politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opposition leaders who like Corbyn lose their first General El

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opposition leaders who like Corbyn lose their first General Election hardly ever make it to Prime Minister

One of the relatively unusual features of last year’s general election was that the losing main party leader did not quit or was forced out of his job in the aftermath of defeat.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

First - Sleazy broken Corbyn on the slide

TheScreamingEagles

So like Ted Heath Corbyn will take us into the EC/EU?

Pulpstar

These thread headers are always so ... aspiring to be Ted Heath... Brutal.

williamglenn

Perhaps there are a lot of similarities between 2017 and 1987. Labour started out very pessimistic and thought they were fighting for survival and ended up euphoric about 'winning' the campaign and coming a solid second.

Corbyn = Kinnock: He's alright.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

These thread headers are always so ... aspiring to be Ted Heath... Brutal.

Ted Heath was awesome.

Took the UK into the EC

Took Middlesbrough out of Yorkshire

Helped destroy the grammar school system in the UK thanks to his brilliant Education Secretary who continued the good work when she became PM.

alex.

"Modern times"

HYUFD

Corbyn is more likely to be Kinnock than Heath in my view but we will see.

Howard arguably had a case to stay on as Tory leader in 2005 given the 33 seats he gained were even more than the 30 seats Corbyn gained in 2005 and the 20 Kinnock gained in 1987. Howard would also have had a reasonable chance of beating Brown in 2010 too but he made a great act of self sacrifice in handing over to Cameron who he though was more electable despite his relative inexperience at the time.

Pulpstar

I thought Pam Anderson was with Gene Simmonds.

kle4

But it's possible!

ydoethur

I take it that 'modern times' started in 1955 then? As both the PM and LOTO in 1951 had lost their first elections as leader (indeed Churchill lost the first two).

kle4

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It was Italy that sabotaged Junckers and Tusk's press conference tonight confirming all is not at all well in the EU and for Merkel especially

https://twitter.com/albertonardelli/status/1012393989297885184?s=21

Arrogant like a leader suddenly caring about migration again, and seeking a solution, because of domestic troubles?

JackW

Not quite accurate Mike ....

Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

I take it that 'modern times' started in 1955 then? As both the PM and LOTO in 1951 had lost their first elections as leader (indeed Churchill lost the first two).

Modern times = Since the Tories started electing their leaders rather than magic circle picking them.

kle4

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

I take it that 'modern times' started in 1955 then? As both the PM and LOTO in 1951 had lost their first elections as leader (indeed Churchill lost the first two).

Modern times = Since the Tories started electing their leaders rather than magic circle picking them.

So that would be 1965. That would also conveniently eliminate the awkward question of whether Gaitskell should be on that list or not.

MikeSmithson

JackW said:

Not quite accurate Mike ....

Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.

Churchill was NOT opposition leader in 1945

Foxy

On importatnt elections:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1012333096757284866?s=19

Syston Ridgeway is near me. A fairly middle class northern suburb of Leicester, including a rather nice country park and small dinghy club. There is a reasonable Gujerati Hindu population that hasmoved out of town, up the Melton rd. Quite a lot of new housing planned for the area, but a fairly safe Tory hold IMO.

JackW

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

I take it that 'modern times' started in 1955 then? As both the PM and LOTO in 1951 had lost their first elections as leader (indeed Churchill lost the first two).

Modern times = Since the Tories started electing their leaders rather than magic circle picking them.

Personally I consider "modern times" to be post 1688 .... and so much the worse for it !!

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/Adamstoon1/status/1012434251357224962

another_richard

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

These thread headers are always so ... aspiring to be Ted Heath... Brutal.

Ted Heath was awesome.

Took the UK into the EC

Took Middlesbrough out of Yorkshire

Helped destroy the grammar school system in the UK thanks to his brilliant Education Secretary who continued the good work when she became PM.

