Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not another one. Oh for God’s sake, honestly I can’t stand thi

2

Comments

  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703
    edited May 2018
    justin124 said:

    NeilVW said:

    Opinium has an amusing Scottish subsample: SNP 40.0, Con 36.8, Lab 18.4, LD 2.4. (MOE: +/- 9 pts, with the usual caveats.)

    Plugging those into Baxter along with the GB findings of Con 43.0, Lab 38.5, LD 6.2, UKIP 3.6, Grn 3.2 gives the following House of Commons configuration:

    Con 335 (+17), Lab 249 (-13), SNP 37 (+2), LD 6 (-6), PC 4 (-), Grn 1 (-).
    => Con majority of 20.

    The SNP would lose five seats to the Tories (who would end up with 19 including East Lothian from Lab) while gaining six from Labour plus the LDs' Orkney & Shetland giving the nationalists a net gain of 2.

    Just a bit of fun. We could do with a proper Scotland poll soon (the last one was in March).

    As a side note, Opinium give the fractional results in their spreadsheet, and using one decimal place for each party gives the swing in GB since GE2017 to be exactly 1% Lab to Con (Con -0.5, Lab -2.5), so HYUFD was actually right there. :smile:

    On the other hand, that Scottish subsample would rather imply little or no swing in England & Wales!
    Indeed: using Opinium's tables I calculate a swing in England & Wales combined of 0.1% from Lab to Con; and in England alone, 0.2% from Con to Lab - i.e. next to nothing.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Fenman said:

    So, let me see if I get this. Brexit is proving insoluble so the solution is a third General Election in three years, rather than a second referendum in which the facts are actually explained to the people this time?

    Yes, Mr Fenman. That is the Conservatives` cunning plan. One has to assume that it makes sense to them. The objective is, as it has always been, not to split the Conservative Party.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    What a beautiful evening! I'm now off to the pub for a meal in the garden with my wife, children and grandchildren.

    We won't be talking about Brexit thank God. Probably the wedding - but that's OK. Sláinte
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Fenman said:

    So, let me see if I get this. Brexit is proving insoluble so the solution is a third General Election in three years, rather than a second referendum in which the facts are actually explained to the people this time?

    As I recall the facts were explained last time. If you feel they were not explained very well that's another thing, or if you feel people ignored the facts and would not do so next time that's another. But let's not pretend all sides did not put their case; I'm sure we can all recall the deluge of information both sides put out there, and the sub factions within various sides. They did put the case, ergo the facts were explained to the people. No amount of concern at people ignoring them, or anger at the case being put badly, will change that.

    Why not rerun the GE on the basis that the 'facts' were not explained to the people? After all, had they been, the Tories/Labour would have won a majority easily! It's the only explanation, right?
    The "facts" were not explained last time. There were plenty of scare stories on both sides. There were ambiguities and red herrings. There was lack of clarity of what the No vote would entail. There was almost complete ignorance about the difference between a customs union and the single market and what that entailed. There was no agreed plan for "No". There was a complete absence of actual facts.

    We now know roughly how much it will cost and how long it will take. We know roughly how much economic damage it will cause in the long run (though for some people that isn't the important consideration). We know a lot more about the problems of a frictionless Irish border and the arguments for and against a customs union and a single market. There is the outline of an actual deal. When the deal is clear enough there will be a concrete plan to put to people with clear pros and cons instead of the blizzard of misinformation and ignorance we had last time.

    I think you know that - but you don't trust the people because they may change their minds when they have the facts in front of them. That is profoundly undemocratic and elitist.
    We also know rather more clearly now what the end goal of the European Union project is: a United States of Europe, effectively. I don't recall the detail, but ISTR that several pieces of the unifying jigsaw were held back by the EU during the recent EU referendum for fear of influencing the vote against the project.

    The end state may be as nothing to you, compared to economic issues, but other people see things differently.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2018
    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Fenman said:

    So, let me see if I get this. Brexit is proving insoluble so the solution is a third General Election in three years, rather than a second referendum in which the facts are actually explained to the people this time?

    As I recall the factbeing put badly, will change that.

    Why not rerun the GE on the basis that the 'facts' were not explained to the people? After all, had they been, the Tories/Labour would have won a majority easily! It's the only explanation, right?
    The "facts" were not explained last time. There were plenty of scare stories on both sides. There were ambiguities and red herrings. There was lack of clarity of what the No vote would entail. There was almost complete ignorance about the difference between a customs union and the single market and what that entailed. There was no agreed plan for "No". There was a complete absence of actual facts.

    We now know roughly how much it will cost and how long it will take. We know roughly how much economic damage it will cause in the long run (though for some people that isn't the important consideration). We know a lot more about the problems of a frictionless Irish border and the arguments for and against a customs union and a single market. There is the outline of an actual deal. When the deal is clear enough there will be a concrete plan to put to people with clear pros and cons instead of the blizzard of misinformation and ignorance we had last time.

    I think you know that - but you don't trust the people because they may change their minds when they have the facts in front of them. That is profoundly undemocratic and elitist.
    On the contrary, I have never been opposed to a second referendum in principle, nor am I certain how I would vote in it, so I'll thank you to take back your last statement. You've based it on absolutely nothing but a faulty assumption about what I think. It is the height of arrogance and laziness to assume that because someone disagrees on one point (eg that the facts were laid out) that they must oppose you in all else. That is not the case. I don't know that there exists support for a second ref, but if one is voted for I won't condemn that.

    The rest of your post makes no sense. You are complaining that Leave lacked clarity et al...which Remain pointed out! That is how the facts were discussed - both sides put out arguments, put out scare stories and overly hopeful stories.

    The idea that any new vote would solve our problems, however, or that that vote, alone of all votes, will lack misinformation, is a load of old cobblers though. Why will this vote be the sole one not to face political arguments?



  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    AnneJGP said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Fenman said:

    So, let me see if I get this. Brexit is proving insoluble so the solution is a third General Election in three years, rather than a second referendum in which the facts are actually explained to the people this time?

    As I recall the facts were explained last time. If you feel they were not explained very well that's another thing, or if you feel people ignored the facts and would not do so next time that's another. But let's not pretend all sides did not put their case; I'm sure we can all recall the deluge of information both sides put out there, and the sub factions within various sides. They did put the case, ergo the facts were explained to the people. No amount of concern at people ignoring them, or anger at the case being put badly, will change that.

    Why not rerun the GE on the basis that the 'facts' were not explained to the people? After all, had they been, the Tories/Labour would have won a majority easily! It's the only explanation, right?
    The "facts" were not explained last time. There were plenty of scare stories on both sides. There were ambiguities and red herrings. There was lack of clarity of what the No vote would entail. There was almost complete ignorance about the difference between a customs union and the single market and what that entailed. There was no agreed plan for "No". There was a complete absence of actual facts.

    We now know roughly how much it will cost and how long it will take. We know roughly how much economic damage it will cause in the long run (though for some people that isn't the important consideration). We know a lot more about the problems of a frictionless Irish border and the arguments for and against a customs union and a single market. There is the outline of an actual deal. When the deal is clear enough there will be a concrete plan to put to people with clear pros and cons instead of the blizzard of misinformation and ignorance we had last time.

    I think you know that - but you don't trust the people because they may change their minds when they have the facts in front of them. That is profoundly undemocratic and elitist.
    We also know rather more clearly now what the end goal of the European Union project is: a United States of Europe, effectively. I don't recall the detail, but ISTR that several pieces of the unifying jigsaw were held back by the EU during the recent EU referendum for fear of influencing the vote against the project.

    The end state may be as nothing to you, compared to economic issues, but other people see things differently.
    It’s a United States of Europe, but you can’t remember the details.

    OK.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Fenman said:

    So, let me see if I get this. Brexit is proving insoluble so the solution is a third General Election in three years, rather than a second referendum in which the facts are actually explained to the people this time?

    Actually if as the polls suggest is possible another general election produces another hung parliament with the LDs this time rather than the DUP having the balance of power and say propping up Corbyn only on the condition of a second referendum it could well be we get both.

