Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If it gets to a confidence vote then timings will make it hard

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If it gets to a confidence vote then timings will make it harder for the Whips to defend Theresa

No doubt the Number 10 PR team is absolutely delighted that the media has moved on from speculating about TMay’s future as PM but it was a story that dominated the news for five full days.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Yup it is brutal when the Tories do ditch their leaders, no sentimentality involved.
  • So in 2003, Sir Michael Spicers confirms that sufficient numbers of letters have been received to trigger a vote of confidence on Tuesday morning, voting starts the next day, and IDS is ousted by 7pm on Wednesday.

    In those days there were but 165 Tory MPs, now there's nearly double that, thanks to Dave's hard work, whipping 318 MPs is going to be harder than whipping 165.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,406
    edited October 10

    Yup it is brutal when the Tories do ditch their leaders, no sentimentality involved.

    Unlike Brexit which is all about Tory sentimentality for the glorious bygone days when men were real men, women were real women and real politicians actually got things done.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438

    Yup it is brutal when the Tories do ditch their leaders, no sentimentality involved.

    Unlike Brexit which is all about Tory sentimentality for the glorious bygone days when men were real men, women were real women and real politicians actually got things done.
    Ah yes, I remember it well. Those were the days!
  • PaganPagan Posts: 230
    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage
  • Regards of how her team have tried to spin it the reality is pretty simple - she's a corpse. That the party seem willing to leave her in place as she's the least worst option tells everything there is to know about the Conservative Party. About how party comes before country. How self comes before the majority. How naked ambition has consumed them utterly.

    Perhaps they will wake up to the visceral reputational damage that the continuation of the May premiership does to them and remove her. Perhaps not. They seem not to care one way or another. A good job that nothing is happening in the country with any close deadline...
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,094

    Yup it is brutal when the Tories do ditch their leaders, no sentimentality involved.

    Unlike Brexit which is all about Tory sentimentality for the glorious bygone days when men were real men, women were real women and real politicians actually got things done.
    Ah yes, I remember it well. Those were the days!
    You've never been seen in the same room as Maurice Chevalier.:smile:
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    Yup it is brutal when the Tories do ditch their leaders, no sentimentality involved.

    Unlike Brexit which is all about Tory sentimentality for the glorious bygone days when men were real men, women were real women and real politicians actually got things done.
    Oh get back in the kitchen!

    (That was a joke by the way :) )
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539
    So are there really not 48 Con MPs who want her out?
    Or are they waiting until they know they have the numbers to win a confidence vote?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Did the country vote to restrict its choice of what to eat? Or is that a price worth paying?
  • felixfelix Posts: 6,667

    Regards of how her team have tried to spin it the reality is pretty simple - she's a corpse. That the party seem willing to leave her in place as she's the least worst option tells everything there is to know about the Conservative Party. About how party comes before country. How self comes before the majority. How naked ambition has consumed them utterly.

    Perhaps they will wake up to the visceral reputational damage that the continuation of the May premiership does to them and remove her. Perhaps not. They seem not to care one way or another. A good job that nothing is happening in the country with any close deadline...

    Is that why they are 30 + points behind in the polls..... Oh...wait.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    edited October 10

    Regards of how her team have tried to spin it the reality is pretty simple - she's a corpse. That the party seem willing to leave her in place as she's the least worst option tells everything there is to know about the Conservative Party. About how party comes before country. How self comes before the majority. How naked ambition has consumed them utterly.

    Perhaps they will wake up to the visceral reputational damage that the continuation of the May premiership does to them and remove her. Perhaps not. They seem not to care one way or another. A good job that nothing is happening in the country with any close deadline...

    Mega logic fail there. It can't both be true that the Conservatives are putting party before country and that the continuation of the May premiership will do enormous damage to the party.

    Here's an idea: have you considered the possibility that they are putting country before party, because (as you rightly say) something rather important for the country is happening with a close deadline?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 417

    Yup it is brutal when the Tories do ditch their leaders, no sentimentality involved.

    Unlike Brexit which is all about Tory sentimentality for the glorious bygone days when men were real men, women were real women and real politicians actually got things done.
    Ah yes, I remember it well. Those were the days!
    ...and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,406

    Yup it is brutal when the Tories do ditch their leaders, no sentimentality involved.

    Unlike Brexit which is all about Tory sentimentality for the glorious bygone days when men were real men, women were real women and real politicians actually got things done.
    Ah yes, I remember it well. Those were the days!
    :D :D

  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,406

    Yup it is brutal when the Tories do ditch their leaders, no sentimentality involved.

