Interesting idea. Don't know how a couple would fancy paying up to £3600/yr to cover a relatively small risk though.
Any solution that involves the tory client vote paying any more for their own care - at the expense of their offpsring - is a non-starter, while they remain in power.
It goes against the fundamental conservative principle that labour should subsidise capital.
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.
we have more in common than you thought then David. Luckily all soft and gentle for me to date.
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.
I must admit, I think the future of oil will be two-fold: 1. exploitation of reserves that have been long known, but are only now economically viable (i.e. tight oil in the US, the Bakken and oil sands where SAGD recovery is possible); 2. gas-to-liquids, using the world's near ample supply of cheap natural gas to produce liquid fuels. I also suspect that as electric cars continue to get cheaper, they will reduce demand for oil relative to gas.
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.
A slightly different question to what were YOUR reasons for voting for Brexit though. I expect immigration would stay steady around ~40%, and extra cash for the NHS would drop back a bit.
The silly season seems to have started remarkably early this year.
A good test to apply to any story, particular Brexit-related stories, is: does this make the slightest sense?
You only have to ask the question: 'Would it make the slightest sense for France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, or Cyprus to make it hard to British tourists to hire a car?' to see the answer.
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.
Nationally, yes the Tories ran a stinker. Labour were allowed to run an OK one as a consequence. But still, plenty of folks couldn't fathom why we were having an election. All the more so when that Mrs. May had said she wouldn't. Just the act of calling the election was terminal to her credibility for many.
Wilson was different. His win came after a long period of Tory rule - I think the '64 election was held on about the last possible day? He was an unknown quantity and people were wary. So they gave him the barest of majorities. Consequently, he needed to call an election in 1966 to govern - and people could understand the reason. Nobody could really understand why May called it when she had said it wasn't going to happen.
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 smell of Labour hubris is not a faint whiff, but a full-blown stink. If the Tories skip a generation and go for someone like Johnny Mercer then a substantial majority is theirs for the taking.
However, I suspect that a high-profile, pro-Brexit leader like Johnson or the Moggster would polarise opinion and keep the current Labour coalition together. I would certainly be looking to deny the Tories a majority if either of them were to take charge and in the Labour marginal where I live I would cast my vote accordingly.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
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.
Although if those are Dubai beers, then that's quite a lot of money!
More seriously, I completely agree. If the Brexit transition is relative smooth, then why should she step down. She'll be facing Corbyn with most of the pain behind her. I reckon there's at least a 25% chance of her lasting beyond 2020.
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.
I must admit, I think the future of oil will be two-fold: 1. exploitation of reserves that have been long known, but are only now economically viable (i.e. tight oil in the US, the Bakken and oil sands where SAGD recovery is possible); 2. gas-to-liquids, using the world's near ample supply of cheap natural gas to produce liquid fuels. I also suspect that as electric cars continue to get cheaper, they will reduce demand for oil relative to gas.
Tories seem to blame the messenger, not the message. I think their problems go deeper than the timing of the election, the campaign and the leader. They seem out of ideas and the ideas they had they've reversed on.
The silly season seems to have started remarkably early this year.
A good test to apply to any story, particular Brexit-related stories, is: does this make the slightest sense?
You only have to ask the question: 'Would it make the slightest sense for France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, or Cyprus to make it hard to British tourists to hire a car?' to see the answer.
That's like standing in front of a truck and saying it makes no sense for it to run you over. No it doesn't, but you're still going to jump out of the way before it reaches you.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
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.
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.
I thought that the moat had not been specifically claimed for but had been noted in a wider claim for renovation & maintenance of Hogg's 2nd home?
In any case, generous, old Hoggy repaying back c.£2k for a claim that wasn't paid out.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
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.
Depends what you use it for. I have said for years that North Sea Oil is too good to burn. As we move towards renewables more and more people will realise how lucky we were that we didn't waste our oil resources just making energy.
But on your point about the size. 1.5 billion barrels still makes it the 4th or 5th largest field ever found on the UK Continental shelf.
I love the 'can't remember' slot. I always felt I was in a minority, and this just brings it home to me.
