Trinity Mirror acquire the Express group. Presumably Diana will continue to dominate the front page but might we just see a little less strident views on other matters?
Does the deal have to face the Competition Commission?
Don't think so. It has been in the offing for several months so I would have expected a referral by now if it was going to happen.
Hard to see why two toilet paper companies merging would be an issue
I prefer Andrex myself Malcolm but if times are that tough in Ayrshire you have my sympathies.
British officials negotiating in Brussels were told by their counterparts that there could be a “sunset clause” included in the legally binding text, which is due to be published in around two weeks. Such a legal device would make the text null and void at a future date should an unexpectedly generous free trade deal, or a hitherto unimagined technological solution emerge that could be as effective as the status quo in avoiding the need for border infrastructure.
So only in the event these two other scenarios don't pan out.
And even then, you don't have to be member of the single market to be in alignment with it.
The DUP have a lot of leverage over the Tories now. But when that changes, it is going to be very tempting for Brexiteers to put a border in the Irish Sea.
Trinity Mirror acquire the Express group. Presumably Diana will continue to dominate the front page but might we just see a little less strident views on other matters?
NOW BREXIT CAUSES CANCER
BREXIT CAUSES COLDEST WINTER ON RECORD
Why haven't we taken back control?
Indeed. In the Sword in the Stone the weather was controlled by statute so everyone knew what they were going to get. It would be a lot more useful than most of the legislation passed today.
election officials pointed out thousands of dollars in improper payments by his campaign, including payments to utility companies, a dentist, a nail salon, grocery stores and clothing retailers such as Abercrombie & Fitch — as well as 32 payments to airlines, a hotel in Italy and the Arizona Grand Resort.
Hunter's staff also told the Riverside Press-Enterprise in January that he used campaign funds to pay the $600 cost of flying a family rabbit....
However poorly history is likely to judge Theresa May as both PM and party leader there is no guarantee that the next leader is likely to be more popular.The public and Westminster have a genuine respect for her resilence and `public spirited altitude`. Off the current alternatives high up in the betting Rees Moog,Boris and Gove might quickly be seen as right wing Michael Foot journalist types. Unlike May Rudd looks depressed most of the time.Hunt might get blamed for NHS problems Also if May had to stand down against her will due to 48 letters of no confidence the public might be put off by that treatment of her. .When Mrs Thatcher was stabbed in the back she was a diversive love hate figure whereas Theresa May is a bland figure who people have some respect for. . On the other hand part of the problem about May`s blandness that is that under her the Tories will struggle to get people to join their party
Hunt has interestingly been mending a few bridges over the NHS. Notably his tweet on the NHS protests last week, but also his comments on the Bawa Garba case. He has been noticeably more supportive of staff than historically. Possibly on manoeuvres, but possibly just realising that he cannot achieve much without getting staffs on side.
Depends who it is. I can't see JRM getting much of a polling boost and any honeymoon would not last beyond his character and opinions entering the radar of those who don't follow politics.
And timing is of course everything.
JRM is a British Trump. He will be massively polarising but will do well with the type of person that drives a P-reg Corsa with an odd coloured door because he will appear aggrieved on their behalf.
JRM is not like Trump.JRM is like IDS except one worked in the City and the other in the Army
Correct. JRM is far too polite and nowhere near cynical enough to be a British Trump. Trump treats it all as a game (or as a reality TV show); Rees-Mogg's problem as a potential leader is that he's too principled and insufficiently pragmatic to lead a government and a party, where compromise is an inevitable part of success.
You could not run a British government the way Trump runs the US one; the structures are too different.
And of course, Trump - like Corbyn - was fighting for office from opposition; the next Tory leader will almost certainly be fighting the next election with a record in office already under their belt, for good or ill.
Sure, a new leader might be better than May. They might be worse. Who knows? Equally when the next election is fought who knows what the economic and political background might be.
JRM presiding over a post hard Brexit slump or Hunt presiding over a soft Brexit mini boom.
Wonder why Mike is repeatedly pushing this line...
...We just don't know. Nothing to plan against.
Cos it's a betting site, and who wins the next election is a sizeable market ?
That is a problem when you're in opposition. All you can do is present yourself as an alternative to the current administration - and then you'll end up running against the Tories own alternative to the current administration....
Wonder why Mike is repeatedly pushing this line...
...We just don't know. Nothing to plan against.
Cos it's a betting site, and who wins the next election is a sizeable market ?
That is a problem when you're in opposition. All you can do is present yourself as an alternative to the current administration - and then you'll end up running against the Tories own alternative to the current administration....
There is no signal in the noise to make betting decisions on. It's reasonable to assume that the Tories will have another leader. We don't know who .when or what problems they'll face.
Wonder why Mike is repeatedly pushing this line...
...We just don't know. Nothing to plan against.
Cos it's a betting site, and who wins the next election is a sizeable market ?
That is a problem when you're in opposition. All you can do is present yourself as an alternative to the current administration - and then you'll end up running against the Tories own alternative to the current administration....
There is no signal in the noise to make betting decisions on. It's reasonable to assume that the Tories will have another leader. We don't know who .when or what problems they'll face.
No, but it's like economic forecasting a few years out - you can't call how the economy will perform, but you can usefully say whether it will be better or worse given a series of policy options.
Wonder why Mike is repeatedly pushing this line...
...We just don't know. Nothing to plan against.
Cos it's a betting site, and who wins the next election is a sizeable market ?
That is a problem when you're in opposition. All you can do is present yourself as an alternative to the current administration - and then you'll end up running against the Tories own alternative to the current administration....
There is no signal in the noise to make betting decisions on. It's reasonable to assume that the Tories will have another leader. We don't know who .when or what problems they'll face.
No, but it's like economic forecasting a few years out - you can't call how the economy will perform, but you can usefully say whether it will be better or worse given a series of policy options.
There is no evidence to say whether the next Tory leader will fare better or worse. None.
Off-topic, does anyone know the highest share of the vote to lose at the 2017 general election?
Labour lost Telford despite getting 47.1% of the vote. Does anyone know if there was a higher share that lost?
Newcastle under Lyme?
The Tories got 48.13% of the vote and still lost
Ta. Annoyingly, the Wikipedia page for all-time records doesn't seem to have this stat which is a shame (it does have the lowest winning shares).