It was Wilson and Crosland and Williams who put in train most of the closure of the majority of grammar schools, Heath did not block it but it was not he who pushed it and he was very loyal to his old grammar school himself which played a key role in getting him to No 10. Thatcher also slowed the rate of closure of grammars as PM and there are now more pupils in grammars than there were in 1979.

ydoethur

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

ydoethur

MikeSmithson said:

JackW said:

Not quite accurate Mike ....

Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.

Churchill was NOT opposition leader in 1945

Interesting question as to whether Attlee was, of course, given Parliament was prorogued as soon as he withdrew from the coalition.

MaxPB

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It was Italy that sabotaged Junckers and Tusk's press conference tonight confirming all is not at all well in the EU and for Merkel especially

https://twitter.com/albertonardelli/status/1012393989297885184?s=21

Arrogant like a leader suddenly caring about migration again, and seeking a solution, because of domestic troubles?

They really don't like someone having their own mind in Brussels. Dave should have worked a lot harder to be a thorn in their side from 2010 to 2015 and destroy their anti-democracy consensus.

tlg86

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

alex.

MikeSmithson said:

JackW said:

Not quite accurate Mike ....

Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.

Churchill was NOT opposition leader in 1945

But he was a first time election loser main party leader!

Foxy

MikeSmithson said:

JackW said:

Not quite accurate Mike ....

Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.

Churchill was NOT opposition leader in 1945

But he did lose and stayed on. Attlee lost as Opposition leader in 1935 too, albeit while gaining 102 seats, winning a landslide in '45.

I don't think either Jezza or Tezza will fight the GE in 2022, but may well do if there is a GE sooner.

tlg86

Sweden - 80/1 for the World Cup. Might be worth a few quid give they've seen off Holland, Italy and Germany.

Toms

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Adamstoon1/status/1012434251357224962

The analogy I like is the childrens game of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin_the_tail_on_the_donkey

Cookie

Right, pb: According to the evidence Ican find (which is surprisingly scant) the difference between England'srecord on BBC and on ITV is astounding: prior to this WC, and since 1982, the win rate on BBC was 64% and on ITV 21%. (https://www.onthebox.com/features/can-england-break-the-curse-of-itv-this-world-cup/) Seemingly the last WC win ITV televised was against Trinidad and Tobago in 2006. This is getting in to the realm of serious statistical significance. ITV are seemingly a similar curse in the Euros. Is this just an urban myth, or is this true? Proper verifiable data seems surprisingly hard to come by. Is there any nice rational explanation. (I think ITV have the Colombia game, so we may as well give up now).

kle4

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

It doesn't always work, obviously. But I would guess the longer one party is in power the greater the chance the public might be willing to have 'time for a change, any change' outweigh the 'don't take the risk with option x' factor. 12 years is a long time to be in charge, and there will be negative economic impacts before the next election, and Corbyn came surprisingly close this time.

I don't say it will happen because 'time for a change' always wins out. But I think it is a point in his favour, particularly if we start suffering more, since more will be willing to take the chance, or more Tories will stay home. Corbyn won't necessarily be as scary to some as he was last time as well. (or inspiring, necessarily).

JackW

MikeSmithson said:

JackW said:

Not quite accurate Mike ....

Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.

Churchill was NOT opposition leader in 1945

I refer the Right Honourable OGH to an element of unintended variation of the actuality in his otherwise excellent thread encyclical ....

HYUFD

Corbyn confirms he opposes 'a peoples' vote' on Good Evening Britain but that he wants Parliament to have the final say, he also confirms he wants to leave the single market though trade with it and leave 'a' customs union but stay in 'a' customs union.

Says it should be remembered a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

ydoethur

alex. said:

MikeSmithson said:

JackW said:

Not quite accurate Mike ....

Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.

Churchill was NOT opposition leader in 1945

But he was a first time election loser main party leader!

And he was the LOTO in 1950, of course.

However, as an ex-Prime Minister, even aged 75 and suffering the after-effects of a stroke, he still had a huge advantage.

Ridiculous trivia question - since 1830, how many Conservative leaders who are ex-PMs have been unseated in opposition when they actually tried to fight their demotion? The answer is surprising.

another_richard

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

The rest of the UK.