    Unlike Brexit which is all about Tory sentimentality for the glorious bygone days when men were real men, women were real women and real politicians actually got things done.
    Oh get back in the kitchen!

    (That was a joke by the way :) )
    :+1: I like my kitchen. All the best parties happen in kitchens.
  • felixfelix Posts: 6,667
    I doubt that the Shappites will try again. The Ultras might although they risk losing Brexit altogether. Maybe they are that stupid.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,274
    edited October 10
    Hilarious that when the the plotters realised the coup was failing, they pulled the pin out of their grenade and threw it to Grant Shapps.

    Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.
  • Regards of how her team have tried to spin it the reality is pretty simple - she's a corpse. That the party seem willing to leave her in place as she's the least worst option tells everything there is to know about the Conservative Party. About how party comes before country. How self comes before the majority. How naked ambition has consumed them utterly.

    Perhaps they will wake up to the visceral reputational damage that the continuation of the May premiership does to them and remove her. Perhaps not. They seem not to care one way or another. A good job that nothing is happening in the country with any close deadline...

    Mega logic fail there. It can't both be true that the Conservatives are putting party before country and that the continuation of the May premiership will do enormous damage to the party.

    Here's an idea: have you considered the possibility that they are putting country before party, because (as you rightly say) something rather important for the country is happening with a close deadline?
    No logic fail. They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country. And then within that we have the competing ambitions of various people and their clashing ideas. One side cannot let the other side lead the party wrong as that means leading the country wrong. May is crap each side thinks, but is less crap than Bozza/Mogg. And any of them better than Labour..

    And if they're doing this for Brexit, why can't they remotely agree what Brexit looks like? Orake any fucking progress on preparing this country for the train wreck that is the splat of their hubris at the bottom of the cliff? I can live with either version of Brexit soft or hard as long as we are making significant progress towards realising it. Party before country is screw the practicalities of Brexit the leadership spat is more important
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    edited October 10
    If they could only scrape 30 MPs (maximum) even after The Worst Conference Speech Of All Time, how on earth are they ever going to get the 159 MPs required to actually pass a no confidence vote?

    There will always be a good enough reason not to do it, and always ample enough reason to think that the alternative to her could potentially be even worse. The mid-term election results will most likely be quite poor, but never apocalyptically bad enough to prove that she really is right at the floor of the Tories' potential support, and that therefore there would be nothing to lose by ousting her.

    Top up on your bets for TMay to lead the Tories into the next election.
  • PaganPagan Posts: 230
    edited October 10
    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Did the country vote to restrict its choice of what to eat? Or is that a price worth paying?
    I didnt say it did I was merely calling bollocks on the fear mongering of empty shelves. Besides a lot of the fish we eat could possibly get cheaper. For example Tuna which we eat a lot of is rising rapidly in price due to the EU ban on Sri Lankan imports. Out the eu we can import from Sri Lanka if we wish to. (Note I haven't looked into the ban so dont know what its over maybe a good reason or it maybe an eu reason such as protecting some tuna fishing in the eu somewhere).

    edit -Yes just noticed the ban has been lifted now but when did we vote to pay more for tuna by your reasoning?
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853
    Pong said:

    Hilarious that when the the plotters realised the coup was failing, they pulled the pin out of their grenade and threw it to Grant Shapps.

    Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.

    What kind of idiot even joins a plot lead by Grant Shapps?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,274
    glw said:

    Pong said:

    Hilarious that when the the plotters realised the coup was failing, they pulled the pin out of their grenade and threw it to Grant Shapps.

    Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.

    What kind of idiot even joins a plot lead by Grant Shapps?
    There never was a plot led by Grant Shapps.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,267
    edited October 10
    Danny565 said:

    If they could only scrape 30 MPs (maximum) even after The Worst Conference Speech Of All Time, how on earth are they ever going to get the 109 MPs required to actually pass a no confidence vote?

    There will always be a good enough reason not to do it, and always ample enough reason to think that the alternative to her could potentially be even worse. The mid-term election results will most likely be quite poor, but never apocalyptically bad enough to prove that she really is right at the floor of the Tories' potential support, and that therefore there would be nothing to lose by ousting her.

    Top up on your bets for TMay to lead the Tories into the next election.

    They need 159 to pass no confidence vote, not 109.

    (More than 50% of 316 Con MPs = 318 less Speaker less whip withdrawn on one).

    However I doubt she would fight a 2022 GE - she would be nearly 66 and surely pretty worn out after Brexit and 6 difficult years as PM.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    MikeL said:

    Danny565 said:

    If they could only scrape 30 MPs (maximum) even after The Worst Conference Speech Of All Time, how on earth are they ever going to get the 109 MPs required to actually pass a no confidence vote?

