Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » History suggests one of Philip Hammond, Jeremy Hunt, and Sajid

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited August 5 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » History suggests one of Philip Hammond, Jeremy Hunt, and Sajid Javid will be Theresa May’s successor if she goes before the next election

if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["6kdpx"]={},window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].embedDeltas={"100":715.011364,"200":588.011364,"300":562.011364,"400":537.011364,"500":537.011364,"700":511.011364,"800":511.011364,"900":511.011364,"1000":511.011364},window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-6kdpx"),window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("6kdpx"==b)window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • If you're going to back Hammond you might as well go the whole hog and put money on Anna Soubry.

    Whoever the next Tory leader is, they aren't going to choose a terminally divisive figure like that. Save in the event that they've already split, of course.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,396
    edited August 5
    Boris was Foreign Secretary and holder of a Great Office of State until last month.

    History shows in 1990 Heseltine, a former not current Cabinet Minister, would have become Tory leader and PM if Major had not also beaten Kinnock in the polls.

    Currently only a Boris led Tory Party does not trail Corbyn Labour in the latest Yougov polling on the subject, all other alternative Tory leaders polled would see the Tories trail Corbyn Labour
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,396
    edited August 5

    If you're going to back Hammond you might as well go the whole hog and put money on Anna Soubry.

    Whoever the next Tory leader is, they aren't going to choose a terminally divisive figure like that. Save in the event that they've already split, of course.

    Hammond would likely see a Corbyn landslide due to large numbers of Tory voters defecting to UKIP. There is also no way Hammond wins the Tory membership vote
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 23,428
    HYUFD said:

    History shows in 1990 Heseltine, a former not current Cabinet Minister, would have become Tory leader and PM if Major had not also beaten Kinnock in the polls.

    History doesn't show any such thing. That's your own bizarre hypothetical to fit into your obsession with polls.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,624
    HYUFD said:

    If you're going to back Hammond you might as well go the whole hog and put money on Anna Soubry.

    Whoever the next Tory leader is, they aren't going to choose a terminally divisive figure like that. Save in the event that they've already split, of course.

    Hammond would likely see a Corbyn landslide due to large numbers of Tory voters defecting to UKIP. There is also no way Hammond wins the Tory membership vote
    You may be right. Who knows? But Hammond is the only Tory leader who would get my vote. Gove might do if he came out in favour of remaining. I don't think that is likely, but he has the right character to become an apostate.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,093
    edited August 5
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:



    Even without Umunna and allies and the SNP she could likely get it through with the LDs and DUP

    Essentially the vote will be a choice between voting with May for a transition deal or voting with Mogg and Boris for No Deal

    Plenty of people no deal means either no brexit, somehow, or we will rejoin all the sooner, I cannot see the LDs voting for any deal. And given how unpopular the action is I don't see how more Tories don't break ranks on it. Fox is underestimating no deal chances.
    I don't know if it is the key factor - I think that is the significant though not majority faction who favour no deal - but I think it is an important one. People are going all or nothing, but it seems a riskier game to me for the continuity remainers than the no deal leavers - the former have to hope in the chaos a series of steps occur which help prevent Brexit at all, which is fraught with issues hard to control, while the latter just have to hope they can obstruct things long enough that they win by default, and collectively prevent remain becoming an option.

    Either could be right, there is that possibility, but I think the no deal leavers have the simpler path to their goal, and failure for them is more likely to be that a deal is reached rather than remain. Failure for the continuity remainers is more likely to be no deal than we leave with a BINO deal.
    I agree it's probably more risky for remainers tha hard leavers. But I think the likelihood is that there WILL be panic in the months leading up to no deal Brexit (if that is what happens). The failure of project fear to materialise up to now has lulled people into a false sense of security pen to the UK.
    The government is stockpiling medicines and issuing vehicle visas to prepare for no deal while also preparing terms for a transition deal. It is diehard Remainers who are panicked, 38% of the country wants No Deal straight away with Yougov. No Deal plus Deal voters beat Remain in most polls
    What do you think the 38% think ‘no deal’ means, O wise one?
    The Brexit they voted for
    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 23,428
    HYUFD said:

    No Deal plus Deal voters beat Remain in most polls

    Citation needed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 11,845
    HYUFD said:

    Boris was Foreign Secretary and holder of a Great Office of State until last month.

    History shows in 1990 Heseltine, a former not current Cabinet Minister, would have become Tory leader and PM if Major had not also beaten Kinnock in the polls.

    Currently only a Boris led Tory Party does not trail Corbyn Labour in the latest Yougov polling on the subject, all other alternative Tory leaders polled would see the Tories trail Corbyn Labour

    His performance in said job being one of his many disqualifications
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 19,500
    HYUFD said:

    Boris was Foreign Secretary and holder of a Great Office of State until last month.

    History shows in 1990 Heseltine, a former not current Cabinet Minister, would have become Tory leader and PM if Major had not also beaten Kinnock in the polls.

    Currently only a Boris led Tory Party does not trail Corbyn Labour in the latest Yougov polling on the subject, all other alternative Tory leaders polled would see the Tories trail Corbyn Labour

    Do you not see how obsessed you are with your repetitive mantras on Boris.

    Boris will not lead the party
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 19,500

    HYUFD said:

    No Deal plus Deal voters beat Remain in most polls

    Citation needed.
    I am beginning to think you may be right
  • "There’s also the chance that the incumbents of the great offices of state at the time of the next Tory leadership contest maybe different to today."


    This, of course, becomes very relevant if there's no/minimal deal and it turns out not to be the disaster that a lot of people think it will be. Then we can reasonably assume the following:

    1. Tory internecine strife on Europe ends, because there'll have been a clear break and there'll be no interest amongst politicians or the public (save amongst the Eurofederalists, who constitute a small proportion of the chattering classes and a negligible percentage of the general population) in going through the long, fraught, divisive and expensive ordeal of re-joining
    2. The Remain/Leave divide can then be consigned to the dustbin of history. Very ardent Europhiles may remain discredited for having spread one too many scare stories, but other than that it'll be possible for the party to move on

    Under such circumstances Theresa May could conceivably serve out a full term and fight the next election, though more likely she'd stay on until 2020 to tie up the loose ends and enable a period of relative peace and quiet, and then stand down to allow for an orderly contest to succeed her.

    In that scenario, any speculation over the succession would be pointless until much nearer the time.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,624
    edited August 5

    HYUFD said:

    No Deal plus Deal voters beat Remain in most polls

    Citation needed.


    image
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070



    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.


  • No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    Liam Fox says there's a 60/40 chance of that happening.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,205
    edited August 5

    m

    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    If there were a 5% chance, would you risk it? 10%? 20%? No sane person would. Of course the Brexiteers don’t seem to worry about consequence.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,610

    "There’s also the chance that the incumbents of the great offices of state at the time of the next Tory leadership contest maybe different to today."


    This, of course, becomes very relevant if there's no/minimal deal and it turns out not to be the disaster that a lot of people think it will be. Then we can reasonably assume the following:

    1. Tory internecine strife on Europe ends, because there'll have been a clear break and there'll be no interest amongst politicians or the public (save amongst the Eurofederalists, who constitute a small proportion of the chattering classes and a negligible percentage of the general population) in going through the long, fraught, divisive and expensive ordeal of re-joining
    2. The Remain/Leave divide can then be consigned to the dustbin of history. Very ardent Europhiles may remain discredited for having spread one too many scare stories, but other than that it'll be possible for the party to move on

    Under such circumstances Theresa May could conceivably serve out a full term and fight the next election, though more likely she'd stay on until 2020 to tie up the loose ends and enable a period of relative peace and quiet, and then stand down to allow for an orderly contest to succeed her.