    Though if that second referendum then voted Leave again we could end up with PM Corbyn being quickly followed by PM Rees-Mogg
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2018
    It's good to see that after all this time everyone is still just talking past each other on Brexit. That I cannot even say 'the facts were raised last time' without people stupidly extrapolating that out into a nonsensical and nonexistent hatred of democracy and second referendums is a great demonstration that we've gotten absolutely nowhere - someone who probably wants a second referendum is already attacking someone who would not oppose having one, which bodes well for the 'will you understand the facts better next time?' campaign.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    That 'second Thursday in October' rumour makes it into the papers.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869

    AnneJGP said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Fenman said:

    So, let me see if I get this. Brexit is proving insoluble so the solution is a third General Election in three years, rather than a second referendum in which the facts are actually explained to the people this time?

    As I recall the facts were explained last time. If you feel they were not explained very well that's another thing, or if you feel people ignored the facts and would not do so next time that's another. But let's not pretend all sides did not put their case; I'm sure we can all recall the deluge of information both sides put out there, and the sub factions within various sides. They did put the case, ergo the facts were explained to the people. No amount of concern at people ignoring them, or anger at the case being put badly, will change that.

    Why not rerun the GE on the basis that the 'facts' were not explained to the people? After all, had they been, the Tories/Labour would have won a majority easily! It's the only explanation, right?
    The "facts" were not explained last time. There were plenty of scare stories on both sides. There were ambiguities and red herrings. There was lack of clarity of what the No vote would entail. There was almost complete ignorance about the difference between a customs union and the single market and what that entailed. There was no agreed plan for "No". There was a complete absence of actual facts.

    We now know roughly how much it will cost and how long it will take. We know roughly how much economic damage it will cause in the long run (though for some people that isn't the important consideration). We know a lot more about the problems of a frictionless Irish border and the arguments for and against a customs union and a single market. There is the outline of an actual deal. When the deal is clear enough there will be a concrete plan to put to people with clear pros and cons instead of the blizzard of misinformation and ignorance we had last time.

    I think you know that - but you don't trust the people because they may change their minds when they have the facts in front of them. That is profoundly undemocratic and elitist.
    We also know rather more clearly now what the end goal of the European Union project is: a United States of Europe, effectively. I don't recall the detail, but ISTR that several pieces of the unifying jigsaw were held back by the EU during the recent EU referendum for fear of influencing the vote against the project.

    The end state may be as nothing to you, compared to economic issues, but other people see things differently.
    It’s a United States of Europe, but you can’t remember the details.

    OK.
    Yeah: I heard enough to decide my Leave vote was the right way and stopped there.
  • augustus_carpaugustus_carp Posts: 224
    If there is to be another General Election, might it come after Mrs May "does a Robert Peel" and devises some sort of pro-Remain strategy with the anti Brexit Labour MPs, the Lib Dems, SNP etc? The more I look at it, the more it seems that Brexit is a political problem like the Corn Laws - sooner or later, party loyalty or not, she is going to have to face down the people who want the impossible and try to make a good case for changing her mind and staying in - albeit with a million provisos, caveats, guarantees etc etc etc

    If that was to be the case, a General Election this autumn might be rather fun for those of us who are indifferent as to the outcome.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    HYUFD said:

    Fenman said:

    So, let me see if I get this. Brexit is proving insoluble so the solution is a third General Election in three years, rather than a second referendum in which the facts are actually explained to the people this time?

    Actually if as the polls suggest is possible another general election produces another hung parliament with the LDs this time rather than the DUP having the balance of power and say propping up Corbyn only on the condition of a second referendum it could well be we get both.

    Though if that second referendum then voted Leave again we could end up with PM Corbyn being quickly followed by PM Rees-Mogg
    That would continue the most interesting political period for many years - perhaps rather in the Chinese sense...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    Fenman said:

    So, let me see if I get this. Brexit is proving insoluble so the solution is a third General Election in three years, rather than a second referendum in which the facts are actually explained to the people this time?

    Actually if as the polls suggest is possible another general election produces another hung parliament with the LDs this time rather than the DUP having the balance of power and say propping up Corbyn only on the condition of a second referendum it could well be we get both.

    Though if that second referendum then voted Leave again we could end up with PM Corbyn being quickly followed by PM Rees-Mogg
    That would continue the most interesting political period for many years - perhaps rather in the Chinese sense...
    I doubt it would end there either, it could be we are in the most turbulent decade for British politics since the 1970s which saw 4 general elections, 4 PMs and 2 referendums on the EEC and Scottish devolution
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited May 2018
    Barnesian said:

    What a beautiful evening! I'm now off to the pub for a meal in the garden with my wife, children and grandchildren.

    We won't be talking about Brexit thank God. Probably the wedding - but that's OK. Sláinte

    Just enjoyed a beautiful day with a pleasure boat cruise from Salerno to Amalfi along the magnificent Amalfi drive in glorious weather (82+) fabulous gellatos, beautiful chiming bells in Amalfi Square summoning the faithful and with everyone invited to mass irrespective of faith.

    Just looking at this thread makes one wonder why we get so het up when the real world is just so beautiful as indeed are most people
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    The softest of soft Brexits would involve indefinite Single Market and Customs Union membership. Thankfully, May isn't going for that. If the Lib Dem wing of the Conservative Party somehow do get their way - in the face of the party manifesto - a General Election will be the only option.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    edited May 2018

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    I honestly think there will be a swing back to the Tories irrespective of other factors at the next election as the political cycle does seem to be reactionary. The question asked at the last election was Theresa May wants a big majority do you support this? And the answer was no for a lot of people. Corbynistas seem to think people voting for them as a repository for protest votes relates to ongoing support. And don't forget that a lot of people were put off by the Tories last time with their inept manifesto. I would predict something like Tory 43 - Labour 35 - LD 11 - Ukip 2.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    I honestly think there will be a swing back to the Tories irrespective of other factors at the next election as the political cycle does seem to be reactionary. The question asked at the last election was Theresa May wants a big majority do you support this? And the answer was no for a lot of people. Corbynistas seem to think people voting for them as a repository for protest votes relates to ongoing support. And don't forget that a lot of people were put off by the Tories last time with their inept manifesto. I would predict something like Tory 43 - Labour 35 - LD 11 - Ukip 2.
    That looks quite astute.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    I did say a few weeks back that there would be an October poll. I really cannot see how there cannot be one unless either HMG or the EU capitulates completely. If not, then definitely in February 2019.

    There has to be an election before March 29, 2019.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    We also know rather more clearly now what the end goal of the European Union project is: a United States of Europe, effectively. I don't recall the detail, but ISTR that several pieces of the unifying jigsaw were held back by the EU during the recent EU referendum for fear of influencing the vote against the project.

    The end state may be as nothing to you, compared to economic issues, but other people see things differently.

    It’s a United States of Europe, but you can’t remember the details.

    OK.
    Yeah: I heard enough to decide my Leave vote was the right way and stopped there.
    Are you Nadine Dorries by any chance?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Roger said:

    Any general election called bfore Brexit is finalised is likely to lead to a repeat referendm.

    .....and this time the good guys should win....

    Great. 2-1 to Leave then
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,571
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    The majority doesn't matter. In all but 2 of the last 8 years we have had a Conservative PM without a majority. Yet in all that time it has felt like Thatcherism on steroids.

    Numerous scenarios, but this in my mind is the most likely: Conservatives carry on then take the opportunity to call a 2021 election taking the opportunity with Corbyn further behind. Labour tears itself apart in the bitter recriminations of the defeat, with the MPs being the scapegoats. Cue Labour deselections and/or a number of Labour MPs finally just giving up on what the party has turned into. A new centrist EU rejoiner party is formed (think 1980/81). It doesn't do that well in practice, but does enough to split the opposition and allow the Tories to win yet again around 2025/6. Certainly not inconceivable.

    That would mean 20 years of continuous Conservative government until at least 2030. Scary.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    If there is to be another General Election, might it come after Mrs May "does a Robert Peel" and devises some sort of pro-Remain strategy with the anti Brexit Labour MPs, the Lib Dems, SNP etc? The more I look at it, the more it seems that Brexit is a political problem like the Corn Laws - sooner or later, party loyalty or not, she is going to have to face down the people who want the impossible and try to make a good case for changing her mind and staying in - albeit with a million provisos, caveats, guarantees etc etc etc

    If that was to be the case, a General Election this autumn might be rather fun for those of us who are indifferent as to the outcome.

