On issues like UC I don't give a toss about party politics, I just want to the destruction of people's lives to stop. And if that is the Tories stopping the roll-out to fix it then fantastic. They won't though, it costs too much money apparently.
UC has its issues, I won't deny. The gov't tagging on a local rate phoneline for issues is not a deliberate act of cruelty though.
No its the unthinking act of a civil servant and the unthinking lack of awareness of the minister. Idiot things happen in all governments - we know that. But when the tales of hardship come in, when the evidence piles in and highlight the issue and instead of acting the government says "no its fine" - as its doing with the 6 weeks - THAT is the deliberate act of cruelty.
And its the same with these disability assessments. Its not the principle of checking that disabled people are entitled that is the problem it is the practice. The government knows its wrongly destroying the lives of disabled people - aside from the swathes of examples there is the fact that the vast majority of appeals are won by the claimant.
The government could recognise these flaws and act. It does not. Instead it robusts the system. THAT is the deliberate act of cruelty. A government that purports to not give a toss about people, cheered on by its own media that has has worked so very hard to demonise anyone receiving a penny from the state as a feckless scrounger.
I see Sarah Wollaston has said she may vote with Labour tonight.
For someone who continually professes not to be a Labour supporter, you sound amazingly like a Labour supporter....
I am very sorry I am just reporting what she has said. I could be an ardent Tory simply bringing attention to a simple fact. There is no logic in your comment at all.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
Who?
Ken Clarke. A safe pair of hands with a reputation that most people on all sides respect.
When the full story of Brexit is written, Liam Fox's failure to deliver any of the things he promised will deserve a whole chapter.
He has flapped around and shown a total lack of understanding of how trade agreements work. I wonder, before he took his job, if he'd ever even read through a single (simple) agreement. (Forget NAFTA, which takes 32 separate PDFs before appendices.)
And his tweet about the UK being able to sign an FTA with Israel post Brexit demonstrated extraordinary ignorance of the EU's existing agreements.
Could we please give Kwasi Kwarteng the job instead. He's 10x smarter, less arrogant, and understands the world of business and finance. (And he's a Leaver.)
Do you really think ANYONE is going to deliver ANYTHING that was promised as part of the Leave vote? The government are a total shower and Liam Fox is the most egregious idiot of the lot. But - this is the odd and somewhat disturbing thing - their incompetence won't make any difference to the eventual outcome. The problem is the referendum itself. It was carried on several very false premises that necessarily will unwind.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
Who?
Ken Clarke. A safe pair of hands with a reputation that most people on all sides respect.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
Who?
Ken Clarke. A safe pair of hands with a reputation that most people on all sides respect.
Not a chance. The party would split in an instant. He certainly wouldn't be trusted to deliver Brexit and the Tory party would be destroyed in the process.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
Who?
Ken Clarke. A safe pair of hands with a reputation that most people on all sides respect.
The sheer shock value of that proposition would certainly change the landscape.
Another tipping point on the way. I think we're approaching a time when we'll need a collective noun for the Remain movement which is more substantial than simply Remainers
A Whinge of Remainers?
It's so much easier with Leavers. If the word Luddite hadn't existed they'd have had to invent it
I’ve just seen the story in the Sun about Merkel apparently breaking a promise to May to get Martin Selmayr sacked. What on earth does anyone think it achieves to place a story like that? Have they decided to make Merkel the pantomime villain?
Another tipping point on the way. I think we're approaching a time when we'll need a collective noun for the Remain movement which is more substantial than simply Remainers
A Whinge of Remainers?
It's so much easier with Leavers. If the word Luddite hadn't existed they'd have had to invent it
Really Roger. As I am afraid you have proved oh so many times on here it is you who are backward looking and afraid of change. Indeed 'Luddite' fits the Remainer psyche perfectly.
If Corbyn wins it will be weariness of austerity which does it not Brexit.
Corbyn has simply neutralised Brexit by accepting it to focus on attacking austerity, zero hours contracts, housing, students loan costs etc
Ah, the things that people actually care about - yes, I remember those.
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
Who?
Pretty well any of them.
Not Andrea Leadsom though.
Nor Boris. I just don't think he is capable of being an effective or even a passable PM.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
I certainly think the Tories would get a temporary honeymoon from getting a new leader in, but it would run out before long, probably much quicker than Mrs May's did (who got the benefit of the doubt for much longer than usual, because people were lazily assuming she was Thatcher reincarnate just because she was a woman, until that impression became impossible to sustain once people actually saw May properly in the general election).
Firstly, if that had been the thinking then the Tories would have suffered in Scotland in 1992. In fact, Major gained a seat north of the border. The Poll Tax was a live issue in 1992, it wasn't in 1987 or in 1997, when the decline happened.
Secondly, Scotland was never used as a guinea pig, though given that it was introduced in Scotland first, it's easy to see why the myth has become established. However, the difference was due primarily to the ease of introducing the two pieces of legislation and the determination of George Younger and Malcolm Rifkind to go into the 1987 election with the achievement of having already abolished the Rates, which were themselves unpopular (though not as unpopular as the Poll Tax would become). Given that there was no time to make meaningful feedback from the one introduction to the other, it couldn't have been a pilot exercise.
Its a myth of tremendous potency. The Tories in Scotland are harangued about the dreaded Poll Tax to this day. And, incredibly, local authorities are still trying to recover unpaid tax resulting in regular headlines about it.
I don't deny that it's a political truth; it's just that it's also a factual falsehood. Credit to Labour and the SNP for making the charge stick. But then it was a stupid way to introduce a stupid policy.
It's not wholly false. The poll tax was introduced by an effectively colonial Scottish executive The Conservatives weren't the majority party in Scotland at the time and had no mandate in Scotland. The policy was only overturned in Scotland after effective political pressure against it was applied in England. Scottish objections were ignored.
I’ve just seen the story in the Sun about Merkel apparently breaking a promise to May to get Martin Selmayr sacked. What on earth does anyone think it achieves to place a story like that? Have they decided to make Merkel the pantomime villain?
TMerkel is struggling enough without TMay gving her problems
Six points behind with the gold standard and losing at PMQs on the subject of the economy to Jezbollah.
This is daft - why sacrifice another candidate on the Brexit process? Wait, get the negotiation done, then bring in the next candidate to deal with the post Brexit environment.
Because the longer she stays the bigger Corbyn’s majority.
It is like osmosis, her shiteness is now damaging the Tory brand.
The shiteness won't be changed sufficiently by replacing her with Boris, Davis, Hammond, Gove, Rudd or whoever. Not at the moment anyway. It all stems from Brexit and the splits internally, and the difficulty in reaching a deal with the EU, will not be resolved by a change of leader.
She needs a reshuffle to bring in the next generation and then time to mature as potential leadership candidates. Someone untainted can then lead the party into 2022.
