Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For all TMay’s travails she continues to have a clear lead ove

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 6 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For all TMay’s travails she continues to have a clear lead over Corbyn as “best PM”

Back in June, after Corbyn’s LAB got 4 seats closer to the Tory MP total than Gordon Brown’s party seven years earlier, there was a massive euphoria around the Labour leader. He could do no wrong and was reported to have said he expected to be PM by last Christmas. That, of course, didn’t happen and he then revised that to Christmas 2018.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,463
    edited March 6
    First ?

    And maintaining a precarious lead over don't know.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    edited March 6
    But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).

    Did the BES polling a few weeks ago not confirm that people thought Labour had the "best policies" at last year's election, and that the party leaders was the only aspect that put the Tories in front?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,964
    Danny565 said:

    But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).

    I don't see anyone who could be worse. At the very least the next leader will bother to turn up to the TV debates.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841

    Danny565 said:

    But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).

    I don't see anyone who could be worse. At the very least the next leader will bother to turn up to the TV debates.
    Who precisely do you think would be better, and why, apart from Davidson (and perhaps Boris, who to be fair is a complete wildcard who could go either way).

    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,518
    edited March 6
    .
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,964
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).

    I don't see anyone who could be worse. At the very least the next leader will bother to turn up to the TV debates.
    Who precisely do you think would be better, and why, apart from Davidson (and perhaps Boris, who to be fair is a complete wildcard who could go either way).

    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
    Absolutely anyone who bothers to campaign, bothers to turn up to the debates, bothers to look like they want to speak to voters, bothers to look like they're even bothered ...

    ... anyone who does any of that will be better than May. Which is basically anyone.

    Its not just as if skipping the debates was the only mistake. May's mistake was total and overwhelming hubris. What positive story did she have to tell in the manifesto?
  • RhubarbRhubarb Posts: 342
    edited March 6
    Mortimer said:
    Typo.

    'ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative online sample of 2,030 adults aged 18+ on 2 to 4 March 2018. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.' - Guardian liveblog.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,076
    Scott_P said:
    So "hangers-on refuse free tickets" then.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688
    Rhubarb said:

    Mortimer said:
    Typo.

    'ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative online sample of 2,030 adults aged 18+ on 2 to 4 March 2018. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.' - Guardian liveblog.
    Ta!
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).

    I don't see anyone who could be worse. At the very least the next leader will bother to turn up to the TV debates.
    Who precisely do you think would be better, and why, apart from Davidson (and perhaps Boris, who to be fair is a complete wildcard who could go either way).

    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
    Absolutely anyone who bothers to campaign, bothers to turn up to the debates, bothers to look like they want to speak to voters, bothers to look like they're even bothered ...

    ... anyone who does any of that will be better than May. Which is basically anyone.
    Such as who specifically....?

    This reminds me a lot of Labour between 2007 and 2015. When Gordon Brown was in, we heard that "anyone" would be better than him, until Ed Miliband showed that wasn't the case. Then during Miliband's time, we heard that "anyone" would be better than him, until the selection of "moderate" candidates in the 2015 contest showed that also wasn't the case. It's very easy to just rubbish the incumbent and think "anyone" would do better, but often rather harder to think of someone specifically.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,427
    It's not now Labour need be worried about. It's a year's time. That's when oppositions that are going to win move ahead, at latest.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,756
    Anorak said:
    Fully expect this to continue and Corbyn best PM to gradually drop away.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,867
    @rachelkennedy84: Defence Science and Technlogy Labs at Porton Down in Wiltshire confirm they're testing samples of the substance thought to have made #SergeiSkripal and daughter critically ill. Not confirmed what substance is #Salisbury
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,483
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I'd call that small rather than clear, but there we are.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,492

    Anorak said:
    Fully expect this to continue and Corbyn best PM to gradually drop away.
    For one's own sanity the words "Best PM" and "Jeremy Corbyn" should never be uttered together.

    Its the same principle as never mentioning "Gordon Brown" and "economic genius" in the same sentence.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).

    I don't see anyone who could be worse. At the very least the next leader will bother to turn up to the TV debates.
    Who precisely do you think would be better, and why, apart from Davidson (and perhaps Boris, who to be fair is a complete wildcard who could go either way).

    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
    Absolutely anyone who bothers to campaign, bothers to turn up to the debates, bothers to look like they want to speak to voters, bothers to look like they're even bothered ...