    There will always be a good enough reason not to do it, and always ample enough reason to think that the alternative to her could potentially be even worse. The mid-term election results will most likely be quite poor, but never apocalyptically bad enough to prove that she really is right at the floor of the Tories' potential support, and that therefore there would be nothing to lose by ousting her.

    Top up on your bets for TMay to lead the Tories into the next election.

    They need 159 to pass no confidence vote, not 109.

    (More than 50% of 316 Con MPs - 318 less Speaker less whip withdrawn on one).
    Not one of my finest moments :D
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853
    Pong said:

    glw said:

    Pong said:

    Hilarious that when the the plotters realised the coup was failing, they pulled the pin out of their grenade and threw it to Grant Shapps.

    Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.

    What kind of idiot even joins a plot lead by Grant Shapps?
    There never was a plot led by Grant Shapps.
    He was meant to be ringing round and collecting names. Is that not plotting?
  • Danny565 said:

    If they could only scrape 30 MPs (maximum) even after The Worst Conference Speech Of All Time, how on earth are they ever going to get the 159 MPs required to actually pass a no confidence vote?

    There will always be a good enough reason not to do it, and always ample enough reason to think that the alternative to her could potentially be even worse. The mid-term election results will most likely be quite poor, but never apocalyptically bad enough to prove that she really is right at the floor of the Tories' potential support, and that therefore there would be nothing to lose by ousting her.

    Top up on your bets for TMay to lead the Tories into the next election.

    Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.
  • Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Did the country vote to restrict its choice of what to eat? Or is that a price worth paying?
    I didnt say it did I was merely calling bollocks on the fear mongering of empty shelves.
    Because you apparently know better than the supermarkets whose shelves will be empty. Than the wholesalers who supply small stores. Than the manufacturers who make the products. Than the farmers and producers who supply the manufacturers. Than the logistics people who physically move products and ingredients through the supply chain. Than the port operators. Than HMRC.

    Why are you the expert here and not the actual experts?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438

    Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.

    It's a rather subtle and complex game. If, for example, an MP thinks that Theresa May is a disaster, but that Boris would be a worse disaster, does he or she vote against her in the No Confidence vote, knowing that, if Theresa May loses that vote, she can't then stand in the leadership contest?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    edited October 10
    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Did the country vote to restrict its choice of what to eat? Or is that a price worth paying?
    I didnt say it did I was merely calling bollocks on the fear mongering of empty shelves. Besides a lot of the fish we eat could possibly get cheaper. For example Tuna which we eat a lot of is rising rapidly in price due to the EU ban on Sri Lankan imports. Out the eu we can import from Sri Lanka if we wish to. (Note I haven't looked into the ban so dont know what its over maybe a good reason or it maybe an eu reason such as protecting some tuna fishing in the eu somewhere).

    edit -Yes just noticed the ban has been lifted now but when did we vote to pay more for tuna by your reasoning?
    These people are a bit lefty, right on, global warming-y for me but they don't rule out empty shelves-ish type of issues.

    https://sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=foodbrexitreport-langmillstonemarsden-july2017pdf.pdf&site=25
  • Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.

    It's a rather subtle and complex game. If, for example, an MP thinks that Theresa May is a disaster, but that Boris would be a worse disaster, does he or she vote against her in the No Confidence vote, knowing that, if Theresa May loses that vote, she can't then stand in the leadership contest?
    It is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
  • PaganPagan Posts: 230

    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Did the country vote to restrict its choice of what to eat? Or is that a price worth paying?
    I didnt say it did I was merely calling bollocks on the fear mongering of empty shelves.
    Because you apparently know better than the supermarkets whose shelves will be empty. Than the wholesalers who supply small stores. Than the manufacturers who make the products. Than the farmers and producers who supply the manufacturers. Than the logistics people who physically move products and ingredients through the supply chain. Than the port operators. Than HMRC.

    Why are you the expert here and not the actual experts?
    I attacked from an area I do know about and showed it to be bollocks for that area. It couldn't be the supermarkets have some sort of vested interest here at all could it? Fact is we import food successfully from a lot of countries that we do have border controls with.

    Explain why we cant therefore do the same for the eu if we have border controls.

    Also explain why we can't replace our eu imports with the same items from other countries. The eu is rarely the sole supplier outside the "named" goods
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.

