LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1…1314161819…1133

Comments

  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,459
    It's not a stretch to suggest that the Brexit Party standing in Peterborough prevented a Brexiteer from taking a seat off Labour.


    There's a strategic lesson there for Farage.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    TailWindHome wrote:
    It's not a stretch to suggest that the Brexit Party standing in Peterborough prevented a Brexiteer from taking a seat off Labour.


    There's a strategic lesson there for Farage.

    Assuming that he actually wants to win, rather than just bask in all the attention. I mean if we actually did leave what would he do with himself?

    But yes, by not winning, it probably adjusts the Conservative party's priorities in choosing a new leader. Also, it shows how good Labour are at getting out their vote.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    TailWindHome wrote:
    It's not a stretch to suggest that the Brexit Party standing in Peterborough prevented a Brexiteer from taking a seat off Labour.


    There's a strategic lesson there for Farage.

    As a Leaver this is a better result than having a Tory Brexit supporting MP voted into parliament. My preferred option would have been the Brexit Party winning but that is only slightly ahead of this outcome.

    This shows Tory MP's and the party that if they don't implement a proper Brexit with a leader committed to it, and not some sort of fudged BRINO, that they will have no chance of being in govt for a very long time as their vote will be split.

    Shifting the govt to commit to a clean Brexit, if an acceptable deal is not agreed, will mean a better deal for the UK. Just as Leavers have argued all along.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    rjsterry wrote:

    Assuming that he actually wants to win, rather than just bask in all the attention. I mean if we actually did leave what would he do with himself?

    He'll wait for things to go quiet and then start a party to fight for WTOXIT.

    Given the need to explain the inevitable cl*st*rf*ck, the unelected bureaucrats of the WTO will be to blame.

    We will want a new system whereby GB (Or England as it will become) will do exactly as it pleases.

    We will invest in a large Navy and roam the world doing what we please and claiming whatever we like as ours.

    Personally, I'm going lion hunting on elephants. After which, we'll kill the elephant for some new piano keys.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    clean Brexit
    Of all the Leaver lies, is any bigger than the deliberate falsehood that there can possibly be such a thing as a "clean" Brexit?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    bompington wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    clean Brexit
    Of all the Leaver lies, is any bigger than the deliberate falsehood that there can possibly be such a thing as a "clean" Brexit?

    It's like if you have a bit of pain in your knee, and it's a bit of an annoyance all the time, the doctor says that we could work with it, take some time, maybe do some exercises change your posture and improve things over time. Or you could go to a different doctor, who says that it will never be as good as before, just cut the leg off. It's a clean start, you haven't got any knee problems. Then it turns out he is funded by someone who stands to make money from selling you a prosthetic leg.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Some interesting analysis of why Labour won Peterborough.

    They very specifically campaigned on three local issues; had better voter data and more activists.

    Not sure all that is scalable for a full GE.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... byelection
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,459
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    It's not a stretch to suggest that the Brexit Party standing in Peterborough prevented a Brexiteer from taking a seat off Labour.


    There's a strategic lesson there for Farage.

    As a Leaver this is a better result than having a Tory Brexit supporting MP voted into parliament. My preferred option would have been the Brexit Party winning but that is only slightly ahead of this outcome.

    This shows Tory MP's and the party that if they don't implement a proper Brexit with a leader committed to it, and not some sort of fudged BRINO, that they will have no chance of being in govt for a very long time as their vote will be split.

    Shifting the govt to commit to a clean Brexit, if an acceptable deal is not agreed, will mean a better deal for the UK. Just as Leavers have argued all along.


    If they don't implement [Pure] Brexit the Brexit party will split the Tory vote allowing in Labour who won't implement [Pure] Brexit
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    rjsterry wrote:
    Some interesting analysis of why Labour won Peterborough.

    They very specifically campaigned on three local issues; had better voter data and more activists.

    Not sure all that is scalable for a full GE.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... byelection

    It's not scalable. Although it does show the efficiency of the labour party in getting votes out.

    I think a lot of politically active people are living in a bit of a brexit bubble. I can't, for the life of me, imagine why anyone with any view on brexit would vote for either of the main two parties. However, most people simply don't give that much of a toss over brexit, and are just a bit bored of it being the number one news item. Which frees them up to continue voting tory or Labour.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    It's not a stretch to suggest that the Brexit Party standing in Peterborough prevented a Brexiteer from taking a seat off Labour.