    I quite agree, that we are in an early stage of a re-alignment of politics, and it is happening arose most of the developed world. Equivalent to the 1840 with Robert Peal and the abolition of the corn Laws, or for that matter in the interwar period and swap of the Liberal Party with the Labor Party, to become the second 'big' party in the UK.

    While every place has it's quirks, we have seen in in France, with Macron, Italy with 5 Star, teh US with Trump gaining the White working class and by the looks of things maybe the Black working class as well.

    The old alignment with one party, representing personal freedom but government control of the economic, and the other wanting the government to control the personal freedom of anybody who is not 'mainstream' while supposing some economic freedom. worked well for the Cold War, each party had is differences with the USSR, but in different ways, and because it seemed stable has continued for a bit after the end of the cold war. but it has now run its courses.

    I suspect that the new alignment will be of consistent authoritarians that both what to control the economy and enforces a PC culture, verses Liberals or libertarians if you like, including very miled libertarians like Macron in France.

    The journey we take to get there is unwritten, unpredictable, and fraught with danger. but i suspect will largely be shaped by individuates who are both charismatic and compliant organizers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    surby said:

    I did say a few weeks back that there would be an October poll. I really cannot see how there cannot be one unless either HMG or the EU capitulates completely. If not, then definitely in February 2019.

    There has to be an election before March 29, 2019.

    Why? With polls virtually identical to the 2017 general election result and both May and Corbyn increasingly sharing the same Brexit position what exactly would a general election solve?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    We also know rather more clearly now what the end goal of the European Union project is: a United States of Europe, effectively. I don't recall the detail, but ISTR that several pieces of the unifying jigsaw were held back by the EU during the recent EU referendum for fear of influencing the vote against the project.

    The end state may be as nothing to you, compared to economic issues, but other people see things differently.

    It’s a United States of Europe, but you can’t remember the details.

    OK.
    Yeah: I heard enough to decide my Leave vote was the right way and stopped there.
    Are you Nadine Dorries by any chance?
    I'm rather more representative of ordinary, non-political people than that. :smile:
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    The majority doesn't matter. In all but 2 of the last 8 years we have had a Conservative PM without a majority. Yet in all that time it has felt like Thatcherism on steroids.

    Numerous scenarios, but this in my mind is the most likely: Conservatives carry on then take the opportunity to call a 2021 election taking the opportunity with Corbyn further behind. Labour tears itself apart in the bitter recriminations of the defeat, with the MPs being the scapegoats. Cue Labour deselections and/or a number of Labour MPs finally just giving up on what the party has turned into. A new centrist EU rejoiner party is formed (think 1980/81). It doesn't do that well in practice, but does enough to split the opposition and allow the Tories to win yet again around 2025/6. Certainly not inconceivable.

    That would mean 20 years of continuous Conservative government until at least 2030. Scary.
    I think that any election in the next 9 months would take place within the context of a collapse of the May government over Brexit policy, and therefore unlikely to gain seats.

    I would also argue that the Coalition government of 2010-15 will be seen in retrospect as a golden era of competent government. When we look at what has happened since, and is the alternative opposition too.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    The majority doesn't matter. In all but 2 of the last 8 years we have had a Conservative PM without a majority. Yet in all that time it has felt like Thatcherism on steroids.

    Numerous scenarios, but this in my mind is the most likely: Conservatives carry on then take the opportunity to call a 2021 election taking the opportunity with Corbyn further behind. Labour tears itself apart in the bitter recriminations of the defeat, with the MPs being the scapegoats. Cue Labour deselections and/or a number of Labour MPs finally just giving up on what the party has turned into. A new centrist EU rejoiner party is formed (think 1980/81). It doesn't do that well in practice, but does enough to split the opposition and allow the Tories to win yet again around 2025/6. Certainly not inconceivable.

    That would mean 20 years of continuous Conservative government until at least 2030. Scary.
    Unless that new centrist 'En Marche' like party under a more charismatic Macron like figure wins in 2025/6, remember Macron had to beat both the socialist party and conservative party candidates to become President and get an En Marche majority in the National Assembly
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018
    BigRich said:

    If there is to be another General Election, might it come after Mrs May "does a Robert Peel" and devises some sort of pro-Remain strategy with the anti Brexit Labour MPs, the Lib Dems, SNP etc? The more I look at it, the more it seems that Brexit is a political problem like the Corn Laws - sooner or later, party loyalty or not, she is going to have to face down the people who want the impossible and try to make a good case for changing her mind and staying in - albeit with a million provisos, caveats, guarantees etc etc etc

    If that was to be the case, a General Election this autumn might be rather fun for those of us who are indifferent as to the outcome.

    I quite agree, that we are in an early stage of a re-alignment of politics, and it is happening arose most of the developed world. Equivalent to the 1840 with Robert Peal and the abolition of the corn Laws, or for that matter in the interwar period and swap of the Liberal Party with the Labor Party, to become the second 'big' party in the UK.

    While every place has it's quirks, we have seen in in France, with Macron, Italy with 5 Star, teh US with Trump gaining the White working class and by the looks of things maybe the Black working class as well.

    The old alignment with one party, representing personal freedom but government control of the economic, and the other wanting the government to control the personal freedom of anybody who is not 'mainstream' while supposing some economic freedom. worked well for the Cold War, each party had is differences with the USSR, but in different ways, and because it seemed stable has continued for a bit after the end of the cold war. but it has now run its courses.

    I suspect that the new alignment will be of consistent authoritarians that both what to control the economy and enforces a PC culture, verses Liberals or libertarians if you like, including very miled libertarians like Macron in France.

    The journey we take to get there is unwritten, unpredictable, and fraught with danger. but i suspect will largely be shaped by individuates who are both charismatic and compliant organizers.
    In France, the US and UK and Italy at the moment there are three forces irrespective of party, a populist, nationalist, anti immigration, anti globalisation force eg Rees-Mogg, Lega Nord and Salvini, Farage, Trump, Le Pen perhaps Fillon, a centrist pro globalisation, pro free trade force eg Obama, Hillary, Kasich, Macron, Juppe, Umunna, Cameron, Renzi and a populist, socialist, anti capitalism, anti austerity and anti globalisation force, eg Sanders, Warren, Corbyn, McDonnell, Hamon and Melenchon, to an extent Five Star and Di Maio
  • Anyone remember this **** Betting Post **** which I put up here four weeks ago on 22 April:

    peter_from_putney Posts: 6,240
    12:54PM edited 12:57PM

    ***** Betting Post *****
    Currently, there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1.
    Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho.
    But as ever, DYOR!


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Let’s say that we have an election and May wins ( I know, I know) gaining another 40 seats. That may give her a reasonably comfortable majority but does it come even close to resolving the Brexit issue? I would say not even close. In that scenario Labour finally get rid of Corbyn and almost certainly replace him with someone more remainer orientated. May will still have to build a compromise coalition between those wanting to remain, those wanting to have the softest of Brexits and those determined to properly leave ( as they see it).

    It doesn’t seem to me that even this optimistic scenario is likely to give her a majority for whatever form of Brexit she is trying to sell. And to achieve this we have to run the risk of that thick, incompetent old fool being elected into government. It’s irrational.

    The other problem is that by and large those who have the most extreme and irreconcilable views on this are not likely to be the ones risking their seats. They are not going to be bullied by this. I can understand why the threat has been made but only someone truly delusional would carry it out.

    Which is the problem in a nutshell, I suppose.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Putney, don't think I backed that. I'd prefer not to have another election.
  • DavidL said:

    Let’s say that we have an election and May wins ( I know, I know) gaining another 40 seats. That may give her a reasonably comfortable majority but does it come even close to resolving the Brexit issue? I would say not even close. In that scenario Labour finally get rid of Corbyn and almost certainly replace him with someone more remainer orientated. May will still have to build a compromise coalition between those wanting to remain, those wanting to have the softest of Brexits and those determined to properly leave ( as they see it).

