|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 25, 2022 9:26:37 GMT
nickp
I agree with you on the Referendum. The abstentions were by no means all "don't cares". I know a lot of people, and I was one of them, who didn't want to participate in such an ill conceived and dishonest campaign and plebiscite. Probably unwise in retrospect, and maybe a little self important too, but I didn't want to honour the tawdry farce with my vote.
I think there should have been a 60% win threshold for Leave too. 52:48 was a technical win but not a clear expression of the will of the people for such a monumental change. I might well have considered compulsory voting too.
More misjudgements and mistakes from an utterly useless PM. The disaster that was Cameron.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2022 9:35:17 GMT
nickp I agree with you on the Referendum. The abstentions were by no means all "don't cares". I know a lot of people, and I was one of them, who didn't want to participate in such an ill conceived and dishonest campaign and plebiscite. Probably unwise in retrospect, and maybe a little self important too, but I didn't want to honour the tawdry farce with my vote. I think there should have been a 60% win threshold for Leave too. 52:48 was a technical win but not a clear expression of the will of the people for such a monumental change. I might well have considered compulsory voting too. More misjudgements and mistakes from an utterly useless PM. The disaster that was Cameron. 50%+ of the total electorate would have been fine, with the responsibility on the side who wanted a mammoth change to the UK’s long standing relationship to get voters to support it. And then, if they managed that, there should have been a separate grouping formed, consisting of all the main elements of this country, including all political parties, business etc, to formulate the next step. What we got was a disaster followed by crowing and insults.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Aug 25, 2022 9:56:02 GMT
I'm not going to say anymore on the referendum other than if you don't vote, you don't count.
There was a clear will in the 2017-19 Parliament for an EEA type arrangement with the EU.
Unfortunately there were rent a cause parties who thought there was an advantage to them in an an autumn 2019 election. There wasn't, no B to B minis honking horns after that election.
Johnson the greased piglet lived up to his billing then courtesy of the SNP and Lib Dems, and was let out of the pressure cooker and was able to run free to an ERG Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 25, 2022 10:06:57 GMT
jib
"....if you don't vote you don't count.."
You see, there you go again. Glib sloganeering. Everyone counts in a democracy, including those who decide not to vote in one-off referendums.
I have less sympathy with voters who abstain in general elections and then moan about the way they are subsequently governed, but plebiscites convened on very dubious grounds, and campaigned on so dishonestly too, are different animals altogether. I don't think they belong in a parliamentary democracy at all.
A representative House of Commons would never have taken us out of the EU because there was never a majority in the country that wanted to leave.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 25, 2022 10:19:07 GMT
Re brexit those who voted leave gave a blank cheque to the tory Government to have the Brexit they wanted. It was clear to me if Leave won then Cameron couldn't stay, it would be politically impossible. The only surprised I had was that Johnson didn't win the leadership in 2016, but post leave winning the referendum the direction of travel for the tories was clear I didn't trust the tories, others obviously did I don't think that follows in the context of the Hung Parliament which emerged from the 2017 election. There were opportunities to arrive at a much softer Brexit than was eventually foisted on us - in particular Oliver Letwin's Indicative Votes offered more positive options. The failure of MPs from ChangeUK- LDs - SNP et al - to take advantage of those opportunities does mean that they share the responsibility for what was imposed post-2019 election.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Aug 25, 2022 10:25:15 GMT
JiB: "Johnson the greased piglet lived up to his billing then courtesy of the SNP and Lib Dems, and was let out of the pressure cooker and was able to run free to an ERG Brexit."Ah yes, Johnson with his big post-19 majority was so clearly a tail wagged by the SNP/LD dog. In reality, with that majority, he could have fashioned any brexit he wanted. He (and the electorate that voted for brexit in 2016 and a hard brexit in 2019) are responsible for both brexit and the particularly pernicious form of it that we're lumbered with. If you want to identify the origins of the hard brexit, look no further than May's Lancaster House speech in January '17, with its hard red lines: "The speech ruled out membership of the single market and full membership of the customs union while promising to negotiate towards the ‘freest possible trade’ with European countries after leaving the EU. The speech also set out the priority of controlling migration after Brexit, and Theresa May argued that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-lancaster-house-speech/The 2019 GE presented a faint possibility of diverting the runaway train away from the cliff and onto a safer track. Worth a try, but it failed and we have a brexiter's brexit. The attempt to pin the blame for that on SNP/LD is risible. One thing I do agree on: we have to let brexit run its malign course, until the effects are so obvious and so devastating that even those like you who believe (or at least, maintain) that the effects thus far are imperceptible will have to accept dire reality (or join the flat earth society).