I think there's a more detailed spreadsheet which gives migration from every local council to every other local council but I've not had the opportunity to look at that yet.

kle4

HYUFD said:

Corbyn confirms he opposes 'a peoples' vote' on Good Evening Britain but that he wants Parliament to have the final say, he also confirms he wants to leave the single market though trade with it and leave 'a' customs union but stay in 'a' customs union.

Says it should be remembered a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

He's trying to tread a fine line, and banking on, correctly, that die hard remainers who didn't go with the LDs will stick with him.

Scott_P

Cookie said:

Right, pb: According to the evidence Ican find (which is surprisingly scant) the difference between England'srecord on BBC and on ITV is astounding: prior to this WC, and since 1982, the win rate on BBC was 64% and on ITV 21%. (https://www.onthebox.com/features/can-england-break-the-curse-of-itv-this-world-cup/) Seemingly the last WC win ITV televised was against Trinidad and Tobago in 2006. This is getting in to the realm of serious statistical significance. ITV are seemingly a similar curse in the Euros. Is this just an urban myth, or is this true? Proper verifiable data seems surprisingly hard to come by. Is there any nice rational explanation. (I think ITV have the Colombia game, so we may as well give up now).

https://twitter.com/RichTReynolds/status/1012425644632834048

Pulpstar

HYUFD said:

Corbyn confirms he opposes 'a peoples' vote' on Good Evening Britain but that he wants Parliament to have the final say, he also confirms he wants to leave the single market though trade with it and leave 'a' customs union but stay in 'a' customs union.

Says it should be remembered a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

His Brexit position sounded fair enough to me just then.

MikeSmithson

alex. said:

MikeSmithson said:

JackW said:

Not quite accurate Mike ....

Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.

Churchill was NOT opposition leader in 1945

But he was a first time election loser main party leader!

The heading says -

Opposition leaders who like Corbyn lose their first General Election hardly ever make it to Prime Minister

Jonathan

Wondering what are the odds on a Belgium England final.

Foxy

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

ydoethur

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

It doesn't always work, obviously. But I would guess the longer one party is in power the greater the chance the public might be willing to have 'time for a change, any change' outweigh the 'don't take the risk with option x' factor. 12 years is a long time to be in charge, and there will be negative economic impacts before the next election, and Corbyn came surprisingly close this time.

I don't say it will happen because 'time for a change' always wins out. But I think it is a point in his favour, particularly if we start suffering more, since more will be willing to take the chance, or more Tories will stay home. Corbyn won't necessarily be as scary to some as he was last time as well. (or inspiring, necessarily).

With a sane Labour Party, I'd agree. In fact I'd probably vote for them.

That doesn't apply in this case. Corbyn perfectly exploited a perfect storm, still lost badly, and has gone backwards since. The only reason More has not been made of his shocking party management, innumerable u-turns and inveterate fudging is because the government while less disastrously inept has actual immediate impact on people's lives.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1012437894399655936

HYUFD

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

If charisma always wins then that means maybe only Boris can stop Corbyn

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn confirms he opposes 'a peoples' vote' on Good Evening Britain but that he wants Parliament to have the final say, he also confirms he wants to leave the single market though trade with it and leave 'a' customs union but stay in 'a' customs union.

Says it should be remembered a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

He's trying to tread a fine line, and banking on, correctly, that die hard remainers who didn't go with the LDs will stick with him.

Or if they do it will be in safe Labour seats not marginals so will not lose Labour any seats

Pulpstar

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

The rest of the UK.

I think there's a more detailed spreadsheet which gives migration from every local council to every other local council but I've not had the opportunity to look at that yet.

Hillingdon, Bromley, Bexley, perhaps Sutton. Is it Sutton ?
Definitely outer London I reckon.

Foxy

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

The rest of the UK.

I think there's a more detailed spreadsheet which gives migration from every local council to every other local council but I've not had the opportunity to look at that yet.

I would guess somewhere studenty hipsterish.

kle4

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

It doesn't always work, obviously. But I would guess the longer one party is in power the greater the chance the public might be willing to have 'time for a change, any change' outweigh the 'don't take the risk with option x' factor. 12 years is a long time to be in charge, and there will be negative economic impacts before the next election, and Corbyn came surprisingly close this time.