Absolutely and depressingly it seems I have to re-educate TSE on this point almost every week. But even my patience and loyalty is being stretched to breaking point.
Time is now running very very short for this reshuffle to bring on new talent into senior positions with credible leadership prospects three years hence.
If these changes do not take place before Christmas, and the govt staggers on in pathetic aimlessness well then, this Tory activist is in oh, ffs, PM, just GO and let’s be done with you.
I would like to see a reshuffle too. But who can she sack? Can we collectively come up with a plausible, balanced list of (say) 6 Cabinet ministers?
Johnson, Truss, Javid, Green, Grayling, Leadsom - that’s my first six. More may follow.
If May goes anytime soon either Davis or Johnson are almost certain to be the next PM
...but one comes over as unhinged and the other as useless these days. Ms Rudd is your only hope of redemption. Oh but wait...she generally talks sense so that won't happen.
Rudd polls worse than both Boris and Davis, she loses Leavers to UKIP and Labour without gaining Remainers from Labour or the LDs.
You are fixated with who will give the Tories best polling numbers. Surely in the short term at least it is who is least likely to feck the country. That to many people discounts Johnson Davis and Corbyn. If dipshites Boris or Davis are your next PM you could well be looking at generations of Corbyn and sons if Corbyn. And that surely is your worse nightmare!
And even on Con Home favourabity ratings, it’s Ruth Davidson that tops the polls. Most members are not that ideologically committed one way or the other.
If Davidson was a Leaver she would win easily but she is not and she is not interested in the job snyway
LOL and people moan about Jezza, no wonder public is flocking to Labour. Davidson is crap, surely there must be be one or two talented people in Tory party among all the donkeys.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
Who?
Pretty well any of them.
Not Andrea Leadsom though.
There are shades of Scottish Labour about a carousel of leaders where you get into change for the sake of it. Presumably this leader would in principle be for the long term - deliver Brexit, win the next election and carry on through to 2027. I don't see an obvious candidate. So I go for a non-obvious one, which is Kemi Badenoch, who is young, personable and clearly different. She has no experience or qualifications for the job, but those that do aren't suitable.
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
I certainly think the Tories would get a temporary honeymoon from getting a new leader in, but it would run out before long, probably much quicker than Mrs May's did (who got the benefit of the doubt for much longer than usual, because people were lazily assuming she was Thatcher reincarnate just because she was a woman, until that impression became impossible to sustain once people actually saw May properly in the general election).
I think any temporary honeymoon in VI polls will be dampened by the very public leadership contest and the inevitable rightwing virtue signalling to the elderly, kipper-infused membership.
It's unlikely not to be bruising.
The tories ain't in opposition. The victor will walk straight into number 10. The contest will headline the news for weeks.
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
Recent full poll in Scotland showed SNP miles and miles ahead of Labour , you are dreaming Nick. Also given the skullduggery and back stabbing in the sub regional Labour party annual Leadership contest , there is only one way for them to go and it is NOT up.
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
He is liked and respected across the party as a man of unswerving principle, despite the vast majority of said party disagreeing with him vehemently on Europe. He would be the first genuinely principled PM since Maggie.
Sadly the idea is a complete non-starter on age and poor health grounds, in addition to the other obvious roadblocks. He is 77 and recently had major heart surgery IIRC.
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
He is liked and respected across the party as a man of unswerving principle, despite the vast majority of said party disagreeing with him vehemently on Europe. He would be the first genuinely principled PM since Maggie.
Sadly the idea is a complete non-starter on age and poor health grounds, in addition to the other obvious roadblocks. He is 77 and recently had major heart surgery IIRC.
Wouldn't have said Thatcher was particularly principled.
I think there is a smell of death around this government, like 1997. I don't think a new leader will make any difference, I think the Conservatives likely lose the next GE.
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
He is liked and respected across the party as a man of unswerving principle, despite the vast majority of said party disagreeing with him vehemently on Europe. He would be the first genuinely principled PM since Maggie.
Sadly the idea is a complete non-starter on age and poor health grounds, in addition to the other obvious roadblocks. He is 77 and recently had major heart surgery IIRC.
Wouldn't have said Thatcher was particularly principled.
*grabs tin foil helmet and ducks*
He missed the "un" at the beginning and "barsteward" at the end
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
In recent years ,however, the SNP has underperformed in real elections in relation to the polls. I also suspect that any steadying of SNP support is likely to be concentrated in their traditional areas of strength - particularly rural seats in NE Scotland where they lost a lot of ground to the Tories last June. At the same time, I would be surprised if they had not lost further ground to Labour in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
I certainly think the Tories would get a temporary honeymoon from getting a new leader in, but it would run out before long, probably much quicker than Mrs May's did (who got the benefit of the doubt for much longer than usual, because people were lazily assuming she was Thatcher reincarnate just because she was a woman, until that impression became impossible to sustain once people actually saw May properly in the general election).
I think that's right. It's somewhat unusual for parties to replace leaders that are also Prime Ministers without a succession in place beforehand or due to incapacity. Major and May are the only ones in recent times, I think. In this case the Conservative Party will have done it twice in a couple of years.
I think there is a smell of death around this government, like 1997. I don't think a new leader will make any difference, I think the Conservatives likely lose the next GE.
IMO it will be like what would have happened in 1997 if Labour had been led by a Corbyn figure rather than Blair - ie a very narrow victory as opposed to a landslide. But in 1997 even had Labour been led by Foot or Benn they would still have managed to kick the Tories out such was their unpopularity.
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
In recent years ,however, the SNP has underperformed in real elections in relation to the polls. I also suspect that any steadying of SNP support is likely to be concentrated in their traditional areas of strength - particularly rural seats in NE Scotland where they lost a lot of ground to the Tories last June. At the same time, I would be surprised if they had not lost further ground to Labour in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
Keep hoping, try reading the muppets leaders contest. You would need to be senile to be supporting those absolutely useless donkeys.
I think there is a smell of death around this government, like 1997. I don't think a new leader will make any difference, I think the Conservatives likely lose the next GE.
IMO it will be like what would have happened in 1997 if Labour had been led by a Corbyn figure rather than Blair - ie a very narrow victory as opposed to a landslide. But in 1997 even had Labour been led by Foot or Benn they would still have managed to kick the Tories out such was their unpopularity.
In some respects the next election is 1992 for the Tories and if they win narrowly they will lose by a landslide the election after next to a more moderate Labour leader and be out for a generation.
By contrast if Corbyn wins narrowly the Tory opposition leader will have a real chance of preventing his 're election.
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
Corbyn is certainly making ground in the central belt
I think there is a smell of death around this government, like 1997. I don't think a new leader will make any difference, I think the Conservatives likely lose the next GE.
IMO it will be like what would have happened in 1997 if Labour had been led by a Corbyn figure rather than Blair - ie a very narrow victory as opposed to a landslide. But in 1997 even had Labour been led by Foot or Benn they would still have managed to kick the Tories out such was their unpopularity.