|
|
|
Post by jib on Aug 25, 2022 10:28:59 GMT
jib "....if you don't vote you don't count.." You see, there you go again. Glib sloganeering. Everyone counts in a democracy, including those who decide not to vote in one-off referendums. I have less sympathy with voters who abstain in general elections and then moan about the way they are subsequently governed, but plebiscites convened on very dubious grounds, and campaigned on so dishonestly too, are different animals altogether. I don't think they belong in a parliamentary democracy at all. A representative House of Commons would never have taken us out of the EU because there was never a majority in the country that wanted to leave. I don't agree. It's not sloganeering. The EU referendum was deadly serious with wall to wall coverage and the turnout % was duly high. You are never going to get a much higher turnout and it was probably why a re-referendum would never have worked - it's unlikely the turnout or vote for either side would have been as high. In the end, most people were sick of the endless debate which is partly why "Get Brexit Done" cut through. There clearly was a majority to leave in 2016, and if you can't accept that, that's your conundrum to deal with, and is symptomatic of an arrogance that the 2017-19 MPs also exhibited. I didn't want a hard Brexit, but that's what we now have. It will get less hard, but griping about the legitimacy of 2016 is like arguing over last year's Cup Final result. It's been, gone and won't be repeated.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Aug 25, 2022 10:31:55 GMT
JiB: "Johnson the greased piglet lived up to his billing then courtesy of the SNP and Lib Dems, and was let out of the pressure cooker and was able to run free to an ERG Brexit."Ah yes, Johnson with his big post-19 majority was so clearly a tail wagged by the SNP/LD dog. In reality, with that majority, he could have fashioned any brexit he wanted. He (and the electorate that voted for brexit in 2016 and a hard brexit in 2019) are responsible for both brexit and the particularly pernicious form of it that we're lumbered with. If you want to identify the origins of the hard brexit, look no further than May's Lancaster House speech in January '17, with its hard red lines: "The speech ruled out membership of the single market and full membership of the customs union while promising to negotiate towards the ‘freest possible trade’ with European countries after leaving the EU. The speech also set out the priority of controlling migration after Brexit, and Theresa May argued that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-lancaster-house-speech/The 2019 GE presented a faint possibility of diverting the runaway train away from the cliff and onto a safer track. Worth a try, but it failed and we have a brexiter's brexit. The attempt to pin the blame for that on SNP/LD is risible. One thing I do agree on: we have to let brexit run its malign course, until the effects are so obvious and so devastating that even those like you who believe (or at least, maintain) that the effects thus far are imperceptible will have to accept dire reality (or join the flat earth society). Sorry Something, that is not how I see it. Why the SNP went with Johnson is beyond me, all they got was a massive majority of anti-devolution Tories. I can see why the Lib Dems did it, but the fate of their leader sums it all up for them!