    It doesn’t seem to me that even this optimistic scenario is likely to give her a majority for whatever form of Brexit she is trying to sell. And to achieve this we have to run the risk of that thick, incompetent old fool being elected into government. It’s irrational.

    The other problem is that by and large those who have the most extreme and irreconcilable views on this are not likely to be the ones risking their seats. They are not going to be bullied by this. I can understand why the threat has been made but only someone truly delusional would carry it out.

    Which is the problem in a nutshell, I suppose.

    A well argued post - we really are in a bog as a nation aren't we?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    The majority doesn't matter. In all but 2 of the last 8 years we have had a Conservative PM without a majority. Yet in all that time it has felt like Thatcherism on steroids.

    Numerous scenarios, but this in my mind is the most likely: Conservatives carry on then take the opportunity to call a 2021 election taking the opportunity with Corbyn further behind. Labour tears itself apart in the bitter recriminations of the defeat, with the MPs being the scapegoats. Cue Labour deselections and/or a number of Labour MPs finally just giving up on what the party has turned into. A new centrist EU rejoiner party is formed (think 1980/81). It doesn't do that well in practice, but does enough to split the opposition and allow the Tories to win yet again around 2025/6. Certainly not inconceivable.

    That would mean 20 years of continuous Conservative government until at least 2030. Scary.
    I think that any election in the next 9 months would take place within the context of a collapse of the May government over Brexit policy, and therefore unlikely to gain seats.

    I would also argue that the Coalition government of 2010-15 will be seen in retrospect as a golden era of competent government. When we look at what has happened since, and is the alternative opposition too.
    Cameron and May are doing wonders for Eden's reputation.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Corbyn got 40% of the vote last time that's not bad
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    DavidL said:

    Let’s say that we have an election and May wins ( I know, I know) gaining another 40 seats. That may give her a reasonably comfortable majority but does it come even close to resolving the Brexit issue? I would say not even close. In that scenario Labour finally get rid of Corbyn and almost certainly replace him with someone more remainer orientated. May will still have to build a compromise coalition between those wanting to remain, those wanting to have the softest of Brexits and those determined to properly leave ( as they see it).

    It doesn’t seem to me that even this optimistic scenario is likely to give her a majority for whatever form of Brexit she is trying to sell. And to achieve this we have to run the risk of that thick, incompetent old fool being elected into government. It’s irrational.

    The other problem is that by and large those who have the most extreme and irreconcilable views on this are not likely to be the ones risking their seats. They are not going to be bullied by this. I can understand why the threat has been made but only someone truly delusional would carry it out.

    Which is the problem in a nutshell, I suppose.

    A well argued post - we really are in a bog as a nation aren't we?
    To be honest, a lot of this (though not the precise details) was predictable before the vote.
    It’s one of the half dozen reasons I voted Remain.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Putney, the iconoclasts and iconodules caused significant rancour in Byzantium for a century(ish), but that was resolved.

    If Cameron had ever thought he might actually lose, he either would never have fought the referendum, or would have demanded something actually of use in campaigning.

    But suppose we had voted 52% Remain. The political class (diehard sceptics aside) would be generally relieved and positive, broadcast media likewise. All the noises would be about moving on, healing the rifts. The divide would be just as real. But the political class would not be trying to exacerbate it or overturn or dilute the referendum result.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
    I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Walker, I think that's why some voted Remain, but the actions of the political class, most especially the Lords, is why some voted Leave (because they thought this was the only opportunity they'd ever get). Right now, the actions of said political class are reinforcing that opinion.

    My view was that we'd end up perhaps with a departure in name only, on worse terms than current, and then another referendum on the deal or status quo. That's not impossible now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Corbyn got 40% of the vote last time that's not bad
    In seat terms though the 262 he got was 9 fewer than the 271 Kinnock got in 1992 as the Tories got 42%
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762

    DavidL said:

    Let’s say that we have an election and May wins ( I know, I know) gaining another 40 seats. That may give her a reasonably comfortable majority but does it come even close to resolving the Brexit issue? I would say not even close. In that scenario Labour finally get rid of Corbyn and almost certainly replace him with someone more remainer orientated. May will still have to build a compromise coalition between those wanting to remain, those wanting to have the softest of Brexits and those determined to properly leave ( as they see it).

    It doesn’t seem to me that even this optimistic scenario is likely to give her a majority for whatever form of Brexit she is trying to sell. And to achieve this we have to run the risk of that thick, incompetent old fool being elected into government. It’s irrational.

    The other problem is that by and large those who have the most extreme and irreconcilable views on this are not likely to be the ones risking their seats. They are not going to be bullied by this. I can understand why the threat has been made but only someone truly delusional would carry it out.

    Which is the problem in a nutshell, I suppose.

    A well argued post - we really are in a bog as a nation aren't we?
    Indeed. We need the Tory party to come together and find a compromise they can all accept for now. It is a long way from a sure thing.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited May 2018
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Corbyn got 40% of the vote last time that's not bad
    In seat terms though the 262 he got was 9 fewer than the 271 Kinnock got in 1992 as the Tories got 42%
    Two main differences between '92 and '17 seats.

    1) Scotland
    2) The parties were 7% apart in '92 and 2.5% apart in '17

    If the Tories fracture over Brexit, Corbyn already proven he can get enough votes to win.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    If there is to be another General Election, might it come after Mrs May "does a Robert Peel" and devises some sort of pro-Remain strategy with the anti Brexit Labour MPs, the Lib Dems, SNP etc? The more I look at it, the more it seems that Brexit is a political problem like the Corn Laws - sooner or later, party loyalty or not, she is going to have to face down the people who want the impossible and try to make a good case for changing her mind and staying in - albeit with a million provisos, caveats, guarantees etc etc etc

    If that was to be the case, a General Election this autumn might be rather fun for those of us who are indifferent as to the outcome.

    I quite agree, that we are in an early stage of a re-alignment of politics, and it is happening arose most of the developed world. Equivalent to the 1840 with Robert Peal and the abolition of the corn Laws, or for that matter in the interwar period and swap of the Liberal Party with the Labor Party, to become the second 'big' party in the UK.

    The old alignment with one party, representing personal freedom but government control of the economic, and the other wanting the government to control the personal freedom of anybody who is not 'mainstream' while supposing some economic freedom. worked well for the Cold War, each party had is differences with the USSR, but in different ways, and because it seemed stable has continued for a bit after the end of the cold war. but it has now run its courses.

    The journey we take to get there is unwritten, unpredictable, and fraught with danger. but i suspect will largely be shaped by individuates who are both charismatic and compliant organizers.
    In France, the US and UK and Italy at the moment there are three forces irrespective of party, a populist, nationalist, anti immigration, anti globalisation force eg Rees-Mogg, Lega Nord and Salvini, Farage, Trump, Le Pen perhaps Fillon, a centrist pro globalisation, pro free trade force eg Obama, Hillary, Kasich, Macron, Juppe, Umunna, Cameron, Renzi and a populist, socialist, anti capitalism, anti austerity and anti globalisation force, eg Sanders, Warren, Corbyn, McDonnell, Hamon and Melenchon, to an extent Five Star and Di Maio
    Good Evening HYDUF, always nice to get one of your knowledgeable and well argued responses.

    But in this case, I not persuaded, this is less about where we are now and more about where we are going, Silvio is very much Yesterdays man IMO and, not everybody fits in too your 3 castigators (or my two,for that matter) at the moment, (was Obama a centrist? is JRM anti Free trade?) but the old alignments are under more strain than ever, the axis is rotating.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    IanB2 said:

    That 'second Thursday in October' rumour makes it into the papers.

    I don't see how that could happen given that Parliament does not return from recess until September 5th. A 5 week period must elapse between Dissolution and Polling Day , and a week or so would be needed to tidy up Parliamentary business prior to Dissolution. October 18th or 25th are more likely but dependant on Corbyn wanting to play ball!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    But if Callaghan had called an election in the Autumn of 1978 , Thatcher might never have become PM!
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Want Brexit? Vote Corbyn.

