politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To win the next election LAB need to find converts and it’s ha

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To win the next election LAB need to find converts and it’s hard to see where these are coming from

With all the current speculation about a new election and the possibility of Corbyn becoming PM the latest polling is being sidelined and the question of where LAB’s required new support is going to come from is hardly mentioned.

Read the full story here

OldKingCole

First?

RobD

Second!

rottenborough

Not from Scotland by looks of current polling.

Pulpstar

Wishful thinking by the EU https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820779380371458
Reality https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820853925687297

Slackbladder

I think there's very little in either political parties to vote 'for' at the moment in centrist/moderate terms.

There's still negative voting however, and that is what is dominating voting intentions it seems.

TheScreamingEagles

Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose elections.

A No Deal Brexit and all the resultant problems might just see enough switchers/stay at home Tories to put Corbyn into Number 10.

JohnO nailed it yesterday if the government collapses then he'd expect a Labour majority.

Tissue_Price

Isn't the usual answer new young voters (and old people dying)? See also the #peoplesvote.

Obviously this is generally misguided, since people change their opinions as they age. But if you don't let them grow up in the same way as their parents did, perhaps they won't...

El_Capitano

Good header, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the only path to a Lab victory is Corbyn attracting new support.

There is one other possibility: Conservative voters stay at home, or are attracted to a new UKIP-like party. That's quite plausible in the event of No Deal or of a soft Brexit.

edit: or what TSE said as I was typing...

OldKingCole

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

Charles

Pulpstar said:

Wishful thinking by the EU https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820779380371458
Reality https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820853925687297

That’s what I was saying last night...

geoffw

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

Cyclefree

Pulpstar said:

Wishful thinking by the EU https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820779380371458
Reality https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820853925687297

If this is true then why haven't they made so much more if it since last December when it was agreed?

justin124

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

The LibDems should get less broadcasting time allocated to them at the next election on account of their poor performances in both 2015 & 2017. They are also unlikely to qualify for as many PPBs as in recent elections.

david_herdson

Pulpstar said:

Wishful thinking by the EU https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820779380371458
Reality https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820853925687297

I have a thread I could refer them to on that ...

Cyclefree

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose elections.

A No Deal Brexit and all the resultant problems might just see enough switchers/stay at home Tories to put Corbyn into Number 10.

JohnO nailed it yesterday if the government collapses then he'd expect a Labour majority.

Er... not to detract from the views of the eminent @JohnO but I said the same thing the day before him.

OldKingCole

geoffw said:

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

What part of No do you not understand, eh.

rkrkrk

Not sure if I agree with the title - 40% of the vote could be enough if the Tories fall backwards.

Labour do need to learn the lessons of 2017 though. I think a key one is that a positive, bold and attractive policy offer is vital to set the agenda. Their tax promises on raising corporation tax and on high income earners were smart also as a dividing line with the Tories.

Attempting to be seen as 'sensible, centrist' etc. isn't as important, particularly when a lot of people are hurting economically.

But they can't count on TM running such a poor campaign, she looks to have sharpened up her operation and will surely not make blunders like the dementia tax...

I think also there may be a lot more scrutiny on Corbyn's succession arrangements. If the next election is in say 2020, is it credible that Corbyn (if he makes it that far) would serve a full parliament?

Cyclefree

Labour may well be shedding support. But if they shed less support than the Tories (who will probably haemorrhage it the way they're going), then they win, no?

El_Capitano

justin124 said:

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

The LibDems should get less broadcasting time allocated to them at the next election on account of their poor performances in both 2015 & 2017. They are also unlikely to qualify for as many PPBs as in recent elections.

They are also led by one of the undead.

Cyclefree

Anyway, good luck to @AlastairMeeks with his appraisal.

I am sure it will go well and his fellow partners will congratulate him on his rain-making suggestion that John McDonnell nationalise pensions which will undoubtedly bring in oodles of work for pensions lawyers for the foreseeable future.

justin124

'I’d argue that LAB was helped at GE2017 because nobody gave the party an earthly and they shouldn’t rely on the precedent of last time for the next election.'

That had ceased to be true in the closing week to ten days of the campaign when quite a few polls were pointing to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament.

david_herdson

justin124 said:

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

The LibDems should get less broadcasting time allocated to them at the next election on account of their poor performances in both 2015 & 2017. They are also unlikely to qualify for as many PPBs as in recent elections.

But they will be at the debates, and an appearance at one leaders' debate is potentially worth fifty PPBs. (Indeed, the time has really come to scrap PPBs, which are pointless in the age of social media and multi-channel-TV).

geoffw

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

What part of No do you not understand, eh.

No nay never. NEVER!

Pulpstar

Cyclefree said:

Pulpstar said:

Wishful thinking by the EU https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820779380371458
Reality https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820853925687297

If this is true then why haven't they made so much more if it since last December when it was agreed?