    It's a rather subtle and complex game. If, for example, an MP thinks that Theresa May is a disaster, but that Boris would be a worse disaster, does he or she vote against her in the No Confidence vote, knowing that, if Theresa May loses that vote, she can't then stand in the leadership contest?
    It is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
    If Boris has the votes to make the final 2 - then surely he has the votes to trigger a contest?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,495
    Dubliner said:
    Most Brextiers assured us the EU would be throwing themselves at our feet with brilliant trade deals by now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Did the country vote to restrict its choice of what to eat? Or is that a price worth paying?
    I didnt say it did I was merely calling bollocks on the fear mongering of empty shelves.
    Because you apparently know better than the supermarkets whose shelves will be empty. Than the wholesalers who supply small stores. Than the manufacturers who make the products. Than the farmers and producers who supply the manufacturers. Than the logistics people who physically move products and ingredients through the supply chain. Than the port operators. Than HMRC.

    Why are you the expert here and not the actual experts?
    I attacked from an area I do know about and showed it to be bollocks for that area. It couldn't be the supermarkets have some sort of vested interest here at all could it? Fact is we import food successfully from a lot of countries that we do have border controls with.

    Explain why we cant therefore do the same for the eu if we have border controls.

    Also explain why we can't replace our eu imports with the same items from other countries. The eu is rarely the sole supplier outside the "named" goods
    Tongan fruit pickers coming via Ryanair to Lincs?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,500
    They are refusing to negotiate on the trade arrangements.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    RobD said:

    They are refusing to negotiate on the trade arrangements.
    Interesting that the deadline for sufficient progress has been pushed back. Betokens further compromise down the line.
  • eekeek Posts: 1,884

    Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.

    It's a rather subtle and complex game. If, for example, an MP thinks that Theresa May is a disaster, but that Boris would be a worse disaster, does he or she vote against her in the No Confidence vote, knowing that, if Theresa May loses that vote, she can't then stand in the leadership contest?
    It is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
    I don't think people think the gun is fully loaded - they just don't know exactly how many barrels are loaded...
  • eek said:

    Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.

    It's a rather subtle and complex game. If, for example, an MP thinks that Theresa May is a disaster, but that Boris would be a worse disaster, does he or she vote against her in the No Confidence vote, knowing that, if Theresa May loses that vote, she can't then stand in the leadership contest?
    It is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
    I don't think people think the gun is fully loaded - they just don't know exactly how many barrels are loaded...
    That works.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,514
    In that case the EU are remiss. You should plan for all eventualities when there are so few options and you are stubbornly preventing progress and hogging all the balls in your court.
  • PaganPagan Posts: 230
    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Did the country vote to restrict its choice of what to eat? Or is that a price worth paying?
    I didnt say it did I was merely calling bollocks on the fear mongering of empty shelves.
    Because you apparently know better than the supermarkets whose shelves will be empty. Than the wholesalers who supply small stores. Than the manufacturers who make the products. Than the farmers and producers who supply the manufacturers. Than the logistics people who physically move products and ingredients through the supply chain. Than the port operators. Than HMRC.

    Why are you the expert here and not the actual experts?
    I attacked from an area I do know about and showed it to be bollocks for that area. It couldn't be the supermarkets have some sort of vested interest here at all could it? Fact is we import food successfully from a lot of countries that we do have border controls with.

    Explain why we cant therefore do the same for the eu if we have border controls.

    Also explain why we can't replace our eu imports with the same items from other countries. The eu is rarely the sole supplier outside the "named" goods
    Tongan fruit pickers coming via Ryanair to Lincs?
    Automation, temporary visa's for seasonal workers its easy enough to sort out one way or the other. The first would be preferable as it would raise productivity.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    philiph said:

    In that case the EU are remiss. You should plan for all eventualities when there are so few options and you are stubbornly preventing progress and hogging all the balls in your court.

    The EU and the EU27 will remain within the 800 or so agreements the UK will leave on Brexit day. They have much less planning to do. The Irish might be exception, but it turns out they were looking at potential customs problems a year before the Brexit vote even took place.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 676

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
  • PaganPagan Posts: 230
    edited October 10

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    Yes they would but still doesnt mean there would be a shortage. Just like when employers complain about skill shortages when what they mean is that we can't get someone with the skills we want at the price we want to pay them I suspect the supermarkets here are saying we may not be able to buy in stock at the price we want to pay for it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    That was a great book; one of the first, IIRC, of that socio-anthropological study via everyday objects/phenomena genre.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Did the country vote to restrict its choice of what to eat? Or is that a price worth paying?
    I didnt say it did I was merely calling bollocks on the fear mongering of empty shelves.
    Because you apparently know better than the supermarkets whose shelves will be empty. Than the wholesalers who supply small stores. Than the manufacturers who make the products. Than the farmers and producers who supply the manufacturers. Than the logistics people who physically move products and ingredients through the supply chain. Than the port operators. Than HMRC.