    In that scenario, any speculation over the succession would be pointless until much nearer the time.

    Major was CoE for a brief period only, but did have powerful backing from the stop Heseltine old guard.

    We are not in Kansas any more. Old rules do not apply over the rainbow.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,093
    edited August 5



    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    I place more faith in the evidenced views of the Road Haulage Association than some bloke off of the internet, so I tend towards believing it to be a serious possibility.

    What’s your basis for thinking otherwise?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,141

    HYUFD said:

    No Deal plus Deal voters beat Remain in most polls

    Citation needed.


    image
    I see what you did there... :)
  • Worth considering that on this precedent, Theresa May would not have been elected leader and PM in the 2016 contest, as it is she who sees the inclusion of Home Secretary in to the precedent.

    Also worth considering that this is the first time MPs won't be the sole decision makers. Hammond, Hunt and Javid are all very boring very uncharismatic (Hunt less so) who could easily win MPs but might well struggle against a more media friendly rival, who is also a Brexitter. Raab/McVey or Mourdunt say.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127
    Gove is relatively competent?

    The man who was responsible for the ginormous clusterfuck these new exams have turned into?

    The man who had the bright idea of academy chains?

    The man who thought Dominic Cummings was suitable to be a public servant?

    If he's competent relative to the rest, we're in a worse mess than I realised.

    If you wanted to extend your list TSE then you could add Chamberlain (1937) Baldwin (1923) Asquith (1908) and Disraeli (1868) who were all Chancellor at the time of appointment, plus Rosebery (1894: Foreign Secretary).

    The interesting exceptions were Baldwin in 1935 (Lord President of the Council) and Balfour in 1902 (First Lord of the Treasury). However, as they were both leaders of the largest party in the House of Commons and indeed PM de facto at the time, they are hardly relevant to this discussion.

    Therefore the meaningful exceptions to your rule in the last 150 years are Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty and David Lloyd George who was not in cabinet at the time of his appointment. Both had however previously been Chancellor and held (or had just resigned from in DLlG's case) offices to do with the war.

    I do not quite see Boris doing a Lloyd George. There isn't a war on, and he doesn't have the priceless advantage of being a needed outsider with a reputation for real brilliance.

    That's a long winded way of saying I agree with your assessment.

    One comment - I think unless he is crowned a la Howard, Hammond will settle for being kingmaker in return for the deputy leadership and staying at the Treasury. That means we should also look closely at who's trying to get into his good books.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070



    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    I place more faith in the evidenced views of the Road Haulage Association than some bloke off of the internet, so I tend towards believing it to be a serious possibility.

    What’s your basis for thinking otherwise?
    My basis is that "doom and gloom" fearmongering of "the sky is falling" variety is almost invariably bullshit.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,071
    edited August 5
    The Charity Shield/Community Shield is being played today. At half time Chelsea 0 Man City 1.

    Madness to start the football season on 5 August?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070



    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    Liam Fox says there's a 60/40 chance of that happening.
    No he doesn't, he says there is a 60/40 chance of there being No Deal. People are extrapolating that No Deal equals hauliers out of business etc - but that's not guaranteed.

    If you're talking percentages then do you view the odds of hauliers out of business etc in a No Deal scenario as being 100%? I don't.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,093



    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    I place more faith in the evidenced views of the Road Haulage Association than some bloke off of the internet, so I tend towards believing it to be a serious possibility.

    What’s your basis for thinking otherwise?
    My basis is that "doom and gloom" fearmongering of "the sky is falling" variety is almost invariably bullshit.



    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    I place more faith in the evidenced views of the Road Haulage Association than some bloke off of the internet, so I tend towards believing it to be a serious possibility.

    What’s your basis for thinking otherwise?
    My basis is that "doom and gloom" fearmongering of "the sky is falling" variety is almost invariably bullshit.
    Oh that’s alright then. FFS.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127

    Worth considering that on this precedent, Theresa May would not have been elected leader and PM in the 2016 contest, as it is she who sees the inclusion of Home Secretary in to the precedent.

    Also worth considering that this is the first time MPs won't be the sole decision makers. Hammond, Hunt and Javid are all very boring very uncharismatic (Hunt less so) who could easily win MPs but might well struggle against a more media friendly rival, who is also a Brexitter. Raab/McVey or Mourdunt say.

    Welcome.

    Yes, your comment re the Home Office is true, but there are other reasons for that - mostly because from the 1860s until the 1950s it wasn't seen as a great office of state and tended to attract quite junior figures. Afterwards, it tended to be where people the leadership disliked were parked at the top of their careers because it was thought they couldn't do much damage. Finally, it is the most difficult department and as we saw with Rudd the potential for a career-ending slip is very high.

    I do not think that members will have a say if there is a need for haste. If there is a clear leader huge pressure will be put on the runner-up to withdraw, as happened last time.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,044
    As everyone concentrates on Boris Johnson, no one seems to have noticed that Jacob Rees-Mogg has been completely eclipsed by him. What is supporting his price in the next leader market is now quite beyond me.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070
    matt said:

    m

    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    If there were a 5% chance, would you risk it? 10%? 20%? No sane person would. Of course the Brexiteers don’t seem to worry about consequence.
    Yes I would, if I thought the alternative 95%, 90% or 80% was worth it. I'm not a Luddite who would smash up looms just to prevent a change to the status quo.

    Quite frankly as far as employment is concerned hauliage is a largely doomed industry anyway. Driverless vehicles will leave hauliers being akin to horse drawn carriages.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070



    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    I place more faith in the evidenced views of the Road Haulage Association than some bloke off of the internet, so I tend towards believing it to be a serious possibility.

    What’s your basis for thinking otherwise?
    My basis is that "doom and gloom" fearmongering of "the sky is falling" variety is almost invariably bullshit.



    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    I place more faith in the evidenced views of the Road Haulage Association than some bloke off of the internet, so I tend towards believing it to be a serious possibility.

    What’s your basis for thinking otherwise?
    My basis is that "doom and gloom" fearmongering of "the sky is falling" variety is almost invariably bullshit.
    Oh that’s alright then. FFS.
    Indeed. You can keep preaching that the sky is falling all you want.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    ydoethur said:

    Worth considering that on this precedent, Theresa May would not have been elected leader and PM in the 2016 contest, as it is she who sees the inclusion of Home Secretary in to the precedent.

    Also worth considering that this is the first time MPs won't be the sole decision makers. Hammond, Hunt and Javid are all very boring very uncharismatic (Hunt less so) who could easily win MPs but might well struggle against a more media friendly rival, who is also a Brexitter. Raab/McVey or Mourdunt say.

    Welcome.

    Yes, your comment re the Home Office is true, but there are other reasons for that - mostly because from the 1860s until the 1950s it wasn't seen as a great office of state and tended to attract quite junior figures. Afterwards, it tended to be where people the leadership disliked were parked at the top of their careers because it was thought they couldn't do much damage. Finally, it is the most difficult department and as we saw with Rudd the potential for a career-ending slip is very high.

    I do not think that members will have a say if there is a need for haste. If there is a clear leader huge pressure will be put on the runner-up to withdraw, as happened last time.
    We only will go by the sound, erudite assessment of HYUFD. Where is he ?
  • As everyone concentrates on Boris Johnson, no one seems to have noticed that Jacob Rees-Mogg has been completely eclipsed by him. What is supporting his price in the next leader market is now quite beyond me.