The text could refer to either a Northern Ireland only, or a whole UK backstop. That the EU have subsequently made all the running to refer to it being Northern Ireland only doesn't change the form of words agreed last December, which are (Deliberately so the DUP would agree) ambiguous.

DecrepitJohnL

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

The LibDems should get less broadcasting time allocated to them at the next election on account of their poor performances in both 2015 & 2017. They are also unlikely to qualify for as many PPBs as in recent elections.

But they will be at the debates, and an appearance at one leaders' debate is potentially worth fifty PPBs. (Indeed, the time has really come to scrap PPBs, which are pointless in the age of social media and multi-channel-TV).

There is also a case for restricting social media activity but while both parties think they have an advantage there, it won't happen.

MarqueeMark

Pulpstar said:

Wishful thinking by the EU https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820779380371458
Reality https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820853925687297

The EU really is badly advised on domestic UK politics. Got it wrong on Cameron's renegotiation, getting wrong on the Article 50 process. Who's talking to them - our civil service?

justin124

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

The LibDems should get less broadcasting time allocated to them at the next election on account of their poor performances in both 2015 & 2017. They are also unlikely to qualify for as many PPBs as in recent elections.

But they will be at the debates, and an appearance at one leaders' debate is potentially worth fifty PPBs. (Indeed, the time has really come to scrap PPBs, which are pointless in the age of social media and multi-channel-TV).

What debates? Moreover , there must surely be strong grounds for restricting any debates held next time to the two main parties. No reason to include UKIP or the Greens based on 2017 result. Separate debates in Scotland & Wales for SNP and Plaid.

MarqueeMark

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

To the detriment of Labour?

OldKingCole

geoffw said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

What part of No do you not understand, eh.

No nay never. NEVER!

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

stodge

justin124 said:

What debates? Moreover , there must surely be strong grounds for restricting any debates held next time to the two main parties. No reason to include UKIP or the Greens based on 2017 result. Separate debates in Scotland & Wales for SNP and Plaid.

For some reason you want to make the next GE a binary contest much like the EU Referendum which has turned out so well...

I wonder if we'll see a Feb 74 type result with BOTH Conservatives and Labour down and two of the LDs, Greens and some UKIP-style party making advances in votes if not seats.

justin124

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

To the detriment of Labour?

That certainly did not happen in 2017! LibDems will again be seen as an irrelevance beyond a handful of seats.

Pulpstar

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

The LibDems should get less broadcasting time allocated to them at the next election on account of their poor performances in both 2015 & 2017. They are also unlikely to qualify for as many PPBs as in recent elections.

But they will be at the debates, and an appearance at one leaders' debate is potentially worth fifty PPBs. (Indeed, the time has really come to scrap PPBs, which are pointless in the age of social media and multi-channel-TV).

Will May show up next time (If she's still in charge) ?

JSpring

Under our present electoral system, swing is more important than vote shares. Labour was able to re-gain power in Feburary 1974 despite an almost 6% decline in its vote share compared to 1970, because there was a swing to Labour from the Tories (the Tory vote share declined even further than Labour's). It's perfectly possible that both major parties could see their vote shares decline in the next general election, particularly as a. the current polling already kind of suggests that it might happen and b. the combined vote share for Labour and the Tories in 2017 was at a 47-year high, hence there is a lot of room for decline.

2015 provides an interesting exception. There was actually a (tiny) UK-wide swing to Labour, but it wasn't reflected in the seat changes due to one part of the country (Scotland) behaving very differently to the rest.

rcs1000

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

What part of No do you not understand, eh.

No nay never. NEVER!

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

The other problem is that Northern Ireland benefits from both being in a close trading arrangement with the Republic, and being a part of the UK. (From whence it gets big public sector contracts and £11bn a year.)

It's hard to see how Northern Ireland benefits economically from Brexit, even if the rest of the UK does very well. And it does particularly poorly out of No Deal Brexit. (Albeit the Republic probably does even worse.)

Polruan

rkrkrk said:

I think also there may be a lot more scrutiny on Corbyn's succession arrangements. If the next election is in say 2020, is it credible that Corbyn (if he makes it that far) would serve a full parliament?

It's possible that would help Labour. The faithful Corbynites wouldn't be deterred by his possible retirement; the Corbosceptics will find it easier to hold their noses and vote Labour with a clear conscience if they can believe that there'll be new management in place in a few years.

Andy_Cooke

I'd argue they don't have to get any new converts to win.
They merely need the Tories to lose votes. Whether to UKIP, the Lib Dems, the Greens, a new party, or even just sitting on their hands at home, it doesn't matter.

For example, if you got exactly the same votes for everyone other than the Tories, and the Tories lost 2 million votes:

Tories lose 41 seats to Labour, 3 to the Lib Dems, 2 to the SNP.