  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Kinnock could have denied the Tories a majority in 1992 and managed a 2017 type result. His loss of control at Sheffield surely added at least 1% to the Tory vote lead and was crucial in giving Major a small majority.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Kinnock could have denied the Tories a majority in 1992 and managed a 2017 type result. His loss of control at Sheffield surely added at least 1% to the Tory vote lead and was crucial in giving Major a small majority.
    Could, but didn't. And I thought analysis showed the impact of the Sheffield rally was minimal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Kinnock could have denied the Tories a majority in 1992 and managed a 2017 type result. His loss of control at Sheffield surely added at least 1% to the Tory vote lead and was crucial in giving Major a small majority.
    The LDs also still won 17% in 1992 compared to 7% in 2017 meaning the anti Tory vote was more divided, May's 42.3% in 2017 was actually more than the 41.9% Major got in 1992
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Corbyn got 40% of the vote last time that's not bad
    In seat terms though the 262 he got was 9 fewer than the 271 Kinnock got in 1992 as the Tories got 42%
    Two main differences between '92 and '17 seats.

    1) Scotland
    2) The parties were 7% apart in '92 and 2.5% apart in '17

    If the Tories fracture over Brexit, Corbyn already proven he can get enough votes to win.
    The biggest difference was Corbyn had a less resistant LD vote to deal with and Scottish seats going to the SNP rather than Labour are still not Tory seats.

    Corbyn has not proven he can get enough votes to win, especially when the Tory vote remains stubbornly over 40% while he remains Labour leader
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    2018 might be quite appealing before another dose of winter flu whittles down the Tory base
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Kinnock could have denied the Tories a majority in 1992 and managed a 2017 type result. His loss of control at Sheffield surely added at least 1% to the Tory vote lead and was crucial in giving Major a small majority.
    Could, but didn't. And I thought analysis showed the impact of the Sheffield rally was minimal.
    Well 1% would have been pretty minimal! I strongly suspect that the effect of Sheffield was to boost turnout to the Tories' advantage. As it was the Tories won four seats by less than 100 votes. Without Sheffield Labour would probably ended up on 280 - 285 with the Tories on 320 - 325. Major would have carried on with Ulster Unionist support - though I doubt that he would have survived until 1995.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    If there is to be another General Election, might it come after Mrs May "does a Robert Peel" and devises some sort of pro-Remain strategy with the anti Brexit Labour MPs, the Lib Dems, SNP etc?

    If that was to be the case, a General Election this autumn might be rather fun for those of us who are indifferent as to the outcome.

    I quite agree, that we are in an early stage of a re-alignment of politics, and it is happening arose most of the developed world. Equivalent to the 1840 with Robert Peal and the abolition of the corn Laws, or for that matter in the interwar period and swap of the Liberal Party with the Labor Party, to become the second 'big' party in the UK.

    The old alignment with one party, representing personal freedom but government control of the economic, and the other wanting the government to control the personal freedom of anybody who is not 'mainstream' while supposing some economic freedom. worked well for the Cold War, each party had is differences with the USSR, but in different ways, and because it seemed stable has continued for a bit after the end of the cold war. but it has now run its courses.

    The journey we take to get there is unwritten, unpredictable, and fraught with danger. but i suspect will largely be shaped by individuates who are both charismatic and compliant organizers.
    In France, the US and UK and Italy at the mnti globalisation force, eg Sanders, Warren, Corbyn, McDonnell, Hamon and Melenchon, to an extent Five Star and Di Maio
    Good Evening HYDUF, always nice to get one of your knowledgeable and well argued responses.

    But in this case, I not persuaded, this is less about where we are now and more about where we are going, Silvio is very much Yesterdays man IMO and, not everybody fits in too your 3 castigators (or my two,for that matter) at the moment, (was Obama a centrist? is JRM anti Free trade?) but the old alignments are under more strain than ever, the axis is rotating.
    Thankyou.

    Berlusconi has really been overtaken on the Italian right by the populist nationalist Salvini.

    Obama you are perhaps right was more left liberal in his first term but by his second term and after the GOP took Congress had moved to the centre but I would argue he was never as leftwing as Sanders is.

    Mogg is certainly tough on immigration, though he is less protectionist on Trump you are correct on that. In general though immigration concerns and the feeling globalisation and capitalism are not working for the working and lower middle class are certainly shifting the political axis as you suggest.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    But if Callaghan had called an election in the Autumn of 1978 , Thatcher might never have become PM!
    'Might' being the operative word and he still led the second shortest postwar government after Heath's
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    edited May 2018


    Want Brexit? Vote Corbyn.

    We’d probably only get two years of “Corbyn means Corbyn” and “we’re leaving the capitalist system”, not to mention a debate about whether people want Hard Corbyn or Soft Corbyn, while in reality he was busy implementing Blairite policies. You can’t trust any of ‘em!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    But if Callaghan had called an election in the Autumn of 1978 , Thatcher might never have become PM!
    'Might' being the operative word and he still led the second shortest postwar government after Heath's
    Labour would clearly have done quite a bit better at an election held at almost any time in 1978 than when Callaghan was forced to go to the country in May 1979. The Ilford North by election held in March 1978 makes that point well in that Tessa Jowell then lost to Vivian Bendall by a narrower margin than at the General Election just over a year later.On the other hand, had March 1978 seen a General Election it is much more likely that Tessa Jowell would have outperformed the by election result.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
    edited May 2018
    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Kinnock could have denied the Tories a majority in 1992 and managed a 2017 type result. His loss of control at Sheffield surely added at least 1% to the Tory vote lead and was crucial in giving Major a small majority.
    Could, but didn't. And I thought analysis showed the impact of the Sheffield rally was minimal.
    Well 1% would have been pretty minimal! I strongly suspect that the effect of Sheffield was to boost turnout to the Tories' advantage. As it was the Tories won four seats by less than 100 votes. Without Sheffield Labour would probably ended up on 280 - 285 with the Tories on 320 - 325. Major would have carried on with Ulster Unionist support - though I doubt that he would have survived until 1995.
    I know someone who did the polling for the Tories in 1992 he said the private polling showed the Sheffield Rally had no impact, the biggest impact during the campaign was Labour's Shadow Budget where Labour said taxes would go up under a Labour government, which led to the double whammy posters from the Tories.

    The war of Jennifer's ear probably moved more votes than the Sheffield Rally.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Kinnock could have denied the Tories a majority in 1992 and managed a 2017 type result. His loss of control at Sheffield surely added at least 1% to the Tory vote lead and was crucial in giving Major a small majority.
    Could, but didn't. And I thought analysis showed the impact of the Sheffield rally was minimal.
    Well 1% would have been pretty minimal! I strongly suspect that the effect of Sheffield was to boost turnout to the Tories' advantage. As it was the Tories won four seats by less than 100 votes. Without Sheffield Labour would probably ended up on 280 - 285 with the Tories on 320 - 325. Major would have carried on with Ulster Unionist support - though I doubt that he would have survived until 1995.
    I know someone who did the polling for the Tories in 1992 he said the private polling showed the Sheffield Rally had no impact, the biggest impact during the campaign was Labour's Shadow Budget where Labour said taxes would go up a Labour government, which led to the double whammy posters from the Tories.

    The war of Jennifer's ear probably moved more votes than the Sheffield Rally.
    I agree the late John Smith's shadow budget had the most impact.

    Alongside Chris Patten's hard hitting campaign , with the Labour Tax bombshell.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited May 2018

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    :)

    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Kinnock could have denied the Tories a majority in 1992 and managed a 2017 type result. His loss of control at Sheffield surely added at least 1% to the Tory vote lead and was crucial in giving Major a small majority.
    Could, but didn't. And I thought analysis showed the impact of the Sheffield rally was minimal.
    Well 1% would have been pretty minimal! I strongly suspect that the effect of Sheffield was to boost turnout to the Tories' advantage. As it was the Tories won four seats by less than 100 votes. Without Sheffield Labour would probably ended up on 280 - 285 with the Tories on 320 - 325. Major would have carried on with Ulster Unionist support - though I doubt that he would have survived until 1995.
    I know someone who did the polling for the Tories in 1992 he said the private polling showed the Sheffield Rally had no impact, the biggest impact during the campaign was Labour's Shadow Budget where Labour said taxes would go up a Labour government, which led to the double whammy posters from the Tories.