    Why are you the expert here and not the actual experts?
    I attacked from an area I do know about and showed it to be bollocks for that area. It couldn't be the supermarkets have some sort of vested interest here at all could it? Fact is we import food successfully from a lot of countries that we do have border controls with.

    Explain why we cant therefore do the same for the eu if we have border controls.

    Also explain why we can't replace our eu imports with the same items from other countries. The eu is rarely the sole supplier outside the "named" goods
    Tongan fruit pickers coming via Ryanair to Lincs?
    Automation, temporary visa's for seasonal workers its easy enough to sort out one way or the other. The first would be preferable as it would raise productivity.

    If there is No Deal the UK leaves the Open Skies framework, so flying people in from Tonga or anywhere else will be pretty tricky - and certainly a lot more expensive than it might be now.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    And rightly so. Hence it is the opposition's job to oppose the government on all issues (short of national emergencies) because in toto, they believe I would hope, that the country would be better in their hands than in the hands of the government.

    Makes perfect sense and is perfectly justified.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    Yes they would but still doesnt mean there would be a shortage. Just like when employers complain about skill shortages when what they mean is that we can't get someone with the skills we want at the price we want to pay them I suspect the supermarkets here are saying we may not be able to buy in stock at the price we want to pay for it.

    The "we" feeds through - it becomes "us", the consumers. British shoppers do not want to pay higher prices for their food (or anything else, of course). But if the supermarkets have to pay more, they will merely pass the cost on. We all have to eat, after all.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,365
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Worth noting, IQ isn't a great measure of intelligence:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41570266
  • 3 x "TMay"

    No, no, no (as Baggie would have said)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    Yes they would but still doesnt mean there would be a shortage. Just like when employers complain about skill shortages when what they mean is that we can't get someone with the skills we want at the price we want to pay them I suspect the supermarkets here are saying we may not be able to buy in stock at the price we want to pay for it.
    The price supermarkets want to pay means the price they know they will be able to sell it at and the price they will be able to sell it at = the wealth of the nation, more or less. The lower supermarket prices are, the higher the wealth of the nation. The supermarkets aren't quite charitable organisations, and the issue of in-work benefits clouds matters, but it has been acknowledged that the supermarket price wars has been an unambiguous benefit for consumers.
  • PaganPagan Posts: 230

    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    Yes they would but still doesnt mean there would be a shortage. Just like when employers complain about skill shortages when what they mean is that we can't get someone with the skills we want at the price we want to pay them I suspect the supermarkets here are saying we may not be able to buy in stock at the price we want to pay for it.

    The "we" feeds through - it becomes "us", the consumers. British shoppers do not want to pay higher prices for their food (or anything else, of course). But if the supermarkets have to pay more, they will merely pass the cost on. We all have to eat, after all.

    Some food will get more expensive, some will get cheaper due to not having to abide by eu tariffs. Some will now be worth growing here as we won't need to pay farmers not to produce stuff. It is no different to the eu making some food more expensive by imposing tariff's or the sri lankan fish ban I mentioned.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 11,616

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    And there's nothing wrong with that.

    It is entirely logically consistent.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 112
    rkrkrk said:

    Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.

    It's a rather subtle and complex game. If, for example, an MP thinks that Theresa May is a disaster, but that Boris would be a worse disaster, does he or she vote against her in the No Confidence vote, knowing that, if Theresa May loses that vote, she can't then stand in the leadership contest?
    It is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
    If Boris has the votes to make the final 2 - then surely he has the votes to trigger a contest?
    No it is quite likely that many Tory MPs privately say "I do not want a leadership challenge, but if there is one then I would support x"
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    Yes they would but still doesnt mean there would be a shortage. Just like when employers complain about skill shortages when what they mean is that we can't get someone with the skills we want at the price we want to pay them I suspect the supermarkets here are saying we may not be able to buy in stock at the price we want to pay for it.

    The "we" feeds through - it becomes "us", the consumers. British shoppers do not want to pay higher prices for their food (or anything else, of course). But if the supermarkets have to pay more, they will merely pass the cost on. We all have to eat, after all.

    Some food will get more expensive, some will get cheaper due to not having to abide by eu tariffs. Some will now be worth growing here as we won't need to pay farmers not to produce stuff. It is no different to the eu making some food more expensive by imposing tariff's or the sri lankan fish ban I mentioned.