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 25, 2022 10:33:33 GMT
JiB: "Johnson the greased piglet lived up to his billing then courtesy of the SNP and Lib Dems, and was let out of the pressure cooker and was able to run free to an ERG Brexit."Ah yes, Johnson with his big post-19 majority was so clearly a tail wagged by the SNP/LD dog. In reality, with that majority, he could have fashioned any brexit he wanted. He (and the electorate that voted for brexit in 2016 and a hard brexit in 2019) are responsible for both brexit and the particularly pernicious form of it that we're lumbered with. If you want to identify the origins of the hard brexit, look no further than May's Lancaster House speech in January '17, with its hard red lines: "The speech ruled out membership of the single market and full membership of the customs union while promising to negotiate towards the ‘freest possible trade’ with European countries after leaving the EU. The speech also set out the priority of controlling migration after Brexit, and Theresa May argued that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-lancaster-house-speech/The 2019 GE presented a faint possibility of diverting the runaway train away from the cliff and onto a safer track. Worth a try, but it failed and we have a brexiter's brexit. The attempt to pin the blame for that on SNP/LD is risible. One thing I do agree on: we have to let brexit run its malign course, until the effects are so obvious and so devastating that even those like you who believe (or at least, maintain) that the effects thus far are imperceptible will have to accept dire reality (or join the flat earth society). Agreeing to the 2019 election was a stupid gamble that was highly unlikely to succeed. Far better to have allowed the administrative chaos and paralysis to have continued for a few more months . With hindsight that would surely have worked out better for the UK as the Brexit arguments would have been overridden by Covid in late February/early March 2020.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Aug 25, 2022 10:34:29 GMT
I normally think of Paul Mason as someone well over to the Left (even on the Left of the current Labour Party), but here he is advocating a massive increase in defence spending: www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/08/russian-invasion-ukraine-changed-warfare-world-order"Militarily we’re probably going to have to spend between 3 and 5 per cent [so about double what we spend at present] of our GDP on the technologies, weapons and people needed to deter Putin from further aggression. Geopolitically the future belongs to alliances of like-minded countries, constructed without inflicting further damage to the rules-based system but in full recognition of its fragility." Now, he's not saying more tanks and aircraft carriers, but instead drones, and more importantly winning the information war against Russia and China. It's the hearts and minds of those in third-world countries as well as in the West that he is concerned about.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Aug 25, 2022 10:56:24 GMT
JiB: "Johnson the greased piglet lived up to his billing then courtesy of the SNP and Lib Dems, and was let out of the pressure cooker and was able to run free to an ERG Brexit."Ah yes, Johnson with his big post-19 majority was so clearly a tail wagged by the SNP/LD dog. In reality, with that majority, he could have fashioned any brexit he wanted. He (and the electorate that voted for brexit in 2016 and a hard brexit in 2019) are responsible for both brexit and the particularly pernicious form of it that we're lumbered with. If you want to identify the origins of the hard brexit, look no further than May's Lancaster House speech in January '17, with its hard red lines: "The speech ruled out membership of the single market and full membership of the customs union while promising to negotiate towards the ‘freest possible trade’ with European countries after leaving the EU. The speech also set out the priority of controlling migration after Brexit, and Theresa May argued that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-lancaster-house-speech/The 2019 GE presented a faint possibility of diverting the runaway train away from the cliff and onto a safer track. Worth a try, but it failed and we have a brexiter's brexit. The attempt to pin the blame for that on SNP/LD is risible. One thing I do agree on: we have to let brexit run its malign course, until the effects are so obvious and so devastating that even those like you who believe (or at least, maintain) that the effects thus far are imperceptible will have to accept dire reality (or join the flat earth society). Agreeing to the 2019 election was a stupid gamble that was highly unlikely to succeed. Far better to have allowed the administrative chaos and paralysis to have continued for a few more months . With hindsight that would surely have worked out better for the UK as the Brexit arguments would have been overridden by Covid in late February/early March 2020. Indeed, in gifting Johnson his 2019 election, the EUphiles gambled a blocking position and a very cooperative Speaker etc etc. What was probably tempting was the mirage of stopping Brexit altogether, knowing it would have completely destroyed the Tory party. Life is never that simple, and politics is no exception.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 25, 2022 11:05:55 GMT
Had con chosen to oppose brexit as they believed was best, then it would not have happened but we would have had more labour governments and con opposition. So they ditched principles for power. While the nation is poorer, many key con supporters are richer for their having taken power.
