What's the crux of his argument to us non Torygraph subscribers - is it the desire for a horse race to sell more papers and subscriptions based on "conversations with members" that flies in the face of polling evidence ?
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
That depends, many Tory Leave voters in the seat will vote Tory or Brexit Party this time rather than tactically vote for a diehard Remainer like Swinson again even if she is pro Union
Indeed
UK GE 2017, in Scotland, was primarily decided by No-to-Indy supporters voting tactically for the strongest No candidate. In East Dunbartonshire this was Jo Swinson. She benefited hugely from Con, Lab and UKIP supporters lending their votes.
While SLab voters will almost certainly stick with Swinson (indeed, there might even be even stronger tactical SLD voting from this group), the SCon tactical votes for SLD candidates will heavily unwind. East Dunbartonshire is jam-packed full of people who in England would be solid Tory voters, but due to Scottish circumstances have rarely voted for their true first preference.
This makes East Dunbartonshire vulnerable to an SNP re-gain. It will also affect the outcome in many other Scottish seats.
So if this "makes East Dunbartonshire vulnerable to an SNP re-gain" why won't the "No-to-Indy supporters [be] voting tactically for the strongest No candidate" next time?
Because, since 2017, Jo Swinson has evolved from the Better Together candidate to the Bollocks To Brexit candidate. While some of her Tory tactical supporters may tolerate that, most will not.
But the Tory vote jumped in 2017 anyway, from the tactically depressed 8.6% in 2015, when Swinson nearly held on in the face of the SNP tsunami, right back up to 14.6% (very much in line with 2005 & 2010).
The full result shows how unlikely a re-gain is. IMHO, of course.
Wow. Boris is contradicting government advice on burger cooking.
Harmful bacteria can be carried on the surface of whole cuts of meat. When a rare steak is seared these bacteria are killed, making the steak safe to eat.
When meat is minced to produce burgers, any harmful bacteria from the surface of the raw meat spread throughout the burger. Unless the burger is cooked right through, these bacteria can remain alive on the inside. This applies to all burgers, including burgers made from good quality or expensive meat.
That's why a burger needs to be served well done, while a steak can be served rare.
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38% LD 30% Grn 11% Bxp 10% Con 9% oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
He’s not standing in twickenham he’s staying where he is with the blessing of the previous lib dem ppc
Not certain about that, Twickenham was an option and no PPC has been selected there yet.
Though of course Lambeth containing Streatham did vote LD in the European Parliament elections if he stays where he is
There is currently no vacancy in Twickenham. We have a sitting Lib Dem MP who has not told his local party he wants to stand down. He may in the future but as of now he hasn't. Plus, even if there is a vacancy in Twickenham, Chuka would not be eligible to apply. Under the selection rules adopted by the Lib Dems after the 2017 GE, if any sitting MP stands down, their successor will be chosen from an All Women Shortlist. Am I sure about this? Yes, 100% as I am a) the person who wrote that rule and steered it through ratification and b) the person who is in charge of enforcing it. It will not be rewritten until after the next General Election.
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
That depends, many Tory Leave voters in the seat will vote Tory or Brexit Party this time rather than tactically vote for a diehard Remainer like Swinson again even if she is pro Union
Indeed
UK GE 2017, in Scotland, was primarily decided by No-to-Indy supporters voting tactically for the strongest No candidate. In East Dunbartonshire this was Jo Swinson. She benefited hugely from Con, Lab and UKIP supporters lending their votes.
While SLab voters will almost certainly stick with Swinson (indeed, there might even be even stronger tactical SLD voting from this group), the SCon tactical votes for SLD candidates will heavily unwind. East Dunbartonshire is jam-packed full of people who in England would be solid Tory voters, but due to Scottish circumstances have rarely voted for their true first preference.
This makes East Dunbartonshire vulnerable to an SNP re-gain. It will also affect the outcome in many other Scottish seats.
So if this "makes East Dunbartonshire vulnerable to an SNP re-gain" why won't the "No-to-Indy supporters [be] voting tactically for the strongest No candidate" next time?
Because, since 2017, Jo Swinson has evolved from the Better Together candidate to the Bollocks To Brexit candidate. While some of her Tory tactical supporters may tolerate that, most will not.
But the Tory vote jumped in 2017 anyway, from the tactically depressed 8.6% in 2015, when Swinson nearly held on in the face of the SNP tsunami, right back up to 14.6% (very much in line with 2005 & 2010).
The full result shows how unlikely a re-gain is. IMHO, of course.
LD 40.6% SNP 30.3% Con 14.6% Lab 14.5%
It’s not that long since Michael Hirst (Con ex-MP) was consistently winning approx 36% of the vote in this area. There is *plenty* of scope for the SCon vote to return to 20%+ here. That would spell disaster for Swinson.
Mr. Glenn, I've heard some people order medium rare because they actually want rare but they also want some margin of error in case the chef cocks it up.
Morris Dancer's food is usually carbonised. Charcoal makes us stronger.
I was once asked to sign a disclaimer in a Manchester restaurant when I asked for a medium rare steak - I kid you not.
OTH plenty of 'posh' burger places will serve you a rare burger if you ask. Also, what about steak tartare?
It's interesting how many Labour supporters are intensely relaxed about being on 18% in the polls, because at the last general election they went from 25% to 41% during the campaign.
Wow. Boris is contradicting government advice on burger cooking.
Harmful bacteria can be carried on the surface of whole cuts of meat. When a rare steak is seared these bacteria are killed, making the steak safe to eat.