    Let's hope you're right and the experts are wrong.
  • PaganPagan Posts: 230
    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    Yes they would but still doesnt mean there would be a shortage. Just like when employers complain about skill shortages when what they mean is that we can't get someone with the skills we want at the price we want to pay them I suspect the supermarkets here are saying we may not be able to buy in stock at the price we want to pay for it.
    The price supermarkets want to pay means the price they know they will be able to sell it at and the price they will be able to sell it at = the wealth of the nation, more or less. The lower supermarket prices are, the higher the wealth of the nation. The supermarkets aren't quite charitable organisations, and the issue of in-work benefits clouds matters, but it has been acknowledged that the supermarket price wars has been an unambiguous benefit for consumers.
    Or it means they have to take less profit on it. What people will pay for food is not elastic it is defined by their budget. If something becomes to dear people stop buying it and move to substitutes. The majority of people in this country are on a defined budget so there is a limit to price inflation.

    Also while the price war is good for consumers it also has an effect on producers and the wages of those that work for producers
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539
    eristdoof said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.

    It's a rather subtle and complex game. If, for example, an MP thinks that Theresa May is a disaster, but that Boris would be a worse disaster, does he or she vote against her in the No Confidence vote, knowing that, if Theresa May loses that vote, she can't then stand in the leadership contest?
    It is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
    If Boris has the votes to make the final 2 - then surely he has the votes to trigger a contest?
    No it is quite likely that many Tory MPs privately say "I do not want a leadership challenge, but if there is one then I would support x"
    But how could x be Boris?
    If we assume he needs 100 MPs support to get into final 2 - is it really likely that more than half of those prefer TM to him?
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 793

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,274
    edited October 10
    glw said:

    Pong said:

    glw said:

    Pong said:

    Hilarious that when the the plotters realised the coup was failing, they pulled the pin out of their grenade and threw it to Grant Shapps.

    Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.

    What kind of idiot even joins a plot lead by Grant Shapps?
    There never was a plot led by Grant Shapps.
    He was meant to be ringing round and collecting names. Is that not plotting?
    He was/is almost certainly privately ringing round, figuring out how many names there were/are.

    As was/is every other tory MP.

    That he ended up being successfully framed as the leader of the plotters indicates how powerless and removed he is from the more credible plotters.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,406

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Worth noting, IQ isn't a great measure of intelligence:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41570266

    What genius came up with that?

    :D :D :D
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,822

    So in 2003, Sir Michael Spicers confirms that sufficient numbers of letters have been received to trigger a vote of confidence on Tuesday morning, voting starts the next day, and IDS is ousted by 7pm on Wednesday.

    In those days there were but 165 Tory MPs, now there's nearly double that, thanks to Dave's hard work, whipping 318 MPs is going to be harder than whipping 165.

    Ironically after IDS's Tories had done better than expected at the ballot box.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    Pagan said:

    FPT concerning food shortages if we go wto

    People are perhaps jumping tones (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage

    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    Yes they would but still doesnt mean there would be a shortage. Just like when employers complain about skill shortages when what they mean is that we can't get someone with the skills we want at the price we want to pay them I suspect the supermarkets here are saying we may not be able to buy in stock at the price we want to pay for it.
    The price supermarkets want to pay means the price they know they will be able to sell it at and the price they will be able to sell it at = the wealth of the nation, more or less. The lower supermarket prices are, the higher the wealth of the nation. The supermarkets aren't quite charitable organisations, and the issue of in-work benefits clouds matters, but it has been acknowledged that the supermarket price wars has been an unambiguous benefit for consumers.
    Or it means they have to take less profit on it. What people will pay for food is not elastic it is defined by their budget. If something becomes to dear people stop buying it and move to substitutes. The majority of people in this country are on a defined budget so there is a limit to price inflation.

    Also while the price war is good for consumers it also has an effect on producers and the wages of those that work for producers
    Of course it has an effect on producers, but consumer numbers > producer numbers.

    Plus as to profit margins - are you sure?

    https://tescoplc.com/investors/reports-results-and-presentations/financial-performance/five-year-record/

    Pretty razor sharp margins there...not a huge amount of scope to cut further.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,008
    Thrice armed is he whose cause is just;
    But four times he who gets his blow in fust.