Con 271
Lab 303
SNP 37
LD 15

That on its own would make Labour favourite to take 10 Downing Street. Given as well that many of the SNP/Labour seats are very close in terms of majority, a handful of SNP voters staying home could put Corbyn very close to going over the top - with not a single extra vote being won.

justin124

stodge said:

justin124 said:

What debates? Moreover , there must surely be strong grounds for restricting any debates held next time to the two main parties. No reason to include UKIP or the Greens based on 2017 result. Separate debates in Scotland & Wales for SNP and Plaid.

For some reason you want to make the next GE a binary contest much like the EU Referendum which has turned out so well...

I wonder if we'll see a Feb 74 type result with BOTH Conservatives and Labour down and two of the LDs, Greens and some UKIP-style party making advances in votes if not seats.

Possible - but I rather doubt it.
Some of the Liberal advance in February 1974 was down to them contesting an additional 200 seats compared with 1970 - though there was also an underlying surge of support too.
Again we have no clear idea as to how many seats UKIP and the Greens will fight.

Pulpstar

Andy_Cooke said:

I'd argue they don't have to get any new converts to win.
They merely need the Tories to lose votes. Whether to UKIP, the Lib Dems, the Greens, a new party, or even just sitting on their hands at home, it doesn't matter.

For example, if you got exactly the same votes for everyone other than the Tories, and the Tories lost 2 million votes:

Tories lose 41 seats to Labour, 3 to the Lib Dems, 2 to the SNP.

Con 271
Lab 303
SNP 37
LD 15

That on its own would make Labour favourite to take 10 Downing Street. Given as well that many of the SNP/Labour seats are very close in terms of majority, a handful of SNP voters staying home could put Corbyn very close to going over the top - with not a single extra vote being won.

I think the next GE is decided by who loses fewer votes.

John_M

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

Wishful thinking by the EU https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820779380371458
Reality https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820853925687297

The EU really is badly advised on domestic UK politics. Got it wrong on Cameron's renegotiation, getting wrong on the Article 50 process. Who's talking to them - our civil service?

One of the issues with our senior civil servants playing such a prominent role is that they have no 'skin in the game'. In the game of Full English Brexit, Robbins is the chicken, May is the pig.

MikeSmithson

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

The LibDems should get less broadcasting time allocated to them at the next election on account of their poor performances in both 2015 & 2017. They are also unlikely to qualify for as many PPBs as in recent elections.

But they will be at the debates, and an appearance at one leaders' debate is potentially worth fifty PPBs. (Indeed, the time has really come to scrap PPBs, which are pointless in the age of social media and multi-channel-TV).

Will May show up next time (If she's still in charge) ?

Yes. If she is still there she's not going to skip the debates.

Scrapheap_as_was

Cyclefree said:

Anyway, good luck to @AlastairMeeks with his appraisal.

I am sure it will go well and his fellow partners will congratulate him on his rain-making suggestion that John McDonnell nationalise pensions which will undoubtedly bring in oodles of work for pensions lawyers for the foreseeable future.

Don't encourage him.... I'm already thinking of legal advice for the damage to my health that thread had on me....

williamglenn

OldKingCole said:

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

Anorak

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

What part of No do you not understand, eh.

No nay never. NEVER!

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

V good.

Bloody papists.

Roger

I agree with that. Labour loyalists don't come more loyal than me but unless at least 8 proverbial busses come along to mow down Labour's entire front bench next time I'll be voting Lib Dem or Green

geoffw

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

What part of No do you not understand, eh.

No nay never. NEVER!

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

The other problem is that Northern Ireland benefits from both being in a close trading arrangement with the Republic, and being a part of the UK. (From whence it gets big public sector contracts and £11bn a year.)

It's hard to see how Northern Ireland benefits economically from Brexit, even if the rest of the UK does very well. And it does particularly poorly out of No Deal Brexit. (Albeit the Republic probably does even worse.)

Running with the idea that economic benefit is what matters is what led Remain astray in the first place.

justin124

MikeSmithson said:

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

OldKingCole said:

If there’s an election campaign both the LibDems and the Greens will get a lot more attention. That might change the picture somewhat.

The LibDems should get less broadcasting time allocated to them at the next election on account of their poor performances in both 2015 & 2017. They are also unlikely to qualify for as many PPBs as in recent elections.

But they will be at the debates, and an appearance at one leaders' debate is potentially worth fifty PPBs. (Indeed, the time has really come to scrap PPBs, which are pointless in the age of social media and multi-channel-TV).

Will May show up next time (If she's still in charge) ?

Yes. If she is still there she's not going to skip the debates.

At the last three elections there has been no consistency in the Debate format anyway - so no precedent to rely on.