    The war of Jennifer's ear probably moved more votes than the Sheffield Rally.
    But Sheffield did not need to have much impact when a gust of wind would have been enough to take four Tory seats.I believe it did have an effect on differential turnout to Tory advantage - enough to boost the Tory lead from 6.5% to the actual outcome of 7.6%. That would have swung the result in circa 12 seats.
    I recall so well the feeling of horror and disbelief amongst Labour party workers when Kinnock's speech was broadcast. It clearly had an impact on us - and I find it difficult to believe it did not resonate more widely.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
    I just ate pizza with pineapple on it.

    I'm going to drink some acid now to wash away the taste.

    I'm even more anti pineapple on pizza than I was before.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    tyson said:

    2018 might be quite appealing before another dose of winter flu whittles down the Tory base

    I was at a winter planning meeting last week. We still have our Breast ward acting as a respiratory medicine ward, but not for much longer. Next year is forecast to be as bad, so we are making contingency plans.

    Ironically our CCGs did all right out of the winter as we cancelled so many ellective procedures that they were not charged for. Not good news for those on waiting lists though.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Foxy said:

    I would also argue that the Coalition government of 2010-15 will be seen in retrospect as a golden era of competent government. When we look at what has happened since, and is the alternative opposition too.

    I can't agree with that. So many of our problems now look like the consequence of bad decisions made during the Coalition. There is the legacy from the Home Office when led by T. May. There are the strains in the NHS due to funding restraint and particularly cuts to social care funding. There is the bankruptcy of Northamptonshire Council, with many others at risk of following. We have the continuing housing crisis, where the major intervention from the Coalition was Help to Buy, which managed to do enough to support high house prices to rescue the Conservatives electoral position. There is the student loans situation coupled with absurd vice chancellors salaries. There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2018
    tyson said:

    2018 might be quite appealing before another dose of winter flu whittles down the Tory base

    Remarkable they ever get any votes - 200 years of winter flu outbreaks surely should have whittled that base away by now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2018

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709


    Want Brexit? Vote Corbyn.

    We’d probably only get two years of “Corbyn means Corbyn” and “we’re leaving the capitalist system”, not to mention a debate about whether people want Hard Corbyn or Soft Corbyn, while in reality he was busy implementing Blairite policies. You can’t trust any of ‘em!
    One thing you can guarantee with Corbyn is he will not be implementing Blairite policies
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018
    Hugh Grant's portrayal of the former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe on BBC 1 now
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    Quite. He responded to pressure from below, by promising a referendum. We responded by giving him a majority, and he honoured his promise.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,414

    Foxy said:

    I would also argue that the Coalition government of 2010-15 will be seen in retrospect as a golden era of competent government. When we look at what has happened since, and is the alternative opposition too.

    I can't agree with that. So many of our problems now look like the consequence of bad decisions made during the Coalition. There is the legacy from the Home Office when led by T. May. There are the strains in the NHS due to funding restraint and particularly cuts to social care funding. There is the bankruptcy of Northamptonshire Council, with many others at risk of following. We have the continuing housing crisis, where the major intervention from the Coalition was Help to Buy, which managed to do enough to support high house prices to rescue the Conservatives electoral position. There is the student loans situation coupled with absurd vice chancellors salaries. There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.
    The referendum would have happened eventually, whether it was 2016 or later. There had been too much of a feeling that people hadn’t been consulted to let it go on much longer.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346

    Foxy said:

    I would also argue that the Coalition government of 2010-15 will be seen in retrospect as a golden era of competent government. When we look at what has happened since, and is the alternative opposition too.

    I can't agree with that. So many of our problems now look like the consequence of bad decisions made during the Coalition. There is the legacy from the Home Office when led by T. May. There are the strains in the NHS due to funding restraint and particularly cuts to social care funding. There is the bankruptcy of Northamptonshire Council, with many others at risk of following. We have the continuing housing crisis, where the major intervention from the Coalition was Help to Buy, which managed to do enough to support high house prices to rescue the Conservatives electoral position. There is the student loans situation coupled with absurd vice chancellors salaries. There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.
    The referendum would have happened eventually, whether it was 2016 or later. There had been too much of a feeling that people hadn’t been consulted to let it go on much longer.
    If it had waited until a government that supported Brexit was in power, we might be in a better position to implement it somewhat competently or at least have a clearer idea of what was voted for.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    Barnesian said:

    What a beautiful evening! I'm now off to the pub for a meal in the garden with my wife, children and grandchildren.

    We won't be talking about Brexit thank God. Probably the wedding - but that's OK. Sláinte

    Just enjoyed a beautiful day with a pleasure boat cruise from Salerno to Amalfi along the magnificent Amalfi drive in glorious weather (82+) fabulous gellatos, beautiful chiming bells in Amalfi Square summoning the faithful and with everyone invited to mass irrespective of faith.

    Just looking at this thread makes one wonder why we get so het up when the real world is just so beautiful as indeed are most people
    Sounds wonderful - thanks for the cheering post!
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    tyson said:

    2018 might be quite appealing before another dose of winter flu whittles down the Tory base

    :(
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    HYUFD said:

    Hugh Grant's portrayal of the former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe on BBC 1 now

    It's a job to take Hacked Off Hugh seriously...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    edited May 2018
    GIN1138 said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
    I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
    He did far, far better than expected but he didn't get 'remarkably close.'

    To put it in context, only two PMs in the last 118 years have formed a government with fewer than 270 seats - Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 and Ramsay Macdonald in 1924. On the first occasion, it was a temporary measure pending an election, in the Second it was because the two Opposition parties, with very similar strength, had fought on a similar basic platform.

    On two other occasions (in 1910) a party with between 270 and 280 seats formed a government. On those occasions the election was roughly a tie and there was a huge cohesive block of over 80 seats that would support one party.

    The next lowest winning total, and the lowest in the age of universal suffrage, was 287 in 1929.

    Corbyn didn't for all his bluster have a cohesive anti-Tory vote. He didn't top or really get close to 270 never mind 290. He was 55 seats behind the largest party. Although it wasn't a meltdown, it was still a distinctly underwhelming result. It was, to put it in context, rather worse than Kinnock's in 1992 and not ridiculously better than 2010.

    (edit - to look at it another way, all non-abstentionist parties except the Conservatives and DUP add up to 314. The Conservatives alone outnumber them. To take power in these circumstances Corbyn would need one of four things to happen (1) The active co-operation of the Tories or DUP (2) Sinn Fein to take their seats (3) the Tories to abstain on all votes (4) hell to freeze over.)

    He did not come close. I would say he looked silly pretending otherwise but (a) he always looks silly anyway because he is silly and (b) he didn't look half so silly as Theresa May did.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    HYUFD said:

    surby said:

    I did say a few weeks back that there would be an October poll. I really cannot see how there cannot be one unless either HMG or the EU capitulates completely. If not, then definitely in February 2019.

    There has to be an election before March 29, 2019.

    Why? With polls virtually identical to the 2017 general election result and both May and Corbyn increasingly sharing the same Brexit position what exactly would a general election solve?
    Because it would not be an election of choice but because there will no choice but to have one.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    The demand for a referendum came from long-term strategic reasons.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
    I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
    He did far, far better than expected but he didn't get 'remarkably close.'

    To put it in context, only two PMs in the last 118 years have formed a government with fewer than 270 seats - Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 and Ramsay Macdonald in 1924. On the first occasion, it was a temporary measure pending an election, in the Second it was because the two Opposition parties, with very similar strength, had fought on a similar basic platform.

    On two other occasions (in 1910) a party with between 270 and 280 seats formed a government. On those occasions the election was roughly a tie and there was a huge cohesive block of over 80 seats that would support one party.

    The next lowest winning total, and the lowest in the age of universal suffrage, was 287 in 1929.