When meat is minced to produce burgers, any harmful bacteria from the surface of the raw meat spread throughout the burger. Unless the burger is cooked right through, these bacteria can remain alive on the inside. This applies to all burgers, including burgers made from good quality or expensive meat.
That's why a burger needs to be served well done, while a steak can be served rare.
Boris is trolling the evil Tories who cut 20,000 bobbies in the first place.
Wow. Boris is p*ssing all over Theresa's legacy, but it just shows that he's politically invincible. This is no different to Cameron saying he'd re-nationalize BT. The difference being that the membership would have strung Dave up; with Boris they adore him even more for it.
May deserves no legacy other than opprobrium. “I did my best. It wasn’t very good.”
Personally I can't get excited about foxhunting and I generally frown upon governments banning things.
My take is that if rich people want to get dolled up like a ploughmans lunch and go galloping across the fields with their hounds on a Saturday afternoon then who am I to judge.
However, repealling the hunting ban in clearly a "second term" project if/when the Tories win a large or landslide majority.
Until that point they should stay well clear of the whole subject... Especially after the 2017 election disaster...
It's a major slip up from Hunt.
I am not sure it is. There are a very large group of traditional Conservative members who do wish to repeal. There are a large number who take your view on the subject. Anti-country sports people (in the tradition of Anne Widdicombe) are rare in most Conservative Associations. By the way, Welsh miners used to be very keen huntsmen. It is a myth that it is only posh people that go hunting.
Wow. Boris is contradicting government advice on burger cooking.
Harmful bacteria can be carried on the surface of whole cuts of meat. When a rare steak is seared these bacteria are killed, making the steak safe to eat.
When meat is minced to produce burgers, any harmful bacteria from the surface of the raw meat spread throughout the burger. Unless the burger is cooked right through, these bacteria can remain alive on the inside. This applies to all burgers, including burgers made from good quality or expensive meat.
That's why a burger needs to be served well done, while a steak can be served rare.
Boris is trolling the evil Tories who cut 20,000 bobbies in the first place.
Wow. Boris is p*ssing all over Theresa's legacy, but it just shows that he's politically invincible. This is no different to Cameron saying he'd re-nationalize BT. The difference being that the membership would have strung Dave up; with Boris they adore him even more for it.
Are you serious? Tory membership are big fans of more visible police, surely?
Mr. Glenn, I've heard some people order medium rare because they actually want rare but they also want some margin of error in case the chef cocks it up.
Morris Dancer's food is usually carbonised. Charcoal makes us stronger.
I was once asked to sign a disclaimer in a Manchester restaurant when I asked for a medium rare steak - I kid you not.
OTH plenty of 'posh' burger places will serve you a rare burger if you ask. Also, what about steak tartare?
The key is how it is handled. As the page linked to earlier explains, the risk can be greatly reduced if following strict controls which the "'posh' burger places" likely follow.
To those maligning cretin/wanker/relic Bill Cash for his outdated views and obsession with Germany/WW2 on the previous thread..
You might all be a bit more obsessed by WW2 Germany if your father had been blown up by Nazis when you were about 4 years old. You might not, but I'm happy to give Cash a bit of leeway on that front.
And I can't imagine any of you have done anywhere near as much to modernise the world as Cash did with his Gender Equality International Development Bill in 2013/14. He deserves huge credit for that.
People should be judged on merit, not demographics.
If we had more women selected in winnable seats without that rule, I would agree with you. But after more than 15 years of trying, we didn't. So we put it in to concentrate minds on the under-representation of women. It's working. It is definitely a temporary measure, and not one taken lightly, believe me. First introduced after 2015, when we had no women MPs at all. Hopefully won't be required after the next General Election.
Boris is trolling the evil Tories who cut 20,000 bobbies in the first place.
Wow. Boris is p*ssing all over Theresa's legacy, but it just shows that he's politically invincible. This is no different to Cameron saying he'd re-nationalize BT. The difference being that the membership would have strung Dave up; with Boris they adore him even more for it.
Are you serious? Tory membership are big fans of more visible police, surely?
Not sure. When the likes of Sadiq Khan bemoaned the cuts in police numbers many dismissed it as lefty bleating.
An Indy defence in Middlesborough, which looks safe, although there are two competing Indys, which in normal circumstances might open a door for Labour.
A Tory defence in Chorley, a straight Lab v Con contest.
A Tory defence in Wiltshire, looks very safe but the late Cllr had a big personal vote.
A Labour defence in Rhondda, looks an outside chance for PC or LibDem and a test of today’s poll.
Four local by-elections today. Con defences in Chorley and Wiltshire, Lab defence in Rhondda Cynon Taf, and Ind defence in Middlesbrough. Suspect there will be 4 holds.
The Telegraph has been forced to issue another correction to a Boris Johnson column, apologising on the Conservative MP’s behalf to a convicted drug dealer.
The potential future prime minister had used his £275,000-a-year column to criticise the case of Luke Jewitt, who had been allowed out of prison on day release to visit a spa with his mother.
In the column, Johnson described it as “yet another example of our cockeyed crook-coddling criminal justice system” and urged Telegraph readers to “fill yourself with righteous anger” at the sight of a man being allowed out out of his cell while halfway through a nine-year jail term.
The newspaper has since corrected Johnson’s claim that Jewitt “was pushing huge quantities of cocaine and cannabis on to the streets”, following a formal complaint to press regulator Ipso.