    The possibility of Boris Johnson derailing himself.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,678
    No-one is serious about No Deal. Leavers can't decide if No Deal is Project Fear because OF COURSE the EU is going to agree to a bunch of stuff or it doesn't matter because who needs food and medicine anyway? Remainers hate the whole thing.

    Therefore there will be a deal. Possibly after a chaotic but short period before we come to our senses. Therefore the deal will be on the EU's terms. Therefore Vassal State. Therefore unhappy Leavers who will blame Remainers and the EU for failing to resolve the contradictions of the Leave position.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 19,500

    The Charity Shield/Community Shield is being played today. At half time Chelsea 0 Man City 1.

    Madness to start the football season on 5 August?

    Boring. The womens open golf is much better believe it or not
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,684
    edited August 5

    matt said:

    m

    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    If there were a 5% chance, would you risk it? 10%? 20%? No sane person would. Of course the Brexiteers don’t seem to worry about consequence.
    Yes I would, if I thought the alternative 95%, 90% or 80% was worth it. I'm not a Luddite who would smash up looms just to prevent a change to the status quo.

    Quite frankly as far as employment is concerned hauliage is a largely doomed industry anyway. Driverless vehicles will leave hauliers being akin to horse drawn carriages.
    Driverless vehicles are just around the conrer... unfortunately they missed the turn. :smile:

    Serious point: since my new Passat's 'Pasenger Protection' system did an emergency stop as it approached an overhanging nettle on a narrow lane in Cornwall, I have become slightly more sceptical about the driverless car revolution. In the real world, country lanes throw up a very large range of odd situations.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 2,731
    I mean the betting is based on Boris's name recognition, not on the mood inside ERG towers.

    But let's assume that JRM, despite appearances, isn't a cretin. Would he support Boris? Even setting aside Boris's almost certain inability to do the job, why would JRM think he could trust Boris?
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,205

    matt said:

    m

    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    If there were a 5% chance, would you risk it? 10%? 20%? No sane person would. Of course the Brexiteers don’t seem to worry about consequence.
    Yes I would, if I thought the alternative 95%, 90% or 80% was worth it. I'm not a Luddite who would smash up looms just to prevent a change to the status quo.

    Quite frankly as far as employment is concerned hauliage is a largely doomed industry anyway. Driverless vehicles will leave hauliers being akin to horse drawn carriages.
    Faith, the enemy of logic, reason and thought.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 2,731
    Autonomous trucks are certainly coming, imminently. But I don't think the UK's entire road haulage industry is going to be autonomous by March.


  • No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    I place more faith in the evidenced views of the Road Haulage Association than some bloke off of the internet, so I tend towards believing it to be a serious possibility.

    What’s your basis for thinking otherwise?
    My basis is that "doom and gloom" fearmongering of "the sky is falling" variety is almost invariably bullshit.
    Exactly. And on that topic, has anyone done any serious research on the likelihood of the country starving to death in the event of the Customs Union being dissolved?

    I would doubt it, because it is not a credible scenario. Half of our food is home-produced and another 20% is imported from outside the EU. Of the 30% that comes from the EU, the notion that the entire lot will end up rotting on wharves in the Channel ports is preposterous. Apart from anything else, much of it isn't so perishable that it won't survive being held up for a couple of days, if things even get that bad.

    The worst that's actually likely to happen is that there's a salad vegetable shortage, and we have to get used to eating slightly less meat (and importing more of it frozen from South America) for a while. Besides, the whole debate is a textbook example of short-termism; nobody seems to have considered that, in the long run, abandoning the Common External Tariff would allow the UK to adopt a cheap food policy, and that would leave virtually everyone better off. Agricultural tariffs are a huge net cost to a small but densely-populated country such as ours, and the burden of them is disproportionately shouldered by the worst off.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,684
    edited August 5

    I mean the betting is based on Boris's name recognition, not on the mood inside ERG towers.

    But let's assume that JRM, despite appearances, isn't a cretin. Would he support Boris? Even setting aside Boris's almost certain inability to do the job, why would JRM think he could trust Boris?

    If JRM "despite appearances, isn't a cretin", he will not support Boris. However, I fear appearances may not be deceptive in JRM's case.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070
    matt said:

    matt said:

    m

    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    If there were a 5% chance, would you risk it? 10%? 20%? No sane person would. Of course the Brexiteers don’t seem to worry about consequence.
    Yes I would, if I thought the alternative 95%, 90% or 80% was worth it. I'm not a Luddite who would smash up looms just to prevent a change to the status quo.

    Quite frankly as far as employment is concerned hauliage is a largely doomed industry anyway. Driverless vehicles will leave hauliers being akin to horse drawn carriages.
    Faith, the enemy of logic, reason and thought.
    Indeed you are acting on faith against all logic, reason and thought.

    If we go back 40 years someone might have asked if reforms were worth it if they led to a 5% chance of mines shutting down. We did lose the mines but I would still say the reforms were worth it.

    No single industry is necessary. We didn't need mines, so why do we 100% need international hauliage. What makes your faith that a 5% risk could not possibly be worth it so unshakeable? What makes your faith that you can't possibly be wrong so immutable.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,190

    matt said:

    m

    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    If there were a 5% chance, would you risk it? 10%? 20%? No sane person would. Of course the Brexiteers don’t seem to worry about consequence.
    Yes I would, if I thought the alternative 95%, 90% or 80% was worth it. I'm not a Luddite who would smash up looms just to prevent a change to the status quo.

    Quite frankly as far as employment is concerned hauliage is a largely doomed industry anyway. Driverless vehicles will leave hauliers being akin to horse drawn carriages.
    Driverless vehicles are just around the conrer... unfortunately they missed the turn. :smile:

    Serious point: since my new Passat's 'Pasenger Protection' system did an emergency stop as it approached an overhanging nettle on a narrow lane in Cornwall, I have become slightly more sceptical about the driverless car revolution. In the real world, country lanes throw up a very large range of odd situations.
    You are right to be sceptical: for one thing, too many people confuse the driver aids style system with full autonomous cars (often thanks to Tesla's over-ramping of their system), and the true advantages will only occur when we get full Level 5 autonomy countrywide, in all weathers, and allowing for other road users. It's no good getting rid of drivers if the vehicle gets confused and stops at a junction, and the idea of remote 'drivers' sorting out such issues is worrying from a practical and security POV.

    (In fact, security is a whole other set of issues)

    These are not easy problems to solve. I'm far from convinced that the Waymo-style geofencing is going to work for a full nation, or that it is possible without true AI.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,678
    edited August 5



    No no, that won’t do at all.

    Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?

    “British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”

    https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food


    Do you think they voted for that? Do you?

    Do you think it will happen? Do you?

    That's complete baloney.
    I place more faith in the evidenced views of the Road Haulage Association than some bloke off of the internet, so I tend towards believing it to be a serious possibility.

    What’s your basis for thinking otherwise?
    My basis is that "doom and gloom" fearmongering of "the sky is falling" variety is almost invariably bullshit.
    This is a good backgrounder on transit permits should you wish to inform yourself on the topic

  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,559
    Afternoon all :)

    First, Mr Eagles, apologies for daring to take you out of context yesterday evening. You did say the words "Tory gains" with reference to the 2019 local elections but I realise you were talking only about Conservatives gaining some of the 200 or so UKIP seats up for grabs as distinct from trying to defend the 5,500 Conservative seats.