There is an important point here. If the Mogglodytes push their luck and try to force a no-deal Brexit to maximise sovereignty, they will be having to explain their actions to a public that doesn't think that was remotely the reason given for Brexit.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Labour doesn't need to have most seats in order for Corbyn to find his way to power. Plaid and more importantly the SNP will simply not vote to put the Tories in power.
And yes I know there is the whole "Their job is to make life difficult for Labour", but push and shove at Westminster they'll put Labour in EVERY time over the Tories.
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.
As well just devolve it to Holyrood then, along with the mystery box of powers we're supposed to be getting. A drop in the ocean for big, bold, buccaneering Brexit UK surely.
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.
I must admit, I think the future of oil will be two-fold: 1. exploitation of reserves that have been long known, but are only now economically viable (i.e. tight oil in the US, the Bakken and oil sands where SAGD recovery is possible); 2. gas-to-liquids, using the world's near ample supply of cheap natural gas to produce liquid fuels. I also suspect that as electric cars continue to get cheaper, they will reduce demand for oil relative to gas.
The Stone Age and Bronze Age didn’t end because we ran out of stone and bronze.
I suspect the same will be true if oil. Not an excuse to be daft with it’s usage, but we can already see the faint knockings of real mainstream change with hybrid cars becoming more mainstream ( 8 month waiting list for a BMW 3 series hybrid I’m told) or the wind turbine figures a few days ago.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
Given that Labour's highest share of the vote was 43% it would seem that 57% of the population won't vote for him.
I suspect you meant that he would never exceed 40% of the votes. But that is very different from what you wrote.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
And 40% won't. My point is that a Tory 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%. And the Tories have 40% more or less banked for as long as Corbyn is Labour leader.
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?
To run the country well, of course. That's always been the purpose, and it will be easier to keep the coalition together after Brexit.
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?
To run the country well, of course. That's always been the purpose, and it will be easier to keep the coalition together after Brexit.
Having spent years pursuing ideological zealotry, if the Tories try to claim pragmatism they will be laughed to scorn.
Seismic stuff in Spain. The PP vote is collapsing. Good.
Is it one the the rare situations where you hope they both lose, and they do?
If Cs do win the next Spanish GE, they will win with a Catalan-born, Catalan-speaking leader and a large number of votes from Catalonia. That will be a big narrative changer.
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.
I must admit, I think the future of oil will be two-fold: 1. exploitation of reserves that have been long known, but are only now economically viable (i.e. tight oil in the US, the Bakken and oil sands where SAGD recovery is possible); 2. gas-to-liquids, using the world's near ample supply of cheap natural gas to produce liquid fuels. I also suspect that as electric cars continue to get cheaper, they will reduce demand for oil relative to gas.
In around a quarter century, most oil & gas production will likely be destined for industrial feedstock, IMO.
IMHO, the grid of the future (for a country with an average amount of wind and sun) will be 15% wind, 40% solar, 40% natural gas, and 5% other. During summer, solar energy will be stored using batteries and pumped storage. In winter, highly efficient CCGTs will be used (as they will to fill in gaps when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing).
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
And 40% won't. My point is that a Tory 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%. And the Tories have 40% more or less banked for as long as Corbyn is Labour leader.
You don't have any data to back that up.
It really wouldn't take much to make a difference. A few Tories sitting on their hands. A few returning to the Lib Dems and everything changes. There are 22 Labour target seats with majorities under 1000.
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?
To run the country well, of course. That's always been the purpose, and it will be easier to keep the coalition together after Brexit.
Having spent years pursuing ideological zealotry, if the Tories try to claim pragmatism they will be laughed to scorn.
But as the thread header suggests, a new leader can get away with a great deal... for a fairly short period of time.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
And 40% won't. My point is that a Tory 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%. And the Tories have 40% more or less banked for as long as Corbyn is Labour leader.
You don't have any data to back that up.
It really wouldn't take much to make a difference. A few Tories sitting on their hands. A few returning to the Lib Dems and everything changes. There are 22 Labour target seats with majorities under 1000.
It requires Tories to AGAIN sit on their hands like they did in 2017, just for Labour to stand still. "You REALLY want to let Corbyn slip in to Downing Street? He nearly did last time...." will be an effective message to push on the doorstep.