“Mr Jewitt was in fact cleared of charges relating to cannabis, and was convicted of conspiracy to supply 3kg of cocaine,” said the Telegraph in a correction added to Johnson’s article. “We are happy to clarify.”
People should be judged on merit, not demographics.
If we had more women selected in winnable seats without that rule, I would agree with you. But after more than 15 years of trying, we didn't. So we put it in to concentrate minds on the under-representation of women. It's working. It is definitely a temporary measure, and not one taken lightly, believe me. First introduced after 2015, when we had no women MPs at all. Hopefully won't be required after the next General Election.
It’s a shameful state of affairs; we only need to look at the Labour Party to see that quotas and discriminatory selections do nothing to change underlying attitudes - indeed there’s an argument that they have the opposite effect. No liberal party should be choosing people or disqualifying people because of their gender, ethnicity and the like.
Boris is trolling the evil Tories who cut 20,000 bobbies in the first place.
Wow. Boris is p*ssing all over Theresa's legacy, but it just shows that he's politically invincible. This is no different to Cameron saying he'd re-nationalize BT. The difference being that the membership would have strung Dave up; with Boris they adore him even more for it.
Are you serious? Tory membership are big fans of more visible police, surely?
Not sure. When the likes of Sadiq Khan bemoaned the cuts in police numbers many dismissed it as lefty bleating.
Yes, because he's a left wing mayor trying to pass the buck for his own inadequacy onto central government. The main criticism of Khan is he refuses to make best use of the resources available to him, due to his opposition to Stop and Search.
Edit: in general, Tory members are in favour of increased toughness in law and order. So more police. Especially visible police, so they can talk about how much younger they keep getting.
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
That depends, many Tory Leave voters in the seat will vote Tory or Brexit Party this time rather than tactically vote for a diehard Remainer like Swinson again even if she is pro Union
Indeed
UK GE 2017, in Scotland, was primarily decided by No-to-Indy supporters voting tactically for the strongest No candidate. In East Dunbartonshire this was Jo Swinson. She benefited hugely from Con, Lab and UKIP supporters lending their votes.
While SLab voters will almost certainly stick with Swinson (indeed, there might even be even stronger tactical SLD voting from this group), the SCon tactical votes for SLD candidates will heavily unwind. East Dunbartonshire is jam-packed full of people who in England would be solid Tory voters, but due to Scottish circumstances have rarely voted for their true first preference.
This makes East Dunbartonshire vulnerable to an SNP re-gain. It will also affect the outcome in many other Scottish seats.
So if this "makes East Dunbartonshire vulnerable to an SNP re-gain" why won't the "No-to-Indy supporters [be] voting tactically for the strongest No candidate" next time?
Because, since 2017, Jo Swinson has evolved from the Better Together candidate to the Bollocks To Brexit candidate. While some of her Tory tactical supporters may tolerate that, most will not.
But the Tory vote jumped in 2017 anyway, from the tactically depressed 8.6% in 2015, when Swinson nearly held on in the face of the SNP tsunami, right back up to 14.6% (very much in line with 2005 & 2010).
The full result shows how unlikely a re-gain is. IMHO, of course.
LD 40.6% SNP 30.3% Con 14.6% Lab 14.5%
It’s not that long since Michael Hirst (Con ex-MP) was consistently winning approx 36% of the vote in this area. There is *plenty* of scope for the SCon vote to return to 20%+ here. That would spell disaster for Swinson.
Yes, but she got her 40% when the party was at 7% nationally. If they can stay up near their current 20%, it is hard to see her losing.
Surely the most worrying point about Hunt re foxhunting isn't just the issue itself but the fact that it shows he has a complete lack of political awareness.
Is he unaware of the damage it did in the 2017 GE?
If not, why not?
If yes, why is he wilfully damaging the party's electoral prospects again?
OK, we're not in a GE campaign now but we could be soon. Anything he says now will be brought up, whether or not it's in the manifesto.
As far as I'm concerned this disqualifies him from being leader. Number 1 requirement is someone who can win a GE. If he is unaware of how serious this is then he simply isn't qualified to be leader.
The image of city folk telling people in the country how to run their lives is not Conservative either.
What about country folk, who also overwhelmingly support the hunt ban?
Also I echo the sentiment of Philip_Thompson and others in admiring Big_G's stand on this. If you have deeply-held principles, it's important to stand true to them rather than compromise them away, especially when what you'd get in return is something as dubious as Hunt's leadership skills.
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
Hunting - and my wife may not vote. Neither of us will vote for Hunt. My daughter is horrified at Hunts stance and it goes through my family.
It is unfair to suggest I am seeking to vote for Boris. I stand by everything I have said about him but I either vote Boris or abstain. If I do vote Boris it will not be manufactured it is because Hunt crossed the line for me
The Telegraph has been forced to issue another correction to a Boris Johnson column, apologising on the Conservative MP’s behalf to a convicted drug dealer.
The potential future prime minister had used his £275,000-a-year column to criticise the case of Luke Jewitt, who had been allowed out of prison on day release to visit a spa with his mother.
In the column, Johnson described it as “yet another example of our cockeyed crook-coddling criminal justice system” and urged Telegraph readers to “fill yourself with righteous anger” at the sight of a man being allowed out out of his cell while halfway through a nine-year jail term.
The newspaper has since corrected Johnson’s claim that Jewitt “was pushing huge quantities of cocaine and cannabis on to the streets”, following a formal complaint to press regulator Ipso.