I don't say it will happen because 'time for a change' always wins out. But I think it is a point in his favour, particularly if we start suffering more, since more will be willing to take the chance, or more Tories will stay home. Corbyn won't necessarily be as scary to some as he was last time as well. (or inspiring, necessarily).

With a sane Labour Party, I'd agree. In fact I'd probably vote for them.

That doesn't apply in this case. Corbyn perfectly exploited a perfect storm, still lost badly, and has gone backwards since. The only reason More has not been made of his shocking party management, innumerable u-turns and inveterate fudging is because the government while less disastrously inept has actual immediate impact on people's lives.

And because come a campaign a lot of people will instantly forget his flaws again and back him - maybe not enough to win, and I don't think enough to win big in the absence of a Tory split, but I think you overestimate how much people will judge a Corbyn led Labour party in, say, 2022, as not being sane, no matter what they say or do. Just a gut feel.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn confirms he opposes 'a peoples' vote' on Good Evening Britain but that he wants Parliament to have the final say, he also confirms he wants to leave the single market though trade with it and leave 'a' customs union but stay in 'a' customs union.

Says it should be remembered a significant minority of Labour voters voted Leave

His Brexit position sounded fair enough to me just then.

He is trying to respect the Brexit vote, keep Labour together and win the next general election

HYUFD

Danny Dyer on ITV says 'no one understands Brexit, what happened to that twat David Cameron who left us with it, where is the geezer?'

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

If charisma always wins then that means maybe only Boris can stop Corbyn

Perhaps. First he needs to get the gig. Chukka on the other side perhaps too.

another_richard

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

Was Wilson more charismatic than Heath ?

Heath must have been pretty charismatic in 1970 as that was after his great yachting triumph in Australia.

Macmillan, Eden and Churchill continue the run to 1951.

But Atlee was seriously lacking.

tlg86

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

The rest of the UK.

I think there's a more detailed spreadsheet which gives migration from every local council to every other local council but I've not had the opportunity to look at that yet.

I'll go for Bromley.

Cookie

Scott_P said:

Cookie said:

Right, pb: According to the evidence Ican find (which is surprisingly scant) the difference between England'srecord on BBC and on ITV is astounding: prior to this WC, and since 1982, the win rate on BBC was 64% and on ITV 21%. (https://www.onthebox.com/features/can-england-break-the-curse-of-itv-this-world-cup/) Seemingly the last WC win ITV televised was against Trinidad and Tobago in 2006. This is getting in to the realm of serious statistical significance. ITV are seemingly a similar curse in the Euros. Is this just an urban myth, or is this true? Proper verifiable data seems surprisingly hard to come by. Is there any nice rational explanation. (I think ITV have the Colombia game, so we may as well give up now).

https://twitter.com/RichTReynolds/status/1012425644632834048

Great work Scott - thanks.

MarkHopkins

I'm not sure that 'time for a change' works for Corbyn, since he's been leader longer than May.

You need a fresh face for that.

kle4

HYUFD said:

Danny Dyer on ITV says 'no one understands Brexit, what happened to that twat David Cameron who left us with it, where is the geezer?'

He jumped before he was pushed, Danny, pay attention. And it was we the people who left us with it, for better and worse, unless we believe the public are children now.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

If charisma always wins then that means maybe only Boris can stop Corbyn

Perhaps. First he needs to get the gig. Chukka on the other side perhaps too.

I could see Boris winning in 2022 against Corbyn, then Chuka beating Boris in 2027 yes.

HYUFD

another_richard said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

Was Wilson more charismatic than Heath ?

Heath must have been pretty charismatic in 1970 as that was after his great yachting triumph in Australia.

Macmillan, Eden and Churchill continue the run to 1951.

But Atlee was seriously lacking.

Attlee was largely before mass TV and played 5, lost 3, won 2.