You keep making the same error. At the time of the referendum the Conservative government did oppose Brexit. The fact that some other MPs from various parties took part in the Leave campaign is irrelevant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2022 11:10:30 GMT
See where we are after we (finally!) get a new Tory leader and the party conferences are over. I get the impression you think that might be somewhere better for Cons. I have an idea of where we might be. Starmer telling his critics to shut up and look at the Polls. Truss as PM ?:- "Open season on the new Prime Minister.The charge will be not only incompetence and heartlessness but corruption. Just wait until it gets into her refusal, trailed yesterday, to appoint an ethics adviser." (1) A PM whose two predecessors were ousted by their Party within two or three years. A PM "with a smaller proportion of Conservative MPs’ votes than any Tory leader since the present leadership election system was introduced." (1) A PM who promised tax cuts and disavowed "handouts" , forced to u turn within months as ordinary families face energy bills the size of their mortgage payments-which are also rocketing upwards. A PM who said her tax cuts would pay for themselves faced with double digit inflation producing debt interest costs bigger than any departmental spend bar Health care (2) and staring at the need to raise taxes. There is small straw in the wind I think. Kwarteng ( presumably CoE by Conference time) is reported to be engaging seriously with the Scottish Power proposal on energy costs This is the grown up version of Starmer's timid , six months, questionably funded price freeze. The proposal is a two year freeze at current cap , funded by bank loans to producers . Loans guaranteed by the State (3). Repaid over a decade or more by consumers/taxpayers/ whoever One imagines that the single thing uppermost in the minds of voters come Q4/Q1 will be their energy bills and their financial survival. If Kwarteng can make a big dent in those for two years maybe, just maybe the voters will think again about Cons. (1) Paul Goodman-Con Home ( 2) IFS forecast -£100bn pa this year and next. ( 3) So off Balance sheet for the Government-that old Brown trick. You can see the attraction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2022 11:16:51 GMT
It occurs to me that in less time than we have had to endure the Tory leadership election we could, in a modern parliament with anonymous, electronic voting, have got through the indicative votes charade in one day.
The top two two choices - almost certainly a soft brexit and a hard brexit- could have been the subject of a second referendum within weeks and we would have been left with a decision that, at least vaguely, represented the fabled “will of the people”.*
*(Will’o’the wisp is probably seen more often)
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 25, 2022 11:20:30 GMT
mercian The reason I replied to your stream of consciousness cascade of posts in the way that I did was that I was struggling to take those I read, which was by no means all, very seriously. However, your self-congratulatory post when you claimed, no doubt semi-humourously, that you'd routed the "lefties" on the forum with your coruscating wit and wisdom was a little risible and deserving of scorn. Whether my post was either a particularly good example of scorn and lampoonery, I doubt very much, but it did seem to stem your seemingly unending flow of unchallengeable wisdom. But, if you must, I will rise to your challenge of trying to answer one your many brilliant points. Having myself lamented the demise of the political coverage of the nation's public service broadcaster, which is funded by the licence fee paid by myself and most of my fellow citizens, you advised me to stop watching the channel and follow GB News instead. A self avowedly right wing news channel, a la Fox News, that even Andrew Neil, one of its founders, disavowed. Wokewatch with Nigel Farage is your recommendation as an alternative to impartial and independent broadcasting. And you expect to be taken seriously? The rest of your "points" seemed to be regurgitated GB News type angles on current affairs. Defiant right wing harrumphing that TOH would have been proud of, although one of his saving graces was that he resisted the temptation to rather unattractively congratulate himself all the time. I obviously touched a nerve. The laughing emojis were meant to indicate that it was a humorous remark, poking fun at myself if anything. You guys need to get a sense of humour. And just because I mentioned GB News doesn't mean it's all I watch. I watch many channels including the BBC. Indeed I've never seen Farage's programme. I probably mentioned GB News because it amused me to suggest something to a poster who would clearly not be receptive to the idea. Anyway your lampoon amused your comrades, even if it was lampooning a lampoon.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Aug 25, 2022 11:27:18 GMT
''For anyone still in denial about why Labour is leading in the polls:
This poll has *18%* of 2019 Tory voters switching to Labour.
For reference - in 1997, Blair managed to get about 14-15% of Tory voters to switch''
The above from Josh via Alec.
In addition to the LD 7% or so Steve refers to another big difference is that the Tory vote share lead over Lab in '92 was around half the margin in 2019.
18% direct Tory-Lab without any the other way would give Lab a 2% or so lead over the Tories.
Demographics widen the Lab lead further by 2-3% plus a net favourable outcome from churn through the LDs and then we have the DK/WV part of the Tory 2019 Voter base.