Blair was able to convince millions of former Conservative voters that the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. In that regard, he spent the whole period from 1994-97 reassuring disillusioned Conservatives the central tenets of the Thatcher agenda would be preserved.
There would be no turning of the clock back to 1979 in terms of returning power sech as secondary picketing to the Unions and by agreeing to adopt Clarke's spending plans he shot the fox of being a tax and spend party since he was determined to match Conservative spending plans. By 1999 the mood for more public spending was irresistible.
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
Corbyn is certainly making ground in the central belt
Ha Ha , nutty opinion from resident Scottish expert as usual. Could you find central belt on a map.
I think the Tories underestimate the advantage they would have of getting a fresh face in the top slot. The public are fair-minded and always give a new leader a chance to make an impression. And a fresh tone would make the world of difference both with sceptics in the UK and with Eurocrats.
Who?
Ken Clarke. A safe pair of hands with a reputation that most people on all sides respect.
For those too young to remember him as Thatcher's health minister
And even on Con Home favourabity ratings, it’s Ruth Davidson that tops the polls. Most members are not that ideologically committed one way or the other.
If Davidson was a Leaver she would win easily but she is not and she is not interested in the job snyway
LOL and people moan about Jezza, no wonder public is flocking to Labour. Davidson is crap, surely there must be be one or two talented people in Tory party among all the donkeys.
Davidson made the biggest gains of any Tory leader in Scotland for decades in June
Six points behind with the gold standard and losing at PMQs on the subject of the economy to Jezbollah.
This is daft - why sacrifice another candidate on the Brexit process? Wait, get the negotiation done, then bring in the next candidate to deal with the post Brexit environment.
Because the longer she stays the bigger Corbyn’s majority.
It is like osmosis, her shiteness is now damaging the Tory brand.
The shiteness won't be changed sufficiently by replacing her with lead the party into 2022.
Absolutely and depressingly it seems I have to re-educate TSE on this point almost every week. But even my patience and loyalty is being stretched to breaking point.
Time is now running very very short for this reshuffle to bring on new talent into senior positions with credible leadership prospects three years hence.
If these changes do not take place before Christmas, and the govt staggers on in pathetic aimlessness well then, this Tory activist is in oh, ffs, PM, just GO and let’s be done with you.
I would like to see a reshuffle too. But who can she sack? Can we collectively come up with a plausible, balanced list of (say) 6 Cabinet ministers?
Johnson, Truss, Javid, Green, Grayling, Leadsom - that’s my first six. More may follow.
If May goes anytime soon either Davis or Johnson are almost certain to be the next PM
...but one comes over as unhinged and the other as useless these days. Ms Rudd is your only hope of redemption. Oh but wait...she generally talks sense so that won't happen.
Rudd polls worse than both Boris and Davis, she loses Leavers to UKIP and Labour without gaining Remainers from Labour or the LDs.
You are fixated with who will give the Tories best polling numbers. Surely in the short term at least it is who is least likely to feck the country. That to many people discounts Johnson Davis and Corbyn. If dipshites Boris or Davis are your next PM you could well be looking at generations of Corbyn and sons if Corbyn. And that surely is your worse nightmare!
Why? Corbyn will quickly feck the country if he gets in power, as long as he remains leader beating him is the priority
A question to Sean_F, Casino_Royale and other leavers on the Tory/right side...
Ken Clarke & remain in the EU or Corbyn Brexit ?
Neither as a Ken Clarke led Tory Party and Remain in the EU would see mass defections of Tory Leavers to UKIP without winning enough Labour Remainers to compensate
I think there is a smell of death around this government, like 1997. I don't think a new leader will make any difference, I think the Conservatives likely lose the next GE.
IMO it will be like what would have happened in 1997 if Labour had been led by a Corbyn figure rather than Blair - ie a very narrow victory as opposed to a landslide. But in 1997 even had Labour been led by Foot or Benn they would still have managed to kick the Tories out such was their unpopularity.
In some respects the next election is 1992 for the Tories and if they win narrowly they will lose by a landslide the election after next to a more moderate Labour leader and be out for a generation.
By contrast if Corbyn wins narrowly the Tory opposition leader will have a real chance of preventing his 're election.
From my memory of 1992, most voters didn't blame Major for the recession until Black Wednesday, which was a few months after the election. Had Thatcher stood for a 4th term it would probably have been a different story.
If Brexit goes tits up I don't think the Tories will be able to similarly defer the blame, even under a new leader.
If Corbyn wins it will be weariness of austerity which does it not Brexit.
Corbyn has simply neutralised Brexit by accepting it to focus on attacking austerity, zero hours contracts, housing, students loan costs etc
Ah, the things that people actually care about - yes, I remember those.
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
You need the high density London housing AND the infrastructure and transport
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished.
Not that that would bother me very much of course.
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
In recent years ,however, the SNP has underperformed in real elections in relation to the polls. I also suspect that any steadying of SNP support is likely to be concentrated in their traditional areas of strength - particularly rural seats in NE Scotland where they lost a lot of ground to the Tories last June. At the same time, I would be surprised if they had not lost further ground to Labour in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
Keep hoping, try reading the muppets leaders contest. You would need to be senile to be supporting those absolutely useless donkeys.
But were you expecting 7 Labour MPs to be elected in Scotland last June? I did suggest they would end up with 4 or 5 and was lampooned by some for so doing. At the last election the Tories met expectations there re-vote share and rather exceeded them in terms of seats won. Labour exceeded expectations in respect of both - whereas the SNP underperformed on both counts. I did go so far as to say that the SNP - based on the May 4th local elections - would struggle to hold 40 seats. In the event, that was a bit optimistic. However, I will be very surprised if Labour fails to at least treble its seat count in Scotland next time - and 30 seats is pretty likely.
The "no deal" brigade have been busted. When they say "no deal", they mean "apart from the deals that keep the planes flying and so on and so forth..."
Our team are so crap, there is no chance of us negotiating such a "no deal" in the time left.
There will be a vote in Parliament to ask for an extension which the Government will lose.
What do they care if the planes stop flying? They'll just blame johnny foreigner who should have some bloody respect for the people who liberated/defeated them in WWII. Yes I know that the more you look at the practical details the worse hard brexit gets, but to the swivel-eyed they simply couldn't give a monkeys. In their heads we'll probably send a gunship over to put the fear up them. If France will lend us a gunship...
Are you usually this Dave Spart-ist?
Not gunships btw, Lancasters. The Boche still build quite a lot of cars downstream of the Möhne Dam.
It interesting when you point out no deal to those ardent leavers that planes might not be able to fly they sat "so what" they'll sort it in a few days. None of the think any damage will be done to the UK because they need us more than we need them. They won't listen it's never going to happen.
I think there is a smell of death around this government, like 1997. I don't think a new leader will make any difference, I think the Conservatives likely lose the next GE.