“Mr Jewitt was in fact cleared of charges relating to cannabis, and was convicted of conspiracy to supply 3kg of cocaine,” said the Telegraph in a correction added to Johnson’s article. “We are happy to clarify.”
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
Isn't he acting on his principles here?
He has got principles. But they are contradictory and he has difficulty resolving them. If I understand his quandary correctly, he is torn between putting his son-in-law out of work and cruelty to foxes. Not an easy place to be. However I do wish to note my disquiet that he has the luxury of being able to choose the next Prime Minister (at least in part) whereas I do not.
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
My recollection is that he was going to leave the party if Boris became leader.
Like many Conservatives, such things were easy to say when it seemed unlikely, and there has been a degree of rowing back since then. Not least among the MPs.
But a bad thing that lasts a short time is better than a bad thing that lasts a long time and is otherwise identical.
Insofar as it had a job, that job is done, with a good batch of female MPs and female candidates in place in many of the seats the party is likely to win if it makes reasonable gains. Retaining a bad thing after its imperative is redundant is wrong.
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
Hunting - and my wife may not vote. Neither of us will vote for Hunt. My daughter is horrified at Hunts stance and it goes through my family.
It is unfair to suggest I am seeking to vote for Boris. I stand by everything I have said about him but I either vote Boris or abstain. If I do vote Boris it will not be manufactured it is because Hunt crossed the line for me
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
Hunting - and my wife may not vote. Neither of us will vote for Hunt. My daughter is horrified at Hunts stance and it goes through my family.
It is unfair to suggest I am seeking to vote for Boris. I stand by everything I have said about him but I either vote Boris or abstain. If I do vote Boris it will not be manufactured it is because Hunt crossed the line for me
You cannot blame Hunt if you vote for Boris. You have three choices: vote for Boris, vote for Hunt, or not vote. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to take any action. To say "it's Hunt's fault I'm voting for Boris!" is to abandon personal responsibility.
Surely the most worrying point about Hunt re foxhunting isn't just the issue itself but the fact that it shows he has a complete lack of political awareness.
Is he unaware of the damage it did in the 2017 GE?
If not, why not?
If yes, why is he wilfully damaging the party's electoral prospects again?
OK, we're not in a GE campaign now but we could be soon. Anything he says now will be brought up, whether or not it's in the manifesto.
As far as I'm concerned this disqualifies him from being leader. Number 1 requirement is someone who can win a GE. If he is unaware of how serious this is then he simply isn't qualified to be leader.
Mr. L, on those grounds, Boris is equally disqualified, making promises and rowing back, hiding from the media and having to be forced out to face them because the ridicule grew too much.
Boris, however, has also shown himself to be incompetent as a Cabinet minister.
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
Isn't he acting on his principles here?
He has got principles. But they are contradictory and he has difficulty resolving them. If I understand his quandary correctly, he is torn between putting his son-in-law out of work and cruelty to foxes. Not an easy place to be. However I do wish to note my disquiet that he has the luxury of being able to choose the next Prime Minister (at least in part) whereas I do not.
Just on Airbus. They have confirmed they will continue manufacturing in the UK irrespective of Brexit and the work programme over the next ten years will not adversely effect my son in law
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
Hunting - and my wife may not vote. Neither of us will vote for Hunt. My daughter is horrified at Hunts stance and it goes through my family.
It is unfair to suggest I am seeking to vote for Boris. I stand by everything I have said about him but I either vote Boris or abstain. If I do vote Boris it will not be manufactured it is because Hunt crossed the line for me
You cannot blame Hunt if you vote for Boris. You have three choices: vote for Boris, vote for Hunt, or not vote. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to take any action. To say "it's Hunt's fault I'm voting for Boris!" is to abandon personal responsibility.
Hunt has disqualified himself so it is a choice Boris or void
Edit: in general, Tory members are in favour of increased toughness in law and order. So more police. Especially visible police, so they can talk about how much younger they keep getting.
I don't think that's true. One of my hobbyhorse on this board is the proposition that party members are tribal, not principle based, and make law on gut feeling rather than principle-based logic. So it is important to understand the prejudices of the tribe. A rather sad example is the point that people are all in favour of increased policing for the crimes they disapprove of, but will vehemently object to policing the crimes they approve of: drug use being the obvious one.
Boris missed a trick by not promising to revoke the fox-hunting ban himself. What does it summon up in the minds of the vast majority of the membership?
Tony Blair Vegans Liberal elites who live in cities and vote Remain Politically correct killjoys
In short, the things they absolutely despise. Not very deft footwork from Boris there.
Mr. L, on those grounds, Boris is equally disqualified, making promises and rowing back, hiding from the media and having to be forced out to face them because the ridicule grew too much.
Boris, however, has also shown himself to be incompetent as a Cabinet minister.
Boris has not said anything anywhere remotely near as toxic as what Hunt has done with foxhunting.
Gosh, extrapolating from here Ed Davey has a big chance.
My view is that there is no way the LDs will pass up the chance to elect their 1st female leader given there is a suitable candidate of that gender available.
He says a pact with BRX is needed to stop Corbyn. But he must know there is no chance of such a pact actually taking place - Con is bound to fight every seat.
So what he has done is dramatically increase the risk of a Corbyn Govt. Which is why sensible, reasonable, mainstream Conservatives are so furious with him.
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
That depends, many Tory Leave voters in the seat will vote Tory or Brexit Party this time rather than tactically vote for a diehard Remainer like Swinson again even if she is pro Union
Indeed
UK GE 2017, in Scotland, was primarily decided by No-to-Indy supporters voting tactically for the strongest No candidate. In East Dunbartonshire this was Jo Swinson. This makes East Dunbartonshire vulnerable to an SNP re-gain. It will also affect the outcome in many other Scottish seats.