Wilson beat Heath 3 times out of 4

SquareRoot

JCWNBPM

kle4

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

If charisma always wins then that means maybe only Boris can stop Corbyn

Perhaps. First he needs to get the gig. Chukka on the other side perhaps too.

I confess I haven't seen much of him in quite some time. I recall him being engaging, though like a lot of newer MPs in particular overly pissy when questioned by journalists (in particular adopting the feigned outrage at being attacked approach to hostile questioning, before any hostile questioning even begins), so I find it hard to judge if he has that genuine quality.

Boris has charisma, no doubt about it, but his powers are waning.

Foxy

another_richard said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

Was Wilson more charismatic than Heath ?

Heath must have been pretty charismatic in 1970 as that was after his great yachting triumph in Australia.

Macmillan, Eden and Churchill continue the run to 1951.

But Atlee was seriously lacking.

Charisma was perhaps less significant pre TV.

I would say Wilson had more charisma than the famously intelligent, but stuffy Ted Heath. Over 5 elections Wilson won 4:1.

It is an interesting Twitter Thread that got me thinking. Like him or loathe him, but Corbyn has charisma, and May does not.

another_richard

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

The rest of the UK.

I think there's a more detailed spreadsheet which gives migration from every local council to every other local council but I've not had the opportunity to look at that yet.

I'll go for Bromley.

Nearly but not quiet.

Bromley is -335.

DecrepitJohnL

Jonathan said:

Wondering what are the odds on a Belgium England final.

Best price 25/1 with SunBets.

williamglenn

HYUFD said:

Danny Dyer on ITV says 'no one understands Brexit, what happened to that twat David Cameron who left us with it, where is the geezer?'

LOL! Brexit is dead in the water.

Benpointer

Jonathan said:

Wondering what are the odds on a Belgium England final.

Whatever they are, they're too short.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny Dyer on ITV says 'no one understands Brexit, what happened to that twat David Cameron who left us with it, where is the geezer?'

He jumped before he was pushed, Danny, pay attention. And it was we the people who left us with it, for better and worse, unless we believe the public are children now.

I am sure Danny D voted Leave certainly

Pulpstar

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

The rest of the UK.

I think there's a more detailed spreadsheet which gives migration from every local council to every other local council but I've not had the opportunity to look at that yet.

I'll go for Bromley.

It's Havering.
Bromley, Bexley and Sutton are all negative to a few hundred not thousands.

kle4

MarkHopkins said:

I'm not sure that 'time for a change' works for Corbyn, since he's been leader longer than May.

You need a fresh face for that.

I don't follow. The question people ask themselves is if it is time to change government, not 'oh gods, X has been LoTO too long'. It's possible not being fresh could hit him next time, particularly if up against a different, and better, Tory campaigner, but merely having been leader longer doesn't seem very relevant.

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Danny Dyer on ITV says 'no one understands Brexit, what happened to that twat David Cameron who left us with it, where is the geezer?'

LOL! Brexit is dead in the water.

Or most people are bored to tears with the negotiation process

Pulpstar

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny Dyer on ITV says 'no one understands Brexit, what happened to that twat David Cameron who left us with it, where is the geezer?'

He jumped before he was pushed, Danny, pay attention. And it was we the people who left us with it, for better and worse, unless we believe the public are children now.

I am sure Danny D voted Leave certainly

He probably didn't vote.

kle4

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Danny Dyer on ITV says 'no one understands Brexit, what happened to that twat David Cameron who left us with it, where is the geezer?'

LOL! Brexit is dead in the water.

Not dead, but there's a lot of energy wasting flapping which could still see us reach safety, or may mean we have to hope a life raft comes out to rescue us.

tlg86

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

The rest of the UK.

I think there's a more detailed spreadsheet which gives migration from every local council to every other local council but I've not had the opportunity to look at that yet.

I'll go for Bromley.

It's Havering.
Bromley, Bexley and Sutton are all negative to a few hundred not thousands.

Ha! The borough that's talked about leaving London.

Benpointer

kle4 said:

MarkHopkins said:

I'm not sure that 'time for a change' works for Corbyn, since he's been leader longer than May.

