Is this the last tory government

[JCDenton]

The government in power always has deal with divisions. The problem is at the moment, May's are just much bigger - a massive euro-sceptic wing who want nothing but total exit and the needs of her big business allies, who need something to keep investing here.

There were divisions when Tony and that other guy were running the country, the issues were maybe not quite as passionate.

Personally I dislike May, but I am hardly a fan of the bearded one either. So I am lost in a wilderness, trying to find a least bad option.

JC

[b2hbm]

don'tbesilly said:

It's amazing that more than two years since the referendum that people are still telling those that voted Leave that they didn't vote to leave the SM/CU, I can only assume those people were not aware of what both campaigns were stating prior to the vote.

True. Anyone would think that the Remain voters didn't know what the options were, could it be possible that "they didn't know what they were voting for" ?

[Jinx]

b2hbm said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's amazing that more than two years since the referendum that people are still telling those that voted Leave that they didn't vote to leave the SM/CU, I can only assume those people were not aware of what both campaigns were stating prior to the vote.

True. Anyone would think that the Remain voters didn't know what the options were, could it be possible that "they didn't know what they were voting for" ?

To be fair they didn't know that remaining meant this though we did try to warn them.

[chris watton]

Jinx said:

To be fair they didn't know that remaining meant this though we did try to warn them.

At the time, when people so much as mentioned this, they were laughed at by the future EU apparatchiks who started to frequent this forum. Nick Clegg even told us there were no plans at all for any kind of EU army, this is mad, he said...

[Puggit]

UKIP up to 6% of the vote. Tories now 2 points behind Labour...

[gothatway]

jonnyb said:

If remain had won by a similar margin it would have been a vote for the status quo, no closer ties, may be even taking a step back from more contentious issues like the EU arrest warrant.
It certainly would not have been a mandate to join the euro or an endorsement of ever closer union. It would have been a statement of this far and no further.

In your dreams !! It would have been taken as an endorsement of the EU and all its plans, whatever it became in the future.

[djc206]

bhstewie said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

If they ditch Corbyn and Momentum for someone more centre left, the Tories are screwed.

Pretty much how I see it.

However maligned he might be, if Tony Blair came back right now I suspect he'd walk it.

David Miliband. He would walk it. Tony Blair would not I shouldn’t imagine, everyone knows he was a lying sack of st.

[jonnyb]

Jinx said:

b2hbm said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's amazing that more than two years since the referendum that people are still telling those that voted Leave that they didn't vote to leave the SM/CU, I can only assume those people were not aware of what both campaigns were stating prior to the vote.

True. Anyone would think that the Remain voters didn't know what the options were, could it be possible that "they didn't know what they were voting for" ?

To be fair they didn't know that remaining meant this though we did try to warn them.

Obviously I would dissagree with this. Through out the campaign and before various people made statements ranging from staying in the SM through to towing Britain further into the Atlantic. It depended on who you believed.

Not every person who voted to leave the EU will have voted to leave the SM/CU. Even if you say a majority of leave voters voted to do this, the chances are that would leave an overall majority who did not.

Which ever way you look at it the majority to leave was only about 1.2m. A swing of about 600,000 and the result would be very different. 600,000 out of a country of about 65m .

So while there was a majority to leave, and leave we must, don’t get the idea there’s a mandate for WTO rules, there isn’t. May probably has a mandate for what she’s proposing now, but that’s about it. And let’s not forget her Lancaster House speech about the ECJ and CU was before the electorate gave her a good kicking at the ballot box. So one could argue there is even less of a mandate for it now than there was before.

[Rovinghawk]

jonnyb said:

Which ever way you look at it the majority to leave was only about 1.2m. A swing of about 600,000 and the result would be very different.

It would be a draw rather than being close to a draw, That's not "very" different. For "very" different you'd need a much larger number than you're suggesting.

jonnyb said:

600,000 out of a country of about 65m .

But an electorate that's significantly smaller than that and a number of actual voters that's significantly smaller still.

You seem to pick figures that suit your opinion rather than objective ones.

[jonnyb]

Rovinghawk said:

jonnyb said:

Which ever way you look at it the majority to leave was only about 1.2m. A swing of about 600,000 and the result would be very different.

It would be a draw rather than being close to a draw, That's not "very" different. For "very" different you'd need a much larger number than you're suggesting.

jonnyb said:

600,000 out of a country of about 65m .

But an electorate that's significantly smaller than that and a number of actual voters that's significantly smaller still.

You seem to pick figures that suit your opinion rather than objective ones.

600,001 and we wouldn’t even be taking about it right now, so I think very different would sum it up.

The point I’m trying to convey is the smallness of the margin. 1.8%. Hardly a ringing endorsement of WTO rules.

[Tuna]

bhstewie said:

The average person on the street probably doesn't know who Hammond is.

Kinda the point - economically, the Tories have no identity, no 'call for action' that justifies the taxes we pay etc. etc.

bhstewie said:

This place isn't representative of politics in general and whatever your views on Blair he won three elections pretty comfortably.

I'm not making an argument for him but I've watched a couple of interviews with him, I think the most recent was with Bloomberg, he's got baggage but he's very persuasive.

Sure, we're not representative, but the media don't forget and he has to get through them first. He may have been on Bloomberg, but how much coverage have his 'overturn Brexit' interventions received in mainstream media? They mention it (hey, he's an ex-Prime Minister), but they absolutely avoid any sort of endorsement or enthusiasm for his views. From a campaign point of view, his face is toxic.

