ICM

[justin124]

Nov 25, 2019 19:35:43 GMT andrewp said:

Nov 25, 2019 19:29:58 GMT justin124 said:

The 7% Tory lead given by ICM implies a swing from Lab to Con of 2.3% since 2017 , and on a UNS basis would result in 23 gains from Labour. That would leave the Tories with 341 seats before taking account of any losses to the LDs and SNP. This poll suggests 5 losses to the LDs – which brings the Tories back to 336. It is now unclear how many Tory seats are vulnerable to the SNP, but on the assumption of circa 3 losses, the Tories could end up on 333 seats – a majority of 16. However, 5 of Labour’s 23 seats at risk could well be saved by first term incumbency – ie Battersea – High Peak- Warrington South – Portsmouth South and Lincoln. The Tory candidate in the latter seat has today apologised for comments supportive of Tommy Robinson.There is,therefore, the distinct possibility that the Tories emerge with circa 328 seats – a majority of 6 and smaller than enjoyed by Theresa May prior to the 2017 election.

Whilst not what they would like, 328 would be plenty for Brexit. It would be a working majority of 15. The Tories only need about 10 net gains. 

Maybe so - though there could well be a small band of 5 anti-Brexit Tories such as Stephen Hammond who could make life awkward for Johnson. Moreover, post -election Johnson would have less leverage over such MPs given that another poll might be several years in the future.

[curiousliberal]

Nov 25, 2019 19:44:45 GMT andrewp said:

Nov 25, 2019 19:37:11 GMT curiousliberal said:

They arguably could have done it in the last parliament given the results of the second reading, though I'll admit the chances were still low.

It’s not just the gains from other parties, simply by ( they would hope) replacing Grieve, Soubry, Lee, Letwin, Milton etc etc probably boosts the majority for Brexit by 20 votes.

Four of the 21 are standing under Conservative colours (Nokes, Brine, Stephen Hammond and Greg Clark); others would have been better placed to hold seats the Tories may now lose (e.g. Milton in Guildford). There are presumably low-profile Conservative candidates not completely on board with Johnson's Brexit agenda, and Swinson has said that there are MPs she thinks might defect after the election. I doubt it's anything but conditional on the LDs doing well even if it's true, but that would imply there is also a subset still willing to rebel. Just look at the list of MPs who voted against no deal in March (not the bill categorically ruling out 'no deal' via controversial parliamentary means, but the indicative voting  record on the issue). 

If there is a Conservative majority, and once the bill gets some scrutiny as May's did between the second and third readings, the ERG may feel entitled - off the back of a Corbyn resignation, say - to act as they did when she first put her proposals forward. I'm not sure Johnson's Brexit hand will be stronger (in terms of parliamentary numbers) even if he exits this election with a majority, though the political legitimacy of his deal will be somewhat strengthened.

[mboy]

I really don't think the ERG are going to start blocking Brexit *again* if Boris wins a majority. I think they realise by now it would be pretty much suicide now that all Brexiters have decided that Boris's deal is, in fact, "proper" Brexit.

[Tony Otim]

Nov 25, 2019 20:09:22 GMT mboy said:

I really don't think the ERG are going to start blocking Brexit *again* if Boris wins a majority. I think they realise by now it would be pretty much suicide now that all Brexiters have decided that Boris's deal is, in fact, "proper" Brexit.

I'd agree with that. The next real battle in the Conservative party will be about extending the transition period or not when it becomes clear that there's no trade deal by the end of next year...

[andrewp]

Nov 25, 2019 20:09:22 GMT mboy said:

I really don't think the ERG are going to start blocking Brexit *again* if Boris wins a majority. I think they realise by now it would be pretty much suicide now that all Brexiters have decided that Boris's deal is, in fact, "proper" Brexit.

If Boris gets a working majority of more than 10, so effectively 327, then it will happen.

[curiousliberal]

Nov 25, 2019 20:09:22 GMT mboy said:

I really don't think the ERG are going to start blocking Brexit *again* if Boris wins a majority. I think they realise by now it would be pretty much suicide now that all Brexiters have decided that Boris's deal is, in fact, "proper" Brexit.

If they think they have a guaranteed majority for five years in parliament, and Corbyn is no longer leading - that in itself should have scared them - the threshold for rebellion (which is admittedly much higher than it used to be) will be lowered somewhat from where it is now.

A few of the ultras grumbled about the bill but justified their vote for it on the second reading with 'we can amend it, and give it due scrutiny, at the third'. I wouldn't rule out another revolt.

[curiousliberal]

Nov 25, 2019 16:59:18 GMT wallington said:

Just saw an ICM poll on social media putting the Conservative lead over over Labour down to 7 points.

Con - 41
Lab - 34
LbD - 13
Bxt - 4

22-25 Nov

Its starting to all seems a bit more like 2017...

