the past.
  • Not really my period, but weren't there also suffragists, who were peacefully campaigning quite well for women's suffrage but who lost the limelight to the rather more militant suffragettes?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    edited February 2018
    @SouthamObserver - in that case I’ll send you a membership form :tongue:
  • Mr. Eagles, so did Ed Balls and Prince Harry.

    Not good role models are they though.

    Prince Harry is someone who used racist language in the past.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    No it isn't, one should be able to wear what the hell you like to a private function.
  • Pulpstar said:

    No it isn't, one should be able to wear what the hell you like to a private function.
    I know, but a new meme is born.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg and his Nazi goon squad.
  • Mr. Eagles, are you referring to when Prince Harry, a serving soldier, called the Taliban ragheads?
  • Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    ...
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    Chance of any of this happening? 0.1%?

    The idea that the Tories would self immolate when a deal is within reach is for the birds.

    It is still possible that there are enough Tory MPs who will put their country before their party and not vote for a ruinous Brexit deal. Possible, but unlikely. The Conservative party is what it is, after all.

    Hyperbole much?

    Conservatives believe in democracy. Letting that slide is far more ruinous than even the worst prediction of stifled growth.

    Votes are more important than lattes.
    From what I've seen over my years of involvement in elections Conservatives believe in democrcy so long as it's fixed that they win.
    Votes for 16s, anyone?
  • HHemmelig said:

    Sean_F said:

    Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?

    Certainly, when fewer women were in the workforce, and the culture of trade unions was very masculine.
    I'm from a mining family and both of my great-grandmother's husbands were miners who were quite active in the NUM. Observing their activities led my great grandma to conclude something like "that bloody lot couldn't run a booze up in a brewery" and turned her into a lifelong Tory voter. In the distant past I think there were probably many working class wives like that.
    On the 100th Anniversary of women getting the vote, it's particularly appropriate to point out that much of the strongest opposition to the suffragette movement came from women.
    That’s bizarre.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    O/T

    Just watched last nights football. It really is in a mess with decisions like at Watford last night. As someone who would be quite happy to see Chelsea lose every week, I think I can be impartial in judging that the first foul wasn't a foul and the player who went down should be brought before the FA for judgement, and the penalty wasn't a penalty as the goalkeeper didn't touch him. Another one to be reviewed by the FA panel. The sooner VAR comes in the better, especially with so much money involved in results.
  • Mr. Eagles, are you referring to when Prince Harry, a serving soldier, called the Taliban ragheads?

    No

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-called-a-fellow-soldier-his-little-paki-friend-1299804.html
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    edited February 2018

    HHemmelig said:

    Sean_F said:

    Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?

    Certainly, when fewer women were in the workforce, and the culture of trade unions was very masculine.
    I'm from a mining family and both of my great-grandmother's husbands were miners who were quite active in the NUM. Observing their activities led my great grandma to conclude something like "that bloody lot couldn't run a booze up in a brewery" and turned her into a lifelong Tory voter. In the distant past I think there were probably many working class wives like that.
    On the 100th Anniversary of women getting the vote, it's particularly appropriate to point out that much of the strongest opposition to the suffragette movement came from women.
    That’s bizarre.
    Is it really? Why should they all have thought the same?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited February 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    No it isn't, one should be able to wear what the hell you like to a private function.
    If you have seen these photos this guy is apparently wandering around in this outfit at a Christmas party surrounded by women and kids who are wearing normal clothes and no one else is wearing fancy dress. Not a stag do or rugby club event but a Christmas party with kids present.

    It must have been a very odd party is all I can say - but we must assume they are genuine I suppose and not photoshopped.
  • If (Spartan) the Tory party were to split, and Rees-Mogg's (already formidable) organisation inside the PCP were to become its own party, at least that would win the UKIP vote back from Corbyn :-) That's even if it's hard to envisage in that scenario how any set of parties could form a majority in the Commons, or to think of solid reasons why voters should back the Remainer or halfway-house non-Moggy Conservative party who aren't paid-up members of it. More likely is that Rees-Mogg will take over as Conservative leader an as prime minister, and that could happen far quicker than many imagine.

    The fact that JRM is a Catholic is neither here nor there. IDS is Catholic too. JRM has an exceptionally well-crafted and well-fed image. Something like the Bristol event played remarkably well to the brand message, and the way it has been built up is unprecedented. Of course it helps that pater was editor of the Times, a more important position at least in those days than any office at the BBC.