I love the 'can't remember' slot. I always felt I was in a minority, and this just brings it home to me.
There is an important point here. If the Mogglodytes push their luck and try to force a no-deal Brexit to maximise sovereignty, they will be having to explain their actions to a public that doesn't think that was remotely the reason given for Brexit.
Although it's not a reason for Brexit, the sine qua non is that Brexit keeps all the nice things of EU membership, including a prospering economy. It matters because a damaged economy won't look like success. Right now almost all Leavers think Brexit will boost the economy or leave it the same.
There are essentially two realistic outcomes: a symbolic Brexit that limits the damage and a destructive Brexit that changes everything, almost entirely for the worse in the short and medium term and possibly the long term too. Logically, only destructive Brexit might be worth doing， unless symbols are important to you。 But the destruction cuts across the assumptions behind that most narrow of wins in 2016. There simply isn't the mandate for it. Hence the stalemate.
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?
To run the country well, of course. That's always been the purpose, and it will be easier to keep the coalition together after Brexit.
Having spent years pursuing ideological zealotry, if the Tories try to claim pragmatism they will be laughed to scorn.
That is a bit of a problem at the moment, certainly, although it's hard to argue that Phil Hammond, Amber Rudd or Jeremy Hunt have pursued ideological zealotry. A lot of work will be required, and new faces at the top. If the party gets that right, it will romp home against the extremists who run Labour. If it gets it wrong, for example by choosing Rees-Mogg as leader, then it's likely that the Labour extremists will be in Downing St.
I don't know which way it will go, but what we can be fairly sure of is that the political landscape won't look like it does now. We have to keep relearning that lesson, despite the fact that we had a thorough revision session as recently as the first half of 2017.
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.
Although if those are Dubai beers, then that's quite a lot of money!
More seriously, I completely agree. If the Brexit transition is relative smooth, then why should she step down. She'll be facing Corbyn with most of the pain behind her. I reckon there's at least a 25% chance of her lasting beyond 2020.
Do you get your hand chopped off for drinking beer in Dubai?
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?
To run the country well, of course. That's always been the purpose, and it will be easier to keep the coalition together after Brexit.
You're such an optimist. If you think the Tories troubles on Europe end in March 2019. You are likely to be disappointed.
The referendum has opened up the two old parties fighting for control of the Conservatives.
* The pragmatic, one-nation party currently prioritising economic management. (Hunt, Hammond) * The right-wing ideological party prioritising Brexit and social conservatism. (JRM)
They are not the same and increasingly hard to reconcile.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
And 40% won't. My point is that a Tory 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%. And the Tories have 40% more or less banked for as long as Corbyn is Labour leader.
You don't have any data to back that up.
It really wouldn't take much to make a difference. A few Tories sitting on their hands. A few returning to the Lib Dems and everything changes. There are 22 Labour target seats with majorities under 1000.
It requires Tories to AGAIN sit on their hands like they did in 2017, just for Labour to stand still. "You REALLY want to let Corbyn slip in to Downing Street? He nearly did last time...." will be an effective message to push on the doorstep.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
Corbyn was something like 2500 votes from being PM last time. To say it’s a certainty that he won’t win next time is hubris.
I see we can now add the Jews to the list of those to blame for Brexit not being the cake walk the loons assured us it would be.
I can see you are getting more and more desperate to smear Leave supporters because you have nothing else left to argue with. I would have expected better of you.
I see we can now add the Jews to the list of those to blame for Brexit not being the cake walk the loons assured us it would be.
I can see you are getting more and more desperate to smear Leave supporters because you have nothing else left to argue with. I would have expected better of you.
Nope - I do not consider all Brexit supporters loons, just the ones who promised a cake walk on the basis that they need us more than we need them. If you are comfortable with the right wing press's anti-Semitic attacks on George Soros so be it. But I would have expected better of you.
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.
Although if those are Dubai beers, then that's quite a lot of money!
More seriously, I completely agree. If the Brexit transition is relative smooth, then why should she step down. She'll be facing Corbyn with most of the pain behind her. I reckon there's at least a 25% chance of her lasting beyond 2020.