For all-time records, there'll have been higher shares from two-candidate contests. It might be worth looking down the list of smallest majorities. I know, for example, that the Liberal candidate in Shipley in 1900 polled 49.8% and lost (the Unionist majority was 61 - or 0.4%), but I'm only aware of that because it was my old constituency. I'm sure that there'll have been smaller majorities where only two candidates stood.
Wonder why Mike is repeatedly pushing this line...
...We just don't know. Nothing to plan against.
Cos it's a betting site, and who wins the next election is a sizeable market ?
That is a problem when you're in opposition. All you can do is present yourself as an alternative to the current administration - and then you'll end up running against the Tories own alternative to the current administration....
There is no signal in the noise to make betting decisions on. It's reasonable to assume that the Tories will have another leader. We don't know who .when or what problems they'll face.
We don't know but we can work through the scenarios and assign probabilities.
Wonder why Mike is repeatedly pushing this line...
...We just don't know. Nothing to plan against.
Cos it's a betting site, and who wins the next election is a sizeable market ?
That is a problem when you're in opposition. All you can do is present yourself as an alternative to the current administration - and then you'll end up running against the Tories own alternative to the current administration....
There is no signal in the noise to make betting decisions on. It's reasonable to assume that the Tories will have another leader. We don't know who .when or what problems they'll face.
We don't know but we can work through the scenarios and assign probabilities.
Well we know that whoever is next will start with the same disadvantages as May. They will go into an election untested, with no majority cushion and an unprecedented heap of political and economic problems . The question is whether unelected office will inspire the same hubris that tripped up May and Brown.
Six Nations: Backed France to beat Scotland at 2.88 (2.75 on Ladbrokes, plus boost). I think their defence against Ireland was good, and Scotland were lacklustre against Wales. Not impossible by any stretch that Scotland will win, but those odds look wrong to me.
Was tempted by many handicap bets on Wales but decided against it. The 5 on them winning also looked intriguing.
In the end, I went for two Ladbrokes Exchange specials. Wales and France to both win the race to 10 points at 10, and each of the three matches to score more highly in the second half than the first (6). These may be hedgeable if the first part(s) comes off, as the Scotland/France match is on Sunday, the others on Saturday.
As always, do at your own risk. This isn't my particular sport (and I'm pretty ropey at the one that *is* my particular sport...).
But, counter the Brits, any free-trade agreement involves access to the single market. The CETA deal with Canada, for example, abolished 98 percent of EU tariffs on Canadian goods. It cuts tariffs on Canadian forestry and wood products from 10 percent to zero and also eliminates tariffs on Canadian fish exports — some of which were as high as 25 percent. Canadian firms will also have guaranteed access to European public procurement.
In the Brexit negotiations, Britain will ask for as many cherries as it can get.
Canada did not have to accept European Court of Justice jurisdiction or freedom of movement in return (although there are potential sanctions if it violates parts of the deal), so that looks from London remarkably like a form of cherry-picking. The Brits just argue that a U.K. deal should involve juicier cherries since it is starting from a position of maximum alignment.
The lesson, say British officials, is that free-trade agreements are not bought off the shelf — they vary depending on the size and shape of each economy (hence why they take so long to negotiate). They are quintessential exercises in cherry-picking.
An FTA is cherry trading, not cherry picking. What are my cherries worth to you and yours to me? As the side with the most cherries, the EU negotiators will make sure we get the fewest of their cherries at the highest cost in our cherries. That's their job. The Single Market is a rules based system where everyone more or less plays by the same rules. It's better value for us than an FTA, as well as being quicker and more certain.
Off-topic, does anyone know the highest share of the vote to lose at the 2017 general election?
Labour lost Telford despite getting 47.1% of the vote. Does anyone know if there was a higher share that lost?
Newcastle under Lyme?
The Tories got 48.13% of the vote and still lost
Ta. Annoyingly, the Wikipedia page for all-time records doesn't seem to have this stat which is a shame (it does have the lowest winning shares).
For all-time records, there'll have been higher shares from two-candidate contests. It might be worth looking down the list of smallest majorities. I know, for example, that the Liberal candidate in Shipley in 1900 polled 49.8% and lost (the Unionist majority was 61 - or 0.4%), but I'm only aware of that because it was my old constituency. I'm sure that there'll have been smaller majorities where only two candidates stood.
But, counter the Brits, any free-trade agreement involves access to the single market. The CETA deal with Canada, for example, abolished 98 percent of EU tariffs on Canadian goods. It cuts tariffs on Canadian forestry and wood products from 10 percent to zero and also eliminates tariffs on Canadian fish exports — some of which were as high as 25 percent. Canadian firms will also have guaranteed access to European public procurement.
In the Brexit negotiations, Britain will ask for as many cherries as it can get.
Canada did not have to accept European Court of Justice jurisdiction or freedom of movement in return (although there are potential sanctions if it violates parts of the deal), so that looks from London remarkably like a form of cherry-picking. The Brits just argue that a U.K. deal should involve juicier cherries since it is starting from a position of maximum alignment.
The lesson, say British officials, is that free-trade agreements are not bought off the shelf — they vary depending on the size and shape of each economy (hence why they take so long to negotiate). They are quintessential exercises in cherry-picking.
While that's true, the problem the EU has is that they have offered a number of countries (including Canada) Most Favoured Nation in terms of services access. This creates a problem for them: if they allow UK domiciled firms to sell financial services products directly into the EU, then they made need to do the same for Canadian ones. (Without reciprocal access for EU firms to the Canadian market.)
Now, as it happens, I think they will probably be able to do a modification to CETA, because the Canadians are not unreasonable, and Brexit is a big deal. However, it does emphasise the extent to which agreements with third parties could hold up getting final agreement on the Brexit deal.
Wonder why Mike is repeatedly pushing this line...
...We just don't know. Nothing to plan against.
Cos it's a betting site, and who wins the next election is a sizeable market ?
That is a problem when you're in opposition. All you can do is present yourself as an alternative to the current administration - and then you'll end up running against the Tories own alternative to the current administration....
There is no signal in the noise to make betting decisions on. It's reasonable to assume that the Tories will have another leader. We don't know who .when or what problems they'll face.
We don't know but we can work through the scenarios and assign probabilities.