    On topic, you have to go back to Churchill in 1940 for a person becoming PM outside a GE who was not serving as CoE, HS or FS. Even in the inter-war period, I believe Chamberlain was CoE when taking over from Baldwin and Baldwin was CoE when he took over from Bonar Law (and I think he continued as CoE even after becoming PM). Lloyd George was Chancellor when taking over from Asquith so that leaves Bonar Law who took over in 1922 from Austen Chamberlain (as Conservative leader) and Lloyd George (as PM).

    Replacing a PM in office is emphatically different from replacing a defeated PM after an election. I could see Boris emerging from the wreckage of a defeated Conservative Party to take over.

    As for 1990, as is widely known (except by some it seems), the vote for Heseltine in the first ballot was to force Thatcher out and allow her Cabinet colleagues who were bound to support her to enter the fray (a similar tactic failed spectacularly in 1975 when Thatcher not only won the first ballot but got so much momentum she was able to defeat Whitelaw in the second ballot).

    Heseltine knew once Thatcher had resigned his chances of becoming leader and PM were gone - the "establishment" rallied to Major rather than Hurd (and Major had the "blessing" of Margaret as well) and the rest is history.

    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 19,500
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    First, Mr Eagles, apologies for daring to take you out of context yesterday evening. You did say the words "Tory gains" with reference to the 2019 local elections but I realise you were talking only about Conservatives gaining some of the 200 or so UKIP seats up for grabs as distinct from trying to defend the 5,500 Conservative seats.

    On topic, you have to go back to Churchill in 1940 for a person becoming PM outside a GE who was not serving as CoE, HS or FS. Even in the inter-war period, I believe Chamberlain was CoE when taking over from Baldwin and Baldwin was CoE when he took over from Bonar Law (and I think he continued as CoE even after becoming PM). Lloyd George was Chancellor when taking over from Asquith so that leaves Bonar Law who took over in 1922 from Austen Chamberlain (as Conservative leader) and Lloyd George (as PM).

    Replacing a PM in office is emphatically different from replacing a defeated PM after an election. I could see Boris emerging from the wreckage of a defeated Conservative Party to take over.

    As for 1990, as is widely known (except by some it seems), the vote for Heseltine in the first ballot was to force Thatcher out and allow her Cabinet colleagues who were bound to support her to enter the fray (a similar tactic failed spectacularly in 1975 when Thatcher not only won the first ballot but got so much momentum she was able to defeat Whitelaw in the second ballot).

    Heseltine knew once Thatcher had resigned his chances of becoming leader and PM were gone - the "establishment" rallied to Major rather than Hurd (and Major had the "blessing" of Margaret as well) and the rest is history.

    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    Re your last paragraph I do not see TM losing a VNOC causing a leadership election just at the climax of EU negotiations
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,396
    edited August 5
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    First, Mr Eagles, apologies for daring to take you out of context yesterday evening. You did say the words "Tory gains" with reference to the 2019 local elections but I realise you were talking only about Conservatives gaining some of the 200 or so UKIP seats up for grabs as distinct from trying to defend the 5,500 Conservative seats.

    On topic, you have to go back to Churchill in 1940 for a person becoming PM outside a GE who was not serving as CoE, HS or FS. Even in the inter-war period, I believe Chamberlain was CoE when taking over from Baldwin and Baldwin was CoE when he took over from Bonar Law (and I think he continued as CoE even after becoming PM). Lloyd George was Chancellor when taking over from Asquith so that leaves Bonar Law who took over in 1922 from Austen Chamberlain (as Conservative leader) and Lloyd George (as PM).

    Replacing a PM in office is emphatically different from replacing a defeated PM after an election. I could see Boris emerging from the wreckage of a defeated Conservative Party to take over.

    As for 1990, as is widely known (except by some it seems), the vote for Heseltine in the first ballot was to force Thatcher out and allow her Cabinet colleagues who were bound to support her to enter the fray (a similar tactic failed spectacularly in 1975 when Thatcher not only won the first ballot but got so much momentum she was able to defeat Whitelaw in the second ballot).

    Heseltine knew once Thatcher had resigned his chances of becoming leader and PM were gone - the "establishment" rallied to Major rather than Hurd (and Major had the "blessing" of Margaret as well) and the rest is history.

    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    If you think the ERG MPs and the majority of Tory members would allow a Coronation for a BINO or pro Chequers Deal candidate without putting forward Boris or Mogg as an alternative you are being deluded. Especially with UKIP, most likely led by a returned Farage, ready to pounce if it is BINO and make a pitch for Tory Leave voters.

    Major only beat Heseltine after a poll showed a Major led Tories beating Kinnock Labour
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,559

    stodge said:


    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    Re your last paragraph I do not see TM losing a VNOC causing a leadership election just at the climax of EU negotiations
    For reasons I've stated elsewhere (and which are basically HYUFD's points 3-5 from this morning) May is safe for now. As for a VNOC, does May have to lose to go ? If she got fewer than 200 votes, I think that would represent a fatal wound given the "payroll vote" would have to support her.

    If memory serves, Thatcher got 52 votes more than Heseltine so it's not about winning but how you win and by how much.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127
    edited August 5
    @stodge

    Lloyd George was not Chancellor when he replaced Asquith, having been moved to Munitions in 1915, the War Office in 1916 and resigned in 1916.

    Baldwin briefly continued to hold the office of Chancellor (he had offered it to Reginald McKenna who wasn't an MP) but the day to day running of the Treasury was left to the Financial Secretary, Joynson-Hicks.

    Bonar Law, like Campbell-Bannerman in 1905, effectively marked a change in the governing party.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 19,500
    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    Re your last paragraph I do not see TM losing a VNOC causing a leadership election just at the climax of EU negotiations
    For reasons I've stated elsewhere (and which are basically HYUFD's points 3-5 from this morning) May is safe for now. As for a VNOC, does May have to lose to go ? If she got fewer than 200 votes, I think that would represent a fatal wound given the "payroll vote" would have to support her.

    If memory serves, Thatcher got 52 votes more than Heseltine so it's not about winning but how you win and by how much.

    May has said she will stay if she wins by even a vote. Remember she is a 'bloody difficult woman'

    However, if the VNOC is post Brexit I think it is more likely she would stand down
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 19,500
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    First, Mr Eagles, apologies for daring to take you out of context yesterday evening. You did say the words "Tory gains" with reference to the 2019 local elections but I realise you were talking only about Conservatives gaining some of the 200 or so UKIP seats up for grabs as distinct from trying to defend the 5,500 Conservative seats.

    On topic, you have to go back to Churchill in 1940 for a person becoming PM outside a GE who was not serving as CoE, HS or FS. Even in the inter-war period, I believe Chamberlain was CoE when taking over from Baldwin and Baldwin was CoE when he took over from Bonar Law (and I think he continued as CoE even after becoming PM). Lloyd George was Chancellor when taking over from Asquith so that leaves Bonar Law who took over in 1922 from Austen Chamberlain (as Conservative leader) and Lloyd George (as PM).

    Replacing a PM in office is emphatically different from replacing a defeated PM after an election. I could see Boris emerging from the wreckage of a defeated Conservative Party to take over.

    As for 1990, as is widely known (except by some it seems), the vote for Heseltine in the first ballot was to force Thatcher out and allow her Cabinet colleagues who were bound to support her to enter the fray (a similar tactic failed spectacularly in 1975 when Thatcher not only won the first ballot but got so much momentum she was able to defeat Whitelaw in the second ballot).

    Heseltine knew once Thatcher had resigned his chances of becoming leader and PM were gone - the "establishment" rallied to Major rather than Hurd (and Major had the "blessing" of Margaret as well) and the rest is history.