All encouraging for Lab and if they can keep the direct switching at net over 10% (including the 2019 voters now saying DK/WV) no Tory OM is assured.
Hard to see a meaningful sustainable recovery for over a year and quite possibly well in to 2024; and we may well see further widening by next spring.
|
|
|
Post by moby on Aug 25, 2022 11:29:26 GMT
JiB: "Johnson the greased piglet lived up to his billing then courtesy of the SNP and Lib Dems, and was let out of the pressure cooker and was able to run free to an ERG Brexit."Ah yes, Johnson with his big post-19 majority was so clearly a tail wagged by the SNP/LD dog. In reality, with that majority, he could have fashioned any brexit he wanted. He (and the electorate that voted for brexit in 2016 and a hard brexit in 2019) are responsible for both brexit and the particularly pernicious form of it that we're lumbered with. If you want to identify the origins of the hard brexit, look no further than May's Lancaster House speech in January '17, with its hard red lines: "The speech ruled out membership of the single market and full membership of the customs union while promising to negotiate towards the ‘freest possible trade’ with European countries after leaving the EU. The speech also set out the priority of controlling migration after Brexit, and Theresa May argued that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-lancaster-house-speech/The 2019 GE presented a faint possibility of diverting the runaway train away from the cliff and onto a safer track. Worth a try, but it failed and we have a brexiter's brexit. The attempt to pin the blame for that on SNP/LD is risible. One thing I do agree on: we have to let brexit run its malign course, until the effects are so obvious and so devastating that even those like you who believe (or at least, maintain) that the effects thus far are imperceptible will have to accept dire reality (or join the flat earth society). Why the SNP went with Johnson is beyond me, all they got was a massive majority of anti-devolution Tories. Self interested politicking. The SNP knew how unpopular Johnson was in Scotland and a likely tory govmt would only push their numbers up. The rest of us can go hang! The same attitude got us Thatcher.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 25, 2022 11:36:23 GMT
jib "....if you don't vote you don't count.." You see, there you go again. Glib sloganeering. Everyone counts in a democracy, including those who decide not to vote in one-off referendums. I have less sympathy with voters who abstain in general elections and then moan about the way they are subsequently governed, but plebiscites convened on very dubious grounds, and campaigned on so dishonestly too, are different animals altogether. I don't think they belong in a parliamentary democracy at all. A representative House of Commons would never have taken us out of the EU because there was never a majority in the country that wanted to leave. It was because no party with any significant number of seats supported leaving the EU that UKIP rose so much. In 2015 they got more popular votes than the LibDems and SNP put together and if I remember correctly came second in over 100 seats. This was clearly worrying to the establishment parties. That was why there was a referendum. I agree Cameron was useless though (apart from that).
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 25, 2022 11:41:47 GMT
See where we are after we (finally!) get a new Tory leader and the party conferences are over. I get the impression you think that might be somewhere better for Cons. Not necessarily. Things look bad for them at the moment, but I genuinely think that polling in August is unreliable. I'd hope that the Autumn would be better for the Tories, but have no such expectation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2022 11:41:59 GMT
''For anyone still in denial about why Labour is leading in the polls: This poll has *18%* of 2019 Tory voters switching to Labour. For reference - in 1997, Blair managed to get about 14-15% of Tory voters to switch'' The above from Josh via Alec. In addition to the LD 7% or so Steve refers anther big difference is that the Tory vote share lead over Lab in '92 was around half the margin in 2019. 18% direct Tory-Lab without any the other way would give Lab a 2% or so lead over the Tories. Demographics widen the Lab lead further by 2-3% plus a net favourable outcome from churn through the LDs and then we have the DK/WV part of the Tory 2019 Voter base. All encouraging for Lab and if they can keep the direct switching at net over 10% (including the 2019 voters now saying DK/WV) no Tory OM is assured. Hard to see a meaningful sustainable recovery for over a year and quite possibly well in to 2024; and we may well see further widening by next spring. A bullish opinion from you jimjam -at last ! And with good reason I think .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2022 11:43:11 GMT
I get the impression you think that might be somewhere better for Cons. Not necessarily. Things look bad for them at the moment, but I genuinely think that polling in August is unreliable. I'd hope that the Autumn would be better for the Tories, but have no such expectation. I think you should look at circumstances rather than the calendar !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2022 11:49:14 GMT
I get the impression you think that might be somewhere better for Cons. Colin! C'est toi! I am interested in your feelings about Truss as PM - last time you were around I got the impression you were looking for some reason to stick with the Tories even with her leading and a cabinet of, well, let's just say Truss appointees. How close are you to voting for somebody else ?