    There's a strategic lesson there for Farage.

    As a Leaver this is a better result than having a Tory Brexit supporting MP voted into parliament. My preferred option would have been the Brexit Party winning but that is only slightly ahead of this outcome.

    This shows Tory MP's and the party that if they don't implement a proper Brexit with a leader committed to it, and not some sort of fudged BRINO, that they will have no chance of being in govt for a very long time as their vote will be split.

    Shifting the govt to commit to a clean Brexit, if an acceptable deal is not agreed, will mean a better deal for the UK. Just as Leavers have argued all along.


    If they don't implement [Pure] Brexit the Brexit party will split the Tory vote allowing in Labour who won't implement [Pure] Brexit

    More on that point from Katy Balls.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -leader-eu
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Is anyone challenging the Tories on how they’re gonna pay for all the tax cuts all the various leadership runners are announcing?
    _
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,459
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Is anyone challenging the Tories on how they’re gonna pay for all the tax cuts all the various leadership runners are announcing?

    Yes of course

    Firstly Tory MPs will challenge each contender then the Tory party membership will challenge them.

    Then they will decide.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    It's just whenever labour mentions any spending, every journo around seems to go around screaming 'BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THIS',
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,486
    A different branch from the same money tree.
    As always.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    It's just whenever labour mentions any spending, every journo around seems to go around screaming 'BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THIS',

    Paul Johnson at the IFS pointing out that Johnson's proposed tax cut would mostly benefit pensioners.
    What [Johnson] has said is that he wants to raise the point at which you start to pay higher rate tax to £80,000. But at the same time, and this does make sense, you would increase the national insurance ceiling to the same level. So the net cost would be in the order of £10bn a year. That’s obviously a lot of money. It helps the 10% highest earners. And it is worth saying that the group who would benefit the most would be the high-income pensioners who don’t pay national insurance at all. So there’s a particular group who do particularly well - that’s those over the age of state pension age with more than £80,000 a year.

    Guess who are well represented in Tory party membership...

    In any case, Leadsom reckons without a parliamentary majority, he wouldn't get it passed through the Commons anyway.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,808
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Is anyone challenging the Tories on how they’re gonna pay for all the tax cuts all the various leadership runners are announcing?
    Most likely it would be additional debt. However as you have said on several occasions, you think that the amount a country borrows doesn't matter - so what's your problem here?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Is anyone challenging the Tories on how they’re gonna pay for all the tax cuts all the various leadership runners are announcing?
    Most likely it would be additional debt. However as you have said on several occasions, you think that the amount a country borrows doesn't matter - so what's your problem here?

    So, as it seems to be becoming clear, I value consistency in political leaders and I think it's fair to hold political leaders to their previously stated convictions. Would you not agree? I am all for politicians changing their mind, if they offer a good reason for why they have done so.

    So, in this instance, the Tory party spent a decade criticising the Labour party for excessive state spending. It seems particularly shameless to have a spate of fiscal incontinence during a leadership debate after spending so long pounding that message (though fairly predictable).

    Given the success the Tories had in turning the fiscal conversation on spending into a "how can you afford it?" conversation, it seems only fair to offer them the same, does it not?

    I am pro-spending when it is clear it provides outsized returns or addresses some other structural or social problem.

    Tax breaks for higher earners doesn't really meet this criteria. But that' not really the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about holding politicians accountable for what they have said in the past. I don't think that is a big ask or particularly partisan. To me, it seems fairly common sense. Would you not agree? Presumably you are also keen to understand what the good governance rationale is for it, since you have previously stated a concern about the level of UK gov't spending.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Presumably it’s because none of these are expected to clear parliament.
    _
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,459
    I haven't costed it.

    But I think if I were in charge of tax rates, on point of principle, the personal allowance would equal the living wage *37.5*52
    Ie. Anyone earning the minimum wage wouldn't pay any of it back in tax.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Presumably it’s because none of these are expected to clear parliament.