Do you get your hand chopped off for drinking beer in Dubai?
I bloody hope not!!
They do cost about a tenner though, but still cheaper than Singapore beers.
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.
Fractured basement, no drill stem test...1.5 billion barrel is not yet 2P.
You are confusing oil in place with recoverable. Dangerous given that 30 years ago the average recoverable from most North Sea Fields was around 10% and it is now around 60%. What I was quoting was the size of the field. And just because they have not announced a DST does not mean they have not carried one out
There does seem to be almost indecent haste from Leavers who want Brexit to be 'done and dusted' ASAP. It's not going to be business as usual for years.
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
That is indeed the highest.
Also
Labour in Middlesbrough S & Cleveland E 47.5% Labour in Stoke South (next door to N-u-L) 47.5%
then Telford, then Barrow, then Crewe & Nantwich all over 47%. Lots in my part of the world - it's very two-party in Staffordshire. Though we had a great result last night defending Stretton against a strong ex-Labour Independent challenge.
You're such an optimist. If you think the Tories troubles on Europe end in March 2019. You are likely to be disappointed.
The referendum has opened up the two old parties fighting for control of the Conservatives.
* The pragmatic, one-nation party currently prioritising economic management. (Hunt, Hammond) * The right-wing ideological party prioritising Brexit and social conservatism. (JRM)
They are not the same and increasingly hard to reconcile.
But it's always been like that, just as Labour has always been a coalition of various groups such as hardish-left socialists, union fixers, social democrats, and various ethnic and minority interests. Under our excellent FPTP system, any party which aspires to be big enough to form a government has to be a coalition.
The problem for the Conservatives at the moment is not that the two groups you mention exist, it's that they have broken into open warfare. That's partly because of Brexit and partly because the party is effectively leaderless at the moment. We'll have to see whether that changes, but the remedies are within the power of Conservative MPs, should they choose to do so. If they don't, they'll be slaughtered.
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?
To run the country well, of course. That's always been the purpose, and it will be easier to keep the coalition together after Brexit.
You're such an optimist. If you think the Tories troubles on Europe end in March 2019. You are likely to be disappointed.
The referendum has opened up the two old parties fighting for control of the Conservatives.
* The pragmatic, one-nation party currently prioritising economic management. (Hunt, Hammond) * The right-wing ideological party prioritising Brexit and social conservatism. (JRM)
They are not the same and increasingly hard to reconcile.
Bring in PR by STV, let the parties become loose coalitions competing with each other. Let us vote for who we want rather than against who we don't want and let our votes count.
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.
I must admit, I think the future of oil will be two-fold: 1. exploitation of reserves that have been long known, but are only now economically viable (i.e. tight oil in the US, the Bakken and oil sands where SAGD recovery is possible); 2. gas-to-liquids, using the world's near ample supply of cheap natural gas to produce liquid fuels. I also suspect that as electric cars continue to get cheaper, they will reduce demand for oil relative to gas.
In around a quarter century, most oil & gas production will likely be destined for industrial feedstock, IMO.
IMHO, the grid of the future (for a country with an average amount of wind and sun) will be 15% wind, 40% solar, 40% natural gas, and 5% other. During summer, solar energy will be stored using batteries and pumped storage. In winter, highly efficient CCGTs will be used (as they will to fill in gaps when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing).
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
And 40% won't. My point is that a Tory 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%. And the Tories have 40% more or less banked for as long as Corbyn is Labour leader.
Sorry @Southamobserver the idea Corbyn can't hit 40.0% is a nonsense and was disproved at GE2017.
It kicks the Irish border question to the next cliff edge at the end of the "transition" period, ie end of 2020. Mrs May will be OK with this. Her entire focus is on surviving until March next year.
You're such an optimist. If you think the Tories troubles on Europe end in March 2019. You are likely to be disappointed.
The referendum has opened up the two old parties fighting for control of the Conservatives.
* The pragmatic, one-nation party currently prioritising economic management. (Hunt, Hammond) * The right-wing ideological party prioritising Brexit and social conservatism. (JRM)
They are not the same and increasingly hard to reconcile.