You need a fresh face for that.

I don't follow. The question people ask themselves is if it is time to change government, not 'oh gods, X has been LoTO too long'. It's possible not being fresh could hit him next time, particularly if up against a different, and better, Tory campaigner, but merely having been leader longer doesn't seem very relevant.

Exactly!

Foxy

DecrepitJohnL said:

Jonathan said:

Wondering what are the odds on a Belgium England final.

Best price 25/1 with SunBets.

Sounds about right. 538 gives an 18% chance of England in the Final, and 17% for Belgium.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-world-cup-predictions/

It also gives a 60% chance of us beating Columbia.

DecrepitJohnL

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

If charisma always wins, how come Hillary got 3 million more votes than the Donald? Charisma might explain why Trump beat the other Republicans to the nomination but that is all.

TheScreamingEagles

I've found the picture I'm going to use in all future Corbyn related threads.

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

If charisma always wins, how come Hillary got 3 million more votes than the Donald? Charisma might explain why Trump beat the other Republicans to the nomination but that is all.

Charisma doesn't always Trump sanity?

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1012439971188310017

another_richard

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

The rest of the UK.

I think there's a more detailed spreadsheet which gives migration from every local council to every other local council but I've not had the opportunity to look at that yet.

I'll go for Bromley.

It's Havering.
Bromley, Bexley and Sutton are all negative to a few hundred not thousands.

Perhaps the most interesting thing was how much of the Home Counties commuter belt has negative internal migration:

Bracknell
Slough
Windsor
Chiltern
S Bucks
Wycombe
Brentwood
Broxbourne
Dacorum
Hertsmere
Three Rivers
Watford
Embridge
Epsom
Guildford
Mole Valley
Runnymede
Spelthorne
Surrey Heath
Woking

plus most of the SE new towns.

kle4

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

If charisma always wins, how come Hillary got 3 million more votes than the Donald? Charisma might explain why Trump beat the other Republicans to the nomination but that is all.

I doubt it is the only factor, but I don't think it was not a reason either - without his charisma would he have even gotten as close as 3 million, and would he have won his votes in the right places, which again it wasn't thought by most that he would? Indeed, his charisma and style may have won him those votes in the right places and contributed to him actually losing the popular vote by more because what worked in the right places for him to win encouraged loads more to vote against him in places that didn't matter. But I'm just spitballing.

If he charisma wasn't a factor in his winning, then it was a coincidence.

tlg86

Cookie said:

Scott_P said:

Cookie said:

Right, pb: According to the evidence Ican find (which is surprisingly scant) the difference between England'srecord on BBC and on ITV is astounding: prior to this WC, and since 1982, the win rate on BBC was 64% and on ITV 21%. (https://www.onthebox.com/features/can-england-break-the-curse-of-itv-this-world-cup/) Seemingly the last WC win ITV televised was against Trinidad and Tobago in 2006. This is getting in to the realm of serious statistical significance. ITV are seemingly a similar curse in the Euros. Is this just an urban myth, or is this true? Proper verifiable data seems surprisingly hard to come by. Is there any nice rational explanation. (I think ITV have the Colombia game, so we may as well give up now).

https://twitter.com/RichTReynolds/status/1012425644632834048

Great work Scott - thanks.

From a reputable source on Digital Spy:

The knockout stage matches in 2002 were shown on both ITV/BBC, the last time this was done for an England match (it would have happened in 2006/2010 if England had got to the semi-finals.)

The Portugal game in 2006 was also on the BBC rather than ITV.

Foxy

DecrepitJohnL said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.

'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.

This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?

Jezza 2017
Dave 2015
Dave 2010
Tony 2005, 2001, 1997
Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil)
Maggie etc

twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012178962649247745?s=19

If charisma always wins, how come Hillary got 3 million more votes than the Donald? Charisma might explain why Trump beat the other Republicans to the nomination but that is all.

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012181583770484736?s=19

and

https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1012182010587066369?s=19

But Bernie is too old by 2020,so 4 more years of Trump tantrums unless the Dems can find someone younger with that stardust.