Well we know that whoever is next will start with the same disadvantages as May. They will go into an election untested, with no majority cushion and an unprecedented heap of political and economic problems . The question is whether unelected office will inspire the same hubris that tripped up May and Brown.
The probability (to me, not to the markets), remains that some of those political and economic problems will have died down by 2022. Brexit will have been delivered in some form, and there's a good chance the transition period - and all the fraught negotiations that go with it - will have expired too. There is, of course, also the risk of political and economic shocks from elsewhere but that's always the case. Besides, a recession may well boost the Tories chances, as in 1992. Likewise, international unrest.
You're right that the psychological effect of becoming PM on the winner of the leadership contest is difficult to assess - though in truth, how virtually every PM who took over mid-term acted once entering No 10 was foreseeable from their earlier career. I think we have enough information to work on, though it's far from easy.
Wonder why Mike is repeatedly pushing this line...
...We just don't know. Nothing to plan against.
Cos it's a betting site, and who wins the next election is a sizeable market ?
That is a problem when you're in opposition. All you can do is present yourself as an alternative to the current administration - and then you'll end up running against the Tories own alternative to the current administration....
There is no signal in the noise to make betting decisions on. It's reasonable to assume that the Tories will have another leader. We don't know who .when or what problems they'll face.
We don't know but we can work through the scenarios and assign probabilities.
Well we know that whoever is next will start with the same disadvantages as May. They will go into an election untested, with no majority cushion and an unprecedented heap of political and economic problems . The question is whether unelected office will inspire the same hubris that tripped up May and Brown.
The probability (to me, not to the markets), remains that some of those political and economic problems will have died down by 2022. Brexit will have been delivered in some form, and there's a good chance the transition period - and all the fraught negotiations that go with it - will have expired too. There is, of course, also the risk of political and economic shocks from elsewhere but that's always the case. Besides, a recession may well boost the Tories chances, as in 1992. Likewise, international unrest.
You're right that the psychological effect of becoming PM on the winner of the leadership contest is difficult to assess - though in truth, how virtually every PM who took over mid-term acted once entering No 10 was foreseeable from their earlier career. I think we have enough information to work on, though it's far from easy.
Major lost 40 seats in 92. If May's successor does that, they're out. Any impact of Brexit implementation will start 2019-20. If there is disruption historically two years is not enough time for things to die down. In fact it's about the worst time. 1994 post Black Weds. 2010 post credit crunch.
election officials pointed out thousands of dollars in improper payments by his campaign, including payments to utility companies, a dentist, a nail salon, grocery stores and clothing retailers such as Abercrombie & Fitch — as well as 32 payments to airlines, a hotel in Italy and the Arizona Grand Resort.
Hunter's staff also told the Riverside Press-Enterprise in January that he used campaign funds to pay the $600 cost of flying a family rabbit....
Off-topic, does anyone know the highest share of the vote to lose at the 2017 general election?
Labour lost Telford despite getting 47.1% of the vote. Does anyone know if there was a higher share that lost?
Newcastle under Lyme?
The Tories got 48.13% of the vote and still lost
Ta. Annoyingly, the Wikipedia page for all-time records doesn't seem to have this stat which is a shame (it does have the lowest winning shares).
For all-time records, there'll have been higher shares from two-candidate contests. It might be worth looking down the list of smallest majorities. I know, for example, that the Liberal candidate in Shipley in 1900 polled 49.8% and lost (the Unionist majority was 61 - or 0.4%), but I'm only aware of that because it was my old constituency. I'm sure that there'll have been smaller majorities where only two candidates stood.
The unknown to me is how Labour will play their next election campaign. They can't just trot (pun intended) out the same guff as their 2017 Manifesto. Much more detail, much more detailed costing is one route. But that has significant inherent dangers. My guess is Corbyn is lazy and a little deluded about what he achieved in the campaign (as opposed to what his opponents didn't) and will try and replay 2017 - and get Labour into a world of pain in the process. Because next time, people will be paying much more attention to what they say.
Of course, if Corbyn isn't leader, there will need to be a new approach anyway....
There is no signal in the noise to make betting decisions on. It's reasonable to assume that the Tories will have another leader. We don't know who .when or what problems they'll face.
We don't know but we can work through the scenarios and assign probabilities.
Well we know that whoever is next will start with the same disadvantages as May. They will go into an election untested, with no majority cushion and an unprecedented heap of political and economic problems . The question is whether unelected office will inspire the same hubris that tripped up May and Brown.
The probability (to me, not to the markets), remains that some of those political and economic problems will have died down by 2022. Brexit will have been delivered in some form, and there's a good chance the transition period - and all the fraught negotiations that go with it - will have expired too. There is, of course, also the risk of political and economic shocks from elsewhere but that's always the case. Besides, a recession may well boost the Tories chances, as in 1992. Likewise, international unrest.
You're right that the psychological effect of becoming PM on the winner of the leadership contest is difficult to assess - though in truth, how virtually every PM who took over mid-term acted once entering No 10 was foreseeable from their earlier career. I think we have enough information to work on, though it's far from easy.
Major lost 40 seats in 92. If May's successor does that, they're out. Any impact of Brexit implementation will start 2019-20. If there is disruption historically two years is not enough time for things to die down. In fact it's about the worst time. 1994 post Black Weds. 2010 post credit crunch.
We can all pick historic parallels and then note consequences to suit a conclusion. Major also polled 14m+ votes - if the next Tory leader does that, he or she will almost certainly win.
I expect that whichever party looks more like a government will be more important in determining who wins than the record of the previous few years. If the Tories are divided and indulging in bitter infighting, Labour will win. On the other hand, if they're led by someone capable of putting forward a positive vision for the country (and willing to do so!), and the party is seen as having managed Brexit as well as was manageable in the circumstances, Labour will remain out of power for another five years.
The unknown to me is how Labour will play their next election campaign. They can't just trot (pun intended) out the same guff as their 2017 Manifesto. Much more detail, much more detailed costing is one route. But that has significant inherent dangers. My guess is Corbyn is lazy and a little deluded about what he achieved in the campaign (as opposed to what his opponents didn't) and will try and replay 2017 - and get Labour into a world of pain in the process. Because next time, people will be paying much more attention to what they say.