IMO it will be like what would have happened in 1997 if Labour had been led by a Corbyn figure rather than Blair - ie a very narrow victory as opposed to a landslide. But in 1997 even had Labour been led by Foot or Benn they would still have managed to kick the Tories out such was their unpopularity.
In some respects the next election is 1992 for the Tories and if they win narrowly they will lose by a landslide the election after next to a more moderate Labour leader and be out for a generation.
By contrast if Corbyn wins narrowly the Tory opposition leader will have a real chance of preventing his 're election.
From my memory of 1992, most voters didn't blame Major for the recession until Black Wednesday, which was a few months after the election. Had Thatcher stood for a 4th term it would probably have been a different story.
If Brexit goes tits up I don't think the Tories will be able to similarly defer the blame, even under a new leader.
The Tories won because of Labour's tax rise plans.
If Brexit goes 'tits up' Corbyn takes over lumbered with a recession and either has to borrow and increase the deficit and tax more alienating middle class swing voters to spend more or cut spending alienating his base. If he tries to get a deal with the EU he has to pay at least 50 billion alienating Leavers and if he refuses to rejoin the single market as failure to cut free movement would risk losing Labour Leave seats he risks alienating Leavers
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
Corbyn is certainly making ground in the central belt
Ha Ha , nutty opinion from resident Scottish expert as usual. Could you find central belt on a map.
Well he has already won 6 seats there in June against the odds including a gain from the SNP in Glasgow.
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished.
Not that that would bother me very much of course.
It would risk UKIP replacing the Tories as the main right of centre party much as happened in Canada when the Reform Party replaced the Progressive Conservatives in 1993.
For every 1 Labour Remainer who voted for a Clarke led Tory Party 2 Tory Leavers would vote for UKIP
So Universal Credit is going to be delayed? But the govt (apparently) doesn't have an opinion on whether it should be delayed or not?
Isn’t the vote basically meaningless?
The government can get away with it as long as the public don't notice. But once the public realise the government can't be bothered to defend their policy and then ignore the vote that took place to stop it, the government are in serious trouble. Labour should make a lot of this.
I’m sure the public will get real riled up about opposition day motions!
The key factor is whether the public turns against Universal Credit, in which case government shenanigans will bite them. If they think UC is fine, methods won't be an issue. The Poll Tax is awful example for the Tories, who by the way lost their presence in Scotland for a generation over using that country as a guinea pig for a policy that was only abolished when problems started in England
Secondly, Scotland was never used as a guinea pig, though given that it was introduced in Scotland first, it's easy to see why the myth has become established.
The cabinet minutes showing that it was pressed for Scotland to be used as a test bed first but then they decided to rush ahead with the England implementation means the myth status is only on a technicality
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished.
Not that that would bother me very much of course.
I think you're fighting yesterday's battles. The existential threat to the Tory party is now Brexit, and most of the Tories know it. The old Leave/Remain distinction will soon be seen as rather twee and irrelevant when the Tories as a mainstream political force are staring into the abyss. Of course, Ken Clarke won't be leader (his age precludes him), but the recent Tory convention of only picking their leaders from ordained euro-sceptics will be a luxury they can no longer afford.
And even on Con Home favourabity ratings, it’s Ruth Davidson that tops the polls. Most members are not that ideologically committed one way or the other.
If Davidson was a Leaver she would win easily but she is not and she is not interested in the job snyway
LOL and people moan about Jezza, no wonder public is flocking to Labour. Davidson is crap, surely there must be be one or two talented people in Tory party among all the donkeys.
Davidson made the biggest gains of any Tory leader in Scotland for decades in June
Leaving aside the problem of how she gets into the contest in the first place, I think the only way Davidson gets to become PM is by doing a deal with someone like JRM and running openly on joint ticket.
If Corbyn wins it will be weariness of austerity which does it not Brexit.
Corbyn has simply neutralised Brexit by accepting it to focus on attacking austerity, zero hours contracts, housing, students loan costs etc
Ah, the things that people actually care about - yes, I remember those.
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
I've often thought that the eventual Lib Dem revival will be driven not by opposition to Brexit, but by them turning into ultra NIMBYs in well heeled areas being buffeted by massive unpopular housebuilding. That's certainly the way they are heading in my patch (Mid Sussex), where there is a local by-election coming up. The Lib Dem leaflet lambasts the Tories for forcing 19,000 new houses onto the district, whilst in the same breath introducing their candidate as someone who moved into the district from London only two years ago, ie he is one of the incomers forcing the need to build new houses. You couldn't make it up etc but as usual with the LDs the hypocrisy seems to wash over most people.
Apparently Sarah Wollaston has defied the Whips and voted with Labour.
For a truly ghastly moment I misread that as 'Sarah Wollaston has died'.
Which was incredible as with all her faults I would never have thought of May as an assassin (something I sadly can't say of certain members of the Shadow Cabinet).
If Corbyn wins it will be weariness of austerity which does it not Brexit.
Corbyn has simply neutralised Brexit by accepting it to focus on attacking austerity, zero hours contracts, housing, students loan costs etc
Ah, the things that people actually care about - yes, I remember those.
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
I've often thought that the eventual Lib Dem revival will be driven not by opposition to Brexit, but by them turning into ultra NIMBYs in well heeled areas being buffeted by massive unpopular housebuilding. That's certainly the way they are heading in my patch (Mid Sussex), where there is a local by-election coming up. The Lib Dem leaflet lambasts the Tories for forcing 19,000 new houses onto the district, whilst in the same breath introducing their candidate as someone who moved into the district from London only two years ago, ie he is one of the incomers forcing the need to build new houses. You couldn't make it up etc but as usual with the LDs the hypocrisy seems to wash over most people.
They already are as I can well attest from my town council by election in August in Epping and as you have found in Sussex. Tories here are already circling the wagons for next May's District elections as the LDs go hard for the NIMBY vote
If Corbyn wins it will be weariness of austerity which does it not Brexit.
Corbyn has simply neutralised Brexit by accepting it to focus on attacking austerity, zero hours contracts, housing, students loan costs etc
Ah, the things that people actually care about - yes, I remember those.
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
I've often thought that the eventual Lib Dem revival will be driven not by opposition to Brexit, but by them turning into ultra NIMBYs in well heeled areas being buffeted by massive unpopular housebuilding. That's certainly the way they are heading in my patch (Mid Sussex), where there is a local by-election coming up. The Lib Dem leaflet lambasts the Tories for forcing 19,000 new houses onto the district, whilst in the same breath introducing their candidate as someone who moved into the district from London only two years ago, ie he is one of the incomers forcing the need to build new houses. You couldn't make it up etc but as usual with the LDs the hypocrisy seems to wash over most people.
It will help them at local level, without doubt, but probably won't assist them at Parliamentary level.