    On this occasion, Theresa May has licence to be schmoozing already. Presumably, she is.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    Cameron also believed that a Labour Party would be a national disaster; didn't mean he banned general elections. He held the referendum because there was a large minority of people who were effectively disenfranchised on account of their desire for the UK to leave the EU; and because without offering it, we would have had that Labour Party in power and, as has been noted above, in total, he believed that a Conservative government would do better for the country than a Labour one.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 31,819
    The number of people who hate David Cameron for

    a. Holding a referendum they won
    b. Not winning the referendum they won

    is astonishing
  • PaganPagan Posts: 230
    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:



    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    Yes they would but still doesnt mean there would be a shortage. Just like when employers complain about skill shortages when what they mean is that we can't get someone with the skills we want at the price we want to pay them I suspect the supermarkets here are saying we may not be able to buy in stock at the price we want to pay for it.
    The price supermarkets want to pay means the price they know they will be able to sell it at and the price they will be able to sell it at = the wealth of the nation, more or less. The lower supermarket prices are, the higher the wealth of the nation. The supermarkets aren't quite charitable organisations, and the issue of in-work benefits clouds matters, but it has been acknowledged that the supermarket price wars has been an unambiguous benefit for consumers.
    Or it means they have to take less profit on it. What people will pay for food is not elastic it is defined by their budget. If something becomes to dear people stop buying it and move to substitutes. The majority of people in this country are on a defined budget so there is a limit to price inflation.

    Also while the price war is good for consumers it also has an effect on producers and the wages of those that work for producers
    Of course it has an effect on producers, but consumer numbers > producer numbers.

    Plus as to profit margins - are you sure?

    https://tescoplc.com/investors/reports-results-and-presentations/financial-performance/five-year-record/

    Pretty razor sharp margins there...not a huge amount of scope to cut further.
    Not a huge amount no but then they can always put their alcohol prices up and claw back some profit as people keep claiming they use them as a loss leader. But if food prices go up as I said people will simply buy cheaper alternatives.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,377
    calum said:
    Interesting.

    WIll I be able to switch to them in November ?
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,560
    Scott_P said:
    It's almost exactly in the wrong order, isn't it.

    Agh well.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,500
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pagan said:



    Wouldn't fishermen just catch less fish if demand went down? Brexit could be great news for cod.

    Yes they would but still doesnt mean there would be a shortage. Just like when employers complain about skill shortages when what they mean is that we can't get someone with the skills we want at the price we want to pay them I suspect the supermarkets here are saying we may not be able to buy in stock at the price we want to pay for it.
    The price supermarkets want to pay means the price they know they will be able to sell it at and the price they will be able to sell it at = the wealth of the nation, more or less. The lower supermarket prices are, the higher the wealth of the nation. The supermarkets aren't quite charitable organisations, and the issue of in-work benefits clouds matters, but it has been acknowledged that the supermarket price wars has been an unambiguous benefit for consumers.
    Or it means they have to take less profit on it. What people will pay for food is not elastic it is defined by their budget. If something becomes to dear people stop buying it and move to substitutes. The majority of people in this country are on a defined budget so there is a limit to price inflation.

    Also while the price war is good for consumers it also has an effect on producers and the wages of those that work for producers
    Of course it has an effect on producers, but consumer numbers > producer numbers.

    Plus as to profit margins - are you sure?

    https://tescoplc.com/investors/reports-results-and-presentations/financial-performance/five-year-record/

    Pretty razor sharp margins there...not a huge amount of scope to cut further.
    Not a huge amount no but then they can always put their alcohol prices up and claw back some profit as people keep claiming they use them as a loss leader. But if food prices go up as I said people will simply buy cheaper alternatives.
    Yes there will be some substitutions for sure - but the country would be in a diminished position vs the status quo ante. As per my first response - it's not I'm sure what people voted for.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 793
    TOPPING said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    Cameron also believed that a Labour Party would be a national disaster; didn't mean he banned general elections. He held the referendum because there was a large minority of people who were effectively disenfranchised on account of their desire for the UK to leave the EU; and because without offering it, we would have had that Labour Party in power and, as has been noted above, in total, he believed that a Conservative government would do better for the country than a Labour one.
    General elections take place regularly - if one results in a national disaster the voters can reverse the result within five years or less. Cameron created a disaster that will endure for generations. The possibility of a Miliband-led government for a few years is in no way com parable to the economic and political consequences of leaving the EU.
  • calumcalum Posts: 2,695
    Pulpstar said:

    calum said:
    Interesting.

    WIll I be able to switch to them in November ?
    2021 possibly !
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 112
    rkrkrk said:

    eristdoof said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.

    It's a rather subtle and complex game. If, for example, an MP thinks that Theresa May is a disaster, but that Boris would be a worse disaster, does he or she vote against her in the No Confidence vote, knowing that, if Theresa May loses that vote, she can't then stand in the leadership contest?
    It is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
    If Boris has the votes to make the final 2 - then surely he has the votes to trigger a contest?
    No it is quite likely that many Tory MPs privately say "I do not want a leadership challenge, but if there is one then I would support x"
    But how could x be Boris?
    If we assume he needs 100 MPs support to get into final 2 - is it really likely that more than half of those prefer TM to him?
    Not wanting to trigger a leadership election is different from liking TMay
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,514

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    He also said the UK would be a successful country outside the EU.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,093

    So in 2003, Sir Michael Spicers confirms that sufficient numbers of letters have been received to trigger a vote of confidence on Tuesday morning, voting starts the next day, and IDS is ousted by 7pm on Wednesday.