So if this "makes East Dunbartonshire vulnerable to an SNP re-gain" why won't the "No-to-Indy supporters [be] voting tactically for the strongest No candidate" next time?
Because, since 2017, Jo Swinson has evolved from the Better Together candidate to the Bollocks To Brexit candidate. While some of her Tory tactical supporters may tolerate that, most will not.
But the Tory vote jumped in 2017 anyway, from the tactically depressed 8.6% in 2015, when Swinson nearly held on in the face of the SNP tsunami, right back up to 14.6% (very much in line with 2005 & 2010).
The full result shows how unlikely a re-gain is. IMHO, of course.
LD 40.6% SNP 30.3% Con 14.6% Lab 14.5%
It’s not that long since Michael Hirst (Con ex-MP) was consistently winning approx 36% of the vote in this area. There is *plenty* of scope for the SCon vote to return to 20%+ here. That would spell disaster for Swinson.
Indeed, across Scotland in 2017 the Tory vote rose 14% but in East Dunbartonshire it rose by just 6% due to tactical voting for Swinson.
That will unwind now as Tory Leavers refuse to vote for a diehard Remainer and will stick to voting for the Tory candidate or the Brexit Party instead
Gosh, extrapolating from here Ed Davey has a big chance.
My view is that there is no way the LDs will pass up the chance to elect their 1st female leader given there is a suitable candidate of that gender available.
Gosh, extrapolating from here Ed Davey has a big chance.
My view is that there is no way the LDs will pass up the chance to elect their 1st female leader given there is a suitable candidate of that gender available.
But perhaps I am wrong.
The median PBer is a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Remainer/soft Brexiteer.
So they are more likely to vote for Hunt or Davey than the average Tory or LD member I suspect
Just voted for Jo Swinson. Ed is currently the better candidate but Jo has much more upside to improve. Does that make sense?
Only with the luxury of time and a quiet political environment for her to grow into the job. I don’t think we have either.
Jo has the wider appeal but less depth. She's the riskier option. Do we want the chance of a real breakthrough with Jo (which might fall) or a solid core vote with Ed?
EDIT are we gamblers or conservatives? I know what l am!
If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:
Lab 38% LD 30% Grn 11% Bxp 10% Con 9% oth 2%
If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?
Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.
So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.
Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
He’s not standing in twickenham he’s staying where he is with the blessing of the previous lib dem ppc
Not certain about that, Twickenham was an option and no PPC has been selected there yet.
Though of course Lambeth containing Streatham did vote LD in the European Parliament elections if he stays where he is
There is currently no vacancy in Twickenham. We have a sitting Lib Dem MP who has not told his local party he wants to stand down. He may in the future but as of now he hasn't. Plus, even if there is a vacancy in Twickenham, Chuka would not be eligible to apply. Under the selection rules adopted by the Lib Dems after the 2017 GE, if any sitting MP stands down, their successor will be chosen from an All Women Shortlist. Am I sure about this? Yes, 100% as I am a) the person who wrote that rule and steered it through ratification and b) the person who is in charge of enforcing it. It will not be rewritten until after the next General Election.
As I understand it all women shortlists were adopted by the LDs before the 2017 general election, no guarantee they will reapply before the next general election
Is Boris anti fox hunting? It really has the potential to cost the tories support in an election even just the idea that support still exists for it in the party, even if they don't include a repeal in the manifesto. It also divides their support along an entirely new axis (you'll have plenty of brexiteers against, Remainers in favour etc). Truly spectacularly bad by Hunt to have allowed it to become a discussion point. Labour are too distracted to capitalise, but LDs could do well by going hard on it to attract anti fox hunting tories in home county seats etc.
Raab confirmed on Peston last night Boris would not seek to repeal the Hunting Act as a priority
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
Hunting - and my wife may not vote. Neither of us will vote for Hunt. My daughter is horrified at Hunts stance and it goes through my family.
It is unfair to suggest I am seeking to vote for Boris. I stand by everything I have said about him but I either vote Boris or abstain. If I do vote Boris it will not be manufactured it is because Hunt crossed the line for me
You cannot blame Hunt if you vote for Boris. You have three choices: vote for Boris, vote for Hunt, or not vote. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to take any action. To say "it's Hunt's fault I'm voting for Boris!" is to abandon personal responsibility.
Hunt has disqualified himself so it is a choice Boris or void
Would it be mean of me to point out that you don't know what Boris's position is on foxhunting either? Or do you in fact know it (in which case I apologize).
Is Boris anti fox hunting? It really has the potential to cost the tories support in an election even just the idea that support still exists for it in the party, even if they don't include a repeal in the manifesto. It also divides their support along an entirely new axis (you'll have plenty of brexiteers against, Remainers in favour etc). Truly spectacularly bad by Hunt to have allowed it to become a discussion point. Labour are too distracted to capitalise, but LDs could do well by going hard on it to attract anti fox hunting tories in home county seats etc.
Raab confirmed on Peston last night Boris would not seek to repeal the Hunting Act as a priority
What was Boris's position before Hunt made his remark? Just for comparison purposes...