    A bit like Brexit then.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,497
    I thought that the primary concern of Tory leadership candidates would be to win support from the Tory party. Why BoJo and the ilk state tax cuts and what they would do in power is beyond me other than generating media support.
    Is a populist barometer going to win over Tory party members?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Pinno wrote:
    I thought that the primary concern of Tory leadership candidates would be to win support from the Tory party. Why BoJo and the ilk state tax cuts and what they would do in power is beyond me other than generating media support.
    Is a populist barometer going to win over Tory party members?
    Tax cuts that benefit those who make up a large proportion of party membership.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • sgt.pepper
    sgt.pepper Posts: 300
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Is anyone challenging the Tories on how they’re gonna pay for all the tax cuts all the various leadership runners are announcing?
    Most likely it would be additional debt. However as you have said on several occasions, you think that the amount a country borrows doesn't matter - so what's your problem here?

    So, as it seems to be becoming clear, I value consistency in political leaders and I think it's fair to hold political leaders to their previously stated convictions. Would you not agree? I am all for politicians changing their mind, if they offer a good reason for why they have done so.

    That sort of balanced reasoning isn't going to get you anywhere.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,459
    John Oliver demolishing the Tory candidates

    On Boris-
    'What Kevin McAllister would have eventually looked like if his parents never came home"
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,808
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Is anyone challenging the Tories on how they’re gonna pay for all the tax cuts all the various leadership runners are announcing?
    Most likely it would be additional debt. However as you have said on several occasions, you think that the amount a country borrows doesn't matter - so what's your problem here?

    So, as it seems to be becoming clear, I value consistency in political leaders and I think it's fair to hold political leaders to their previously stated convictions. Would you not agree? I am all for politicians changing their mind, if they offer a good reason for why they have done so.

    So, in this instance, the Tory party spent a decade criticising the Labour party for excessive state spending. It seems particularly shameless to have a spate of fiscal incontinence during a leadership debate after spending so long pounding that message (though fairly predictable).

    Given the success the Tories had in turning the fiscal conversation on spending into a "how can you afford it?" conversation, it seems only fair to offer them the same, does it not?

    I am pro-spending when it is clear it provides outsized returns or addresses some other structural or social problem.

    Tax breaks for higher earners doesn't really meet this criteria. But that' not really the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about holding politicians accountable for what they have said in the past. I don't think that is a big ask or particularly partisan. To me, it seems fairly common sense. Would you not agree? Presumably you are also keen to understand what the good governance rationale is for it, since you have previously stated a concern about the level of UK gov't spending.
    All very well but you're saying debt isn't a problem. Fine to make the point about consistency of their proposals but not about the financial impact.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,808
    Sgt.Pepper wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Is anyone challenging the Tories on how they’re gonna pay for all the tax cuts all the various leadership runners are announcing?
    Most likely it would be additional debt. However as you have said on several occasions, you think that the amount a country borrows doesn't matter - so what's your problem here?

    So, as it seems to be becoming clear, I value consistency in political leaders and I think it's fair to hold political leaders to their previously stated convictions. Would you not agree? I am all for politicians changing their mind, if they offer a good reason for why they have done so.

    That sort of balanced reasoning isn't going to get you anywhere.
    Thanks for your useful contribution as ever :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Sgt.Pepper wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Is anyone challenging the Tories on how they’re gonna pay for all the tax cuts all the various leadership runners are announcing?
    Most likely it would be additional debt. However as you have said on several occasions, you think that the amount a country borrows doesn't matter - so what's your problem here?

    So, as it seems to be becoming clear, I value consistency in political leaders and I think it's fair to hold political leaders to their previously stated convictions. Would you not agree? I am all for politicians changing their mind, if they offer a good reason for why they have done so.

    That sort of balanced reasoning isn't going to get you anywhere.
    Thanks for your useful contribution as ever :)

    Balance vs bigotry?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,486
    As I pointed out to someone on FB, changing the captain after hitting the iceberg wouldn’t have saved the Titanic.
    Quite proud of that one. What does anyone realistically expect to achieve with a leadership change?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    PBlakeney wrote:
    As I pointed out to someone on FB, changing the captain after hitting the iceberg wouldn’t have saved the Titanic.
    Quite proud of that one. What does anyone realistically expect to achieve with a leadership change?

    Have said before BoJo as PM makes a calamitous Brexit materially more likely.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Is anyone challenging the Tories on how they’re gonna pay for all the tax cuts all the various leadership runners are announcing?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... ow_twitter
    _

Categories