MikeSmithson

Andy_Cooke said:

I'd argue they don't have to get any new converts to win.
They merely need the Tories to lose votes. Whether to UKIP, the Lib Dems, the Greens, a new party, or even just sitting on their hands at home, it doesn't matter.

For example, if you got exactly the same votes for everyone other than the Tories, and the Tories lost 2 million votes:

Tories lose 41 seats to Labour, 3 to the Lib Dems, 2 to the SNP.

Con 271
Lab 303
SNP 37
LD 15

That on its own would make Labour favourite to take 10 Downing Street. Given as well that many of the SNP/Labour seats are very close in terms of majority, a handful of SNP voters staying home could put Corbyn very close to going over the top - with not a single extra vote being won.

I don't think Labour has anything like the appeal that it had on June 8th last year. I'm in what could be the tightest constituency in the UK and have tactically voted in the past two elections. that won't happen again.

anothernick

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

Wishful thinking by the EU https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820779380371458
Reality https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820853925687297

The EU really is badly advised on domestic UK politics. Got it wrong on Cameron's renegotiation, getting wrong on the Article 50 process. Who's talking to them - our civil service?

And the leavers in the U.K. misread the EU in just the same way. Davis spent most of his time on a wild goose chase around various European capitals in a fruitless attempt to undermine Barnier's negotiating mandate. And May tried the same tactics with Macron in August with zero effect.

Reading some of their predictions quoted in threads earlier today shows a breathtaking level of self-delusion. "UK holds all the negotiating cards" "exact same benefits" etc etc etc.

rcs1000

geoffw said:

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

What part of No do you not understand, eh.

No nay never. NEVER!

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

The other problem is that Northern Ireland benefits from both being in a close trading arrangement with the Republic, and being a part of the UK. (From whence it gets big public sector contracts and £11bn a year.)

It's hard to see how Northern Ireland benefits economically from Brexit, even if the rest of the UK does very well. And it does particularly poorly out of No Deal Brexit. (Albeit the Republic probably does even worse.)

Running with the idea that economic benefit is what matters is what led Remain astray in the first place.

But I'm not talking about the referendum. I'm talking about what happens in Northern Ireland if there is a nasty post Brexit recession.

It's very easy to talk about the importance of being British when you have a secure job. Being British is not so important if you're newly unemployed.

Of course, Northern Ireland is a small place. The UK can increase subsidies there to help them deal with the potential loss of cross border trade. But there will be losers. And some of them will be sore.

justin124

MikeSmithson said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I'd argue they don't have to get any new converts to win.
They merely need the Tories to lose votes. Whether to UKIP, the Lib Dems, the Greens, a new party, or even just sitting on their hands at home, it doesn't matter.

For example, if you got exactly the same votes for everyone other than the Tories, and the Tories lost 2 million votes:

Tories lose 41 seats to Labour, 3 to the Lib Dems, 2 to the SNP.

Con 271
Lab 303
SNP 37
LD 15

That on its own would make Labour favourite to take 10 Downing Street. Given as well that many of the SNP/Labour seats are very close in terms of majority, a handful of SNP voters staying home could put Corbyn very close to going over the top - with not a single extra vote being won.

I don't think Labour has anything like the appeal that it had on June 8th last year. I'm in what could be the tightest constituency in the UK and have tactically voted in the past two elections. that won't happen again.

But Labour has a great deal more appeal than it enjoyed in April and early May 2017. The party is nowhere near the nadir it reached in the post Copeland by election period.

rkrkrk

Polruan said:

rkrkrk said:

I think also there may be a lot more scrutiny on Corbyn's succession arrangements. If the next election is in say 2020, is it credible that Corbyn (if he makes it that far) would serve a full parliament?

It's possible that would help Labour. The faithful Corbynites wouldn't be deterred by his possible retirement; the Corbosceptics will find it easier to hold their noses and vote Labour with a clear conscience if they can believe that there'll be new management in place in a few years.

Yes you could well be right.

archer101au

Some on here are thinking that the DUP are the problem regarding the backstop. They are not. It seems that despite all the spin, what is on offer is still the permanent NI-only backstop that Barnier wanted in March.

This was unacceptable to the majority of the HoC at the time and I suspect it still is - only Remainiacs seriously consider that it is acceptable.

The real question is how the hell May and Robbins got themselves to thinking a deal was imminent when basically it involved agreeing the very thing that May had sworn blind she would never accept.

Pulpstar said:

https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1051820853925687297

Anorak

Excellent trolling by Labour. Not even pretending any more.
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1051831861264179200

LordOfReason

Labour blew it with their conference. From that moment on their economic credibility relies too heavily on magic money trees. This is the bit they don’t understand, the bit where they can’t even argue back: in this situation everybody’s economic strategy is based on magic money trees, shuffling it around trying to make out it’s more, Labour will be attacked and bested by politicians whose own policy’s are based on magic money trees. the point was, to win, not to allow yourself to be painted as the ones reliant on magic money tree. That’s the crucial mistake they have already made that has cost them the next election.