Of course, if Corbyn isn't leader, there will need to be a new approach anyway....
Jezza will campaign on what he always has done. He is certainly consistent.
An end to austerity, and increased public spending on stretched social infrastructure.
"Comparing the three months to December 2017 with the same period in 2016, the UK total trade (goods and services) deficit widened by £3.8 billion; this was due primarily to increases of 7.5% (£8.7 billion) and 4.6% (£1.9 billion) in goods and services imports respectively."
Labour is heading for a very famous defeat in 2022.
Corbyn and his devotees have interpreted the 2017 result as an endorsement of the hard left. But if the voters were so hard left -if the hard left as he claims is now the mainstream, then why was Corbyn Labour so far behind in the polls in the weeks before the election -confirmed by local election results and by elections? Why is Labour either level pegging or behind in the polls today?
The truth is that prime ministers in history who make a dash for the polls too soon after the last election, tend to be punished.
1923/4 I believe is the key parallel. New Tory PM Stanley Baldwin called an election only a year after his predecessor won the last one in 1922. Result -a hung parliament which actually resulted in a Labour government. 9 months later another election resulted in one of the biggest Tory landslides ever.
The Tories I believe did badly in 2017 because they were being punished for calling an early election, because Remainers wanted to punish the Tories for Brexit, because the Tory campaign and manifesto was so bad that a lot of older voters abstained, and because more young people turned out.
Next time, a new Tory leader, a much older Corbyn, Brexit done and dusted, a better Tory manifesto, a higher turnout by the old, an election after 5 years, older people queueing round the corner to vote.
Labour will lose, but the good news is that it will never have to live down the disaster of a Corbyn government.
We can all pick historic parallels and then note consequences to suit a conclusion. Major also polled 14m+ votes - if the next Tory leader does that, he or she will almost certainly win.
I expect that whichever party looks more like a government will be more important in determining who wins than the record of the previous few years. If the Tories are divided and indulging in bitter infighting, Labour will win. On the other hand, if they're led by someone capable of putting forward a positive vision for the country (and willing to do so!), and the party is seen as having managed Brexit as well as was manageable in the circumstances, Labour will remain out of power for another five years.
You're absolutely right about historic parallels being subjective. Major is often cited by Tories as a model to follow, whilst forgetting he had a much easier task because he inherited a 100 seat majority. The incoming Tory leader can only afford to lose and handful of seats. That's a big ask after 12 years, whoever is in the job.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
Other interesting economic data today are that manufacturing output has increased for the eigth consecutive month. This equals the previous record in 1987 and longer than anything else dating back to 1968 (and probably a lot earlier).
As expected overall production output fell because of the North Sea problems - have they been resolved yet ?
And house construction in 2017 was at the highest for over 20 years (it was double that in 1997). PB anecdotes proved right on that one.
Of course people will continue to read into economic stats what they want to.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
"Comparing the three months to December 2017 with the same period in 2016, the UK total trade (goods and services) deficit widened by £3.8 billion; this was due primarily to increases of 7.5% (£8.7 billion) and 4.6% (£1.9 billion) in goods and services imports respectively."
As a month no but as a year they're much better.
Its going to take a long time to work off the excesses of the Osbrowne debt fuelled consumption - that trillion quid of extra borrow and spend will be leaking out of the country for years to come.
Note also that trade stats get a lot of revisions - they've been revised negativelyt this month.
election officials pointed out thousands of dollars in improper payments by his campaign, including payments to utility companies, a dentist, a nail salon, grocery stores and clothing retailers such as Abercrombie & Fitch — as well as 32 payments to airlines, a hotel in Italy and the Arizona Grand Resort.
Hunter's staff also told the Riverside Press-Enterprise in January that he used campaign funds to pay the $600 cost of flying a family rabbit....
Because the moat was made up?
No, the moat was real (if a little exaggerated, using that description). The expenses claim for it was real too. That claim was, however, turned down at the time and so never paid out.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
In many ways remoaners are helping the Tories win the 2022 election. They keep banging on about how disastrous Brexit will be for the economy. But if voters feel insecure about the economy, they are hardly likely to hand it over to Corbyn whom all the polls say is less trusted on the economy. Many of them will conclude that Brexit and Corbyn will be a double whammy disaster. Many voters will cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse.
Remoaners be careful. Your pessimism itself is helping the Tories.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
If Jeremy Corbyn steps down the whole ball game is changed. Labour could well win. I cannot see him doing so unless for health reasons. For if Corbyn goes, so does McDonnell and Abbott. The whole edifice would be brought down if Corbyn stepped down.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
If Jeremy Corbyn steps down the whole ball game is changed. Labour could well win. I cannot see him doing so unless for health reasons. For if Corbyn goes, so does McDonnell and Abbott. The whole edifice would be brought down if Corbyn stepped down.
My suspicion is that he is not Jesus, though he has the same initials. More of a John the Baptist, I suspect.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
If Jeremy Corbyn steps down the whole ball game is changed. Labour could well win. I cannot see him doing so unless for health reasons. For if Corbyn goes, so does McDonnell and Abbott. The whole edifice would be brought down if Corbyn stepped down.
My suspicion is that he is not Jesus, though he has the same initials. More of a John the Baptist, I suspect.
In many ways remoaners are helping the Tories win the 2022 election. They keep banging on about how disastrous Brexit will be for the economy. But if voters feel insecure about the economy, they are hardly likely to hand it over to Corbyn whom all the polls say is less trusted on the economy. Many of them will conclude that Brexit and Corbyn will be a double whammy disaster. Many voters will cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse.
Remoaners be careful. Your pessimism itself is helping the Tories.
I'm fairly sure the dire warnings and fake outrage in 2010-ca.2012 helped Cameron significantly in 2015.
We can all pick historic parallels and then note consequences to suit a conclusion. Major also polled 14m+ votes - if the next Tory leader does that, he or she will almost certainly win.
I expect that whichever party looks more like a government will be more important in determining who wins than the record of the previous few years. If the Tories are divided and indulging in bitter infighting, Labour will win. On the other hand, if they're led by someone capable of putting forward a positive vision for the country (and willing to do so!), and the party is seen as having managed Brexit as well as was manageable in the circumstances, Labour will remain out of power for another five years.