I think there is a smell of death around this government, like 1997. I don't think a new leader will make any difference, I think the Conservatives likely lose the next GE.
IMO it will be like what would have happened in 1997 if Labour had been led by a Corbyn figure rather than Blair - ie a very narrow victory as opposed to a landslide. But in 1997 even had Labour been led by Foot or Benn they would still have managed to kick the Tories out such was their unpopularity.
In some respects the next election is 1992 for the Tories and if they win narrowly they will lose by a landslide the election after next to a more moderate Labour leader and be out for a generation.
By contrast if Corbyn wins narrowly the Tory opposition leader will have a real chance of preventing his 're election.
From my memory of 1992, most voters didn't blame Major for the recession until Black Wednesday, which was a few months after the election. Had Thatcher stood for a 4th term it would probably have been a different story.
If Brexit goes tits up I don't think the Tories will be able to similarly defer the blame, even under a new leader.
The Tories won because of Labour's tax rise plans.
If Brexit goes 'tits up' Corbyn takes over lumbered with a recession and either has to borrow and increase the deficit and tax more alienating middle class swing voters to spend more or cut spending alienating his base. If he tries to get a deal with the EU he has to pay at least 50 billion alienating Leavers and if he refuses to rejoin the single market as failure to cut free movement would risk losing Labour Leave seats he risks alienating Leavers
And yet Ed Miliband had a 12 point lead in 2012 in polls which were favourable to the Tories in their methodology and still lost in 2015. Labour was ahead by more in 1979 and lost in 1983. Kinnock's Labour was ahead by more than 10 points in 1986 and lost in 1987.
Margaret Thatcher (on those rare occasions when she was right about anything( took then view that governments are supposed to be behind in the polls between elections. She once famously took David Cameron to task asking him "why arent you behind in the polls even more?"
No opposition that did not lead the governing party in the polls by at least 15 points between elections has ever won a majority at the ensuing general election. I do not expect this rule to change for the next election which is nearly half a decade away.
The government really is utter shite at the moment. And getting worse.
I do disagree that a new leader wouldn't help the Tories though. If it was from the current cabinet then that'd probably make a Labour win more likely, but if the Tories looked beyond to some of the new intake we'd probably see some improvement. After All, May is proving to be continually disastrous at present
Apparently Sarah Wollaston has defied the Whips and voted with Labour.
For a truly ghastly moment I misread that as 'Sarah Wollaston has died'.
Which was incredible as with all her faults I would never have thought of May as an assassin (something I sadly can't say of certain members of the Shadow Cabinet).
And yet Ed Miliband had a 12 point lead in 2012 in polls which were favourable to the Tories in their methodology and still lost in 2015. Labour was ahead by more in 1979 and lost in 1983. Kinnock's Labour was ahead by more than 10 points in 1986 and lost in 1987.
Margaret Thatcher (on those rare occasions when she was right about anything( took then view that governments are supposed to be behind in the polls between elections. She once famously took David Cameron to task asking him "why arent you behind in the polls even more?"
No opposition that did not lead the governing party in the polls by at least 15 points between elections has ever won a majority at the ensuing general election. I do not expect this rule to change for the next election which is nearly half a decade away.
Labour ran the Conservatives close in June despite starting 15% behind.
If Corbyn wins it will be weariness of austerity which does it not Brexit.
Corbyn has simply neutralised Brexit by accepting it to focus on attacking austerity, zero hours contracts, housing, students loan costs etc
Ah, the things that people actually care about - yes, I remember those.
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
I've often thought that the eventual Lib Dem revival will be driven not by opposition to Brexit, but by them turning into ultra NIMBYs in well heeled areas being buffeted by massive unpopular housebuilding. That's certainly the way they are heading in my patch (Mid Sussex), where there is a local by-election coming up. The Lib Dem leaflet lambasts the Tories for forcing 19,000 new houses onto the district, whilst in the same breath introducing their candidate as someone who moved into the district from London only two years ago, ie he is one of the incomers forcing the need to build new houses. You couldn't make it up etc but as usual with the LDs the hypocrisy seems to wash over most people.
They already are as I can well attest from my town council by election in August in Epping and as you have found in Sussex. Tories here are already circling the wagons for next May's District elections as the LDs go hard for the NIMBY vote
Their mealy-mouthed line is "yes we need new houses, but they need to adhere to a democratically-agreed local plan". Like a local plan containing 19,000 new houses in a small home counties district has any chance of passing a referendum.
No opposition that did not lead the governing party in the polls by at least 15 points between elections has ever won a majority at the ensuing general election. I do not expect this rule to change for the next election which is nearly half a decade away.
And no party had ever climbed 15 percentage points over the course of a 6-week campaign until Corbyn, either. Does this not suggest the old supposed "rules" do not necessarily apply?
I think there is a smell of death around this government, like 1997. I don't think a new leader will make any difference, I think the Conservatives likely lose the next GE.
IMO it will be like what would have happened in 1997 if Labour had been led by a Corbyn figure rather than Blair - ie a very narrow victory as opposed to a landslide. But in 1997 even had Labour been led by Foot or Benn they would still have managed to kick the Tories out such was their unpopularity.
In some respects the next election is 1992 for the Tories and if they win narrowly they will lose by a landslide the election after next to a more moderate Labour leader and be out for a generation.
By contrast if Corbyn wins narrowly the Tory opposition leader will have a real chance of preventing his 're election.
From my memory of 1992, most voters didn't blame Major for the recession until Black Wednesday, which was a few months after the election. Had Thatcher stood for a 4th term it would probably have been a different story.
If Brexit goes tits up I don't think the Tories will be able to similarly defer the blame, even under a new leader.
The Tories won because of Labour's tax rise plans.
If Brexit goes 'tits up' Corbyn takes over lumbered with a recession and either has to borrow and increase the deficit and tax more alienating middle class swing voters to spend more or cut spending alienating his base. If he tries to get a deal with the EU he has to pay at least 50 billion alienating Leavers and if he refuses to rejoin the single market as failure to cut free movement would risk losing Labour Leave seats he risks alienating Leavers
And there's me thinking La La Land was a movie!
I'm afraid if you think voters actually think so deep you're deluded. They wil vote for the stable succesful government if it existed or the alternative. End of anaysis
Ken Clarke represents the best best of the Tory party - competent, open, plain speaking, caring.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
The idea that with him in charge the Tory Party would split is also funny. As opposed to what exactly today...?
There was no split today. There was a substantial difference of opinion about an important policy. With Clarke in charge the party would be destroyed. His authority would be zero with a very large portion of the party both inside and outside Parliament. There is still a large majority of the Tory party membership and supporters in favour of Brexit and Clark would not be able to resist watering it down or reversing it completely. The party would be finished.
Not that that would bother me very much of course.