    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    If you think the ERG MPs and the majority of Tory members would allow a Coronation for a BINO or pro Chequers Deal candidate without putting forward Boris or Mogg as an alternative you are being deluded. Especially with UKIP, most likely led by a returned Farage, ready to pounce if it is BINO and make a pitch for Tory Leave voters.

    Major only beat Heseltine after a poll showed a Major led Tories beating Kinnock Labour
    It does not work like that. The conservative mps will put the final two to the members, the members have no say until then.

    And post Brexit the Country will move on. Farage is a busted flush
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127
    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    They ARE a minority. That is simple mathematics.

    Do you mean 'an oppressed minority?'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127
    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    Re your last paragraph I do not see TM losing a VNOC causing a leadership election just at the climax of EU negotiations
    For reasons I've stated elsewhere (and which are basically HYUFD's points 3-5 from this morning) May is safe for now. As for a VNOC, does May have to lose to go ? If she got fewer than 200 votes, I think that would represent a fatal wound given the "payroll vote" would have to support her.

    If memory serves, Thatcher got 52 votes more than Heseltine so it's not about winning but how you win and by how much.

    Yes, but she needed 56 more than him (a 15% margin of those entitled to vote) to forestall a second ballot.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,035
    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,396

    HYUFD said:

    No Deal plus Deal voters beat Remain in most polls

    Citation needed.
    Leave with No Deal or Leave on Chequers Deal terms combined 47%, Remain 45%


    https://t.co/VDpHIbMW1p?amp=1
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,559
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:


    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    If you think the ERG MPs and the majority of Tory members would allow a Coronation for a BINO or pro Chequers Deal candidate without putting forward Boris or Mogg as an alternative you are being deluded. Especially with UKIP, most likely led by a returned Farage, ready to pounce if it is BINO and make a pitch for Tory Leave voters.

    Major only beat Heseltine after a poll showed a Major led Tories beating Kinnock Labour
    If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, all I said was once May had stood down or been forced out by a VONC, senior Cabinet members would be free to enter any leadership election.

    I simply postulated whether Javid and Hunt could or would combine against either Boris or JRM. The next stage would be a ballot of MPs and it might be (given we are talking about choosing a PM rather than LOTO) that the defeated candidates might simply acknowledge the winner as PM rather than taking it to the wider Party membership.

    Let me ask you as a cheerleader for Boris - IF Boris came second to Javid or Hunt in the MPs ballot, would you encourage him to withdraw in the interests of quick formation of a Government or would you urge him to push for a members' ballot ?

    On your other point - as I recall, there was little or no polling with Major until after Thatcher quit on the Thursday. The bandwagon for major rolled very quickly with Thatcher's endorsement and the widespread support among local Constituency Chairs and the weekend polling confirmed Major's popularity as a "man with the common touch" against the multi-millionaire Heseltine.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,559
    ydoethur said:

    @stodge

    Lloyd George was not Chancellor when he replaced Asquith, having been moved to Munitions in 1915, the War Office in 1916 and resigned in 1916.

    Baldwin briefly continued to hold the office of Chancellor (he had offered it to Reginald McKenna who wasn't an MP) but the day to day running of the Treasury was left to the Financial Secretary, Joynson-Hicks.

    Bonar Law, like Campbell-Bannerman in 1905, effectively marked a change in the governing party.

    Are you a fecking history teacher ??

    Aren't you meant to be on holiday - I'll give you a C minus for your efforts.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,444

    It's no good getting rid of drivers if the vehicle gets confused and stops at a junction

    A car that drove itself except for occasionally getting confused and stopping and beeping at you to help it out would totally transform a lot of people's commutes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,396

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    First, Mr Eagles, apologies for daring to take you out of context yesterday evening. You did say the words "Tory gains" with reference to the 2019 local elections but I realise you were talking only about Conservatives gaining some of the 200 or so UKIP seats up for grabs as distinct from trying to defend the 5,500 Conservative seats.

    On topic, you have to go back to Churchill in 1940 for a person becoming PM outside a GE who was not serving as CoE, HS or FS. Even in the inter-war period, I believe Chamberlain was CoE when taking over from Baldwin and Baldwin was CoE when he took over from Bonar Law (and I think he continued as CoE even after becoming PM). Lloyd George was Chancellor when taking over from Asquith so that leaves Bonar Law who took over in 1922 from Austen Chamberlain (as Conservative leader) and Lloyd George (as PM).

    Replacing a PM in office is emphatically different from replacing a defeated PM after an election. I could see Boris emerging from the wreckage of a defeated Conservative Party to take over.

    As for 1990, as is widely known (except by some it seems), the vote for Heseltine in the first ballot was to force Thatcher out and allow her Cabinet colleagues who were bound to support her to enter the fray (a similar tactic failed spectacularly in 1975 when Thatcher not only won the first ballot but got so much momentum she was able to defeat Whitelaw in the second ballot).

    Heseltine knew once Thatcher had resigned his chances of becoming leader and PM were gone - the "establishment" rallied to Major rather than Hurd (and Major had the "blessing" of Margaret as well) and the rest is history.

    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    If you think the ERG MPs and the majority of Tory members would allow a Coronation for a BINO or pro Chequers Deal candidate without putting forward Boris or Mogg as an alternative you are being deluded. Especially with UKIP, most likely led by a returned Farage, ready to pounce if it is BINO and make a pitch for Tory Leave voters.

    Major only beat Heseltine after a poll showed a Major led Tories beating Kinnock Labour
    It does not work like that. The conservative mps will put the final two to the members, the members have no say until then.

    And post Brexit the Country will move on. Farage is a busted flush
    Tory MPs want to keep their seats, polls show Boris best able to do that.

    BINO would relaunch Farage quicker than Lazarus
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,607

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,559

    May has said she will stay if she wins by even a vote. Remember she is a 'bloody difficult woman'

    However, if the VNOC is post Brexit I think it is more likely she would stand down

    What people say before a vote and what they do once the votes are cast are often two very different things. If 150 MPs vote against her, there's no way May could stay - I know that, you know that, she knows that but she has no choice but to talk tough.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070
    HYUFD said:

    Tory MPs want to keep their seats, polls show Boris best able to do that.

    BINO would relaunch Farage quicker than Lazarus

    I really don't understand your religious belief in polls as the Biblical Truth. They're a snapshot and not a very good one at that, MPs understand that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127
    edited August 5
    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    @stodge

    Lloyd George was not Chancellor when he replaced Asquith, having been moved to Munitions in 1915, the War Office in 1916 and resigned in 1916.

    Baldwin briefly continued to hold the office of Chancellor (he had offered it to Reginald McKenna who wasn't an MP) but the day to day running of the Treasury was left to the Financial Secretary, Joynson-Hicks.

    Bonar Law, like Campbell-Bannerman in 1905, effectively marked a change in the governing party.

    Are you a fecking history teacher ??

    Aren't you meant to be on holiday - I'll give you a C minus for your efforts.
    I'm sure there's a point to this post, but having read it three times I'm not sure what it is.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,396
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:


    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    If you think the ERG MPs and the majority of Tory members would allow a Coronation for a BINO or pro Chequers Deal candidate without putting forward Boris or Mogg as an alternative you are being deluded. Especially with UKIP, most likely led by a returned Farage, ready to pounce if it is BINO and make a pitch for Tory Leave voters.

    Major only beat Heseltine after a poll showed a Major led Tories beating Kinnock Labour
    If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, all I said was once May had stood down or been forced out by a VONC, senior Cabinet members would be free to enter any leadership election.