You're absolutely right about historic parallels being subjective. Major is often cited by Tories as a model to follow, whilst forgetting he had a much easier task because he inherited a 100 seat majority. The incoming Tory leader can only afford to lose and handful of seats. That's a big ask after 12 years, whoever is in the job.
Yes - as I've noted before, there's no precedent since the Great Reform Act, as far as I know, for a party in government to meaningfully gain seats at an election having lost seats at the previous one (IIRC, Dec 1910 is the only technical exception - but that was a gain of just one, and less than a year after the previous election, so hardly meaningful).
However, it's also exceptional for a party, having spent 12 years in opposition, to put someone like Corbyn forward as its leader.
The Tories can't stay in power for ever. The Left just have to be patient. If not 2022, 2027. They control the NEC and there's no sense that the right of the party have anything particularly engaging to say.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
Depends if the big McD steps in, or a more moderate bod.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
Your thinking behind that assertion?
His age and his strengthening grip on the party. If he can hand over a compliant party to an anointed successor who doesn't have his baggage, I think he will. He doesn't strike me as the type with a personal lust for power.
If - for example - Angela Rayner were to become Labour leader, the Conservatives would be awfully placed strategically. How would they hold together their anti-Corbyn coalition?
We can all pick historic parallels and then note consequences to suit a conclusion. Major also polled 14m+ votes - if the next Tory leader does that, he or she will almost certainly win.
I expect that whichever party looks more like a government will be more important in determining who wins than the record of the previous few years. If the Tories are divided and indulging in bitter infighting, Labour will win. On the other hand, if they're led by someone capable of putting forward a positive vision for the country (and willing to do so!), and the party is seen as having managed Brexit as well as was manageable in the circumstances, Labour will remain out of power for another five years.
You're absolutely right about historic parallels being subjective. Major is often cited by Tories as a model to follow, whilst forgetting he had a much easier task because he inherited a 100 seat majority. The incoming Tory leader can only afford to lose and handful of seats. That's a big ask after 12 years, whoever is in the job.
Yes - as I've noted before, there's no precedent since the Great Reform Act, as far as I know, for a party in government to meaningfully gain seats at an election having lost seats at the previous one (IIRC, Dec 1910 is the only technical exception - but that was a gain of just one, and less than a year after the previous election, so hardly meaningful).
However, it's also exceptional for a party, having spent 12 years in opposition, to put someone like Corbyn forward as its leader.
I guess the key question is for how long Labour will tolerate Corbyn , given the unexpectedly good result last year, and whether they challenge him before the next election, or let him run on despite his age and severe negatives. Given the shambles last time they challenged him, I’m still not sure.
From our side, a change of leader and PM in 2021, with Brexit done and a year to run to the election, is likely to give us a boost in the polls. If we do it much earlier then Labour might realise they need a change of leader too.
WRT the local elections, on current trends, they should be quite good for the Tories in May. The big headline losses will be in 2019, when the party is defending thousands of seats which it won in 2015.
election officials pointed out thousands of dollars in improper payments by his campaign, including payments to utility companies, a dentist, a nail salon, grocery stores and clothing retailers such as Abercrombie & Fitch — as well as 32 payments to airlines, a hotel in Italy and the Arizona Grand Resort.
Hunter's staff also told the Riverside Press-Enterprise in January that he used campaign funds to pay the $600 cost of flying a family rabbit....
Because the moat was made up?
No, because it beats all our expenses stuff in both scale and memorable absurdity ... and is subject to a full blown FBI investigation.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
Your thinking behind that assertion?
His age and his strengthening grip on the party. If he can hand over a compliant party to an anointed successor who doesn't have his baggage, I think he will. He doesn't strike me as the type with a personal lust for power.
If - for example - Angela Rayner were to become Labour leader, the Conservatives would be awfully placed strategically. How would they hold together their anti-Corbyn coalition?
BiB - Certainly he wasn't up for climbing the greasy pole. But now he's got to the top of the Labour Party, I can't see him letting it go that easily.
Other interesting economic data today are that manufacturing output has increased for the eigth consecutive month. This equals the previous record in 1987 and longer than anything else dating back to 1968 (and probably a lot earlier).
As expected overall production output fell because of the North Sea problems - have they been resolved yet ?
And house construction in 2017 was at the highest for over 20 years (it was double that in 1997). PB anecdotes proved right on that one.
Of course people will continue to read into economic stats what they want to.
The North Sea will, sadly, gently tail off (unless there are some massive new discoveries). The fields there are (almost all) mature and in decline. If the tax regime were to change, you might see a bit more investment there, but the basin is very mature now, and new discoveries in the last few years have been of diminishing size, so it's hard to see a serious turnaround.
Other interesting economic data today are that manufacturing output has increased for the eigth consecutive month. This equals the previous record in 1987 and longer than anything else dating back to 1968 (and probably a lot earlier).
As expected overall production output fell because of the North Sea problems - have they been resolved yet ?
And house construction in 2017 was at the highest for over 20 years (it was double that in 1997). PB anecdotes proved right on that one.
Of course people will continue to read into economic stats what they want to.
Construction output remains very strong, 30% above its level 5 years ago.
Other interesting economic data today are that manufacturing output has increased for the eigth consecutive month. This equals the previous record in 1987 and longer than anything else dating back to 1968 (and probably a lot earlier).
As expected overall production output fell because of the North Sea problems - have they been resolved yet ?
And house construction in 2017 was at the highest for over 20 years (it was double that in 1997). PB anecdotes proved right on that one.
Of course people will continue to read into economic stats what they want to.
The North Sea will, sadly, gently tail off (unless there are some massive new discoveries). The fields there are (almost all) mature and in decline. If the tax regime were to change, you might see a bit more investment there, but the basin is very mature now, and new discoveries in the last few years have been of diminishing size, so it's hard to see a serious turnaround.
WRT the local elections, on current trends, they should be quite good for the Tories in May. The big headline losses will be in 2019, when the party is defending thousands of seats which it won in 2015.
The most interesting provincial council election looks to be Newcastle Under Lyme to me.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
Your thinking behind that assertion?
His age and his strengthening grip on the party. If he can hand over a compliant party to an anointed successor who doesn't have his baggage, I think he will. He doesn't strike me as the type with a personal lust for power.