MaxPB

I just don't want it on ITV because the presenter is rubbish and the pundits are bad (except Wright). The BBC have definitely got the choice pundits this year.

tlg86

MaxPB said:

I just don't want it on ITV because the presenter is rubbish and the pundits are bad (except Wright). The BBC have definitely got the choice pundits this year.

You'll be one of those numpties demanding the BBC rip up their agreement with ITV should England get to the semi final.

HYUFD

another_richard said:

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

another_richard said:

Internal migration within England and Wales:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/internalmigrationlaandregionmovesandbysexandsingleyearofagetotals

Can anyone guess the only London borough to have positive internal migration ?

From the rest of the UK or from the rest of London?

The rest of the UK.

I think there's a more detailed spreadsheet which gives migration from every local council to every other local council but I've not had the opportunity to look at that yet.

I'll go for Bromley.

It's Havering.
Bromley, Bexley and Sutton are all negative to a few hundred not thousands.

Perhaps the most interesting thing was how much of the Home Counties commuter belt has negative internal migration:

Bracknell
Slough
Windsor
Chiltern
S Bucks
Wycombe
Brentwood
Broxbourne
Dacorum
Hertsmere
Three Rivers
Watford
Embridge
Epsom
Guildford
Mole Valley
Runnymede
Spelthorne
Surrey Heath
Woking

plus most of the SE new towns.

If you live in the most expensive Home Counties areas and are not a London commuter then obviously you have to move further afield to buy a property in many cases.

Roger

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1012439971188310017

The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.

MarqueeMark

tlg86 said:

MaxPB said:

I just don't want it on ITV because the presenter is rubbish and the pundits are bad (except Wright). The BBC have definitely got the choice pundits this year.

You'll be one of those numpties demanding the BBC rip up their agreement with ITV should England get to the semi final.

Perhaps ITV can bring in Adrian Chiles to ask why it all went so horribly wrong again SPan in the semi-final.....

ITV should stand down, in the national interest. This is important, people. We always lose when ITV have the commentary.* If 100,000 can march for a second referendum, surely we can get a million out for this?

*This may not be supported by evidence, but it feels right.

Jonathan

MarqueeMark said:

tlg86 said:

MaxPB said:

I just don't want it on ITV because the presenter is rubbish and the pundits are bad (except Wright). The BBC have definitely got the choice pundits this year.

You'll be one of those numpties demanding the BBC rip up their agreement with ITV should England get to the semi final.

Perhaps ITV can bring in Adrian Chiles to ask why it all went so horribly wrong again SPan in the semi-final.....

ITV should stand down, in the national interest. This is important, people. We always lose when ITV have the commentary.* If 100,000 can march for a second referendum, surely we can get a million out for this?

*This may not be supported by evidence, but it feels right.

You'll want Corbyn in no10 too.

HYUFD

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1012439971188310017

The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.

Post Brexit UK will be the EU's largest export destination, even larger than the USA which is second largest and where Trump is putting heavy tariffs on EU imports.

It is not as if the EU has no benefit at all from a trade deal with the UK even if one would probably benefit us more relatively speaking it is in both our interests to get one

williamglenn

When Brexit becomes toxic to the extent that moments like that resonate in pop culture there is no way back for it.

Jonathan

Foxy said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Jonathan said:

Wondering what are the odds on a Belgium England final.

Best price 25/1 with SunBets.

Sounds about right. 538 gives an 18% chance of England in the Final, and 17% for Belgium.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-world-cup-predictions/

It also gives a 60% chance of us beating Columbia.

18% and 17% seem high despite it being a technical 12.5% chance.

Pulpstar

williamglenn said:

When Brexit becomes toxic to the extent that moments like that resonate in pop culture there is no way back for it.

William, it's Danny Dyer. He plays himself in Eastenders for god's sake.

ralphmalph

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1012439971188310017

The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.

Your direction is off, you meant R not L.

Foxy

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Jonathan said:

Wondering what are the odds on a Belgium England final.