    As for the "dream team" meme, a whisper tells me that the notion of a Priti Patel return was a barium feed, (litotes alert) not unconnected with the Qatar problem (or what is a problem for those whose role is to keep long-term issues in their purview, if not at all problematic, short term, for others). Patel is no Mandelson and will not come back to the cabinet.

    The response to the "impugning of the integrity" of public servants at the Treasury has been telling. The reaction that "MPs shouldn't say things like that" is pathetic. It's also OK for newspapers to call judges the "enemies of the people", so long as they don't call for violence or law-breaking or commit civil wrongs. What are people afraid of? It's not up to civil servants or retired ones or the press to tell MPs what they can and can't say in the Commons. Shocked opponents could of course have responded on the issue, protesting that the said public servants have always acted, including on Brexit models, with the utmost integrity, not because it's a law of the universe that they are beyond reproach, but because, well, because they did act with integrity and there isn't a problem. Anybody who's got any issues with that should take it up with Bercow. He has the authority to smack down an MP who have spoken out of order. Since he hasn't, those who still have problems should criticise HIM.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I think such a poll proves that Labour did better than expected in 2017 because of Brexit and not because of Corbyn. Given that Brexit will be over in 2022 it shows the perils of Labour keeping Corbyn as leader.

    However, as the article rightly points out the questions in the poll are leading questions designed by biased questioners to get the "right" answer.

    And again I ask: how can Brexit be opposed when a majority of people have voted for it in a democratic referendum without opposing democracy itself?

    By 2022 Brexit would have happened anyway.

    Remoaners really need to understand that toothpaste, especially Brexit toothpaste cannot be squeezed back into the tube once its out.

  • HHemmelig said:

    Sean_F said:

    Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?

    Certainly, when fewer women were in the workforce, and the culture of trade unions was very masculine.
    I'm from a mining family and both of my great-grandmother's husbands were miners who were quite active in the NUM. Observing their activities led my great grandma to conclude something like "that bloody lot couldn't run a booze up in a brewery" and turned her into a lifelong Tory voter. In the distant past I think there were probably many working class wives like that.
    On the 100th Anniversary of women getting the vote, it's particularly appropriate to point out that much of the strongest opposition to the suffragette movement came from women.
    That’s bizarre.
    Not really bizarre at all. The phenomenon of the downtrodden voting against their own so-called interests has been a very important and well-documented feature of modern British history.

    Another good example being that, of the 30% or so of the population who implacably opposed the formation of the NHS in 1948, many were working class. Without the existence of large numbers of these "Alf Garnett Tories" the UK would have had almost permanent Labour government since WW2.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Sean_F said:

    Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?

    Certainly, when fewer women were in the workforce, and the culture of trade unions was very masculine.
    I'm from a mining family and both of my great-grandmother's husbands were miners who were quite active in the NUM. Observing their activities led my great grandma to conclude something like "that bloody lot couldn't run a booze up in a brewery" and turned her into a lifelong Tory voter. In the distant past I think there were probably many working class wives like that.
    On the 100th Anniversary of women getting the vote, it's particularly appropriate to point out that much of the strongest opposition to the suffragette movement came from women.
    That’s bizarre.
    Is it really? Why should they all have thought the same?
    It would be something that they’d all benefit from - getting the opportunity to have a say in who runs the country?
  • HHemmelig said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Sean_F said:

    Wasn’t it the case that women used to be more likely to vote Conservative than men?

    Certainly, when fewer women were in the workforce, and the culture of trade unions was very masculine.
    I'm from a mining family and both of my great-grandmother's husbands were miners who were quite active in the NUM. Observing their activities led my great grandma to conclude something like "that bloody lot couldn't run a booze up in a brewery" and turned her into a lifelong Tory voter. In the distant past I think there were probably many working class wives like that.
    On the 100th Anniversary of women getting the vote, it's particularly appropriate to point out that much of the strongest opposition to the suffragette movement came from women.
    That’s bizarre.
    Not really bizarre at all. The phenomenon of the downtrodden voting against their own so-called interests has been a very important and well-documented feature of modern British history.

    Another good example being that, of the 30% or so of the population who implacably opposed the formation of the NHS in 1948, many were working class. Without the existence of large numbers of these "Alf Garnett Tories" the UK would have had almost permanent Labour government since WW2.
    Hmmm. I’d not thought about it that way. Good post, thanks for the reply.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    brendan16 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    No it isn't, one should be able to wear what the hell you like to a private function.
    If you have seen these photos this guy is apparently wandering around in this outfit at a Christmas party surrounded by women and kids who are wearing normal clothes and no one else is wearing fancy dress. Not a stag do or rugby club event but a Christmas party with kids present.