If - for example - Angela Rayner were to become Labour leader, the Conservatives would be awfully placed strategically. How would they hold together their anti-Corbyn coalition?
BiB - Certainly he wasn't up for climbing the greasy pole. But now he's got to the top of the Labour Party, I can't see him letting it go that easily.
WRT the local elections, on current trends, they should be quite good for the Tories in May. The big headline losses will be in 2019, when the party is defending thousands of seats which it won in 2015.
Unless Labour is in full post-Brexit civil war meltdown by then.....
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
Your thinking behind that assertion?
His age and his strengthening grip on the party. If he can hand over a compliant party to an anointed successor who doesn't have his baggage, I think he will. He doesn't strike me as the type with a personal lust for power.
If - for example - Angela Rayner were to become Labour leader, the Conservatives would be awfully placed strategically. How would they hold together their anti-Corbyn coalition?
BiB - Certainly he wasn't up for climbing the greasy pole. But now he's got to the top of the Labour Party, I can't see him letting it go that easily.
We can all pick historic parallels and then note consequences to suit a conclusion. Major also polled 14m+ votes - if the next Tory leader does that, he or she will almost certainly win.
I expect that whichever party looks more like a government will be more important in determining who wins than the record of the previous few years. If the Tories are divided and indulging in bitter infighting, Labour will win. On the other hand, if they're led by someone capable of putting forward a positive vision for the country (and willing to do so!), and the party is seen as having managed Brexit as well as was manageable in the circumstances, Labour will remain out of power for another five years.
You're absolutely right about historic parallels being subjective. Major is often cited by Tories as a model to follow, whilst forgetting he had a much easier task because he inherited a 100 seat majority. The incoming Tory leader can only afford to lose and handful of seats. That's a big ask after 12 years, whoever is in the job.
Yes - as I've noted before, there's no precedent since the Great Reform Act, as far as I know, for a party in government to meaningfully gain seats at an election having lost seats at the previous one (IIRC, Dec 1910 is the only technical exception - but that was a gain of just one, and less than a year after the previous election, so hardly meaningful).
However, it's also exceptional for a party, having spent 12 years in opposition, to put someone like Corbyn forward as its leader.
I guess the key question is for how long Labour will tolerate Corbyn , given the unexpectedly good result last year, and whether they challenge him before the next election, or let him run on despite his age and severe negatives. Given the shambles last time they challenged him, I’m still not sure.
From our side, a change of leader and PM in 2021, with Brexit done and a year to run to the election, is likely to give us a boost in the polls. If we do it much earlier then Labour might realise they need a change of leader too.
If Labour don't replace him midterm when they're 20 points behind in the polls and with 80% of the PLP openly opposed, they never will - not least because he'll never be in that kind of position again, and because the experience of the 2017GE can always now be deployed to his benefit.
I would be extremely surprised if May lasts until 2021 but if you thnk she can, there's good odds on it.
The Tories I believe did badly in 2017 because they were being punished for calling an early election....
I think there is much in this that hasn't been explored. The timing of the locals a few weeks before were set in stone. People had to turn out to elect their local representatives. The voters got to make their usual assessment, which was steady as you go - hence the Conservatives did well.
The GE was very different. People expect to be able to kick the Government mid-term. Just when May decided to call an election.... So they kicked the Govt. June 2017 was more akin to a by-election than a standard general election. This is where I think Labour is over-optimistic. Next time, it is likely we will be back in synch with what is expected.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
Your thinking behind that assertion?
His age and his strengthening grip on the party. If he can hand over a compliant party to an anointed successor who doesn't have his baggage, I think he will. He doesn't strike me as the type with a personal lust for power.
If - for example - Angela Rayner were to become Labour leader, the Conservatives would be awfully placed strategically. How would they hold together their anti-Corbyn coalition?
His strengthening grip on the party is a reason to stay on. I agree that he's not careerist but he is on a mission and any leadership election is inherently risky to that project. I doubt that any next-generation candidate would properly carry on the Corbyn project.
The prospect of Rayner becoming Lab leader doesn't trouble me as a Tory in the slightest. Thornberry I would be much more concerned about.
The electoral truth is that Labour needs the LDs to be doing better in attracting Tory voters.Vince Cable is proving to be as ineffective as his predecessor.Maybe Jo Swinson would do better.If LDs don't make some progress in the forthcoming locals,TMay might not be the only party leader to get their marching orders.The old SDP traitor is well past his best and needs putting out to grass.
Other interesting economic data today are that manufacturing output has increased for the eigth consecutive month. This equals the previous record in 1987 and longer than anything else dating back to 1968 (and probably a lot earlier).
As expected overall production output fell because of the North Sea problems - have they been resolved yet ?
And house construction in 2017 was at the highest for over 20 years (it was double that in 1997). PB anecdotes proved right on that one.
Of course people will continue to read into economic stats what they want to.
The North Sea will, sadly, gently tail off (unless there are some massive new discoveries). The fields there are (almost all) mature and in decline. If the tax regime were to change, you might see a bit more investment there, but the basin is very mature now, and new discoveries in the last few years have been of diminishing size, so it's hard to see a serious turnaround.
I agree to some extent. It will however be a very long tail. North Sea oil has some qualities that make it highly valued compared to Middle Eastern or US oil. This means that there is huge scope for redevelopment of fields. Whilst the majors are simply not equipped to do these sorts of redevelopments, smaller companies are very much able to take advantage and there is a lot of new work starting to be done. After the longest slump in North Sea history, suddenly everyone wants to drill again and it is not just the redevelopment but also significant new fields that are being discovered particularly West of Shetlands.
As well as the BP example mentioned below, Hurricane Oil have two discoveries last year which add up to around 1.5 Billion barrels of oil.
The Tories I believe did badly in 2017 because they were being punished for calling an early election....
I think there is much in this that hasn't been explored. The timing of the locals a few weeks before were set in stone. People had to turn out to elect their local representatives. The voters got to make their usual assessment, which was steady as you go - hence the Conservatives did well.
The GE was very different. People expect to be able to kick the Government mid-term. Just when May decided to call an election.... So they kicked the Govt. June 2017 was more akin to a by-election than a standard general election. This is where I think Labour is over-optimistic. Next time, it is likely we will be back in synch with what is expected.