    I simply postulated whether Javid and Hunt could or would combine against either Boris or JRM. The next stage would be a ballot of MPs and it might be (given we are talking about choosing a PM rather than LOTO) that the defeated candidates might simply acknowledge the winner as PM rather than taking it to the wider Party membership.

    Let me ask you as a cheerleader for Boris - IF Boris came second to Javid or Hunt in the MPs ballot, would you encourage him to withdraw in the interests of quick formation of a Government or would you urge him to push for a members' ballot ?

    On your other point - as I recall, there was little or no polling with Major until after Thatcher quit on the Thursday. The bandwagon for major rolled very quickly with Thatcher's endorsement and the widespread support among local Constituency Chairs and the weekend polling confirmed Major's popularity as a "man with the common touch" against the multi-millionaire Heseltine.

    Given the last Yougov had a Javid or Hunt led Tories on 29% ie 1997 style Corbyn Labour landslide and Boris Tories on 38% ie likely still largest party the answer is obvious, Boris would have to go to the members or the Tories face annihilation.

    It was the polling showing Major beating Kinnock Labour that was key to his win, Javid and Hunt are now senior Cabinet ministers and must improve their polling fast
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 18,000

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    First, Mr Eagles, apologies for daring to take you out of context yesterday evening. You did say the words "Tory gains" with reference to the 2019 local elections but I realise you were talking only about Conservatives gaining some of the 200 or so UKIP seats up for grabs as distinct from trying to defend the 5,500 Conservative seats.

    On topic, you have to go back to Churchill in 1940 for a person becoming PM outside a GE who was not serving as CoE, HS or FS. Even in the inter-war period, I believe Chamberlain was CoE when taking over from Baldwin and Baldwin was CoE when he took over from Bonar Law (and I think he continued as CoE even after becoming PM). Lloyd George was Chancellor when taking over from Asquith so that leaves Bonar Law who took over in 1922 from Austen Chamberlain (as Conservative leader) and Lloyd George (as PM).

    Replacing a PM in office is emphatically different from replacing a defeated PM after an election. I could see Boris emerging from the wreckage of a defeated Conservative Party to take over.

    As for 1990, as is widely known (except by some it seems), the vote for Heseltine in the first ballot was to force Thatcher out and allow her Cabinet colleagues who were bound to support her to enter the fray (a similar tactic failed spectacularly in 1975 when Thatcher not only won the first ballot but got so much momentum she was able to defeat Whitelaw in the second ballot).

    snip

    Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?

    If you think the ERG MPs and the majority of Tory members would allow a Coronation for a BINO or pro Chequers Deal candidate without putting forward Boris or Mogg as an alternative you are being deluded. Especially with UKIP, most likely led by a returned Farage, ready to pounce if it is BINO and make a pitch for Tory Leave voters.

    Major only beat Heseltine after a poll showed a Major led Tories beating Kinnock Labour
    It does not work like that. The conservative mps will put the final two to the members, the members have no say until then.

    And post Brexit the Country will move on. Farage is a busted flush
    Sorry, i'm not convinced. MPs will come under pressure from their local members to nominate someone they want to vote for e.g. the hard brexiteer. It's a secret ballot, so an MP might make promises and then not deliver. But I doubt it.

    Assuming UKIP and Farage are busted is a big mistake imho.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,035
    ydoethur said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    They ARE a minority. That is simple mathematics.

    Do you mean 'an oppressed minority?'
    150,000 in Israel

    The Druze faith incorporates elements of Islam's Ismailism,[27] Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism, Hinduism[28][29] and other philosophies and beliefs, creating a distinct and secretive theology known to interpret esoterically religious scriptures, and to highlight the role of the mind and truthfulness.[18][29] The Druze follow theophany, and believe in reincarnation or the transmigration of the soul.[30]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,190

    It's no good getting rid of drivers if the vehicle gets confused and stops at a junction

    A car that drove itself except for occasionally getting confused and stopping and beeping at you to help it out would totally transform a lot of people's commutes.
    Yes and no - for one thing, it depends where the confusion occurs; on a minor road in light traffic, no problem. Stopping because of confusion on a buy road just holds everyone up. It is also by definition not driverless, as you need to be on hand to solve the issue.

    TBH, technologies we already have, such as active lane keeping, 'intelligent' cruise control and automatic braking will, when perfected, reduce much of the drivers' load when driving on many journeys.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070
    edited August 5
    FF43 said:

    This is a good backgrounder on transit permits should you wish to inform yourself on the topic

    I take it you've forgotten that Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU? If that is what a Customs Union looks like then frankly it is no solution and no advantage.

    Then again this is what the Customs Union border between the EU and Turkey looks like, is this your vision for the UK?

    image
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,035
    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    Where were you when Iran became an Islamic Republic in '79?
    And as we discussed last night, Pakistan has been an Islamic Republic since '47!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,559
    ydoethur said:


    Yes, but she needed 56 more than him (a 15% margin of those entitled to vote) to forestall a second ballot.

    That isn't and wasn't the point. As soon as she failed to win the first ballot, she was history. She actually said at the French Embassy "it is my intention to let my name go forward" - that was the get-out line. Most people knew if there was a second ballot between just her and Heseltine she would lose. The only way to prevent a Heseltine win was for her to stand down and allow other Cabinet members to join the ballot.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070
    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    If the Jezziahs were opposed to all nations linked to a particular religion like Iran then it'd be consistent.

    However Jezziah is quite happy to support Iran and take paid work on Press TV isn't he? It seems to be only one religion and only one nation that is objected to. There's a word for that.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    HYUFD said:

    No Deal plus Deal voters beat Remain in most polls

    Citation needed.
    Many "Deal voters" will not vote for a "No deal". Your argument has less validity than a Trumpian tweet.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127
    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:


    Yes, but she needed 56 more than him (a 15% margin of those entitled to vote) to forestall a second ballot.

    That isn't and wasn't the point. As soon as she failed to win the first ballot, she was history. She actually said at the French Embassy "it is my intention to let my name go forward" - that was the get-out line. Most people knew if there was a second ballot between just her and Heseltine she would lose. The only way to prevent a Heseltine win was for her to stand down and allow other Cabinet members to join the ballot.
    If it had been between her and Heseltine, she would have won with ease. In fact, she did win, just not by the margin required under the party's rules to prevent a second ballot.

    The risk was that other figures on the right of the party disillusioned with her leadership would have stood against her and split the vote, handing victory to Heseltine. The way out of that was to replace her on the ballot with a more unifying figure - except, ironically, because two of them stood the winner ended up with fewer votes than she had had.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127

    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    If the Jezziahs were opposed to all nations linked to a particular religion like Iran then it'd be consistent.

    However Jezziah is quite happy to support Iran and take paid work on Press TV isn't he? It seems to be only one religion and only one nation that is objected to. There's a word for that.
    It's not one nation and one religion. He's quite happy to say nasty things about the UK as well. That said so far as I am aware he has never criticised Christianity.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,607
    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    I for one would have respect for Corbyn et al if they made this point. Instinctively I'm not a fan of things like an international definition of antisemitism so I don't have a problem with it being challenged so long as it's done logically.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070
    ydoethur said:

    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    If the Jezziahs were opposed to all nations linked to a particular religion like Iran then it'd be consistent.