But it's always been like that, just as Labour has always been a coalition of various groups such as hardish-left socialists, union fixers, social democrats, and various ethnic and minority interests. Under our excellent FPTP system, any party which aspires to be big enough to form a government has to be a coalition.
The problem for the Conservatives at the moment is not that the two groups you mention exist, it's that they have broken into open warfare. That's partly because of Brexit and partly because the party is effectively leaderless at the moment. We'll have to see whether that changes, but the remedies are within the power of Conservative MPs, should they choose to do so. If they don't, they'll be slaughtered.
I am not sure they are solely in the hands of Tory MPs.
There really isn't anyone who can cut across both groups and isn't rubbish.
If we enter stormy economic waters after March 2019 it will be tricky for whoever gets the job, especially if they are drawn from one faction. The wound will not be allowed to heal.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
And 40% won't. My point is that a Tory 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%. And the Tories have 40% more or less banked for as long as Corbyn is Labour leader.
Sorry @Southamobserver the idea Corbyn can't hit 40.0% is a nonsense and was disproved at GE2017.
Corbyn, Labour
12,878,460 40.0%
Turnout was decent too.
I am not saying that Corbyn won't hit 40%. I am saying that with him as Labour leader the Tories have 40% banked. And that their 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
And 40% won't. My point is that a Tory 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%. And the Tories have 40% more or less banked for as long as Corbyn is Labour leader.
I know you dislike the direction Labour is going in, I'm not a massive fan myself, but you are letting it influence your analysis here. It really is fine margins in a hell of a lot of seats now. A small swing, or the Tories losing votes because they Brexit they've gone for isn't hard enough, would be all that is required to give Corbyn the maths to form a government.
It kicks the Irish border question to the next cliff edge at the end of the "transition" period, ie end of 2020. Mrs May will be OK with this. Her entire focus is on surviving until March next year.
Not sure that's right. Remember that the UK solutions have to be agreeable to the EU27. If regulatory alignment is the agreed fall-back, then we are beholden to the EU27. IN other words we have no real sovereign decision-making power here. The EU27 may not make a final call until 2020, but the principle will be legally enshrined. It's hard to believe that the Moggster and his mates will not notice that.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
And 40% won't. My point is that a Tory 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%. And the Tories have 40% more or less banked for as long as Corbyn is Labour leader.
Sorry @Southamobserver the idea Corbyn can't hit 40.0% is a nonsense and was disproved at GE2017.
Corbyn, Labour
12,878,460 40.0%
Turnout was decent too.
I am not saying that Corbyn won't hit 40%. I am saying that with him as Labour leader the Tories have 40% banked. And that their 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%.
Yes yes but Corbyn has more potential minor party house support. Now I know that isn't ideal but the next election certainly isn't won for the Tories (Even by 2017 standards) just because Corbs might stay in place.
The silly season seems to have started remarkably early this year.
A good test to apply to any story, particular Brexit-related stories, is: does this make the slightest sense?
You only have to ask the question: 'Would it make the slightest sense for France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, or Cyprus to make it hard to British tourists to hire a car?' to see the answer.
There'll be no need to hire a car. We'll all have driven to the Algarve because the airports will be shut.
Listening to Barnier on transistion he makes a logical case and on this I agree with him. I cannot see why we are causing a problem and surely TM will negotiate a sensible transistion
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More than 40% voted for him last year.
If the Tories get 40% or more of the vote they are highly likely to get most seats given the in-built advantage they now have.
Sure, but you said 40% would never vote for him. That's not true.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
And 40% won't. My point is that a Tory 40% will produce more seats than a Labour 40%. And the Tories have 40% more or less banked for as long as Corbyn is Labour leader.
I know you dislike the direction Labour is going in, I'm not a massive fan myself, but you are letting it influence your analysis here. It really is fine margins in a hell of a lot of seats now. A small swing, or the Tories losing votes because they Brexit they've gone for isn't hard enough, would be all that is required to give Corbyn the maths to form a government.