    It must have been a very odd party is all I can say - but we must assume they are genuine I suppose and not photoshopped.
    Well that does sound a bit odd ! I always assume a stag or some such.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    Morning sexy people - So has JRM and Bojo been "slung out" of the Tory Party yet? :D
  • Pulpstar said:

    No it isn't, one should be able to wear what the hell you like to a private function.
    Sure, and it seems he was able to. But you have no right to expect everyone else to keep quiet in all possible circumstances about what you do wear or how else you behave.

    Mr Townsley is proficient at tang soo do. The person who told me this morning that his specialism was krav maga was either a very naughty boy or having a laugh.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Totally O/T, but there has been little mention here of the stock market 'crash'. Smugly, 'my' IFA has been predicting something of the sort for some time and has strongly advised against share-buying.
  • Mr. Eagles, ah, I was unaware of that.

    What did his friend make of it?
  • Morn_Cres said:

    The fact that JRM is a Catholic is neither here nor there. IDS is Catholic too. JRM has an exceptionally well-crafted and well-fed image. Something like the Bristol event played remarkably well to the brand message, and the way it has been built up is unprecedented. Of course it helps that pater was editor of the Times, a more important position at least in those days than any office at the BBC.

    As for the "dream team" meme, a whisper tells me that the notion of a Priti Patel return was a barium feed, (litotes alert) not unconnected with the Qatar problem (or what is a problem for those whose role is to keep long-term issues in their purview, if not at all problematic, short term, for others). Patel is no Mandelson and will not come back to the cabinet.

    The response to the "impugning of the integrity" of public servants at the Treasury has been telling. The reaction that "MPs shouldn't say things like that" is pathetic. It's also OK for newspapers to call judges the "enemies of the people", so long as they don't call for violence or law-breaking or commit civil wrongs. What are people afraid of? It's not up to civil servants or retired ones or the press to tell MPs what they can and can't say in the Commons. Shocked opponents could of course have responded on the issue, protesting that the said public servants have always acted, including on Brexit models, with the utmost integrity, not because it's a law of the universe that they are beyond reproach, but because, well, because they did act with integrity and there isn't a problem. Anybody who's got any issues with that should take it up with Bercow. He has the authority to smack down an MP who have spoken out of order. Since he hasn't, those who still have problems should criticise HIM.

    In a modern general election, JRM's opposition to abortion wouldn't be "neither here nor there". It would dominate the election campaign in much the same way as Farron's "gays are sinners" and lose the Tories bucketloads of votes. And that's before we even start on his hardline Brexit stance and myriad of other controversial views and the huge party infighting that would provoke. Electing JRM as leader would result in a Lib Dem surge and the Tories getting a Michael Foot vote share, with Labour coming through the middle to secure a landslide victory. Not an appealing thought.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited February 2018
    Also note the sly digs at Heath.......And in fairness it was not Robin Day who made the 'redhead' comment, but Cliff Michelmore, for those who don't watch the clip (and it may have had a bit to do with the then new colour TV as he adds 'for those watching in black & white')
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Pulpstar said:

    brendan16 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    No it isn't, one should be able to wear what the hell you like to a private function.
    If you have seen these photos this guy is apparently wandering around in this outfit at a Christmas party surrounded by women and kids who are wearing normal clothes and no one else is wearing fancy dress. Not a stag do or rugby club event but a Christmas party with kids present.

    It must have been a very odd party is all I can say - but we must assume they are genuine I suppose and not photoshopped.
    Well that does sound a bit odd ! I always assume a stag or some such.
    Assuming I am allowed to post the link the original source is here. It does look a very odd party if he was genuinely wearing that outfit - most of those present are kids.

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/05/excl-rees-mogg-white-shirt-partying-in-nazi-uniform/

    Seems the attempt is to indirectly smear Mogg - people who turn up to JRM speaking events wear Nazi uniforms therefore JRM is a Nazi sympathiser. But I am afraid that is how coarse the debate has become. The same website yesterday published details of online attacks on Stella Creasy because she went to a gig with a Tory MP!
  • Apparently, it's the final day of German coalition negotiations:
    https://twitter.com/dw_politics/status/960810531975323648
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    HHemmelig said:

    Morn_Cres said:

    The fact that JRM is a Catholic is neither here nor there. IDS is Catholic too. JRM has an exceptionally well-crafted and well-fed image. Something like the Bristol event played remarkably well to the brand message, and the way it has been built up is unprecedented. Of course it helps that pater was editor of the Times, a more important position at least in those days than any office at the BBC.