    However Jezziah is quite happy to support Iran and take paid work on Press TV isn't he? It seems to be only one religion and only one nation that is objected to. There's a word for that.
    It's not one nation and one religion. He's quite happy to say nasty things about the UK as well. That said so far as I am aware he has never criticised Christianity.
    Well yes, good point that the UK is actually not a secular nation. We are officially a Christian nation.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 19,500
    stodge said:

    May has said she will stay if she wins by even a vote. Remember she is a 'bloody difficult woman'

    However, if the VNOC is post Brexit I think it is more likely she would stand down

    What people say before a vote and what they do once the votes are cast are often two very different things. If 150 MPs vote against her, there's no way May could stay - I know that, you know that, she knows that but she has no choice but to talk tough.
    Where is the 150 coming from. I just do not see TM losing a VNOC before Brexit
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,559
    HYUFD said:


    Given the last Yougov had a Javid or Hunt led Tories on 29% ie 1997 style Corbyn Labour landslide and Boris Tories on 38% ie likely still largest party the answer is obvious, Boris would have to go to the members or the Tories face annihilation.

    It was the polling showing Major beating Kinnock Labour that was key to his win, Javid and Hunt are now senior Cabinet ministers and must improve their polling fast

    There isn't a leadership vote happening NOW so all this polling you repeat ad infinitum and ad nauseam is meaningless.

    IF the likes of Javid or Hunt were on the ballot their public profile would rise and IF their performance improved to be comparable to or better than Boris, what then?

    Major's public profile soared once Thatcher was gone and he became the challenger to Heseltine. Couldn't the same happen to Javid or Hunt once May was gone?

    What would YOU do than - if polls showed Javid performing better than Boris in a match with Labour, would you switch your support to Javid?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,610

    The Charity Shield/Community Shield is being played today. At half time Chelsea 0 Man City 1.

    Madness to start the football season on 5 August?

    Chesea looked poor. Cannot see them making it back into the top 4 this season.

    Man City look rampant again.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 19,500

    HYUFD said:

    Tory MPs want to keep their seats, polls show Boris best able to do that.

    BINO would relaunch Farage quicker than Lazarus

    I really don't understand your religious belief in polls as the Biblical Truth. They're a snapshot and not a very good one at that, MPs understand that.
    Hyufd has a lot of interesting information and thoughts but his worship of polls undermines a lot of his posts
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,035

    ydoethur said:

    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    If the Jezziahs were opposed to all nations linked to a particular religion like Iran then it'd be consistent.

    However Jezziah is quite happy to support Iran and take paid work on Press TV isn't he? It seems to be only one religion and only one nation that is objected to. There's a word for that.
    It's not one nation and one religion. He's quite happy to say nasty things about the UK as well. That said so far as I am aware he has never criticised Christianity.
    Well yes, good point that the UK is actually not a secular nation. We are officially a Christian nation.
    Surby seems weirdly silent about this topic :)
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    ydoethur said:

    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    If the Jezziahs were opposed to all nations linked to a particular religion like Iran then it'd be consistent.

    However Jezziah is quite happy to support Iran and take paid work on Press TV isn't he? It seems to be only one religion and only one nation that is objected to. There's a word for that.
    It's not one nation and one religion. He's quite happy to say nasty things about the UK as well. That said so far as I am aware he has never criticised Christianity.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-saudi-arabia-yemen-war-arms-supplies-uk-theresa-may-latest-a8243916.html

    https://www.ft.com/content/34b8642e-2215-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

    Corbyn had the guts to criticise Saudi Arabia and arms sales to them. No other politician had the ball£ to say it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,678
    edited August 5

    FF43 said:

    This is a good backgrounder on transit permits should you wish to inform yourself on the topic

    I take it you've forgotten that Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU? If that is what a Customs Union looks like then frankly it is no solution and no advantage.

    Then again this is what the Customs Union border between the EU and Turkey looks like, is this your vision for the UK?

    image
    Full membership of the EU is the sensible option, since you ask. But that wasn't what we are discussing. The question is is whether it's baloney and bullshit, fear-mongering, and against all logic and reason to say British lorry drivers would prevented from entering the EU in a No Deal Brexit. The answer is no. British lorry drivers would be stopped.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,607
    Foxy said:

    The Charity Shield/Community Shield is being played today. At half time Chelsea 0 Man City 1.

    Madness to start the football season on 5 August?

    Chesea looked poor. Cannot see them making it back into the top 4 this season.

    Man City look rampant again.
    I've sold Arsenal on the spreads, now I'm thinking I should have sold Chelsea, but then it was City who looked up for it.

    Sarri is an interesting choice. It does feel at little bit AVB.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    ydoethur said:

    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    If the Jezziahs were opposed to all nations linked to a particular religion like Iran then it'd be consistent.

    However Jezziah is quite happy to support Iran and take paid work on Press TV isn't he? It seems to be only one religion and only one nation that is objected to. There's a word for that.
    It's not one nation and one religion. He's quite happy to say nasty things about the UK as well. That said so far as I am aware he has never criticised Christianity.
    Well yes, good point that the UK is actually not a secular nation. We are officially a Christian nation.
    Surby seems weirdly silent about this topic :)
    Britain is hardly a Christian nation. Do one gets beheaded for not going to Church. 70% of Christians do not practice the religion. This is a sensible, mainly atheist , nation
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    White smoke ! Pope to play for England.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127
    surby said:

    White smoke ! Pope to play for England.

    That's the fourth drop for Malan this week.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 11,845

    HYUFD said:

    Tory MPs want to keep their seats, polls show Boris best able to do that.

    BINO would relaunch Farage quicker than Lazarus

    I really don't understand your religious belief in polls as the Biblical Truth. They're a snapshot and not a very good one at that, MPs understand that.
    Hyufd has a lot of interesting information and thoughts but his worship of polls undermines a lot of his posts
    Ashcroft is doing a poll on whether HY is worth listening to. When we have the results, we won't have to worry any more.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    This is a good backgrounder on transit permits should you wish to inform yourself on the topic

    I take it you've forgotten that Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU? If that is what a Customs Union looks like then frankly it is no solution and no advantage.

    Then again this is what the Customs Union border between the EU and Turkey looks like, is this your vision for the UK?

    image
    Full membership of the EU is the sensible option, since you ask. But that wasn't what we are discussing. The question is is whether it's baloney and bullshit, fear-mongering, and against all logic and reason to say British lorry drivers would prevented from entering the EU in a No Deal Brexit. The answer is no. British lorry drivers would be stopped.
    No it is bullshit. They will not be stopped any more than Turkish, Ukrainian or any other nations drivers are. They may be slowed but slow isn't stop.

    Full membership of the EU may have been sensible but then we had a vote and made our choice. These insane halfway house "solutions" lack the advantages of both membership and leaving. One or the other we need to do and we made our choice.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,127
    edited August 5
    Ways not to start an over in hit and giggle ooops, T20 cricket.

    1) Bowl a no-ball;

    2) Watch Michael Klinger whack it for six.

    Edit - 3) Bowl the third ball (what would have been the second legitimate ball) for five wides.

    This is Kent's overseas spinner as well...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 19,500
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tory MPs want to keep their seats, polls show Boris best able to do that.

    BINO would relaunch Farage quicker than Lazarus

    I really don't understand your religious belief in polls as the Biblical Truth. They're a snapshot and not a very good one at that, MPs understand that.
    Hyufd has a lot of interesting information and thoughts but his worship of polls undermines a lot of his posts
    Ashcroft is doing a poll on whether HY is worth listening to. When we have the results, we won't have to worry any more.
    +1
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,396
    edited August 5

    HYUFD said:

    Tory MPs want to keep their seats, polls show Boris best able to do that.

    BINO would relaunch Farage quicker than Lazarus

    I really don't understand your religious belief in polls as the Biblical Truth. They're a snapshot and not a very good one at that, MPs understand that.
    Hyufd has a lot of interesting information and thoughts but his worship of polls undermines a lot of his posts
    Fine. Have a dull uncharismatic BINO Tory leader at the next general election, then see Corbyn win a large majority as Tory Leavers stay home or vote UKIP.