He represents the EU establishment - for better or worse - which is one of the reasons Corbyn is making sure to not get involved.

I think we've had a succession of 'Blair' like political figures, with an obsession with being media friendly and friends in big business - it's really not very palatable to the general public (again, why Corbyn and even May get more support - they're not airbrushed CEO types).

[Rovinghawk]

jonnyb said:

600,001 and we wouldn’t even be taking about it right now, so I think very different would sum it up.

You make a fair point- a pity for you that you're talking about what didn't happen rather than what did.

[bitchstewie]

Tuna said:

Sure, we're not representative, but the media don't forget and he has to get through them first. He may have been on Bloomberg, but how much coverage have his 'overturn Brexit' interventions received in mainstream media? They mention it (hey, he's an ex-Prime Minister), but they absolutely avoid any sort of endorsement or enthusiasm for his views. From a campaign point of view, his face is toxic.

He represents the EU establishment - for better or worse - which is one of the reasons Corbyn is making sure to not get involved.

I think we've had a succession of 'Blair' like political figures, with an obsession with being media friendly and friends in big business - it's really not very palatable to the general public (again, why Corbyn and even May get more support - they're not airbrushed CEO types).

And to a degree I agree with you there.

But if you were May and he did re-appear tomorrow, how confident would you honestly be? Confident enough to bet your majority on it?

I think they'd be stting bricks. All Labour have to do is find someone capable of stirring that kind of appetite for change and with enough appeal to the "mostly uninterested in politics but massive" blob of people in the centre.

[don'tbesilly]

jonnyb said:

Jinx said:

b2hbm said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's amazing that more than two years since the referendum that people are still telling those that voted Leave that they didn't vote to leave the SM/CU, I can only assume those people were not aware of what both campaigns were stating prior to the vote.

True. Anyone would think that the Remain voters didn't know what the options were, could it be possible that "they didn't know what they were voting for" ?

To be fair they didn't know that remaining meant this though we did try to warn them.

Obviously I would dissagree with this. Through out the campaign and before various people made statements ranging from staying in the SM through to towing Britain further into the Atlantic. It depended on who you believed.

Not every person who voted to leave the EU will have voted to leave the SM/CU. Even if you say a majority of leave voters voted to do this, the chances are that would leave an overall majority who did not.

Which ever way you look at it the majority to leave was only about 1.2m. A swing of about 600,000 and the result would be very different. 600,000 out of a country of about 65m .

So while there was a majority to leave, and leave we must, don’t get the idea there’s a mandate for WTO rules, there isn’t. May probably has a mandate for what she’s proposing now, but that’s about it. And let’s not forget her Lancaster House speech about the ECJ and CU was before the electorate gave her a good kicking at the ballot box. So one could argue there is even less of a mandate for it now than there was before.

Who ever suggested there was a mandate for leaving under WTO T's/C's?

If we end up in that scenario it won't be because the Leave voters willed it, it will be because May has completely messed things up, either by accident or design.

So I'd agree there wasn't/isn't a mandate for it, however that could be the end result.

[otolith]

jonnyb said:

A lot of people see the EU as all or nothing, to me there are various shades of grey in there too.

The EU's approach to the indivisibility of the four freedoms means that there is in, effectively in but without democratic representation, and out. I'm not convinced by the argument that the second of those represents any kind of meaningful compromise.

[minimoog]

James_B said:

powerstroke said:

Maybe you could give me some guidance ?? as I rather suspect you have may have an important point to make

Yes, fair enough.

Take a daily newspaper, one of he better ones, and read it. Buy some of the classic pieces of literature, and read them too.

If that seems too much work just look at the sentence structure and grammar of other posters here.

It’s possible that English is not your mother tongue, but everyone else here seems to be able to translate their stream of consciousness into text relatively well.

If you don’t put in the effort then life can leave you behind, and you can find yourself starting to blame others for where you are. That’s not a healthy place to be.

Lovely.

[jonnyb]

Rovinghawk said:

jonnyb said:

600,001 and we wouldn’t even be taking about it right now, so I think very different would sum it up.

You make a fair point- a pity for you that you're talking about what didn't happen rather than what did.

?

[djc206]

don'tbesilly said:

Who ever suggested there was a mandate for leaving under WTO T's/C's?

If we end up in that scenario it won't be because the Leave voters willed it, it will be because May has completely messed things up, either by accident or design.

So I'd agree there wasn't/isn't a mandate for it, however that could be the end result.

It could always have been a result of the negotiations if they became protracted or bitter and it is a scenario that anyone who voted leave should have had in mind when they did so. If you didn’t consider it a possibility then more fool you.

[AJL308]

majordad said:

Corbyn will never , ever be PM. IMHO !

I hope you're right but I'm really not too sure on that. There have been too many upsets in politics over recent years to state anything with certainty.

The prospect of a hard Socialist government under Corbyn is too terrifying to contemplate, quite honestly. We'd be fked.

[jonnyb]

djc206 said:

don'tbesilly said:

Who ever suggested there was a mandate for leaving under WTO T's/C's?

If we end up in that scenario it won't be because the Leave voters willed it, it will be because May has completely messed things up, either by accident or design.

So I'd agree there wasn't/isn't a mandate for it, however that could be the end result.

It could always have been a result of the negotiations if they became protracted or bitter and it is a scenario that anyone who voted leave should have had in mind when they did so. If you didn’t consider it a possibility then more fool you.

I think that’s the preferred way of leaving if you speak to JRM or bojo