    As for the "dream team" meme, a whisper tells me that the notion of a Priti Patel return was a barium feed, (litotes alert) not unconnected with the Qatar problem (or what is a problem for those whose role is to keep long-term issues in their purview, if not at all problematic, short term, for others). Patel is no Mandelson and will not come back to the cabinet.

    The response to the "impugning of the integrity" of public servants at the Treasury has been telling. The reaction that "MPs shouldn't say things like that" is pathetic. It's also OK for newspapers to call judges the "enemies of the people", so long as they don't call for violence or law-breaking or commit civil wrongs. What are people afraid of? It's not up to civil servants or retired ones or the press to tell MPs what they can and can't say in the Commons. Shocked opponents could of course have responded on the issue, protesting that the said public servants have always acted, including on Brexit models, with the utmost integrity, not because it's a law of the universe that they are beyond reproach, but because, well, because they did act with integrity and there isn't a problem. Anybody who's got any issues with that should take it up with Bercow. He has the authority to smack down an MP who have spoken out of order. Since he hasn't, those who still have problems should criticise HIM.

    In a modern general election, JRM's opposition to abortion wouldn't be "neither here nor there". It would dominate the election campaign in much the same way as Farron's "gays are sinners" and lose the Tories bucketloads of votes. And that's before we even start on his hardline Brexit stance and myriad of other controversial views and the huge party infighting that would provoke. Electing JRM as leader would result in a Lib Dem surge and the Tories getting a Michael Foot vote share, with Labour coming through the middle to secure a landslide victory. Not an appealing thought.
    In my memory any Lib Dem surge is when the Tories are struggling.Currently that is not the case as the conservatives are polling 40%.
  • Some early pre-season ramblage [advisory: contains a grid girl pic. Don't view at work]:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/early-pre-season-musings.html
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,721

    Totally O/T, but there has been little mention here of the stock market 'crash'. Smugly, 'my' IFA has been predicting something of the sort for some time and has strongly advised against share-buying.

    What stock-market "crash"? S&P is at the same level it was at the beginning of December - 10week fluctuations are volatility, not a "crash" surely...
  • Danny565 said:

    That poll is one of the worst examples of a leading question that I've ever seen. It's like if you asked the question "Imagine at the next election Labour support a huge increase in NHS funding, while the Conservatives propose to continue their NHS policies since 2010" -- I'm pretty sure such a question would produce a thumping Labour lead, because even a wedge of Tory voters prefer Labour on the NHS. But an actual election wouldn't bear that out, because the NHS wouldn't be the one and only issue on voters' minds in a real election in the way that such a question implies, just as Brexit wouldn't be.

    I agree with that - the artificial focus on Brexit will clearly boost the Conservative share in all scenarios. It's effectively the focus that the Conservatives wanted to remind people of during GE 2017, except that in 2017 they weren't allowed to get away with that.

    However, the problems with the poll go beyond that. What is really misleading is the framing of the question that (a) envisions the next GE effectively a rerun of the referendum with Brexit still being in the future rather than the reality of it being in the past and (b) then goes on to prompt the Remain die-hards by reminding them that in (artificial) Scenario a the Lib Dems are their only hope.

    The choices that the country will face in 2022 are going to be very different to this indeed. The poll amounts to mischievous trash.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    brendan16 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    brendan16 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    No it isn't, one should be able to wear what the hell you like to a private function.
    If you have seen these photos this guy is apparently wandering around in this outfit at a Christmas party surrounded by women and kids who are wearing normal clothes and no one else is wearing fancy dress. Not a stag do or rugby club event but a Christmas party with kids present.

    It must have been a very odd party is all I can say - but we must assume they are genuine I suppose and not photoshopped.
    Well that does sound a bit odd ! I always assume a stag or some such.
    Assuming I am allowed to post the link the original source is here. It does look a very odd party if he was genuinely wearing that outfit - most of those present are kids.

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/05/excl-rees-mogg-white-shirt-partying-in-nazi-uniform/

    Seems the attempt is to indirectly smear Mogg - people who turn up to JRM speaking events wear Nazi uniforms therefore JRM is a Nazi sympathiser. But I am afraid that is how coarse the debate has become. The same website yesterday published details of online attacks on Stella Creasy because she went to a gig with a Tory MP!
    Could this be a new movement white shirts for Mogg.
  • HHemmelig said:

    Morn_Cres said:

    The fact that JRM is a Catholic is neither here nor there. IDS is Catholic too. JRM has an exceptionally well-crafted and well-fed image. Something like the Bristol event played remarkably well to the brand message, and the way it has been built up is unprecedented. Of course it helps that pater was editor of the Times, a more important position at least in those days than any office at the BBC.