Yep, I know. My "never" is poetic licence. Better stated, I think that if the Tories get 40% of the vote - and with Corbyn as Labour leader that looks bankable - it is highly unlikely that the Jezziah will ever make it into Number 10.
The EU don't appear to believe an Englishman's word is his bond i guess.
When David Davis says, immediately after agreeing a bunch of stuff in December, that it wasn't legally binding, you would expect the other side to "lack good faith" and be "discourteous".
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?
To run the country well, of course. That's always been the purpose, and it will be easier to keep the coalition together after Brexit.
Having spent years pursuing ideological zealotry, if the Tories try to claim pragmatism they will be laughed to scorn.
If your mantra has been that there are more important things than the economy, it is difficult then to explain that you are the guys to trust with the economy.
Off topic, but pb-related - does anyone know where I can get map templates of constituencies (preferably in groups by region) which are blank and capable of being coloured in?
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.
Not quite - Hogg never submitted a claim for the moat.
He argued that the maintenance expenses on Kettlethorpe were far in excess of his allowance (including a list of things such as staff costs - more than the allowance in themselves - and the moat) and therefore they should just wire him the monthly maximum without having to submit invoices... that proposal was turned down
Foolish, certainly, but not an abuse of the expenses scheme and not a claim for a moat
The silly season seems to have started remarkably early this year.
A good test to apply to any story, particular Brexit-related stories, is: does this make the slightest sense?
You only have to ask the question: 'Would it make the slightest sense for France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, or Cyprus to make it hard to British tourists to hire a car?' to see the answer.
There'll be no need to hire a car. We'll all have driven to the Algarve because the airports will be shut.
Driven to Skegness, because of the massive customs queue at the Tunnel entrance.
Off topic, but pb-related - does anyone know where I can get map templates of constituencies (preferably in groups by region) which are blank and capable of being coloured in?
I am not sure they are solely in the hands of Tory MPs.
There really isn't anyone who can cut across both groups and isn't rubbish.
If we enter stormy economic waters after March 2019 it will be tricky for whoever gets the job, especially if they are drawn from one faction. The wound will not be allowed to heal.
I don't disagree, but think back to June 2016, and how Labour looked then as waves of shadow ministers resigned and Labour MPs overwhelmingly voted no confidence in Corbyn. 12 months later the party was (superficially at least) united behind him and he'd done massively better than anyone expected. Politics is a very dynamic game, especially at the moment.
Off topic, but pb-related - does anyone know where I can get map templates of constituencies (preferably in groups by region) which are blank and capable of being coloured in?
I doubt any new PM will get a significant boost over May, no poll has any alternative Tory leader polling significantly better than she is against Labour. Brown's 'honeymoon' lasted only a few months and was mainly down to former Labour voters who had defected over Iraq to the LDs coming back and May's polling boost was mainly down to the collapse of UKIP than her personally just as her failure to win a majority in 2017 was largely down to her disastrous dementia tax policy, now dumped, than her as a person.
The only new PM who got a significant lasting poll boost over his predecessor was Major from 1990 to 1992 but tgat was down to him dumping the poll tax for the council tax and was predicted in polls before Thatcher lost the leadership anyway
I am not sure they are solely in the hands of Tory MPs.
There really isn't anyone who can cut across both groups and isn't rubbish.
If we enter stormy economic waters after March 2019 it will be tricky for whoever gets the job, especially if they are drawn from one faction. The wound will not be allowed to heal.
I don't disagree, but think back to June 2016, and how Labour looked then as waves of shadow ministers resigned and Labour MPs overwhelmingly voted no confidence in Corbyn. 12 months later the party was (superficially at least) united behind him and he'd done massively better than anyone expected. Politics is a very dynamic game, especially at the moment.
The silly season seems to have started remarkably early this year.
A good test to apply to any story, particular Brexit-related stories, is: does this make the slightest sense?
You only have to ask the question: 'Would it make the slightest sense for France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, or Cyprus to make it hard to British tourists to hire a car?' to see the answer.
There'll be no need to hire a car. We'll all have driven to the Algarve because the airports will be shut.
Driven to Skegness, because of the massive customs queue at the Tunnel entrance.