    Corbyn didn't for all his bluster have a cohesive anti-Tory vote. He didn't top or really get close to 270 never mind 290. He was 55 seats behind the largest party. Although it wasn't a meltdown, it was still a distinctly underwhelming result. It was, to put it in context, rather worse than Kinnock's in 1992 and not ridiculously better than 2010.

    (edit - to look at it another way, all non-abstentionist parties except the Conservatives and DUP add up to 314. The Conservatives alone outnumber them. To take power in these circumstances Corbyn would need one of four things to happen (1) The active co-operation of the Tories or DUP (2) Sinn Fein to take their seats (3) the Tories to abstain on all votes (4) hell to freeze over.)

    He did not come close. I would say he looked silly pretending otherwise but (a) he always looks silly anyway because he is silly and (b) he didn't look half so silly as Theresa May did.
    If Scotland hadn't delivered those extra Tory MPs, and May had ended up on 300 seats or so, Corbyn would have formed an administration.

    It would have been weak and unstable, but he would have formed one nonetheless.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    Foxy said:

    I would also argue that the Coalition government of 2010-15 will be seen in retrospect as a golden era of competent government. When we look at what has happened since, and is the alternative opposition too.

    I can't agree with that. So many of our problems now look like the consequence of bad decisions made during the Coalition. There is the legacy from the Home Office when led by T. May. There are the strains in the NHS due to funding restraint and particularly cuts to social care funding. There is the bankruptcy of Northamptonshire Council, with many others at risk of following. We have the continuing housing crisis, where the major intervention from the Coalition was Help to Buy, which managed to do enough to support high house prices to rescue the Conservatives electoral position. There is the student loans situation coupled with absurd vice chancellors salaries. There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.
    I am not saying that it was perfect, but neither were the conditions in which it was formed. Despite all its flaws and difficulties, the Coalition was largely a period of competence. We see now how real infighting goes.

    Hugh as Jeremy Thorpe very good indeed. The period detail also rather well observed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
    I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
    He did far, far better than expected but he didn't get 'remarkably close.'

    To put it in context, only two PMs in the last 118 years have formed a government with fewer than 270 seats - Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 and Ramsay Macdonald in 1924. On the first occasion, it was a temporary measure pending an election, in the Second it was because the two Opposition parties, with very similar strength, had fought on a similar basic platform.

    On two other occasions (in 1910) a party with between 270 and 280 seats formed a government. On those occasions the election was roughly a tie and there was a huge cohesive block of over 80 seats that would support one party.

    The next lowest winning total, and the lowest in the age of universal suffrage, was 287 in 1929.

    Corbyn didn't for all his bluster have a cohesive anti-Tory vote. He didn't top or really get close to 270 never mind 290. He was 55 seats behind the largest party. Although it wasn't a meltdown, it was still a distinctly underwhelming result. It was, to put it in context, rather worse than Kinnock's in 1992 and not ridiculously better than 2010.

    (edit - to look at it another way, all non-abstentionist parties except the Conservatives and DUP add up to 314. The Conservatives alone outnumber them. To take power in these circumstances Corbyn would need one of four things to happen (1) The active co-operation of the Tories or DUP (2) Sinn Fein to take their seats (3) the Tories to abstain on all votes (4) hell to freeze over.)

    He did not come close. I would say he looked silly pretending otherwise but (a) he always looks silly anyway because he is silly and (b) he didn't look half so silly as Theresa May did.
    If Scotland hadn't delivered those extra Tory MPs, and May had ended up on 300 seats or so, Corbyn would have formed an administration.

    It would have been weak and unstable, but he would have formed one nonetheless.
    And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

    Whatever he could, or could not, have done, on these results he could not have got into power nor was he anywhere near doing so.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'

    Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong? :)
    Though before Labour get too cocky about Heath losing that general election, remember 5 years later Thatcher won and the Tories were in power for the next 18 years.

    If Corbyn won Labour had better hope he did not give as big a boost to the Tories as the 1974-1979 Labour government did
    Before the Tories get too cocky, remember the 92 election, five years later there was a Labour landslide and it was 18 years before the Tories had a wafer thin majority again, which of course May subsequently lost.

    Hubris goes both ways.
    97 came after 4 Tory wins not 3, had Kinnock won in 1992 as would be the equivalent of Corbyn winning next time 1997 would likely have been much closer.

    Plus Blair could manage the economy and appeal to middle England in a way Corbyn clearly cannot
    Kinnock could have denied the Tories a majority in 1992 and managed a 2017 type result. His loss of control at Sheffield surely added at least 1% to the Tory vote lead and was crucial in giving Major a small majority.
    Could, but didn't. And I thought analysis showed the impact of the Sheffield rally was minimal.
    Well 1% would have been pretty minimal! I strongly suspect that the effect of Sheffield was to boost turnout to the Tories' advantage. As it was the Tories won four seats by less than 100 votes. Without Sheffield Labour would probably ended up on 280 - 285 with the Tories on 320 - 325. Major would have carried on with Ulster Unionist support - though I doubt that he would have survived until 1995.
    I know someone who did the polling for the Tories in 1992 he said the private polling showed the Sheffield Rally had no impact, the biggest impact during the campaign was Labour's Shadow Budget where Labour said taxes would go up under a Labour government, which led to the double whammy posters from the Tories.

    The war of Jennifer's ear probably moved more votes than the Sheffield Rally.
    The Sheffield Rally was a consequence not a cause of Labour's arrogance / complacency in 1992.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hugh Grant's portrayal of the former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe on BBC 1 now

    It's a job to take Hacked Off Hugh seriously...
    As Foxy states he played him quite well, though it is really being played as a farce.

    Of course had Heath offered Thorpe PR in February 1974 he may have been able to stay in No 10
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    The demand for a referendum came from long-term strategic reasons.
    The concession of a referendum was also for long-term strategic reasons. Cameron gambled that he could take on his party over social issues like gay marriage, but not on Europe where he expected the public to do his job for him and deliver a rebuke to the people who were obsessed with the EU. The public didn't cooperate and his strategy failed.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273
    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    With respect(:wink:), that's nonsense - it treats the British public as though it were a coherent entity, not 46.5m individual registered voters. The fact that Leave won cannot be blamed on the 48%. That the vote was close cannot be blamed on any individual voter.

    The mess we are in is caused by a lack of forethought from Cameron's government about what a Leave vote really meant and how it would be implemented.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    The demand for a referendum came from long-term strategic reasons.
    The concession of a referendum was also for long-term strategic reasons. Cameron gambled that he could take on his party over social issues like gay marriage, but not on Europe where he expected the public to do his job for him and deliver a rebuke to the people who were obsessed with the EU. The public didn't cooperate and his strategy failed.
    I am convinced he also never expected to be in a position where he would have to hold the referendum; he was expecting either to lose GE2015 or at best to have a further coalition with the LDs (who would have scuppered the EU ref as a price for their support.)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    With respect(:wink:), that's nonsense - it treats the British public as though it were a coherent entity, not 46.5m individual registered voters. The fact that Leave won cannot be blamed on the 48%. That the vote was close cannot be blamed on any individual voter.

    The mess we are in is caused by a lack of forethought from Cameron's government about what a Leave vote really meant and how it would be implemented.
    Sure, it is an incoherent mess. Nonetheless it should be implemented.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273

    I just ate pizza with pineapple on it.

    I'm going to drink some acid now to wash away the taste.

    I'm even more anti pineapple on pizza than I was before.

    What on earth possessed you!?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    With respect(:wink:), that's nonsense - it treats the British public as though it were a coherent entity, not 46.5m individual registered voters. The fact that Leave won cannot be blamed on the 48%. That the vote was close cannot be blamed on any individual voter.

    The mess we are in is caused by a lack of forethought from Cameron's government about what a Leave vote really meant and how it would be implemented.
    Sure, it is an incoherent mess. Nonetheless it should be implemented.
    Agreed... but what is 'it'?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957

    I just ate pizza with pineapple on it.

    I'm going to drink some acid now to wash away the taste.

    I'm even more anti pineapple on pizza than I was before.

    What on earth possessed you!?
    My friend obtained a ticket for me for the Champions League final in Kyiv.