Anorak

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

What part of No do you not understand, eh.

No nay never. NEVER!

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

The other problem is that Northern Ireland benefits from both being in a close trading arrangement with the Republic, and being a part of the UK. (From whence it gets big public sector contracts and £11bn a year.)

It's hard to see how Northern Ireland benefits economically from Brexit, even if the rest of the UK does very well. And it does particularly poorly out of No Deal Brexit. (Albeit the Republic probably does even worse.)

Running with the idea that economic benefit is what matters is what led Remain astray in the first place.

But I'm not talking about the referendum. I'm talking about what happens in Northern Ireland if there is a nasty post Brexit recession.

It's very easy to talk about the importance of being British when you have a secure job. Being British is not so important if you're newly unemployed.

Of course, Northern Ireland is a small place. The UK can increase subsidies there to help them deal with the potential loss of cross border trade. But there will be losers. And some of them will be sore.

And some of them have access to C4 (not the TV channel).

CarlottaVance

50.
In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf

How does a border in the Irish sea 'continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.'?

DavidL

The UK is also a single market and has been for several hundred years. It is a more important single market to NI than Eire or the EU (the same is true for Scotland of course). The DUP position is that they will not accept any deal that undermines their position in the UK SM. So no customs checks in the Irish sea, no different regulation in NI, no interference in that internal market by the EU. It's a straightforward and logical position focused on the main interest in NI and has the happy side effect of making them less Irish and more British. From a DUP point of view what's not to like?

After the shambles of the first backstop deal this was made crystal clear to May who accepted it and changed the wording so it referred to a UK backstop, not a NI one. That is what the agreement says despite the EU trying to claim to the contrary.

So May got Raab to go offering a UK backstop, albeit for a limited time. This was the most she could get past her Cabinet and it wasn't easy. The answer of no leaves her nowhere else to go. I suspect she is coming to the Commons to announce a series of measures based on the hypothesis that there will be now be no deal. She wants to do this today because she wants the EU to think this through before their meeting later this week. It is an incredible gamble but I really don't see any other options at this point.

Whether her government survives that announcement remains to be seen. Will Labour ask for a vote of no confidence? They probably should.

rkrkrk

MikeSmithson said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I'd argue they don't have to get any new converts to win.
They merely need the Tories to lose votes. Whether to UKIP, the Lib Dems, the Greens, a new party, or even just sitting on their hands at home, it doesn't matter.

For example, if you got exactly the same votes for everyone other than the Tories, and the Tories lost 2 million votes:

Tories lose 41 seats to Labour, 3 to the Lib Dems, 2 to the SNP.

Con 271
Lab 303
SNP 37
LD 15

That on its own would make Labour favourite to take 10 Downing Street. Given as well that many of the SNP/Labour seats are very close in terms of majority, a handful of SNP voters staying home could put Corbyn very close to going over the top - with not a single extra vote being won.

I don't think Labour has anything like the appeal that it had on June 8th last year. I'm in what could be the tightest constituency in the UK and have tactically voted in the past two elections. that won't happen again.

Labour got 40% of the vote in 2017. An average of the last 5 polls puts them on 38.6% of the vote. I think the evidence suggests their appeal is broadly similar for now.

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

50.
In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf

How does a border in the Irish sea 'continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.'?

The EU aren’t cherrypicking, are they?

logical_song

williamglenn said:

OldKingCole said:

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

Did we get any of those 4 things?
I must have missed the Antichrist.

geoffw

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

OldKingCole said:

geoffw said:

DUP don't bluff. It's existential.

What part of No do you not understand, eh.

No nay never. NEVER!

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

The other problem is that Northern Ireland benefits from both being in a close trading arrangement with the Republic, and being a part of the UK. (From whence it gets big public sector contracts and £11bn a year.)

It's hard to see how Northern Ireland benefits economically from Brexit, even if the rest of the UK does very well. And it does particularly poorly out of No Deal Brexit. (Albeit the Republic probably does even worse.)

Running with the idea that economic benefit is what matters is what led Remain astray in the first place.

But I'm not talking about the referendum. I'm talking about what happens in Northern Ireland if there is a nasty post Brexit recession.

It's very easy to talk about the importance of being British when you have a secure job. Being British is not so important if you're newly unemployed.

Of course, Northern Ireland is a small place. The UK can increase subsidies there to help them deal with the potential loss of cross border trade. But there will be losers. And some of them will be sore.

You didn't mention recession. You were talking about a changed trading relationship. Anyway how does the recession come about? Insufficient domestic spending? The £300m per week we don't flush into Brussels might help a bit there. And there's nothing to stop the BoE setting the interest rate appropriately for the domestic economy to offset deficient demand if we went all anaemic because of Brexit.