No, we'll be roasting a turnip over a candle, as sterling will be worthless. Still, mustn't grumble.
They are still second even on that poll and given the first placed Ciudadanos' position on Catalonia is also no independence referendum or independence it does not really change much on that front either unless they are really prepared to offer significantly more autonomy to the Catalans than the PP
May signed her political death warrant the moment she agreed to regulatory alignment to resolve the NI question just so she could achieve 'sufficient progress'.
It is simply utterly incompetent, stupid, idiotic and brainless to enter into negotiation with someone promising them that if you cannot agree then they will get what they always wanted by default. A CETA deal with no services and full alignment - how could the UK Government possibly come up with a worse endgame?
It is testament to the full control that the civil service have taken over her and Davis that she included this, the effect of which can only be to deliberately undermine the UK's own negotiating position.
Luckily Barnier is being his usual arrogant self. At this rate JRM might be Prime Minister by Easter. The first phase agreement was always going to fall apart under the weight of its own contradictions.
The smell of Labour hubris is not a faint whiff, but a full-blown stink. If the Tories skip a generation and go for someone like Johnny Mercer then a substantial majority is theirs for the taking.
However, I suspect that a high-profile, pro-Brexit leader like Johnson or the Moggster would polarise opinion and keep the current Labour coalition together. I would certainly be looking to deny the Tories a majority if either of them were to take charge and in the Labour marginal where I live I would cast my vote accordingly.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
Not necessarily Corbyn could become PM even if second on seats with SNP, Plaid and Green support
Comments
https://twitter.com/AndrewCooper__/status/961908728801976320
It goes against the fundamental conservative principle that labour should subsidise capital.
@HYUFD understands this. As did George Osborne.
He proved in 2017 that he is not a barrier in turning out the vote. He scored over 40%, and 12M votes which is more than David Cameron ever got.
There is nothing to say that those 12M will not vote for him again.
A good test to apply to any story, particular Brexit-related stories, is: does this make the slightest sense?
You only have to ask the question: 'Would it make the slightest sense for France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, or Cyprus to make it hard to British tourists to hire a car?' to see the answer.
Wilson was different. His win came after a long period of Tory rule - I think the '64 election was held on about the last possible day? He was an unknown quantity and people were wary. So they gave him the barest of majorities. Consequently, he needed to call an election in 1966 to govern - and people could understand the reason. Nobody could really understand why May called it when she had said it wasn't going to happen.
However, I suspect that a high-profile, pro-Brexit leader like Johnson or the Moggster would polarise opinion and keep the current Labour coalition together. I would certainly be looking to deny the Tories a majority if either of them were to take charge and in the Labour marginal where I live I would cast my vote accordingly.
Whatever happens, though, Corbyn is not going to be PM: 40% of the country will never vote for a party he leads and that will be enough to keep the Tories in office, if not in power, whoever leads them.
More seriously, I completely agree. If the Brexit transition is relative smooth, then why should she step down. She'll be facing Corbyn with most of the pain behind her. I reckon there's at least a 25% chance of her lasting beyond 2020.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118301526
In around a quarter century, most oil & gas production will likely be destined for industrial feedstock, IMO.
In any case, generous, old Hoggy repaying back c.£2k for a claim that wasn't paid out.
I do reckon that we have a long way to go to understanding what is going on in the Labour party. Whilst we are not from the far left, there are some good things going. It is churlish to deny that Corbyn managed to connect with many people in a way that no-one has in years. It's not just hype.
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/961922731200696322
But on your point about the size. 1.5 billion barrels still makes it the 4th or 5th largest field ever found on the UK Continental shelf.
And yes I know there is the whole "Their job is to make life difficult for Labour", but push and shove at Westminster they'll put Labour in EVERY time over the Tories.
I suspect the same will be true if oil. Not an excuse to be daft with it’s usage, but we can already see the faint knockings of real mainstream change with hybrid cars becoming more mainstream ( 8 month waiting list for a BMW 3 series hybrid I’m told) or the wind turbine figures a few days ago.
https://twitter.com/HistoryHit/status/961631215618088960
I suspect you meant that he would never exceed 40% of the votes. But that is very different from what you wrote.