    In those days there were but 165 Tory MPs, now there's nearly double that, thanks to Dave's hard work, whipping 318 MPs is going to be harder than whipping 165.

    Ironically after IDS's Tories had done better than expected at the ballot box.
    IDS never led CON at a general election.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 250
    TonyE said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
    He spent years actively stoking anti-EU feeling for career purposes, and produced a referendum which seems to have settled little.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    edited October 10
    calum said:
    Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665

    TonyE said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
    He spent years actively stoking anti-EU feeling for career purposes, and produced a referendum which seems to have settled little.
    But then, you have to remember that he expected to win it easily, such was his advantage. Even the timing of it (it should really have just been held now) ran a coach an horses through the Electoral Commission advice following the Indyref. And yet the establishment really just let him get on with it, because they thought that by allowing him to do it that he would win easily.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 952
    rkrkrk said:

    eristdoof said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mrs May can win, but still lose and be outed, I reckon if she doesn't get the support of more than 200 MPs, then she's toast.

    It's a rather subtle and complex game. If, for example, an MP thinks that Theresa May is a disaster, but that Boris would be a worse disaster, does he or she vote against her in the No Confidence vote, knowing that, if Theresa May loses that vote, she can't then stand in the leadership contest?
    It is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
    If Boris has the votes to make the final 2 - then surely he has the votes to trigger a contest?
    No it is quite likely that many Tory MPs privately say "I do not want a leadership challenge, but if there is one then I would support x"
    But how could x be Boris?
    If we assume he needs 100 MPs support to get into final 2 - is it really likely that more than half of those prefer TM to him?
    It depends how desperate they get.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,530

    calum said:
    Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
    You also wonder how much cash it is to set one up. Doesn't sound cheap at all.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 952

    calum said:
    Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
    If it isn't it should be.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673

    TOPPING said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    Cameron also believed that a Labour Party would be a national disaster; didn't mean he banned general elections. He held the referendum because there was a large minority of people who were effectively disenfranchised on account of their desire for the UK to leave the EU; and because without offering it, we would have had that Labour Party in power and, as has been noted above, in total, he believed that a Conservative government would do better for the country than a Labour one.
    General elections take place regularly - if one results in a national disaster the voters can reverse the result within five years or less. Cameron created a disaster that will endure for generations. The possibility of a Miliband-led government for a few years is in no way com parable to the economic and political consequences of leaving the EU.
    Well of course I happen to agree with you but, as has been said by plenty of Brexiters on here, the long road back to EU membership begins here. If enough people make it known that they want to rejoin, then eventually there will be a party which includes rejoining in their manifesto.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 793
    TonyE said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
    For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673

    TonyE said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
    For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
    Well half of his party wanted it, all UKIP supporters wanted it, and many Labour Party supporters wanted it, not least Jezza himself, so that made it a legitimate democratic demand to agree to.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,495
    calum said:
    Stick that in your price freeze hat and smoke it (carbon capture rules pending)
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665

    calum said:
    Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
    Not necessarily I don't think. So long as it was not running at a loss, though there may be some conditions on its initial funding. There are many "national" companies in the EU, from the Energy sector to Railways, and even nationalisation itself of private assets is not outlawed, so long as a market price is established and paid. (i.e. you can't forcibly nationalise an asset without compensation)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,008
    So are we going to witness the birth of a nation this evening?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345

    TonyE said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
    For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
    More likely that UKIP would have continued to grow like the SNP, if Cameron and others had streadfastly refused to grant a referendum on EU membership.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665

    TonyE said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
    For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
    I don't think equating those two issues is particularly helpful - for example, the leading proponents against Union Membership were often on the left such as Tony Benn. It was only in the late 80's that this changed, after Delors speech to the Unions.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 8,722

    calum said:
    Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
    I think you are right.

    One of the main reasons 4 votes for Leave from Chez BJ
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    TonyE said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
    For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
    No for the very real difference that EU membership struck at the very heart of the validity of MPs and Governments to rule. With more and more powers being ceded to the EU at some point the whole legitimacy of the national government would be brought into question. Why bother voting when the people you are voting for have no power.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 2,913

    TonyE said:

    They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.

    If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
    It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
    Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
    How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
    For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
    But there wasn't a "Hanging Party" getting 12% at GE's and up to 28% in other elections (and topping the poll). Had there been there may well have been a referendum.
This discussion has been closed.