Is Boris anti fox hunting? It really has the potential to cost the tories support in an election even just the idea that support still exists for it in the party, even if they don't include a repeal in the manifesto. It also divides their support along an entirely new axis (you'll have plenty of brexiteers against, Remainers in favour etc). Truly spectacularly bad by Hunt to have allowed it to become a discussion point. Labour are too distracted to capitalise, but LDs could do well by going hard on it to attract anti fox hunting tories in home county seats etc.
Raab confirmed on Peston last night Boris would not seek to repeal the Hunting Act as a priority
...which, if you think about it, is not the same as saying he won't vote for repeal if it came up...
Is Boris anti fox hunting? It really has the potential to cost the tories support in an election even just the idea that support still exists for it in the party, even if they don't include a repeal in the manifesto. It also divides their support along an entirely new axis (you'll have plenty of brexiteers against, Remainers in favour etc). Truly spectacularly bad by Hunt to have allowed it to become a discussion point. Labour are too distracted to capitalise, but LDs could do well by going hard on it to attract anti fox hunting tories in home county seats etc.
Raab confirmed on Peston last night Boris would not seek to repeal the Hunting Act as a priority
...which, if you think about it, is not the same as saying he won't vote for repeal if it came up...
It’s a pretty safe bet that both of them are in favour of hunting, given past comments.
i also reckon that Boris’s team were behind getting the question asked and/or the story featured prominently in the press, as a wrecking exercise. Charles I believe said the same this morning.
The image of city folk telling people in the country how to run their lives is not Conservative either.
What about country folk, who also overwhelmingly support the hunt ban?
Also I echo the sentiment of Philip_Thompson and others in admiring Big_G's stand on this. If you have deeply-held principles, it's important to stand true to them rather than compromise them away, especially when what you'd get in return is something as dubious as Hunt's leadership skills.
I thought he was going to vote for Johnson? I can't think of anyone a 'man of principle' would be less likely to vote for!
Is Boris anti fox hunting? It really has the potential to cost the tories support in an election even just the idea that support still exists for it in the party, even if they don't include a repeal in the manifesto. It also divides their support along an entirely new axis (you'll have plenty of brexiteers against, Remainers in favour etc). Truly spectacularly bad by Hunt to have allowed it to become a discussion point. Labour are too distracted to capitalise, but LDs could do well by going hard on it to attract anti fox hunting tories in home county seats etc.
Raab confirmed on Peston last night Boris would not seek to repeal the Hunting Act as a priority
...which, if you think about it, is not the same as saying he won't vote for repeal if it came up...
It’s a pretty safe bet that both of them are in favour of hunting, given past comments.
i also reckon that Boris’s team were behind getting the question asked and/or the story featured prominently in the press, as a wrecking exercise. Charles I believe said the same this morning.
I know you were referring to @Charles, our esteemed contributor, but the way you phrased it made me think that the beheaded former King had posted this morning.
Just voted for Jo Swinson. Ed is currently the better candidate but Jo has much more upside to improve. Does that make sense?
Only with the luxury of time and a quiet political environment for her to grow into the job. I don’t think we have either.
Jo has the wider appeal but less depth. She's the riskier option. Do we want the chance of a real breakthrough with Jo (which might fall) or a solid core vote with Ed?
EDIT are we gamblers or conservatives? I know what l am!
Unwise. Perhaps she will surprise on the upside given the luxury of time. However, time is not, If everyone here is to be believed, on her side.
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
Hunting - and my wife may not vote. Neither of us will vote for Hunt. My daughter is horrified at Hunts stance and it goes through my family.
It is unfair to suggest I am seeking to vote for Boris. I stand by everything I have said about him but I either vote Boris or abstain. If I do vote Boris it will not be manufactured it is because Hunt crossed the line for me
You cannot blame Hunt if you vote for Boris. You have three choices: vote for Boris, vote for Hunt, or not vote. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to take any action. To say "it's Hunt's fault I'm voting for Boris!" is to abandon personal responsibility.
Hunt has disqualified himself so it is a choice Boris or void
Would it be mean of me to point out that you don't know what Boris's position is on foxhunting either? Or do you in fact know it (in which case I apologize).
Does Boris himself know what his position on fox hunting is? Or will be next week?
Main news for me today has been the announcement of William Hill's plans to close 700 betting shops (out of an estate of some 2,280) with a possible 4,500 redundancies resulting. It seems possible Ladbroke/Coral will seek to close 1,000-1,200 shops and other players will follow suit.
This is all due to the reduction in FOBT maximum stakes to £2 which has had the broadly predicted fall in gaming revenue. Now, assuming this all comes to pass, the already struggling High Street will have another rush of empty properties if we see up to 3,000 betting shops close in the next 12 months.
I'm drawn to this from three angles - first, the impact on horse racing revenues and prize money as levy income is cut back. Will we see courses close or perhaps one of the all weather venues mothballed (do we really need six all weather tracks?).
Second, as mentioned, the impact on the High Street. We've had a new Iceland open in East Ham this week but it's a move from one site to a larger site. The impact on social and indeed anti-social behaviour of closing betting shops as well as on the economic health of the High Street in general is going to be interesting.
The third aspect impinges on the cultural and relates partly to the reaction to Boris's pronouncements about the guar tax and cuts to the nub of the cultural wars gist. On one side are those who believe we should have the right to choose for ourselves and the other side has the State taking a more interventionist role. The cultural climate has, I think, swung away from the more laissez-faire personal responsibility approach to a view that recognises the potential harm of excessive sugar consumption and indeed gambling and the impact they cause on individuals, families, communities and indeed society as a whole.