After a while, people get fed up with stale, corrupt conservatism.
Beware you Pb Tory witches of all genders.
It really wouldn't take much to make a difference. A few Tories sitting on their hands. A few returning to the Lib Dems and everything changes. There are 22 Labour target seats with majorities under 1000.
There are essentially two realistic outcomes: a symbolic Brexit that limits the damage and a destructive Brexit that changes everything, almost entirely for the worse in the short and medium term and possibly the long term too. Logically, only destructive Brexit might be worth doing， unless symbols are important to you。 But the destruction cuts across the assumptions behind that most narrow of wins in 2016. There simply isn't the mandate for it. Hence the stalemate.
That principle has saved me a lot of money.
I don't know which way it will go, but what we can be fairly sure of is that the political landscape won't look like it does now. We have to keep relearning that lesson, despite the fact that we had a thorough revision session as recently as the first half of 2017.
The referendum has opened up the two old parties fighting for control of the Conservatives.
* The pragmatic, one-nation party currently prioritising economic management. (Hunt, Hammond)
* The right-wing ideological party prioritising Brexit and social conservatism. (JRM)
They are not the same and increasingly hard to reconcile.
To say it’s a certainty that he won’t win next time is hubris.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/961929687185477635
They do cost about a tenner though, but still cheaper than Singapore beers.
Will you give me a fiver at 100/1 on Corbyn becoming PM?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/961929687185477635
Also
Labour in Middlesbrough S & Cleveland E 47.5%
Labour in Stoke South (next door to N-u-L) 47.5%
then Telford, then Barrow, then Crewe & Nantwich all over 47%. Lots in my part of the world - it's very two-party in Staffordshire. Though we had a great result last night defending Stretton against a strong ex-Labour Independent challenge.
The problem for the Conservatives at the moment is not that the two groups you mention exist, it's that they have broken into open warfare. That's partly because of Brexit and partly because the party is effectively leaderless at the moment. We'll have to see whether that changes, but the remedies are within the power of Conservative MPs, should they choose to do so. If they don't, they'll be slaughtered.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-australia-just-weeks-old-is-already-responding-to-outages-in-record-time/
Corbyn, Labour
12,878,460 40.0%
Turnout was decent too.
There really isn't anyone who can cut across both groups and isn't rubbish.
If we enter stormy economic waters after March 2019 it will be tricky for whoever gets the job, especially if they are drawn from one faction. The wound will not be allowed to heal.
How about 10-1 that if Corbyn contests the next election as Labour leader, he becomes PM?
*to be clear - bet is voided if Corbyn does not contest the next election...
And no, I still believe we should leave
The ERG won’t stomach that.
He argued that the maintenance expenses on Kettlethorpe were far in excess of his allowance (including a list of things such as staff costs - more than the allowance in themselves - and the moat) and therefore they should just wire him the monthly maximum without having to submit invoices... that proposal was turned down
Foolish, certainly, but not an abuse of the expenses scheme and not a claim for a moat
He should be able to help you out.
http://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/
The only new PM who got a significant lasting poll boost over his predecessor was Major from 1990 to 1992 but tgat was down to him dumping the poll tax for the council tax and was predicted in polls before Thatcher lost the leadership anyway
It is simply utterly incompetent, stupid, idiotic and brainless to enter into negotiation with someone promising them that if you cannot agree then they will get what they always wanted by default. A CETA deal with no services and full alignment - how could the UK Government possibly come up with a worse endgame?
It is testament to the full control that the civil service have taken over her and Davis that she included this, the effect of which can only be to deliberately undermine the UK's own negotiating position.
Luckily Barnier is being his usual arrogant self. At this rate JRM might be Prime Minister by Easter. The first phase agreement was always going to fall apart under the weight of its own contradictions.
But go on then - l’ll have £10 that Corbyn becomes PM at 5/1 if you’ll offer it.
I don’t want to bet too much with a stranger over the Internet.
To specify the bet precisely - how about, Jeremy Corbyn to become PM within 6 months of the next general election?
It’s possible that a hung parliament might lead to a follow up election/coalition talks and then Corbyn becomes PM.
Does that seem fair?