I think you're fighting yesterday's battles. The existential threat to the Tory party is now Brexit, and most of the Tories know it. The old Leave/Remain distinction will soon be seen as rather twee and irrelevant when the Tories as a mainstream political force are staring into the abyss. Of course, Ken Clarke won't be leader (his age precludes him), but the recent Tory convention of only picking their leaders from ordained euro-sceptics will be a luxury they can no longer afford.
The Tories will be heading for the abyss if they abandon Brexit. The polls back that up, Hammond does worse of all leadership hopefuls followed by Rudd. Most Remainers are already voting Labour or LD but most Leavers are voting Tory. The Tories risk losing the latter to UKIP, as they have already started to do a little post Florence, if they agree to stay in the EU or single market and pay a vast sum to the EU and keep free movement without gaining many from Labour or the LDs to compensate
And even on Con Home favourabity ratings, it’s Ruth Davidson that tops the polls. Most members are not that ideologically committed one way or the other.
If Davidson was a Leaver she would win easily but she is not and she is not interested in the job snyway
LOL and people moan about Jezza, no wonder public is flocking to Labour. Davidson is crap, surely there must be be one or two talented people in Tory party among all the donkeys.
Davidson made the biggest gains of any Tory leader in Scotland for decades in June
Leaving aside the problem of how she gets into the contest in the first place, I think the only way Davidson gets to become PM is by doing a deal with someone like JRM and running openly on joint ticket.
No opposition that did not lead the governing party in the polls by at least 15 points between elections has ever won a majority at the ensuing general election. I do not expect this rule to change for the next election which is nearly half a decade away.
What is the rule for confidence & supply minority governments?
Being 6 points ahead in the polls is not a sign that an opposition is heading for government. Kinnock, Foot, Miliband all did better than that and lost. Sound a trumpet when Corbyn Labour is 15 points ahead in the polls.
If Corbyn wins it will be weariness of austerity which does it not Brexit.
Corbyn has simply neutralised Brexit by accepting it to focus on attacking austerity, zero hours contracts, housing, students loan costs etc
Ah, the things that people actually care about - yes, I remember those.
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
I've often thought that the eventual Lib Dem revival will be driven not by opposition to Brexit, but by them turning into ultra NIMBYs in well heeled areas being buffeted by massive unpopular housebuilding. That's certainly the way they are heading in my patch (Mid Sussex), where there is a local by-election coming up. The Lib Dem leaflet lambasts the Tories for forcing 19,000 new houses onto the district, whilst in the same breath introducing their candidate as someone who moved into the district from London only two years ago, ie he is one of the incomers forcing the need to build new houses. You couldn't make it up etc but as usual with the LDs the hypocrisy seems to wash over most people.
They already are as I can well attest from my town council by election in August in Epping and as you have found in Sussex. Tories here are already circling the wagons for next May's District elections as the LDs go hard for the NIMBY vote
Their mealy-mouthed line is "yes we need new houses, but they need to adhere to a democratically-agreed local plan". Like a local plan containing 19,000 new houses in a small home counties district has any chance of passing a referendum.
Yes here their option was a new town, conveniently to be located miles away from Epping!
You need the high density London housing AND the infrastructure and transport
I see little or no evidence of the latter. Yes, capacity has been increased at some stations such as Waterloo but that barely keeps pace with rising passenger numbers.
Infrastructure also means schools, GP surgeries and the like and while the bricks and mortar can be provided by developers using Section 106 payments, it doesn't provide the doctors, the teachers, the extra train and tube carriages or alleviate the traffic jams.
There is also supposedly a shortage of land but the four main property developers have in excess of 400,000 plots between them with planning permission which could be built on now.
And even on Con Home favourabity ratings, it’s Ruth Davidson that tops the polls. Most members are not that ideologically committed one way or the other.
If Davidson was a Leaver she would win easily but she is not and she is not interested in the job snyway
LOL and people moan about Jezza, no wonder public is flocking to Labour. Davidson is crap, surely there must be be one or two talented people in Tory party among all the donkeys.
Davidson made the biggest gains of any Tory leader in Scotland for decades in June
Leaving aside the problem of how she gets into the contest in the first place, I think the only way Davidson gets to become PM is by doing a deal with someone like JRM and running openly on joint ticket.
I would back JRM as leader and Davidson as deputy
No, Davidson as leader is the only way it could work. The joint ticket deputy position would have to be explicitly the chancellor's job.
Their mandate from the membership would mean they couldn't be reshuffled.
Apparently Sarah Wollaston has defied the Whips and voted with Labour.
For a truly ghastly moment I misread that as 'Sarah Wollaston has died'.
Which was incredible as with all her faults I would never have thought of May as an assassin (something I sadly can't say of certain members of the Shadow Cabinet).
If Corbyn wins it will be weariness of austerity which does it not Brexit.
Corbyn has simply neutralised Brexit by accepting it to focus on attacking austerity, zero hours contracts, housing, students loan costs etc
Ah, the things that people actually care about - yes, I remember those.
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
I've often thought that the eventual Lib Dem revival will be driven not by opposition to Brexit, but by them turning into ultra NIMBYs in well heeled areas being buffeted by massive unpopular housebuilding. That's certainly the way they are heading in my patch (Mid Sussex), where there is a local by-election coming up. The Lib Dem leaflet lambasts the Tories for forcing 19,000 new houses onto the district, whilst in the same breath introducing their candidate as someone who moved into the district from London only two years ago, ie he is one of the incomers forcing the need to build new houses. You couldn't make it up etc but as usual with the LDs the hypocrisy seems to wash over most people.
They already are as I can well attest from my town council by election in August in Epping and as you have found in Sussex. Tories here are already circling the wagons for next May's District elections as the LDs go hard for the NIMBY vote
Their mealy-mouthed line is "yes we need new houses, but they need to adhere to a democratically-agreed local plan". Like a local plan containing 19,000 new houses in a small home counties district has any chance of passing a referendum.
Yes here their option was a new town, conveniently to be located miles away from Epping!
Hmm, well next door to us in Tandridge (East Surrey), several such new towns ("garden villages") are proposed, and there are posters opposing them on virtually every street corner. With the Lib Dems leading the charge. John O might know more as he is (was?) a councillor in Surrey.
And even on Con Home favourabity ratings, it’s Ruth Davidson that tops the polls. Most members are not that ideologically committed one way or the other.
If Davidson was a Leaver she would win easily but she is not and she is not interested in the job snyway
LOL and people moan about Jezza, no wonder public is flocking to Labour. Davidson is crap, surely there must be be one or two talented people in Tory party among all the donkeys.
Davidson made the biggest gains of any Tory leader in Scotland for decades in June
Leaving aside the problem of how she gets into the contest in the first place, I think the only way Davidson gets to become PM is by doing a deal with someone like JRM and running openly on joint ticket.
I would back JRM as leader and Davidson as deputy
Surely the sensible plan would be the other way around?
Subtract 2% from the UKIP score and take them back to general election levels and add that to the Tories and they would be on 40%. Post the Florence speech the Tories are now clearly losing Leavers to UKIP.