The price of permitting individuals to make bad life choices in terms of eating the wrong food and gambling is viewed through the prism of increased demands on NHS spending (at a time when hospitals themselves seem to be falling apart). To put it bluntly, we all end up paying for the bad life choices of individuals so why not prevent these choices as far as possible so the saved monies can go elsewhere? That line empowers the State to take actions which restrict the choice of individuals "for the greater good" (and that's the bit open to argument and interpretation).
I had an opportunity to buy a ticket for tomorrow's match at Lords a few hours ago but couldn't make my mind up whether to go or not and time ran out on it. It was a ticket in the Warner Stand balcony.
Mr. NorthWales, I'd just say that Hunt's comments (foolish as they were) only apply if the Conservatives have a majority. And they don't.
Boris is an incompetent who breaks promises at will, whose ambition and ego is the sun around which everything else revolves. He was an utter failure as a Cabinet minister and there's no reason to think he'll be other than horrendous as PM.
I dont disagree with any of that but Hunt has lost my vote
Sadly Big_G, it feels like you have been softening your line on Boris for weeks and this is just the excuse you need to vote for him.
How many times have you posted on here that you and Mrs G would never vote for him?... and yet now you are going to.
What's happened to your principles?
Hunting - and my wife may not vote. Neither of us will vote for Hunt. My daughter is horrified at Hunts stance and it goes through my family.
It is unfair to suggest I am seeking to vote for Boris. I stand by everything I have said about him but I either vote Boris or abstain. If I do vote Boris it will not be manufactured it is because Hunt crossed the line for me
You cannot blame Hunt if you vote for Boris. You have three choices: vote for Boris, vote for Hunt, or not vote. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to take any action. To say "it's Hunt's fault I'm voting for Boris!" is to abandon personal responsibility.
Hunt has disqualified himself so it is a choice Boris or void
Would it be mean of me to point out that you don't know what Boris's position is on foxhunting either? Or do you in fact know it (in which case I apologize).
Does Boris himself know what his position on fox hunting is? Or will be next week?
Given the kerfuffle I assume he will take refuge in obfuscation. As I noted, his response (he will not prioritise repeal) is ambiguous and does not reveal how he would actually vote in the event of a vote. Ironically, it seems that he and Hunt's position may actually be identical, but Hunt had the balls to answer a direct question with a honest answer and Boris did not.
Just voted for Jo Swinson. Ed is currently the better candidate but Jo has much more upside to improve. Does that make sense?
Only with the luxury of time and a quiet political environment for her to grow into the job. I don’t think we have either.
Jo has the wider appeal but less depth. She's the riskier option. Do we want the chance of a real breakthrough with Jo (which might fall) or a solid core vote with Ed?
EDIT are we gamblers or conservatives? I know what l am!
Or in the words of the killers ‘are we tory or are we human’
Just put the latest YouGov Scotland sub-sample through Baxter, and Jo Swinson’s East Dunbartonshire got:
Lib Dem 44% SNP 37% Brx 8% Grn 6% Con 4% Lab 1%
While large doses of salt are needed, it is astonishing to think that both Con and Lab have held this area quite recently, and both are now in lost deposit territory.
Comments
The full result shows how unlikely a re-gain is. IMHO, of course.
LD 40.6%
SNP 30.3%
Con 14.6%
Lab 14.5%
Harmful bacteria can be carried on the surface of whole cuts of meat. When a rare steak is seared these bacteria are killed, making the steak safe to eat.
When meat is minced to produce burgers, any harmful bacteria from the surface of the raw meat spread throughout the burger. Unless the burger is cooked right through, these bacteria can remain alive on the inside. This applies to all burgers, including burgers made from good quality or expensive meat.
That's why a burger needs to be served well done, while a steak can be served rare.
https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/burgers
But they'll love him for it!
Plus, even if there is a vacancy in Twickenham, Chuka would not be eligible to apply. Under the selection rules adopted by the Lib Dems after the 2017 GE, if any sitting MP stands down, their successor will be chosen from an All Women Shortlist.
Am I sure about this? Yes, 100% as I am a) the person who wrote that rule and steered it through ratification and b) the person who is in charge of enforcing it. It will not be rewritten until after the next General Election.
So it is possible for me to vote for Jeremy Hunt and draw a cock and balls next to Boris Johnson's name!
OTH plenty of 'posh' burger places will serve you a rare burger if you ask. Also, what about steak tartare?
People should be judged on merit, not demographics.
No we aren't Ann, you dimwitted old fool.
Because you friends in the ERG stopped us leaving.
https://twitter.com/TomBWarren/status/1146780185188077568
That disclaimer sounds nuts. Such is the woe of the modern world.
Don't eat out much but the best recent meal I had was Yorkshire pudding with pork and roast potatoes. Huzzah for pubs!
Weirdo.
An Indy defence in Middlesborough, which looks safe, although there are two competing Indys, which in normal circumstances might open a door for Labour.
A Tory defence in Chorley, a straight Lab v Con contest.
A Tory defence in Wiltshire, looks very safe but the late Cllr had a big personal vote.
A Labour defence in Rhondda, looks an outside chance for PC or LibDem and a test of today’s poll.
The potential future prime minister had used his £275,000-a-year column to criticise the case of Luke Jewitt, who had been allowed out of prison on day release to visit a spa with his mother.
In the column, Johnson described it as “yet another example of our cockeyed crook-coddling criminal justice system” and urged Telegraph readers to “fill yourself with righteous anger” at the sight of a man being allowed out out of his cell while halfway through a nine-year jail term.