    In a modern general election, JRM's opposition to abortion wouldn't be "neither here nor there". It would dominate the election campaign in much the same way as Farron's "gays are sinners" and lose the Tories bucketloads of votes. And that's before we even start on his hardline Brexit stance and myriad of other controversial views and the huge party infighting that would provoke. Electing JRM as leader would result in a Lib Dem surge and the Tories getting a Michael Foot vote share, with Labour coming through the middle to secure a landslide victory. Not an appealing thought.
    "Modern" is no longer as strong an idea as it was. And 70% of women want the time limit for abortion to be lowered. I find it hard to envisage that JRM's position (that he'll vote in free votes on abortion as the Catholic church directs) would affect a general election much, let alone that it could raise the dead by causing a LibDem surge. All he has to say is that all votes will be free, because abortion is a matter of conscience, and that's it. The reason the LibDems lost votes before wasn't Tim Farron; it was that a lot of people had voted for them and got Cameron.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ishmael_Z said:

    You nail your colours to the mast precisely because that is irreversible, so what you are doing is deliberately depriving yourself of the chance to capitulate by striking your colours if things aren't going your way.

    That sounds exactly like what they would need to do
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673

    Pulpstar said:

    No it isn't, one should be able to wear what the hell you like to a private function.
    I know, but a new meme is born.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg and his Nazi goon squad.
    Only in the minds of deluded fools
  • That moment when you realise the cryptocurrency thing is on its arse.

    https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/960773397570641921

  • Apparently, it's the final day of German coalition negotiations:
    https://twitter.com/dw_politics/status/960810531975323648

    Merkel seems to be able to grind everyone down in negotiations. Eventually they seem to agree just to get away from her.
  • Lennon said:

    Totally O/T, but there has been little mention here of the stock market 'crash'. Smugly, 'my' IFA has been predicting something of the sort for some time and has strongly advised against share-buying.

    What stock-market "crash"? S&P is at the same level it was at the beginning of December - 10week fluctuations are volatility, not a "crash" surely...
    Quite so. The correction provides a buying opportunity - but be selective, avoid the more speculative stocks and pick those with good cash flow that are not short of funds. At your own risk.
  • Also note the sly digs at Heath.......And in fairness it was not Robin Day who made the 'redhead' comment, but Cliff Michelmore, for those who don't watch the clip (and it may have had a bit to do with the then new colour TV as he adds 'for those watching in black & white')

    What did Miss Fookes think about it? Was she flattered?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".

    This of course the obvious political move.

    How many times has Corbyn failed to do that so far?
  • That moment when you realise the cryptocurrency thing is on its arse.

    https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/960773397570641921

    I hope she doesn't go bust. :)
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    HHemmelig said:

    Morn_Cres said:

    The fact that JRM is a Catholic is neither here nor there. IDS is Catholic too. JRM has an exceptionally well-crafted and well-fed image. Something like the Bristol event played remarkably well to the brand message, and the way it has been built up is unprecedented. Of course it helps that pater was editor of the Times, a more important position at least in those days than any office at the BBC.

    As for the "dream team" meme, a whisper tells me that the notion of a Priti Patel return was a barium feed, (litotes alert) not unconnected with the Qatar problem (or what is a problem for those whose role is to keep long-term issues in their purview, if not at all problematic, short term, for others). Patel is no Mandelson and will not come back to the cabinet.

    The response to the "impugning

    In a modern general election, JRM's opposition to abortion wouldn't be "neither here nor there". It would dominate the election campaign in much the same way as Farron's "gays are sinners" and lose the Tories bucketloads of votes. And that's before we even start on his hardline Brexit stance and myriad of other controversial views and the huge party infighting that would provoke. Electing JRM as leader would result in a Lib Dem surge and the Tories getting a Michael Foot vote share, with Labour coming through the middle to secure a landslide victory. Not an appealing thought.
    Plenty of women are uncomfortable about abortion and would never consider one for themselves, while still thinking it should be legal. Plenty of women also roll their eyes at the antics of self-declared feminists, and find the notion of quotas for certain jobs wrong-headed and patronising. Reed-Mogg has made it clear he would not try to change the law on abortion as government policy. The people who won’t be satisfied with that would never support him anyway.

    Farron’s troubles were a product of his cowardice in refusing to be honest with the electorate while purporting to lead a party with ‘Liberal’ in the title. He deserved everything he got.
This discussion has been closed.