DavidL

logical_song said:

williamglenn said:

OldKingCole said:

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

Did we get any of those 4 things?
I must have missed the Antichrist.

Alastair Campbell?

stodge

LordOfReason said:

Labour blew it with their conference. From that moment on their economic credibility relies too heavily on magic money trees. That’s the crucial mistake they have already made that has cost them the next election.

I think many of us would argue that has been true for a while and indeed almost as soon as Corbyn and McDonnell took over.

It's also possible to argue May and Hammond have a magic money tree of their own with a big handout to the NHS (apparently).

The other key point you forget is Corbyn attracts support from those for whom the current economic model isn't working. While some on here break open the champagne because we are only borrowing £20-£30 billion a year and are growing at 2% per annum for many millions it's not even that substantial.

Both the Conservative and Labour Parties will have economic policies in their manifestos which will defy logic and reason but no one will care. The one that offers some optimism, hope and positivity will be listened to. This is what the "end of austerity" actually means - not the end of actual austerity but the end of the virtue of austerity.

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

Whether her government survives that announcement remains to be seen. Will Labour ask for a vote of no confidence? They probably should.

Who might vote against the Gov't if Labour do ask for the vote ?

DavidL

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Whether her government survives that announcement remains to be seen. Will Labour ask for a vote of no confidence? They probably should.

Who might vote against the Gov't if Labour do ask for the vote ?

Tory MPs who think a no deal outcome is completely against the national interest and should not be the policy of the government. I'm thinking Clarke, Soubry, Grieve, etc. It really won't take many.

Recidivist

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose elections.

A No Deal Brexit and all the resultant problems might just see enough switchers/stay at home Tories to put Corbyn into Number 10.

JohnO nailed it yesterday if the government collapses then he'd expect a Labour majority.

Er... not to detract from the views of the eminent @JohnO but I said the same thing the day before him.

Everything that needs to be said has been said. But not everybody has said it yet.

Bromptonaut

CarlottaVance said:

50.
In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf

How does a border in the Irish sea 'continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.'?

How does a vet carrying out a few random checks on a truck full of sheep fetter access to the U.K. single market?

Recidivist

logical_song said:

williamglenn said:

OldKingCole said:

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

Did we get any of those 4 things?
I must have missed the Antichrist.

Piers Morgan.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/pierrebri/status/1051825192761221120

Slackbladder

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Whether her government survives that announcement remains to be seen. Will Labour ask for a vote of no confidence? They probably should.

Who might vote against the Gov't if Labour do ask for the vote ?

Tory MPs who think a no deal outcome is completely against the national interest and should not be the policy of the government. I'm thinking Clarke, Soubry, Grieve, etc. It really won't take many.

Voting against your own government in a VONC would surely result in de-selection.Maybe a few of them don't care of course. But ushering in a labour government which would wreck the country even more would be unforgiveable.

Bob__Sykes

What time the PM's statement?

Thought it was 3, but looks like Employment Qs to an empty House at the moment.

david_herdson

williamglenn said:

OldKingCole said:

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

Project Fear ain't what it used to be.

stodge

Pulpstar said:

Who might vote against the Gov't if Labour do ask for the vote ?

It's quite simple. As I understand it, if a Government fails one vote of No Confidence, it can try again within a 14 day period so all Theresa May has to do is to invite Vince round for a cup of tea, offer STV for all elections with immediate effect and a public apology from the Conservative Party for everything and I imagine the LDs will at least abstain in the second vote which should be enough.

RobD

Bromptonaut said:

CarlottaVance said:

50.
In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf

How does a border in the Irish sea 'continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.'?

How does a vet carrying out a few random checks on a truck full of sheep fetter access to the U.K. single market?

Is there a minimum amount of time required for it to be fettered or something?

DavidL

Slackbladder said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Whether her government survives that announcement remains to be seen. Will Labour ask for a vote of no confidence? They probably should.

Who might vote against the Gov't if Labour do ask for the vote ?

Tory MPs who think a no deal outcome is completely against the national interest and should not be the policy of the government. I'm thinking Clarke, Soubry, Grieve, etc. It really won't take many.

Voting against your own government in a VONC would surely result in de-selection.Maybe a few of them don't care of course. But ushering in a labour government which would wreck the country even more would be unforgiveable.

Oh I agree. But the obsessives about this are not all on one side.

grabcocque

Many DUP people believe that the EU is the "Third Roman Empire" mentioned in the Book of Revelations, which also states that the antichrist will be born to a prince of said Empire.

So, let's see who the antichrist could be:

Donald Tusk has two children, Michal and Katarzyna
Jean-Claude Juncker has no children
Guy Verhofstadt has two children, Charlotte and Louis
Merkel has no children, Macron has no children.
I'm not sure if women are allowed to be the antichrist.