The newspaper has since corrected Johnson’s claim that Jewitt “was pushing huge quantities of cocaine and cannabis on to the streets”, following a formal complaint to press regulator Ipso.
“Mr Jewitt was in fact cleared of charges relating to cannabis, and was convicted of conspiracy to supply 3kg of cocaine,” said the Telegraph in a correction added to Johnson’s article. “We are happy to clarify.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/04/daily-telegraph-apology-boris-johnson-drug-dealer-regulator
https://britainelects.com/2019/07/04/previews-04-jul-2019/
Edit: in general, Tory members are in favour of increased toughness in law and order. So more police. Especially visible police, so they can talk about how much younger they keep getting.
Is he unaware of the damage it did in the 2017 GE?
If not, why not?
If yes, why is he wilfully damaging the party's electoral prospects again?
OK, we're not in a GE campaign now but we could be soon. Anything he says now will be brought up, whether or not it's in the manifesto.
As far as I'm concerned this disqualifies him from being leader. Number 1 requirement is someone who can win a GE. If he is unaware of how serious this is then he simply isn't qualified to be leader.
Also I echo the sentiment of Philip_Thompson and others in admiring Big_G's stand on this. If you have deeply-held principles, it's important to stand true to them rather than compromise them away, especially when what you'd get in return is something as dubious as Hunt's leadership skills.
It is unfair to suggest I am seeking to vote for Boris. I stand by everything I have said about him but I either vote Boris or abstain. If I do vote Boris it will not be manufactured it is because Hunt crossed the line for me
Like many Conservatives, such things were easy to say when it seemed unlikely, and there has been a degree of rowing back since then. Not least among the MPs.
And plenty of temporary things outstay their welcome.
But a bad thing that lasts a short time is better than a bad thing that lasts a long time and is otherwise identical.
Boris, however, has also shown himself to be incompetent as a Cabinet minister.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1146817570596675589
Tony Blair
Vegans
Liberal elites who live in cities and vote Remain
Politically correct killjoys
In short, the things they absolutely despise. Not very deft footwork from Boris there.
My view is that there is no way the LDs will pass up the chance to elect their 1st female leader given there is a suitable candidate of that gender available.
But perhaps I am wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48871462
He says a pact with BRX is needed to stop Corbyn. But he must know there is no chance of such a pact actually taking place - Con is bound to fight every seat.
So what he has done is dramatically increase the risk of a Corbyn Govt. Which is why sensible, reasonable, mainstream Conservatives are so furious with him.
That will unwind now as Tory Leavers refuse to vote for a diehard Remainer and will stick to voting for the Tory candidate or the Brexit Party instead
So they are more likely to vote for Hunt or Davey than the average Tory or LD member I suspect
She really is a vile stupid imbecile .
EDIT are we gamblers or conservatives? I know what l am!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/72786/liberal-democrats-agree-all-women-shortlists
*strokes chin*
'stupid imbecile' is a horrendous tautology.
i also reckon that Boris’s team were behind getting the question asked and/or the story featured prominently in the press, as a wrecking exercise. Charles I believe said the same this morning.
Anyone who is voting for Boris because they think Boris is an anti is I'm afraid deluded.
What a funny ditch to die in though. Staking your view on Boris not holding traditional Tory views.
Main news for me today has been the announcement of William Hill's plans to close 700 betting shops (out of an estate of some 2,280) with a possible 4,500 redundancies resulting. It seems possible Ladbroke/Coral will seek to close 1,000-1,200 shops and other players will follow suit.
This is all due to the reduction in FOBT maximum stakes to £2 which has had the broadly predicted fall in gaming revenue. Now, assuming this all comes to pass, the already struggling High Street will have another rush of empty properties if we see up to 3,000 betting shops close in the next 12 months.
I'm drawn to this from three angles - first, the impact on horse racing revenues and prize money as levy income is cut back. Will we see courses close or perhaps one of the all weather venues mothballed (do we really need six all weather tracks?).
Second, as mentioned, the impact on the High Street. We've had a new Iceland open in East Ham this week but it's a move from one site to a larger site. The impact on social and indeed anti-social behaviour of closing betting shops as well as on the economic health of the High Street in general is going to be interesting.
The third aspect impinges on the cultural and relates partly to the reaction to Boris's pronouncements about the guar tax and cuts to the nub of the cultural wars gist. On one side are those who believe we should have the right to choose for ourselves and the other side has the State taking a more interventionist role. The cultural climate has, I think, swung away from the more laissez-faire personal responsibility approach to a view that recognises the potential harm of excessive sugar consumption and indeed gambling and the impact they cause on individuals, families, communities and indeed society as a whole.
The price of permitting individuals to make bad life choices in terms of eating the wrong food and gambling is viewed through the prism of increased demands on NHS spending (at a time when hospitals themselves seem to be falling apart). To put it bluntly, we all end up paying for the bad life choices of individuals so why not prevent these choices as far as possible so the saved monies can go elsewhere? That line empowers the State to take actions which restrict the choice of individuals "for the greater good" (and that's the bit open to argument and interpretation).
I had an opportunity to buy a ticket for tomorrow's match at Lords a few hours ago but couldn't make my mind up whether to go or not and time ran out on it. It was a ticket in the Warner Stand balcony.
Lib Dem 44%
SNP 37%
Brx 8%
Grn 6%
Con 4%
Lab 1%
While large doses of salt are needed, it is astonishing to think that both Con and Lab have held this area quite recently, and both are now in lost deposit territory.