Best price 25/1 with SunBets.

Sounds about right. 538 gives an 18% chance of England in the Final, and 17% for Belgium.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-world-cup-predictions/

It also gives a 60% chance of us beating Columbia.

18% and 17% seem high despite it being a technical 12.5% chance.

Argue with Nate! I suppose that no one seriously expects Russia, Japan, Columbia etc to go all the way, raising the chance of us making it.

Spain vs Brazil final seems most likely, but I think plenty of drama yet.

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1012439971188310017

The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.

Post Brexit UK will be the EU's largest export destination, even larger than the USA which is second largest and where Trump is putting heavy tariffs on EU imports.

It is not as if the EU has no benefit at all from a trade deal with the UK even if one would probably benefit us more relatively speaking it is in both our interests to get one

It is in both our economic interests.

Unfortunately the EU and their negotiating team have persistently put their federalist instincts ahead of economic reality.

That said, if we had put economics above politics we wouldn't be leaving anyway, so we're in no position to criticise.

williamglenn

Pulpstar said:

williamglenn said:

When Brexit becomes toxic to the extent that moments like that resonate in pop culture there is no way back for it.

William, it's Danny Dyer. He plays himself in Eastenders for god's sake.

I looked him up. He said Ed Miliband was weird in 2014. Clearly a political oracle...

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

williamglenn said:

When Brexit becomes toxic to the extent that moments like that resonate in pop culture there is no way back for it.

William, it's Danny Dyer. He plays himself in Eastenders for god's sake.

I looked him up. He said Ed Miliband was weird in 2014. Clearly a political oracle...

And a direct descendant of Edward IIIrd, his 'cockney geezer' act is exactly that

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2186014/danny-dyers-royally-shocking-links-to-william-the-conqueror-and-edward-iii-prove-youre-probably-related-to-a-king-too/

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1012439971188310017

The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.

Post Brexit UK will be the EU's largest export destination, even larger than the USA which is second largest and where Trump is putting heavy tariffs on EU imports.

It is not as if the EU has no benefit at all from a trade deal with the UK even if one would probably benefit us more relatively speaking it is in both our interests to get one

It is in both our economic interests.

Unfortunately the EU and their negotiating team have persistently put their federalist instincts ahead of economic reality.

That said, if we had put economics above politics we wouldn't be leaving anyway, so we're in no position to criticise.

Still, no reason we cannot at least do a basic FTA as Canada has

williamglenn

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1012439971188310017

The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.

Post Brexit UK will be the EU's largest export destination, even larger than the USA which is second largest and where Trump is putting heavy tariffs on EU imports.

It is not as if the EU has no benefit at all from a trade deal with the UK even if one would probably benefit us more relatively speaking it is in both our interests to get one

It is in both our economic interests.

Unfortunately the EU and their negotiating team have persistently put their federalist instincts ahead of economic reality.

That said, if we had put economics above politics we wouldn't be leaving anyway, so we're in no position to criticise.

Still, no reason we cannot at least do a basic FTA as Canada has

A basic FTA like Canada means customs infrastructure and the EU Withdrawal Act rules that out in Ireland, so it implies a customs border in the Irish sea.

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1012439971188310017

The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.

Post Brexit UK will be the EU's largest export destination, even larger than the USA which is second largest and where Trump is putting heavy tariffs on EU imports.

It is not as if the EU has no benefit at all from a trade deal with the UK even if one would probably benefit us more relatively speaking it is in both our interests to get one

It is in both our economic interests.

Unfortunately the EU and their negotiating team have persistently put their federalist instincts ahead of economic reality.

That said, if we had put economics above politics we wouldn't be leaving anyway, so we're in no position to criticise.

Still, no reason we cannot at least do a basic FTA as Canada has

A basic FTA like Canada means customs infrastructure and the EU Withdrawal Act rules that out in Ireland, so it implies a customs border in the Irish sea.

No it also rules out a customs border in the Irish sea.

If the EU isn't willing to honour that then the deal is nul and void. Nothing agreed until everything agreed. Time to build customs posts in Ireland.