    Then you might consider Boris, most Tory member including myself in the latest polls already are
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070
    edited August 5
    surby said:

    ydoethur said:

    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    If the Jezziahs were opposed to all nations linked to a particular religion like Iran then it'd be consistent.

    However Jezziah is quite happy to support Iran and take paid work on Press TV isn't he? It seems to be only one religion and only one nation that is objected to. There's a word for that.
    It's not one nation and one religion. He's quite happy to say nasty things about the UK as well. That said so far as I am aware he has never criticised Christianity.
    Well yes, good point that the UK is actually not a secular nation. We are officially a Christian nation.
    Surby seems weirdly silent about this topic :)
    Britain is hardly a Christian nation. Do one gets beheaded for not going to Church. 70% of Christians do not practice the religion. This is a sensible, mainly atheist , nation
    Who gets beheaded for not going to Church in Israel?

    The UK is officially an Anglican nation. The Church of England is our official state religion. Bishops from the Church are given their own seats in Parliament to set laws.

    Israel is less extreme in their religion and state mix than we are. Last I checked rabbis aren't given seats in the Knesset.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,073

    stodge said:

    May has said she will stay if she wins by even a vote. Remember she is a 'bloody difficult woman'

    However, if the VNOC is post Brexit I think it is more likely she would stand down

    What people say before a vote and what they do once the votes are cast are often two very different things. If 150 MPs vote against her, there's no way May could stay - I know that, you know that, she knows that but she has no choice but to talk tough.
    Where is the 150 coming from. I just do not see TM losing a VNOC before Brexit
    May lost an unloseable election. Imagine what she could do in a loseable election....

    ....think 250 MPs.
  • tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    tlg86 said:

    surby said:

    Druze in Israel say they feel like a minority.

    Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.

    There are many "Islamic" nations across the Mid East. By definition non-Muslims would be second class? No?
    This, for me, is an important point. I think a secularist could oppose the linking of a state to a specific religion if they were opposed to it on a point of principle. But I think we all know that Jezza's lot don't have too much of a problem with other religions being linked to a state.
    All nations which are linked to a particular religion is wrong. Saudi Arabia is the biggest offender - our friend ! Officially, Israel was not one until a few weeks back. Now it is also a state where only Jews have the right of self determination.

    Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
    I for one would have respect for Corbyn et al if they made this point. Instinctively I'm not a fan of things like an international definition of antisemitism so I don't have a problem with it being challenged so long as it's done logically.
    This, of course, being impossible for them.

    Putin works hand-in-glove with the Russian Orthodox Church and Iran is an out-and-out Shi'ite Muslim theocracy. That's two of their favourite countries they'd have to tear strips off for starters.

    The basis of the Far-Left world view is anti-Westernism. It hasn't moved on, in any fundamental sense, from the Cold War: America and its allies beat their beloved Soviet Union, and thus any nation, people or political movement that opposes them must be supported. My enemy's enemy is my friend and all that.

    Criticism of Israeli policy is perfectly legitimate from a human rights perspective but that's not what they're ultimately interested in. Israel is part of the enemy and so they wish to see it defeated. Working from that perspective, the more radical the Israeli Government becomes the better, because this would give them more sticks to beat the country with.

    The last thing on Earth that UK Labour would want would be for Israeli Labour to return to power and implement more moderate policies.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,678

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    This is a good backgrounder on transit permits should you wish to inform yourself on the topic

    I take it you've forgotten that Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU? If that is what a Customs Union looks like then frankly it is no solution and no advantage.

    Then again this is what the Customs Union border between the EU and Turkey looks like, is this your vision for the UK?

    image
    Full membership of the EU is the sensible option, since you ask. But that wasn't what we are discussing. The question is is whether it's baloney and bullshit, fear-mongering, and against all logic and reason to say British lorry drivers would prevented from entering the EU in a No Deal Brexit. The answer is no. British lorry drivers would be stopped.
    No it is bullshit. They will not be stopped any more than Turkish, Ukrainian or any other nations drivers are. They may be slowed but slow isn't stop.

    Full membership of the EU may have been sensible but then we had a vote and made our choice. These insane halfway house "solutions" lack the advantages of both membership and leaving. One or the other we need to do and we made our choice.
    It's only not bullshit if there's a deal. Which there will be. On the EU's terms. Vassal State, here we come.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,396
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Given the last Yougov had a Javid or Hunt led Tories on 29% ie 1997 style Corbyn Labour landslide and Boris Tories on 38% ie likely still largest party the answer is obvious, Boris would have to go to the members or the Tories face annihilation.

    It was the polling showing Major beating Kinnock Labour that was key to his win, Javid and Hunt are now senior Cabinet ministers and must improve their polling fast

    There isn't a leadership vote happening NOW so all this polling you repeat ad infinitum and ad nauseam is meaningless.

    IF the likes of Javid or Hunt were on the ballot their public profile would rise and IF their performance improved to be comparable to or better than Boris, what then?

    Major's public profile soared once Thatcher was gone and he became the challenger to Heseltine. Couldn't the same happen to Javid or Hunt once May was gone?

    What would YOU do than - if polls showed Javid performing better than Boris in a match with Labour, would you switch your support to Javid?

    If Javid was beating Corbyn comfortably in the polls I may well support him but the fact is he is not and as Home Secretary just as with Hunt now Foreign Secretary the name recognition excuse is running short. Major was of course Chancellor when the first polls showed him beating Kinnock. So as long as Boris polls best against Corbyn I will back Boris.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,070

    stodge said:

    May has said she will stay if she wins by even a vote. Remember she is a 'bloody difficult woman'

    However, if the VNOC is post Brexit I think it is more likely she would stand down

    What people say before a vote and what they do once the votes are cast are often two very different things. If 150 MPs vote against her, there's no way May could stay - I know that, you know that, she knows that but she has no choice but to talk tough.
    Where is the 150 coming from. I just do not see TM losing a VNOC before Brexit
    May lost an unloseable election. Imagine what she could do in a loseable election....

    ....think 250 MPs.
    She did dreadfully but she didn't lose anymore than Cameron lost 2010. She is PM.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,396
    edited August 5
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    This is a good backgrounder on transit permits should you wish to inform yourself on the topic

    I take it you've forgotten that Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU? If that is what a Customs Union looks like then frankly it is no solution and no advantage.

    Then again this is what the Customs Union border between the EU and Turkey looks like, is this your vision for the UK?

    image
    Full membership of the EU is the sensible option, since you ask. But that wasn't what we are discussing. The question is is whether it's baloney and bullshit, fear-mongering, and against all logic and reason to say British lorry drivers would prevented from entering the EU in a No Deal Brexit. The answer is no. British lorry drivers would be stopped.
    No it is bullshit. They will not be stopped any more than Turkish, Ukrainian or any other nations drivers are. They may be slowed but slow isn't stop.

    Full membership of the EU may have been sensible but then we had a vote and made our choice. These insane halfway house "solutions" lack the advantages of both membership and leaving. One or the other we need to do and we made our choice.
    It's only not bullshit if there's a deal. Which there will be. On the EU's terms. Vassal State, here we come.
    Are Switzerland and Norway vassal states? Even in the single market or tied to it in Switzerland's case they do not follow 25% of EU law and even the Chequers Deal technically replaces free movement with a mobility framework so you need a job offer or offer of study on arrival rather than after 3 months as now
This discussion has been closed.