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Aug 25, 2022 11:57:34 GMT
I get the impression you think that might be somewhere better for Cons. Colin! C'est toi! I am interested in your feelings about Truss as PM - last time you were around I got the impression you were looking for some reason to stick with the Tories even with her leading and a cabinet of, well, let's just say Truss appointees. How close are you to voting for somebody else ? I wouldn't get too excited that Colin might in some way represent an average Tory voter, he's considerably more thoughtful than most I would have said and also was always pretty sceptical of Mr J iirc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2022 12:02:47 GMT
I get the impression you think that might be somewhere better for Cons. Colin! C'est toi! I am interested in your feelings about Truss as PM - last time you were around I got the impression you were looking for some reason to stick with the Tories even with her leading and a cabinet of, well, let's just say Truss appointees. How close are you to voting for somebody else ? The circumstances she faces are dire. Not just her :- "BERLIN, Aug 24 (Reuters) - The economic impact on Germany of Russia's invasion of Ukraine will last years, influential economist Marcel Fratzscher of the German Institute for Economic Research told Reuters, adding that it could cost 3 percentage points of growth this year. Fratzscher, whose institute advises the government of Europe's largest economy on macroeconomic policy, said the impact could last until 2025 when Germany expects to have freed itself from all exposure to Russian gas." Reuters "French output is contracting for the first time in a year and a half, mirroring the trend seen in Germany as Europe’s biggest economies succumb to record inflation and increasing uncertainty from the war in Ukraine." Bloomberg Question is for all these leaders-are they equipped to deal with them. In her case I currently believe the answer is no. Mind you , I think that some elements of this " Series of Unfortunate Events" will have permanent effects on the lives of voters. So it isn't so much political competence as political honesty and courage that are required. I don't see that in her either at present. But then nor do I see it in Starmer.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 25, 2022 12:03:51 GMT
mercian
I appreciate that most of your posts are unserious and some do occasionally actually amuse me. I can also well understand, as you admit, that they all greatly amuse yourself.
No problem with any of that but great humourists don't often have to signal when they are being humourous, nor do they berate their audience for failing to be amused by it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2022 12:07:58 GMT
Colin! C'est toi! I am interested in your feelings about Truss as PM - last time you were around I got the impression you were looking for some reason to stick with the Tories even with her leading and a cabinet of, well, let's just say Truss appointees. How close are you to voting for somebody else ? The circumstances she faces are dire. Not just her :- "BERLIN, Aug 24 (Reuters) - The economic impact on Germany of Russia's invasion of Ukraine will last years, influential economist Marcel Fratzscher of the German Institute for Economic Research told Reuters, adding that it could cost 3 percentage points of growth this year. Fratzscher, whose institute advises the government of Europe's largest economy on macroeconomic policy, said the impact could last until 2025 when Germany expects to have freed itself from all exposure to Russian gas." Reuters "French output is contracting for the first time in a year and a half, mirroring the trend seen in Germany as Europe’s biggest economies succumb to record inflation and increasing uncertainty from the war in Ukraine." Bloomberg Question is for all these leaders-are they equipped to deal with them. In her case I currently believe the answer is no. Mind you , I think that some elements of this " Series of Unfortunate Events" will have permanent effects on the lives of voters. So it isn't so much political competence as political honesty and courage that are required. I don't see that in her either at present. But then nor do I see it in Starmer. Yeah agreed it will be grim. Whatever we do.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Aug 25, 2022 12:08:59 GMT