    ... anyone who does any of that will be better than May. Which is basically anyone.
    Such as who specifically....?

    This reminds me a lot of Labour between 2007 and 2015. When Gordon Brown was in, we heard that "anyone" would be better than him, until Ed Miliband showed that wasn't the case. Then during Miliband's time, we heard that "anyone" would be better than him, until the selection of "moderate" candidates in the 2015 contest showed that also wasn't the case. It's very easy to just rubbish the incumbent and think "anyone" would do better, but often rather harder to think of someone specifically.
    I'm firmly of the opinion that May stays until an obvious successor emerges. At the moment, that person hasn't emerged.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,051
    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,880
    A 6% lead over Jeremy Corbyn, by far the most unqualified and inept politician put forward by any major party since I really can't remember when? Who were they canvassing, Labour MPs?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,485
    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
    May doesn't like to be put on the spot when she needs to go beyond her usual script. Yesterday when she was answering questions about the Irish border there was a hint of the "nothing has changed" tetchiness.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    edited March 6
    DavidL said:

    A 6% lead over Jeremy Corbyn, by far the most unqualified and inept politician put forward by any major party since I really can't remember when? Who were they canvassing, Labour MPs?

    No, Corbyn would have got much worse ratings if they'd asked Labour MPs.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 370
    Danny565 said:

    But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).

    Presumably her new approach will be to bake a better cake, eat it and still have it.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,483
    F1: Tatiana Calderon named as Sauber's test driver this year. She's a Colombian... not sure if we've ever had a Colombian race driver before, though. Wouldn't be surprising.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,631
    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,000
    A year ago she had a 34% lead over Corbyn.

    She really did shit the bed.

    In the run up to the 2015 general election Dave had a 15% lead over Ed which is even more impressive when it wasn’t a binary choice question.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,000
    The memories of Tory MPs won’t fade though.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    The 1% Tory lead is down from a 16% lead in the ICM poll this week last year :D

    (Interestingly though, the Tories are only down 1 point from the 44% they got this time last year - it's Labour massively up from 28% that's made the difference.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,483
    Mr. Eagles, absolutely. It was a masterclass in ****ing up a seemingly un****upable position. At least at Cannae the Romans were facing a military genius. May was defeated by her own ambush.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,553

    F1: Tatiana Calderon named as Sauber's test driver this year. She's a Colombian... not sure if we've ever had a Colombian race driver before, though. Wouldn't be surprising.

    Juan Pablo Montoya. he won 7 GP, but was a little (ahem) tetchy with his teams. Like him more since he left F1 and went racing in the US than I did before.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,338

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Yes. At the last minute.

    If she had debated she would have been criticised for 'jumping when the LotO' said so.....not showing leadership by refusing to debate......doing what the man told her to and so on and so on......meanwhile she emerges from the BREXIT speeches ahead of Corbyn and his cunning stunt.....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,000

    Mr. Eagles, absolutely. It was a masterclass in ****ing up a seemingly un****upable position. At least at Cannae the Romans were facing a military genius. May was defeated by her own ambush.

    In the piece I’m doing for Sunday I compare Mrs May to Basil II except she blinded her own side.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,065

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    And calling the election wasn't a cynical u-turn?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,076
    I've just seen a feature on TV about Theresa May:

    "Pro Performance"

    "New Style, New Swagger"

    Impressive!



    Ah, sorry no - my mistake. It wasn't Theresa May, it was an ad for TRESemme.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,784

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Yes. At the last minute.

    If she had debated she would have been criticised for 'jumping when the LotO' said so.....not showing leadership by refusing to debate......doing what the man told her to and so on and so on......meanwhile she emerges from the BREXIT speeches ahead of Corbyn and his cunning stunt.....
    Again poor tactics, Cameron initially said no but they continue to negotiate until they got to a format that was very low risk. Shame he wasn’t as crafty with the EU.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,293

    F1: Tatiana Calderon named as Sauber's test driver this year. She's a Colombian... not sure if we've ever had a Colombian race driver before, though. Wouldn't be surprising.

    Juan Pablo Montoya. he won 7 GP, but was a little (ahem) tetchy with his teams. Like him more since he left F1 and went racing in the US than I did before.
    This is a pretty short wiki list. One of the three didn't get a licence in time, so never actually raced in anger.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_drivers_from_Colombia
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,293

    I've just seen a feature on TV about Theresa May:

    "Pro Performance"

    "New Style, New Swagger"

    Impressive!