The Tories were punished for running a very poor campaign, and because Labour ran a very good one.
Harold Wilson called a mid-term election in 1966, and increased his lead from 2 to 100.
The Tories I believe did badly in 2017 because they were being punished for calling an early election....
I think there is much in this that hasn't been explored. The timing of the locals a few weeks before were set in stone. People had to turn out to elect their local representatives. The voters got to make their usual assessment, which was steady as you go - hence the Conservatives did well.
The GE was very different. People expect to be able to kick the Government mid-term. Just when May decided to call an election.... So they kicked the Govt. June 2017 was more akin to a by-election than a standard general election. This is where I think Labour is over-optimistic. Next time, it is likely we will be back in synch with what is expected.
If that was the case, why did Tories get elected in Teesside and the W Midlands in May 2017? The public kicked the Tory manifesto - not without reason.
On topic, Labour have to keep their coalition together and the Conservatives have to keep theirs. With or without a new leader, the Conservatives' job looks much harder after Brexit. What's their coalition's continuing purpose?
The more that Remainers predict that there will be harsh economic consequences after Brexit, the less likely it is that voters will vote for Corbyn who all polls say is less trusted on the economy. If voters feel insecure on the economy because of Brexit, they are not going to hand over the economy to someone they dont trust on it.
And if Jeremy Corbyn steps down, as he very well might?
Your thinking behind that assertion?
His age and his strengthening grip on the party. If he can hand over a compliant party to an anointed successor who doesn't have his baggage, I think he will. He doesn't strike me as the type with a personal lust for power.
If - for example - Angela Rayner were to become Labour leader, the Conservatives would be awfully placed strategically. How would they hold together their anti-Corbyn coalition?
His strengthening grip on the party is a reason to stay on. I agree that he's not careerist but he is on a mission and any leadership election is inherently risky to that project. I doubt that any next-generation candidate would properly carry on the Corbyn project.
The prospect of Rayner becoming Lab leader doesn't trouble me as a Tory in the slightest. Thornberry I would be much more concerned about.
You're absolutely right about historic parallels being subjective. Major is often cited by Tories as a model to follow, whilst forgetting he had a much easier task because he inherited a 100 seat majority. The incoming Tory leader can only afford to lose and handful of seats. That's a big ask after 12 years, whoever is in the job.
Yes - as I've noted before, there's no precedent since the Great Reform Act, as far as I know, for a party in government to meaningfully gain seats at an election having lost seats at the previous one (IIRC, Dec 1910 is the only technical exception - but that was a gain of just one, and less than a year after the previous election, so hardly meaningful).
However, it's also exceptional for a party, having spent 12 years in opposition, to put someone like Corbyn forward as its leader.
I guess the key question is for how long Labour will tolerate Corbyn , given the unexpectedly good result last year, and whether they challenge him before the next election, or let him run on despite his age and severe negatives. Given the shambles last time they challenged him, I’m still not sure.
From our side, a change of leader and PM in 2021, with Brexit done and a year to run to the election, is likely to give us a boost in the polls. If we do it much earlier then Labour might realise they need a change of leader too.
If Labour don't replace him midterm when they're 20 points behind in the polls and with 80% of the PLP openly opposed, they never will - not least because he'll never be in that kind of position again, and because the experience of the 2017GE can always now be deployed to his benefit.
I would be extremely surprised if May lasts until 2021 but if you thnk she can, there's good odds on it.
Yes, whether Lab (both MPs and various types of member) should ditch Corbyn is a very different question to whether they actually will.
I think that if Mrs May can survive the next six months she probably survives the next three years. I’ve a couple of beers at 8s, 9s and 10s on 2020+ exit dates. Only a couple of beers though.
Other interesting economic data today are that manufacturing output has increased for the eigth consecutive month. This equals the previous record in 1987 and longer than anything else dating back to 1968 (and probably a lot earlier).
As expected overall production output fell because of the North Sea problems - have they been resolved yet ?
And house construction in 2017 was at the highest for over 20 years (it was double that in 1997). PB anecdotes proved right on that one.
Of course people will continue to read into economic stats what they want to.
The North Sea will, sadly, gently tail off (unless there are some massive new discoveries). The fields there are (almost all) mature and in decline. If the tax regime were to change, you might see a bit more investment there, but the basin is very mature now, and new discoveries in the last few years have been of diminishing size, so it's hard to see a serious turnaround.
I agree to some extent. It will however be a very long tail. North Sea oil has some qualities that make it highly valued compared to Middle Eastern or US oil. This means that there is huge scope for redevelopment of fields. Whilst the majors are simply not equipped to do these sorts of redevelopments, smaller companies are very much able to take advantage and there is a lot of new work starting to be done. After the longest slump in North Sea history, suddenly everyone wants to drill again and it is not just the redevelopment but also significant new fields that are being discovered particularly West of Shetlands.
As well as the BP example mentioned below, Hurricane Oil have two discoveries last year which add up to around 1.5 Billion barrels of oil.
1.5 billion barrels of oil - assuming they are all recoverable barrels - would last the planet less than three weeks.
Comments
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/961870126621499392
My first book is now available for pre-order at Waterstones and will be on sale March 1st.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-aldwark-tales/richard-tyndall/9781999944513
My father used to own a farm at Aldwark, Derbyshire.
I for one would be very happy to see more waivers for SMEs or Microbusinesses - for example on auto enrolment, making tax digital etc
Would unleash a boom of entrepreneurship.
https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/961738013922529284
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/trump-rob-porter-hope-hicks-john-kelly
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-hunter-campaign-spending-20170323-story.html
election officials pointed out thousands of dollars in improper payments by his campaign, including payments to utility companies, a dentist, a nail salon, grocery stores and clothing retailers such as Abercrombie & Fitch — as well as 32 payments to airlines, a hotel in Italy and the Arizona Grand Resort.
Hunter's staff also told the Riverside Press-Enterprise in January that he used campaign funds to pay the $600 cost of flying a family rabbit....
You could not run a British government the way Trump runs the US one; the structures are too different.
And of course, Trump - like Corbyn - was fighting for office from opposition; the next Tory leader will almost certainly be fighting the next election with a record in office already under their belt, for good or ill.
Sure, a new leader might be better than May. They might be worse. Who knows?