Hence one of either Michal Tusk or Louis Verhofstadt must be the antichrist.

QED.

Slackbladder

stodge said:

Pulpstar said:

Who might vote against the Gov't if Labour do ask for the vote ?

It's quite simple. As I understand it, if a Government fails one vote of No Confidence, it can try again within a 14 day period so all Theresa May has to do is to invite Vince round for a cup of tea, offer STV for all elections with immediate effect and a public apology from the Conservative Party for everything and I imagine the LDs will at least abstain in the second vote which should be enough.

and in that 14 day period she would all by sure be challenged for the leadership, so no longer be in a position to do so.

Polruan

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Whether her government survives that announcement remains to be seen. Will Labour ask for a vote of no confidence? They probably should.

Who might vote against the Gov't if Labour do ask for the vote ?

If she announces a backstop without a whole new linguistic solution to reconciling "temporary" and "permanent" then almost definitely the DUP but probably not the ERG, who would look to vote the measure down in Parliament.

If she announces that no deal is where it's at, then maybe the Grievites, but there's still a suspicion that they consider marching up to the top of the hill as an act that primarily serves as preparation for marching back down again.

DavidL

grabcocque said:

Many DUP people believe that the EU is the "Third Roman Empire" mentioned in the Book of Revelations, which also states that the antichrist will be born to a prince of said Empire.

So, let's see who the antichrist could be:

Donald Tusk has two children, Michal and Katarzyna
Jean-Claude Juncker has no children
Guy Verhofstadt has two children, Charlotte and Louis
Merkel has no children, Macron has no children.
I'm not sure if women are allowed to be the antichrist.

Hence one of either Michal Tusk or Louis Verhofstadt must be the antichrist.

QED.

Who said the antichrist was not allowed to have children? I have seen The Devils Advocate.

LordOfReason

logical_song said:

williamglenn said:

OldKingCole said:

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

Did we get any of those 4 things?
I must have missed the Antichrist.

Would everything really be so bad under the antichrist? Would rail fares and timetables be as bad?
Would the Brexit negotiation really be so bad if led by the whore of Babylon? Would they duck leadership debates, or ride in on a seven headed beast and steal the show?

Recidivist

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/pierrebri/status/1051825192761221120

Seriously bad news. For those who don't follow these things, Astra Zeneca started life as a spin off from ICI. This is a company with deep roots and history in the UK. But with Brexit, not much of a future.

DavidL

Polruan said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Whether her government survives that announcement remains to be seen. Will Labour ask for a vote of no confidence? They probably should.

Who might vote against the Gov't if Labour do ask for the vote ?

If she announces a backstop without a whole new linguistic solution to reconciling "temporary" and "permanent" then almost definitely the DUP but probably not the ERG, who would look to vote the measure down in Parliament.

If she announces that no deal is where it's at, then maybe the Grievites, but there's still a suspicion that they consider marching up to the top of the hill as an act that primarily serves as preparation for marching back down again.

Both the Grievites and the ERG have been to the top of the hill more times than Sisyphus but its make your mind up time.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

grabcocque said:

Many DUP people believe that the EU is the "Third Roman Empire" mentioned in the Book of Revelations, which also states that the antichrist will be born to a prince of said Empire.

So, let's see who the antichrist could be:

Donald Tusk has two children, Michal and Katarzyna
Jean-Claude Juncker has no children
Guy Verhofstadt has two children, Charlotte and Louis
Merkel has no children, Macron has no children.
I'm not sure if women are allowed to be the antichrist.

Hence one of either Michal Tusk or Louis Verhofstadt must be the antichrist.

QED.

Who said the antichrist was not allowed to have children? I have seen The Devils Advocate.

Are we talking about your pupillage?

Dare I ask who your devil master was?

welshowl

williamglenn said:

OldKingCole said:

The problem, as far as the DUP is concerned, is that the whole thing stems from the Treaty of Rome.
Therefore an extreme negative view is the default position.

I suspect for the DUP it’s not so much the Treaty of Rome 1957, as the break with Rome 1536. I wonder if Brussels has quite worked out it may as well be in 1690 as 2018 and that’s what they are dealing with.

That said the DUP, for all their faults, are consistent and have an entirely logical position, they wish to be in the U.K. , U.K. single market and all, and handing them over without the consent of NI to the EU SM over which they would have no say is democratic non starter. If they are to pay customs dues to Brussels it’s taxation without representation. And that tends to lead to trouble for those trying to do the taxing.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Worth noting the Tsars considered Russia to be the Third Roman Empire. There are genuine historical links to the Eastern Roman Empire, but insufficient for such a strong claim to be upheld.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1051839860510793728

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

grabcocque said:

Many DUP people believe that the EU is the "Third Roman Empire" mentioned in the Book of Revelations, which also states that the antichrist will be born to a prince of said Empire.