    Ah, sorry no - my mistake. It wasn't Theresa May, it was an ad for TRESemme.

    I can only hope your day job is tolerable.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,631
    midwinter said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    And calling the election wasn't a cynical u-turn?
    It was an attempt to use very favourable polling data as a way to deal with a difficult set of negotiations. Yes, it failed and failed badly. But if it weren't for the FTPA, it would just have been part of the cut and thrust of normal politics. Seeking a mandate, blah blah blah

    Any PM looking at that data would have been tempted to do the same thing - particularly when the road ahead was looking so difficult to navigate.

    Was it cynical? maybe. Was it understandable under the circumstances? yes. Did it work? Obviously not.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,483
    F1: was a hydraulic pressure for Vandoorne's latest stoppage.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,483
    Mr. Jessop, ah, I didn't know Montoya was from there. Bit of a blind spot :p
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,000
    edited March 6

    midwinter said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    And calling the election wasn't a cynical u-turn?
    It was an attempt to use very favourable polling data as a way to deal with a difficult set of negotiations. Yes, it failed and failed badly. But if it weren't for the FTPA, it would just have been part of the cut and thrust of normal politics. Seeking a mandate, blah blah blah

    Any PM looking at that data would have been tempted to do the same thing - particularly when the road ahead was looking so difficult to navigate.

    Was it cynical? maybe. Was it understandable under the circumstances? yes. Did it work? Obviously not.
    The FTPA is a red herring.

    Mrs May should remember what happened to the last mandateless PM who promised no snap election then ruined their reputation when they came close to calling a snap election.

    I don’t think this has been shared on PB before but this is what one of Gordon Brown’s ministers wrote at the time.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    Scott_P said:
    So "hangers-on refuse free tickets" then.
    Can’t image that our security services would be too enamoured with a whole bunch of VIPs going to Russia anyway. They’re going to have enough trouble with keeping all the fans safe.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    F1: was a hydraulic pressure for Vandoorne's latest stoppage.

    That’s a few integration issues they’ve had now with the Renault. Hopefully just teething problems, the factory team and RB seem to be okay from a reliability standpoint.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    F1: Tatiana Calderon named as Sauber's test driver this year. She's a Colombian... not sure if we've ever had a Colombian race driver before, though. Wouldn't be surprising.

    I mentioned her as the most promising female driver around last year. Got a couple of points finishes in GP3. Probably not really good enough for an F1 test drive, but has money and there’s a marketing upside of running a woman driver.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,180
    Danny565 said:

    But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).

    As long as the Tories don't lose their heads, her replacement willl come in after Brexit has been finalised and won't have as many Remainers holding a grudge against him or her. They can also have someone younger and more dynamic seeming vs Corbyn.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,867
    Elliot said:

    As long as the Tories don't lose their heads, her replacement willl come in after Brexit has been finalised

    10 more years...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,483
    Mr. Sandpit, Verstappen just stopped 10 minutes ago :p
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,742
    Trump could help him out even though "Donald Trump has fallen 222 places on the Forbes annual Rich List"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43302864
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Cynical but effective.

    Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    Mr. Sandpit, Verstappen just stopped 10 minutes ago :p

    LOL, spoke to soon!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427
    So,

    We seem to have an attempted assassination on British soil by the Russians, and are on the eve of a trade war with the Americans.

    “I’m just going outside the EU. I may be some time.”
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,061
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Cynical but effective.

    Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
    What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,172
    Scott_P said:

    Elliot said:

    As long as the Tories don't lose their heads, her replacement willl come in after Brexit has been finalised

    10 more years...
    That is optimistic .
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,266

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Cynical but effective.

    Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
    What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
    The preparation point is valid though.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,518
    Sandpit said:
    Three 50/1s = 16/1. His re-election is about 2/1. So you're essentially taking around 5/1 that he goes during (most of) his second term, having been popular enough to be re-elected (possibly having already seen off impeachment?). It's probably fair enough, but not screaming value.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,867
    @Andrew_Adonis: I have tabled amendment to EU Withdrawal Bill to stop repeal of 2011 European Union Act, which requires referendums on EU treaty changes. Lawyers think 2011 Act may require referendum on Mrs May’s withdrawal treaty, which is why HMG trying to repeal it without anyone noticing!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Cynical but effective.

    Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
    What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
    The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the PM was in the West Country when Corbyn announced he would be there. She’d have needed a military helicopter to have made it, obviously hadn’t prepared for the debate, and as you say would have been seen as dancing to Corbyn’s tune. Those who protect her might have had something to say about it too.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,631
    edited March 6
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Cynical but effective.

    Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
    Maybe

    But his recent u-turn was ineffective. If he had got it right and delivered something of substance, then he could have changed the dynamic. But in the end, he came out with an empty soundbite that no-one could really explain or understand.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,076
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Cynical but effective.

    Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
    What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
    The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the PM was in the West Country when Corbyn announced he would be there. She’d have needed a military helicopter to have made it, obviously hadn’t prepared for the debate, and as you say would have been seen as dancing to Corbyn’s tune. Those who protect her might have had something to say about it too.
    1. If she had just agreed to attend in the first place then she wouldn't have had a problem.

    2. If her team hadn't considered Jezza deciding to attend and then what to do they deserve to be sacked.

    (2 may contain some irony)
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,631
    Scott_P said:

    @Andrew_Adonis: I have tabled amendment to EU Withdrawal Bill to stop repeal of 2011 European Union Act, which requires referendums on EU treaty changes. Lawyers think 2011 Act may require referendum on Mrs May’s withdrawal treaty, which is why HMG trying to repeal it without anyone noticing!

    The man is utterly deluded.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,813
    Scott_P said:
    And this is news in some obscure universe where Ellesmere Port hasn't had a history of immanent closure threats from GM, I suppose.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,813

    Scott_P said:

    @Andrew_Adonis: I have tabled amendment to EU Withdrawal Bill to stop repeal of 2011 European Union Act, which requires referendums on EU treaty changes. Lawyers think 2011 Act may require referendum on Mrs May’s withdrawal treaty, which is why HMG trying to repeal it without anyone noticing!

    The man is utterly deluded.
    A bit insulting to the deluded.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,266

    Scott_P said:

    @Andrew_Adonis: I have tabled amendment to EU Withdrawal Bill to stop repeal of 2011 European Union Act, which requires referendums on EU treaty changes. Lawyers think 2011 Act may require referendum on Mrs May’s withdrawal treaty, which is why HMG trying to repeal it without anyone noticing!

    The man is utterly deluded.
    Wait, isn't Parliament fully sovereign? :D
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    Sandpit said:
    Three 50/1s = 16/1. His re-election is about 2/1. So you're essentially taking around 5/1 that he goes during (most of) his second term, having been popular enough to be re-elected (possibly having already seen off impeachment?). It's probably fair enough, but not screaming value.
    I’ve played the markets on him leaving early quite well, and have a feeling that with his tax plans in effect he’ll have a good shot at re-election. There’s the risk of him resigning due to health or boredom, or getting primaried though. 16s are not massive value but probably still reasonable bets for beer money.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,293
    edited March 6

    Sandpit said:
    Three 50/1s = 16/1. His re-election is about 2/1. So you're essentially taking around 5/1 that he goes during (most of) his second term, having been popular enough to be re-elected (possibly having already seen off impeachment?). It's probably fair enough, but not screaming value.
    Given his age by then, what would be the actuarial probability, I wonder.

    EDIT: about 8% chance he's going to kark it in those three years, according to US Social Security life table.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,180

    So,

    We seem to have an attempted assassination on British soil by the Russians, and are on the eve of a trade war with the Americans.

    “I’m just going outside the EU. I may be some time.”

    Not a good time to put an anti-Western activist as PM.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,485

    Scott_P said:

    @Andrew_Adonis: I have tabled amendment to EU Withdrawal Bill to stop repeal of 2011 European Union Act, which requires referendums on EU treaty changes. Lawyers think 2011 Act may require referendum on Mrs May’s withdrawal treaty, which is why HMG trying to repeal it without anyone noticing!

    The man is utterly deluded.
    Yes it's a concern. He should realise the purpose of repealing the 2011 Act is so that our re-accession and adoption of the Euro can be done without a referendum. ;)
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,432

    Scott_P said:

    @Andrew_Adonis: I have tabled amendment to EU Withdrawal Bill to stop repeal of 2011 European Union Act, which requires referendums on EU treaty changes. Lawyers think 2011 Act may require referendum on Mrs May’s withdrawal treaty, which is why HMG trying to repeal it without anyone noticing!