Equally when the next election is fought who knows what the economic and political background might be.
JRM presiding over a post hard Brexit slump or Hunt presiding over a soft Brexit mini boom.
We just don't know. Nothing to plan against.
Labour lost Telford despite getting 47.1% of the vote. Does anyone know if there was a higher share that lost?
I'd challenge the status of Gibraltar as the favourite run ashore. Montevideo and Bangkok are the stuff of legends.
That is a problem when you're in opposition. All you can do is present yourself as an alternative to the current administration - and then you'll end up running against the Tories own alternative to the current administration....
The Tories got 48.13% of the vote and still lost
"My first book is now available for pre-order at Waterstones and will be on sale March 1st."
Very well done.
Betting PostSix Nations: Backed France to beat Scotland at 2.88 (2.75 on Ladbrokes, plus boost). I think their defence against Ireland was good, and Scotland were lacklustre against Wales. Not impossible by any stretch that Scotland will win, but those odds look wrong to me.
Was tempted by many handicap bets on Wales but decided against it. The 5 on them winning also looked intriguing.
In the end, I went for two Ladbrokes Exchange specials. Wales and France to both win the race to 10 points at 10, and each of the three matches to score more highly in the second half than the first (6). These may be hedgeable if the first part(s) comes off, as the Scotland/France match is on Sunday, the others on Saturday.
As always, do at your own risk. This isn't my particular sport (and I'm pretty ropey at the one that *is* my particular sport...).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton-under-Lyne_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1880s
Now, as it happens, I think they will probably be able to do a modification to CETA, because the Canadians are not unreasonable, and Brexit is a big deal. However, it does emphasise the extent to which agreements with third parties could hold up getting final agreement on the Brexit deal.
You're right that the psychological effect of becoming PM on the winner of the leadership contest is difficult to assess - though in truth, how virtually every PM who took over mid-term acted once entering No 10 was foreseeable from their earlier career. I think we have enough information to work on, though it's far from easy.
By the way, the blurb says "Dimensions: 2032 x 1270 mm". Couldn't you have had it printed on something a little less unwieldly?
Published on my birthday too.
Of course, if Corbyn isn't leader, there will need to be a new approach anyway....
I expect that whichever party looks more like a government will be more important in determining who wins than the record of the previous few years. If the Tories are divided and indulging in bitter infighting, Labour will win. On the other hand, if they're led by someone capable of putting forward a positive vision for the country (and willing to do so!), and the party is seen as having managed Brexit as well as was manageable in the circumstances, Labour will remain out of power for another five years.
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/961896909937004545
An end to austerity, and increased public spending on stretched social infrastructure.
"Comparing the three months to December 2017 with the same period in 2016, the UK total trade (goods and services) deficit widened by £3.8 billion; this was due primarily to increases of 7.5% (£8.7 billion) and 4.6% (£1.9 billion) in goods and services imports respectively."
Corbyn and his devotees have interpreted the 2017 result as an endorsement of the hard left. But if the voters were so hard left -if the hard left as he claims is now the mainstream, then why was Corbyn Labour so far behind in the polls in the weeks before the election -confirmed by local election results and by elections? Why is Labour either level pegging or behind in the polls today?
The truth is that prime ministers in history who make a dash for the polls too soon after the last election, tend to be punished.
1923/4 I believe is the key parallel. New Tory PM Stanley Baldwin called an election only a year after his predecessor won the last one in 1922. Result -a hung parliament which actually resulted in a Labour government. 9 months later another election resulted in one of the biggest Tory landslides ever.
The Tories I believe did badly in 2017 because they were being punished for calling an early election, because Remainers wanted to punish the Tories for Brexit, because the Tory campaign and manifesto was so bad that a lot of older voters abstained, and because more young people turned out.
Next time, a new Tory leader, a much older Corbyn, Brexit done and dusted, a better Tory manifesto, a higher turnout by the old, an election after 5 years, older people queueing round the corner to vote.
Labour will lose, but the good news is that it will never have to live down the disaster of a Corbyn government.
As expected overall production output fell because of the North Sea problems - have they been resolved yet ?
And house construction in 2017 was at the highest for over 20 years (it was double that in 1997). PB anecdotes proved right on that one.
Of course people will continue to read into economic stats what they want to.
Its going to take a long time to work off the excesses of the Osbrowne debt fuelled consumption - that trillion quid of extra borrow and spend will be leaking out of the country for years to come.
Note also that trade stats get a lot of revisions - they've been revised negativelyt this month.
Remoaners be careful. Your pessimism itself is helping the Tories.
Personally I expect Corbyn to do that anyway once the Govt starts making hard choices.
However, it's also exceptional for a party, having spent 12 years in opposition, to put someone like Corbyn forward as its leader.
The Tories can't stay in power for ever. The Left just have to be patient. If not 2022, 2027. They control the NEC and there's no sense that the right of the party have anything particularly engaging to say.
If - for example - Angela Rayner were to become Labour leader, the Conservatives would be awfully placed strategically. How would they hold together their anti-Corbyn coalition?
From our side, a change of leader and PM in 2021, with Brexit done and a year to run to the election, is likely to give us a boost in the polls. If we do it much earlier then Labour might realise they need a change of leader too.
@Richard_Tyndall - do you agree?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-42884861
I would be extremely surprised if May lasts until 2021 but if you thnk she can, there's good odds on it.
The GE was very different. People expect to be able to kick the Government mid-term. Just when May decided to call an election.... So they kicked the Govt. June 2017 was more akin to a by-election than a standard general election. This is where I think Labour is over-optimistic. Next time, it is likely we will be back in synch with what is expected.
The prospect of Rayner becoming Lab leader doesn't trouble me as a Tory in the slightest. Thornberry I would be much more concerned about.
As well as the BP example mentioned below, Hurricane Oil have two discoveries last year which add up to around 1.5 Billion barrels of oil.
Harold Wilson called a mid-term election in 1966, and increased his lead from 2 to 100.
Note also the positive comments that follow.
Interesting idea. Don't know how a couple would fancy paying up to £3600/yr to cover a relatively small risk though.
I think that if Mrs May can survive the next six months she probably survives the next three years. I’ve a couple of beers at 8s, 9s and 10s on 2020+ exit dates. Only a couple of beers though.