The main gains for Labour in this poll have come from the SNP and the LDs not the Tories
As Scotslass seems to be MIA today, I note that the Scottish subsample shows the SNP only a few points ahead of Labour.
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
In recent years ,however, the SNP has underperformed in real elections in relation to the polls. I also suspect that any steadying of SNP support is likely to be concentrated in their traditional areas of strength - particularly rural seats in NE Scotland where they lost a lot of ground to the Tories last June. At the same time, I would be surprised if they had not lost further ground to Labour in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
Keep hoping, try reading the muppets leaders contest. You would need to be senile to be supporting those absolutely useless donkeys.
But were you expecting 7 Labour MPs to be elected in Scotland last June? I did suggest they would end up with 4 or 5 and was lampooned by some for so doing. At the last election the Tories met expectations there re-vote share and rather exceeded them in terms of seats won. Labour exceeded expectations in respect of both - whereas the SNP underperformed on both counts. I did go so far as to say that the SNP - based on the May 4th local elections - would struggle to hold 40 seats. In the event, that was a bit optimistic. However, I will be very surprised if Labour fails to at least treble its seat count in Scotland next time - and 30 seats is pretty likely.
To get to 30 seats SLAB need to win back the likes of myself - even with Corbyn - SLAB on the ground remain a pretty unattractive option. SLAB's other challenge is that around 25-30% of it's supporters are in favour of independence, unless Labour somehow reach out to these voters on this issue, they will always be at risk of them returning to the SNP.
Apparently Sarah Wollaston has defied the Whips and voted with Labour.
For a truly ghastly moment I misread that as 'Sarah Wollaston has died'.
Which was incredible as with all her faults I would never have thought of May as an assassin (something I sadly can't say of certain members of the Shadow Cabinet).
For a moment I misread it as defected to Labour.
She did that a long time ago.
If she and Heidi Allen were to defect from the Conservatives, that would leave the government perilously close to no-confidence territory (and thus an early election),
His final couple of years as a minister were not impressive.
Funnily enough I wonder if his pro-euro views were as much a problem for him as his combative and occasionally arrogant behaviour.
Had he tried to make a very patriotic case for joining the Euro so the Brits could lead it, based on wielding more global influence, and tried wooing the sceptics rather than sneering at them, he might have done much better.
No opposition that did not lead the governing party in the polls by at least 15 points between elections has ever won a majority at the ensuing general election. I do not expect this rule to change for the next election which is nearly half a decade away.
And no party had ever climbed 15 percentage points over the course of a 6-week campaign until Corbyn, either. Does this not suggest the old supposed "rules" do not necessarily apply?
Well exactly. Ed Miliband had larger leads in the polls over a longer duration than Corbyn has had and yet ultimately, he got a worse result in 2015 than Corbyn did in 2017. I'd have thought that by now, after everything that's happened in the last two years people would know that the old rules do not necessarily apply anymore, otherwise someone as left wing as Corbyn wouldn't have gotten 40% of the vote and wouldn't have won marginals. By the old rules, a candidate like him should have never won over Conservative voters (and Corbyn ended up winning over some Conservative Remainers as we have found out in recent weeks).
And the comment in this thread about May's childlessness lead to her misjudgement on issues such as the Dementia Tax is wrong. George Osborne has children, yet that didn't seem to help his judgement very much in relation to young people seen in his decisions on tuition fees, maintenance grants which are part of the reason why the Conservatives have such issues with younger voters now. It's just May isn't very good at politics - and there are plenty of previous leaders with children who weren't very good at politics either.
Apparently Sarah Wollaston has defied the Whips and voted with Labour.
For a truly ghastly moment I misread that as 'Sarah Wollaston has died'.
Which was incredible as with all her faults I would never have thought of May as an assassin (something I sadly can't say of certain members of the Shadow Cabinet).
For a moment I misread it as defected to Labour.
She did that a long time ago.
If she and Heidi Allen were to defect from the Conservatives, that would leave the government perilously close to no-confidence territory (and thus an early election),
With the DUP they'd still have a bare majority.
I have them both as high defection risks. But not Soubry, Morgan or Clarke all of whom are - I believe - loyal Conservatives.
You need the high density London housing AND the infrastructure and transport
I see little or no evidence of the latter. Yes, capacity has been increased at some stations such as Waterloo but that barely keeps pace with rising passenger numbers.
Infrastructure also means schools, GP surgeries and the like and while the bricks and mortar can be provided by developers using Section 106 payments, it doesn't provide the doctors, the teachers, the extra train and tube carriages or alleviate the traffic jams.
There is also supposedly a shortage of land but the four main property developers have in excess of 400,000 plots between them with planning permission which could be built on now.
I certainly agree with the last sentence and they should be compelled to do so
And even on Con Home favourabity ratings, it’s Ruth Davidson that tops the polls. Most members are not that ideologically committed one way or the other.
If Davidson was a Leaver she would win easily but she is not and she is not interested in the job snyway
LOL and people moan about Jezza, no wonder public is flocking to Labour. Davidson is crap, surely there must be be one or two talented people in Tory party among all the donkeys.
Davidson made the biggest gains of any Tory leader in Scotland for decades in June
Leaving aside the problem of how she gets into the contest in the first place, I think the only way Davidson gets to become PM is by doing a deal with someone like JRM and running openly on joint ticket.
I would back JRM as leader and Davidson as deputy
Surely the sensible plan would be the other way around?
If Corbyn wins it will be weariness of austerity which does it not Brexit.
Corbyn has simply neutralised Brexit by accepting it to focus on attacking austerity, zero hours contracts, housing, students loan costs etc
Ah, the things that people actually care about - yes, I remember those.
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
I've often thought that the eventual Lib Dem revival will be driven not by opposition to Brexit, but by them turning into ultra NIMBYs in well heeled areas being buffeted by massive unpopular housebuilding. That's certainly the way they are heading in my patch (Mid Sussex), where there is a local seems to wash over most people.
They already are as I can well attest from my town council by election in August in Epping and as you have found in Sussex. Tories here are already circling the wagons for next May's District elections as the LDs go hard for the NIMBY vote
Their mealy-mouthed line is "yes we need new houses, but they need to adhere to a democratically-agreed local plan". Like a local plan containing 19,000 new houses in a small home counties district has any chance of passing a referendum.
Yes here their option was a new town, conveniently to be located miles away from Epping!
Hmm, well next door to us in Tandridge (East Surrey), several such new towns ("garden villages") are proposed, and there are posters opposing them on virtually every street corner. With the Lib Dems leading the charge. John O might know more as he is (was?) a councillor in Surrey.
Nobody ever accused the LDs of consistency if there are votes to be won!
His final couple of years as a minister were not impressive.
Funnily enough I wonder if his pro-euro views were as much a problem for him as his combative and occasionally arrogant behaviour.