JiB: "Johnson the greased piglet lived up to his billing then courtesy of the SNP and Lib Dems, and was let out of the pressure cooker and was able to run free to an ERG Brexit."Ah yes, Johnson with his big post-19 majority was so clearly a tail wagged by the SNP/LD dog. In reality, with that majority, he could have fashioned any brexit he wanted. He (and the electorate that voted for brexit in 2016 and a hard brexit in 2019) are responsible for both brexit and the particularly pernicious form of it that we're lumbered with. If you want to identify the origins of the hard brexit, look no further than May's Lancaster House speech in January '17, with its hard red lines: "The speech ruled out membership of the single market and full membership of the customs union while promising to negotiate towards the ‘freest possible trade’ with European countries after leaving the EU. The speech also set out the priority of controlling migration after Brexit, and Theresa May argued that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-lancaster-house-speech/The 2019 GE presented a faint possibility of diverting the runaway train away from the cliff and onto a safer track. Worth a try, but it failed and we have a brexiter's brexit. The attempt to pin the blame for that on SNP/LD is risible. One thing I do agree on: we have to let brexit run its malign course, until the effects are so obvious and so devastating that even those like you who believe (or at least, maintain) that the effects thus far are imperceptible will have to accept dire reality (or join the flat earth society). Sorry Something, that is not how I see it. Why the SNP went with Johnson is beyond me, all they got was a massive majority of anti-devolution Tories. I can see why the Lib Dems did it, but the fate of their leader sums it all up for them! I'm not sure how many times this needs repeating. Labour supported a general election in 2019 once Johnson took No Deal off the table.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by neilj on Aug 25, 2022 12:11:16 GMT
New poll
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Aug 25, 2022 12:11:33 GMT
Colin! C'est toi! I am interested in your feelings about Truss as PM - last time you were around I got the impression you were looking for some reason to stick with the Tories even with her leading and a cabinet of, well, let's just say Truss appointees. How close are you to voting for somebody else ? The circumstances she faces are dire. Not just her :- "BERLIN, Aug 24 (Reuters) - The economic impact on Germany of Russia's invasion of Ukraine will last years, influential economist Marcel Fratzscher of the German Institute for Economic Research told Reuters, adding that it could cost 3 percentage points of growth this year. Fratzscher, whose institute advises the government of Europe's largest economy on macroeconomic policy, said the impact could last until 2025 when Germany expects to have freed itself from all exposure to Russian gas." Reuters "French output is contracting for the first time in a year and a half, mirroring the trend seen in Germany as Europe’s biggest economies succumb to record inflation and increasing uncertainty from the war in Ukraine." Bloomberg Question is for all these leaders-are they equipped to deal with them. In her case I currently believe the answer is no. Mind you , I think that some elements of this " Series of Unfortunate Events" will have permanent effects on the lives of voters. So it isn't so much political competence as political honesty and courage that are required. I don't see that in her either at present. But then nor do I see it in Starmer. Thin gruel I know but the German economy did actually unexpectedly grow by 0.1% in the 2nd quarter. Merkel frankly has serious questions to answer about how she allowed Germany to become so energy dependent on Russia when it was not 20 years ago, probably due in some part to her background and hugely over-optimistic belief in Wandel durch bla bla.. It was simply negligent.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Aug 25, 2022 12:53:21 GMT
Kantar do similar as Opinium so is consistent with most other recent polls and is a 1.5% swing on their previous poll as well.
Colin - I think you and I recognised that Inflation would be the bigger threat to Tory support (as opposed to just Johnson) way back over a year ago but could not envision this war induced 'core' level.
I have also being saying for well over a year that the real mid-term in this parliament would be spring/summer 2023 due to Covid delaying normal chronology.
In this context a widening in the next 9 months would imo occur whatever the current position is.
I did not, though, expect regular 10%+ plus Lab leads this early; and, they may well not hold.
In fact it is hard to imagine that Truss will not introduce a major support package and, whilst there will be some 'U Turn' flak and chatter about pinching Labours' ideas that may reduce the impact, some Tory support will return in the autumn as I see it.
The winter, though, could be brutal for some people and for public services, especially the NHS which will lead imo to a more sustained 10% plus Lab lead pushing 15% by next May's locals.
|
|