    The man is utterly deluded.
    I've said before he reminds me of James Chapman - remember him?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,485
    Elliot said:

    So,

    We seem to have an attempted assassination on British soil by the Russians, and are on the eve of a trade war with the Americans.

    “I’m just going outside the EU. I may be some time.”

    Not a good time to put an anti-Western activist as PM.
    For the time being his position is safe. Our best hope is that Theresa May can hold it all together and make all the negative forces cancel each other out.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,880
    Even worse, a pound shop Alex Salmond.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,441

    So,

    We seem to have an attempted assassination on British soil by the Russians, and are on the eve of a trade war with the Americans.

    “I’m just going outside the EU. I may be some time.”

    Scott forced him to leave - made it quite clear he would be put to sleep if he stayed
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,293
    edited March 6

    Elliot said:

    So,

    We seem to have an attempted assassination on British soil by the Russians, and are on the eve of a trade war with the Americans.

    “I’m just going outside the EU. I may be some time.”

    Not a good time to put an anti-Western activist as PM.
    For the time being his position is safe. Our best hope is that Theresa May can hold it all together and make all the negative forces cancel each other out.
    Like Dennis Hopper and the Russian Dynamite Death Chair Act. Which is a thing which actually happened, to my ongoing surprise.

    Description (video broken): https://dangerousminds.net/comments/dennis_hopper_and_his
    Video: http://video.houstonchronicle.com/Dennis-Hopper-performs-the-Russian-Dynamite-Death-Chair-Act-30871511
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,880
    Charles said:

    So,

    We seem to have an attempted assassination on British soil by the Russians, and are on the eve of a trade war with the Americans.

    “I’m just going outside the EU. I may be some time.”

    Scott forced him to leave - made it quite clear he would be put to sleep if he stayed
    I am sure @Scott_P wouldn't do such a thing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,266
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/joncstone/status/971057173445906432

    Would be more sensational if that list of MEPs contained some leavers.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,266
    Yorkcity said:
    I would question the statement that they are identical. The Tory proposal is that developers lose planning permission, Labour were talking about having the land seized.
  • eekeek Posts: 1,963
    edited March 6
    philiph said:

    Scott_P said:
    And this is news in some obscure universe where Ellesmere Port hasn't had a history of immanent closure threats from GM, I suppose.
    and where Vauxhall sales haven't nose dived over the past few years as people spend their £200 a month on a BMW / Audi lease instead

    Edit to add I fully expect the plant to be closed with Brexit blamed as Peugeot will close the easiest plant to close...
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 132
    The latest ICM poll for The Guardian suggests, in addition, that Corbyn's pledge on the Customs Union has been a tactical error.

    That wont go down well with the legion of LD remainers on this site.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,061
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Cynical but effective.

    Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
    What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
    The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the PM was in the West Country when Corbyn announced he would be there. She’d have needed a military helicopter to have made it, obviously hadn’t prepared for the debate, and as you say would have been seen as dancing to Corbyn’s tune. Those who protect her might have had something to say about it too.
    Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,544
    Corbyn is hekped by the fact we have a parliamentary and not presidential system.

    For example if we had a presidential system Callaghan may have beaten Thatcher in 1979
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694
    Its rather weird to see your old local pub and a restaurant you’ve been in dozens of times in the news, having been closed by a Russian assassination attempt. Both would have been pretty busy on a Sunday afternoon, so the lack of any other members of the public being in hospital is a good sign.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Danny565 said:



    Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.

    Yes - there's no way of knowing really.
    A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.

    At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).

    And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
    Cynical but effective.

    Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
    What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
    The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the PM was in the West Country when Corbyn announced he would be there. She’d have needed a military helicopter to have made it, obviously hadn’t prepared for the debate, and as you say would have been seen as dancing to Corbyn’s tune. Those who protect her might have had something to say about it too.
    Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
    Agreed, she was completely outmanoeuvred. Rudd was OK, but the biggest talking point of the night was that the PM wasn’t there.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,293
    edited March 6
    Peter Kellner on the Irish Border question. Admirably clear, and with data on the oft-cited Norway-Sweden and US-Canada borders (both of which are a long way from being frictionless).
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/irish-hard-border-soft-brexit-technology-theresa-may-a8242461.html

    "But what is clear is that the “Smart Border 2.0” proposals do involve physical infrastructure and border guards."
This discussion has been closed.