Had he tried to make a very patriotic case for joining the Euro so the Brits could lead it, based on wielding more global influence, and tried wooing the sceptics rather than sneering at them, he might have done much better.
I agree with that as it happens. Clarke's ultra leniency as justice secretary was not his finest hour, even for those such as myself who are fans. He was appointed as a sop to the Lib Dems (as, ironically, was May), and to give some counterweight of greybeard experience to the distinctly inexperienced Cameron and Osborne.
Nobody who attended the hustings in the 2001 leadership election could disagree with your final two paragraphs. He went out of his way to be rude to all Eurosceptic and social conservative questioning. He could easily have become leader in 97 or 2001 had he trimmed his views slightly and been more polite.
The "no deal" brigade have been busted. When they say "no deal", they mean "apart from the deals that keep the planes flying and so on and so forth..."
Our team are so crap, there is no chance of us negotiating such a "no deal" in the time left.
There will be a vote in Parliament to ask for an extension which the Government will lose.
What do they care if the planes stop flying? They'll just blame johnny foreigner who should have some bloody respect for the people who liberated/defeated them in WWII. Yes I know that the more you look at the practical details the worse hard brexit gets, but to the swivel-eyed they simply couldn't give a monkeys. In their heads we'll probably send a gunship over to put the fear up them. If France will lend us a gunship...
Are you usually this Dave Spart-ist?
Not gunships btw, Lancasters. The Boche still build quite a lot of cars downstream of the Möhne Dam.
It interesting when you point out no deal to those ardent leavers that planes might not be able to fly they sat "so what" they'll sort it in a few days. None of the think any damage will be done to the UK because they need us more than we need them. They won't listen it's never going to happen.
It will be a catastrophe, for everyone - not just us, not just us and the EU.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
Comments
And its the same with these disability assessments. Its not the principle of checking that disabled people are entitled that is the problem it is the practice. The government knows its wrongly destroying the lives of disabled people - aside from the swathes of examples there is the fact that the vast majority of appeals are won by the claimant.
The government could recognise these flaws and act. It does not. Instead it robusts the system. THAT is the deliberate act of cruelty. A government that purports to not give a toss about people, cheered on by its own media that has has worked so very hard to demonise anyone receiving a penny from the state as a feckless scrounger.
Ken Clarke & remain in the EU
or
Corbyn Brexit
Take housing - the nearest thing to a "policy" the Conservatives have is to abolish stamp duty on some sales - a brilliant way of stimulating demand and increasing prices. It actually prices more people out of houses incredible as it may seem.
There are two options - increase supply or reduce demand. The former takes a little time - increasing stamp duty would help with the latter (though to be fair crashing the economy seems to be another part of the Conservative policy so perhaps they have an idea).
Simply building high-density housing in and around London isn't an answer - proper planning with transport and public service infrastructure to create functioning communities would be one answer.
Not Andrea Leadsom though.
Corbyn Brexit every time. We will have a chance to get rid of Corbyn again after 5 years at the most. If we do not that will be a democratic decision.
We will not have another chance to get rid of the EU. That is just part of the lack of democracy.
two ladies 6 months apart
Yeah, subsamples, but hey, with so few polls nowadays, what can one do?
It's unlikely not to be bruising.
The tories ain't in opposition. The victor will walk straight into number 10. The contest will headline the news for weeks.
Yeah, I can see why he doesn't have a chance...
Sadly the idea is a complete non-starter on age and poor health grounds, in addition to the other obvious roadblocks. He is 77 and recently had major heart surgery IIRC.
*grabs tin foil helmet and ducks*
By contrast if Corbyn wins narrowly the Tory opposition leader will have a real chance of preventing his 're election.
There would be no turning of the clock back to 1979 in terms of returning power sech as secondary picketing to the Unions and by agreeing to adopt Clarke's spending plans he shot the fox of being a tax and spend party since he was determined to match Conservative spending plans. By 1999 the mood for more public spending was irresistible.
If Brexit goes tits up I don't think the Tories will be able to similarly defer the blame, even under a new leader.
Not that that would bother me very much of course.
If Brexit goes 'tits up' Corbyn takes over lumbered with a recession and either has to borrow and increase the deficit and tax more alienating middle class swing voters to spend more or cut spending alienating his base. If he tries to get a deal with the EU he has to pay at least 50 billion alienating Leavers and if he refuses to rejoin the single market as failure to cut free movement would risk losing Labour Leave seats he risks alienating Leavers
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/ken-clarke-for-prime-minister-20170802
For every 1 Labour Remainer who voted for a Clarke led Tory Party 2 Tory Leavers would vote for UKIP
Which was incredible as with all her faults I would never have thought of May as an assassin (something I sadly can't say of certain members of the Shadow Cabinet).
Margaret Thatcher (on those rare occasions when she was right about anything( took then view that governments are supposed to be behind in the polls between elections. She once famously took David Cameron to task asking him "why arent you behind in the polls even more?"
No opposition that did not lead the governing party in the polls by at least 15 points between elections has ever won a majority at the ensuing general election. I do not expect this rule to change for the next election which is nearly half a decade away.
I do disagree that a new leader wouldn't help the Tories though. If it was from the current cabinet then that'd probably make a Labour win more likely, but if the Tories looked beyond to some of the new intake we'd probably see some improvement. After All, May is proving to be continually disastrous at present
Infrastructure also means schools, GP surgeries and the like and while the bricks and mortar can be provided by developers using Section 106 payments, it doesn't provide the doctors, the teachers, the extra train and tube carriages or alleviate the traffic jams.
There is also supposedly a shortage of land but the four main property developers have in excess of 400,000 plots between them with planning permission which could be built on now.
Their mandate from the membership would mean they couldn't be reshuffled.
I didn't realise his wife of 50 years had passed away recently, which genuinely saddened me.
What a humiliating headline
Funnily enough I wonder if his pro-euro views were as much a problem for him as his combative and occasionally arrogant behaviour.
Had he tried to make a very patriotic case for joining the Euro so the Brits could lead it, based on wielding more global influence, and tried wooing the sceptics rather than sneering at them, he might have done much better.
And the comment in this thread about May's childlessness lead to her misjudgement on issues such as the Dementia Tax is wrong. George Osborne has children, yet that didn't seem to help his judgement very much in relation to young people seen in his decisions on tuition fees, maintenance grants which are part of the reason why the Conservatives have such issues with younger voters now. It's just May isn't very good at politics - and there are plenty of previous leaders with children who weren't very good at politics either.
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
I have them both as high defection risks. But not Soubry, Morgan or Clarke all of whom are - I believe - loyal Conservatives.
Nobody who attended the hustings in the 2001 leadership election could disagree with your final two paragraphs. He went out of his way to be rude to all Eurosceptic and social conservative questioning. He could easily have become leader in 97 or 2001 had he trimmed his views slightly and been more polite.