    He didn't want money, as a Manchester United fan he wanted me to suffer.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273

    I just ate pizza with pineapple on it.

    I'm going to drink some acid now to wash away the taste.

    I'm even more anti pineapple on pizza than I was before.

    What on earth possessed you!?
    My friend obtained a ticket for me for the Champions League final in Kyiv.

    He didn't want money, as a Manchester United fan he wanted me to suffer.
    Haha - as if seeing Liverpool get beaten by RM won't be suffering enough!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    The demand for a referendum came from long-term strategic reasons.
    The concession of a referendum was also for long-term strategic reasons. Cameron gambled that he could take on his party over social issues like gay marriage, but not on Europe where he expected the public to do his job for him and deliver a rebuke to the people who were obsessed with the EU. The public didn't cooperate and his strategy failed.
    I am convinced he also never expected to be in a position where he would have to hold the referendum; he was expecting either to lose GE2015 or at best to have a further coalition with the LDs (who would have scuppered the EU ref as a price for their support.)
    Cameron would never have expected to have lost to Miliband such that Ed became PM. It was never a realistic outcome. Made more so by Ed's refusal to countenance holding a referendum on Europe.

    The LibDems were trickier to read - would they really have gone into any formal extension of the Coalition, such that they could make a demand on canning the Referendum? Personally, I don't think so.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    The demand for a referendum came from long-term strategic reasons.
    The concession of a referendum was also for long-term strategic reasons. Cameron gambled that he could take on his party over social issues like gay marriage, but not on Europe where he expected the public to do his job for him and deliver a rebuke to the people who were obsessed with the EU. The public didn't cooperate and his strategy failed.
    I am convinced he also never expected to be in a position where he would have to hold the referendum; he was expecting either to lose GE2015 or at best to have a further coalition with the LDs (who would have scuppered the EU ref as a price for their support.)
    Cameron would never have expected to have lost to Miliband such that Ed became PM. It was never a realistic outcome. Made more so by Ed's refusal to countenance holding a referendum on Europe.

    The LibDems were trickier to read - would they really have gone into any formal extension of the Coalition, such that they could make a demand on canning the Referendum? Personally, I don't think so.

    Tory strategists had expected if Coalition II had happened Clegg would have agreed to an EU referendum but insisted on the following

    1) 16 and 17 year olds had the vote
    2) EU citizens had the vote
    3) Clegg with his experience at the EU would demand a key role in the negotiation.
    4) The government wouldn't be neutral in the referendum

    The fear among Tory strategists is that the Leavers would have rebelled on the back benches and stopped legislation to allow the referendum to take place as 1) and 2) would have ensured a comfortable Remain victory.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    With respect(:wink:), that's nonsense - it treats the British public as though it were a coherent entity, not 46.5m individual registered voters. The fact that Leave won cannot be blamed on the 48%. That the vote was close cannot be blamed on any individual voter.

    The mess we are in is caused by a lack of forethought from Cameron's government about what a Leave vote really meant and how it would be implemented.
    Sure, it is an incoherent mess. Nonetheless it should be implemented.
    Agreed... but what is 'it'?
    Brecon means Brexit, anything from soft as silk to hard as North Korea is covered.

    In reality though it will be the EU27's version, take it or leave it.

    All the current shenanigans are castled on clouds. The reality is that everything in Brexit s complicated by the presence of the opposing team, to adapt Satre's football quote.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    The demand for a referendum came from long-term strategic reasons.
    The concession of a referendum was also for long-term strategic reasons. Cameron gambled that he could take on his party over social issues like gay marriage, but not on Europe where he expected the public to do his job for him and deliver a rebuke to the people who were obsessed with the EU. The public didn't cooperate and his strategy failed.
    I am convinced he also never expected to be in a position where he would have to hold the referendum; he was expecting either to lose GE2015 or at best to have a further coalition with the LDs (who would have scuppered the EU ref as a price for their support.)
    Cameron would never have expected to have lost to Miliband such that Ed became PM. It was never a realistic outcome. Made more so by Ed's refusal to countenance holding a referendum on Europe.

    The LibDems were trickier to read - would they really have gone into any formal extension of the Coalition, such that they could make a demand on canning the Referendum? Personally, I don't think so.

    Since the final polling for GE2015 was a dead heat, I find it surprising that Cameron didn't half expect to be handing over to a Lab/LD coalition. Clearly, the polling turned out to be flawed but Cameron wouldn't have known that until the exit poll was issued.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    The demand for a referendum came from long-term strategic reasons.
    The concession of a referendum was also for long-term strategic reasons. Cameron gambled that he could take on his party over social issues like gay marriage, but not on Europe where he expected the public to do his job for him and deliver a rebuke to the people who were obsessed with the EU. The public didn't cooperate and his strategy failed.
    I am convinced he also never expected to be in a position where he would have to hold the referendum; he was expecting either to lose GE2015 or at best to have a further coalition with the LDs (who would have scuppered the EU ref as a price for their support.)
    Cameron would never have expected to have lost to Miliband such that Ed became PM. It was never a realistic outcome. Made more so by Ed's refusal to countenance holding a referendum on Europe.

    The LibDems were trickier to read - would they really have gone into any formal extension of the Coalition, such that they could make a demand on canning the Referendum? Personally, I don't think so.

    Tory strategists had expected if Coalition II had happened Clegg would have agreed to an EU referendum but insisted on the following

    1) 16 and 17 year olds had the vote
    2) EU citizens had the vote
    3) Clegg with his experience at the EU would demand a key role in the negotiation.
    4) The government wouldn't be neutral in the referendum

    The fear among Tory strategists is that the Leavers would have rebelled on the back benches and stopped legislation to allow the referendum to take place as 1) and 2) would have ensured a comfortable Remain victory.
    In net terms, I think 1 and 2 would have made it a narrow Remain victory, not a big one. That would still have left UKIP and anti-EU Conservatives causing huge trouble for Cameron.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703

    kle4 said:

    There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.

    Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
    The demand for a referendum came from long-term strategic reasons.
    The concession of a referendum was also for long-term strategic reasons. Cameron gambled that he could take on his party over social issues like gay marriage, but not on Europe where he expected the public to do his job for him and deliver a rebuke to the people who were obsessed with the EU. The public didn't cooperate and his strategy failed.
    I am convinced he also never expected to be in a position where he would have to hold the referendum; he was expecting either to lose GE2015 or at best to have a further coalition with the LDs (who would have scuppered the EU ref as a price for their support.)
    Cameron would never have expected to have lost to Miliband such that Ed became PM. It was never a realistic outcome. Made more so by Ed's refusal to countenance holding a referendum on Europe.

    The LibDems were trickier to read - would they really have gone into any formal extension of the Coalition, such that they could make a demand on canning the Referendum? Personally, I don't think so.

    Tory strategists had expected if Coalition II had happened Clegg would have agreed to an EU referendum but insisted on the following

    1) 16 and 17 year olds had the vote
    2) EU citizens had the vote
    3) Clegg with his experience at the EU would demand a key role in the negotiation.
    4) The government wouldn't be neutral in the referendum

    The fear among Tory strategists is that the Leavers would have rebelled on the back benches and stopped legislation to allow the referendum to take place as 1) and 2) would have ensured a comfortable Remain victory.
    Regarding number 3, it’s interesting to speculate how Clegg would have done in the renegotiation, and how events would have played out had a Leave vote still resulted.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Extraordinary story about an autumn election but can't see it happening.

    I'd want 20-1 I think.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    China US trade: If this "deal" ever sees the light of day, what exactly has China given. It will buy more foodgrains which it had to buy anyway [ less from South America, I guess ] and more oil [ less from the Middle East ]. No word on intellectual property apparently.

    What did China lose ?
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    I reckon more like odds of 50 to one, whilst the arithmetic does not add up for a BREXIT of almost of any sort, the idea that the Tory party would go to the polls again is almost impossible after the mess of last year. No party willingly goes into opposition (perhaps a handful of LDs in 2015) and the Tories are good at the one thing that matters - staying in power.

    It wont solve the BREXIT puzzle but I am not sure any Tory thinks giving up power will solve it in their interest
This discussion has been closed.