So, let's see who the antichrist could be:

Donald Tusk has two children, Michal and Katarzyna
Jean-Claude Juncker has no children
Guy Verhofstadt has two children, Charlotte and Louis
Merkel has no children, Macron has no children.
I'm not sure if women are allowed to be the antichrist.

Hence one of either Michal Tusk or Louis Verhofstadt must be the antichrist.

QED.

Who said the antichrist was not allowed to have children? I have seen The Devils Advocate.

Are we talking about your pupillage?

Dare I ask who your devil master was?

I had a devil mistress I will have you know. My devil masters were Alastair Kinroy QC and Mhairi Richards QC. As best as I can recall no satanic rituals were involved.

Foxy

grabcocque said:

Many DUP people believe that the EU is the "Third Roman Empire" mentioned in the Book of Revelations, which also states that the antichrist will be born to a prince of said Empire.

So, let's see who the antichrist could be:

Donald Tusk has two children, Michal and Katarzyna
Jean-Claude Juncker has no children
Guy Verhofstadt has two children, Charlotte and Louis
Merkel has no children, Macron has no children.
I'm not sure if women are allowed to be the antichrist.

Hence one of either Michal Tusk or Louis Verhofstadt must be the antichrist.

QED.

I like your deductive reasoning. Verhofstadt is a Refformed Protestant, and as obviously a Prince of Rome cannot be, the Antichrist must be Tusk jr.

stodge

welshowl said:

That said the DUP, for all their faults, are consistent and have an entirely logical position, they wish to be in the U.K. , U.K. single market and all, and handing them over without the consent of NI to the EU SM over which they would have no say is democratic non starter. If they are to pay customs dues to Brussels it’s taxation without representation. And that tends to lead to trouble for those trying to do the taxing.

Kudos to the DUP.

They are making a much better job of the tail wagging the dog in Government than the Lib Dems ever did.

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Whether her government survives that announcement remains to be seen. Will Labour ask for a vote of no confidence? They probably should.

Who might vote against the Gov't if Labour do ask for the vote ?

Tory MPs who think a no deal outcome is completely against the national interest and should not be the policy of the government. I'm thinking Clarke, Soubry, Grieve, etc. It really won't take many.

I doubt they would, it would be going even further than the Maastricht shits did in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_vote_of_confidence_in_the_Major_ministry
Ken might get stuck in a Jazz club I suppose.

Gallowgate

My favourite Jess Phillips on BBC News.

tpfkar

One little tit-bit: the trial of Craig Mackinlay MP plus 2 others began this morning before Mr Justice Edis in court 7 of Southwark Crown Court. Election expense issues dating from 2015.

The timing may not exactly be ideal for the Tories coming up to key budget and meaningful Brexit votes, should Mackinlay be unable to participate.

I confess I'd forogtten this was still ongoing.

DavidL

Ok, I am going to have to give up pretending to work and go and watch this, aren't I?

Scott_P

Gallowgate said:

My favourite Jess Phillips on BBC News.

How many Jess Phillips are there?

TheWhiteRabbit

tpfkar said:

One little tit-bit: the trial of Craig Mackinlay MP plus 2 others began this morning before Mr Justice Edis in court 7 of Southwark Crown Court. Election expense issues dating from 2015.

The timing may not exactly be ideal for the Tories coming up to key budget and meaningful Brexit votes, should Mackinlay be unable to participate.

I confess I'd forogtten this was still ongoing.

Given that Secretaries of State have been asked to hand in their passports (metaphorically) I suspect the whips want 100% even when 95% would do...

Big_G_NorthWales

Boris all present and correct in the HOC

CarlottaVance

Bromptonaut said:

CarlottaVance said:

50.
In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf

How does a border in the Irish sea 'continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.'?

How does a vet carrying out a few random checks on a truck full of sheep fetter access to the U.K. single market?

Barnier told Foster that checks would go from 10% to 100%....

Gallowgate

Scott_P said:

Gallowgate said:

My favourite Jess Phillips on BBC News.

How many Jess Phillips are there?

The more the merrier!

Scrapheap_as_was

Turned on BBC Parliament and surprised to see the Wingnut in Chief speaking from the Labour front bench... I thought he'd resigned, did I miss his reappointment somehow?

Wulfrun_Phil

stodge said:

welshowl said:

That said the DUP, for all their faults, are consistent and have an entirely logical position, they wish to be in the U.K. , U.K. single market and all, and handing them over without the consent of NI to the EU SM over which they would have no say is democratic non starter. If they are to pay customs dues to Brussels it’s taxation without representation. And that tends to lead to trouble for those trying to do the taxing.

Kudos to the DUP.

They are making a much better job of the tail wagging the dog in Government than the Lib Dems ever did.

I would quite happily put them in charge of the entire Brexit negotiations. At least they know how to negotiate.