The swing to Labour could be a manifesto bump. For them, this is the first post-manifesto national poll.

[peterl]

Plugged those numbers into electoral calculus for a bit of fun, came up with a 4 seat Tory majority. The tide may be starting to turn a little.

[mboy]

The astronomical pensions bribe is going to be very tempting for a lot of people who know they will never have to pay for it...

[Deleted]

Nov 25, 2019 21:38:42 GMT mboy said:

The astronomical pensions bribe is going to be very tempting for a lot of people who know they will never have to pay for it...

they would argue they already have

[mboy]

Nov 25, 2019 21:46:12 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Nov 25, 2019 21:38:42 GMT mboy said:

The astronomical pensions bribe is going to be very tempting for a lot of people who know they will never have to pay for it...

they would argue they already have

They are obviously and empirically wrong - otherwise pensions would be sustainable as they are.

[Vibe]

Nov 25, 2019 21:46:12 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Nov 25, 2019 21:38:42 GMT mboy said:

The astronomical pensions bribe is going to be very tempting for a lot of people who know they will never have to pay for it...

they would argue they already have

So might the men, who never had the luxury to retire at 60.

[Deleted]

Nov 25, 2019 22:00:06 GMT Vibe said:

Nov 25, 2019 21:46:12 GMT @priceofdawn said:

they would argue they already have

So might the men, who never had the luxury to retire at 60.

i agree

[pl]

Nov 25, 2019 21:38:42 GMT mboy said:

The astronomical pensions bribe is going to be very tempting for a lot of people who know they will never have to pay for it...

It must be nice trying to win elections by offering to spend untold billions of other people's money and then be able to sleep at night.

[Deleted]

Tbf Boris isn't spending other people's money because he isn't raising taxes to pay for his spending plan

[Vibe]

Nov 25, 2019 22:36:18 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Tbf Boris isn't spending other people's money because he isn't raising taxes to pay for his spending plan

All the Conservative tax cuts, IHT, Income Tax, corporation tax etc, have been been possible by prolonging the period we run a budget deficit, which has had the affect of increasing debt massively.

All parties and governments either spend or promise to spend money they don't have.

Anyone know the last government that actually balanced its books over the parliament?

[lancastrian]

Nov 25, 2019 21:38:42 GMT mboy said:

The astronomical pensions bribe is going to be very tempting for a lot of people who know they will never have to pay for it...

Everyone knows they will never have to pay for it - this is a pledge to win over twenty-somethings as much as sixty-somethings. Whether he wins or not (and I think he will), Corbyn has changed British politics. It is now possible, in the view of the electorate, for the population to work less, retire younger and have far higher government spending without ever having to pay a penny more in tax. The pensions pledge is £58bn of free money, plus however many more billions cancelling future rises in the SPA will cost, no strings attached.

[curiousliberal]

Nov 25, 2019 22:41:57 GMT Vibe said:

Nov 25, 2019 22:36:18 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Tbf Boris isn't spending other people's money because he isn't raising taxes to pay for his spending plan

All the Conservative tax cuts, IHT, Income Tax, corporation tax etc, have been been possible by prolonging the period we run a budget deficit, which has had the affect of increasing debt massively.

All parties and governments either spend or promise to spend money they don't have.

Anyone know the last government that actually balanced its books over the parliament?

In fairness, the May government decreased the national debt as a percentage of GDP (though not in absolute terms), as did the Blair government. This also happened in 2016, though it's not clear whether Cameron or May had more to do with it.

Running deficits in recessions is generally a good thing if the money is being put to good use (investment, typically). In times of growth, however, I'm of the opinion that it's a bit unhealthy (though as I think I've said before, some economists argue that because of low interest rates and in spite of the state of the global economy, now is a good time to borrow lots).

[Devil Wincarnate]

Nov 25, 2019 21:38:42 GMT mboy said:

The astronomical pensions bribe is going to be very tempting for a lot of people who know they will never have to pay for it...

I look at the Labour manifesto (and let's face it, aspects of all the manifestos) and see little offer to me other than the chance to retire past 67, all the while paying for younger and older people to enjoy benefits I will never be able to have even though my taxes have and will pay for them.

[tonygreaves]

Nov 25, 2019 22:50:46 GMT curiousliberal said:

Nov 25, 2019 22:41:57 GMT Vibe said:

All the Conservative tax cuts, IHT, Income Tax, corporation tax etc, have been been possible by prolonging the period we run a budget deficit, which has had the affect of increasing debt massively.

All parties and governments either spend or promise to spend money they don't have.

Anyone know the last government that actually balanced its books over the parliament?

In fairness, the May government decreased the national debt as a percentage of GDP (though not in absolute terms), as did the Blair government. This also happened in 2016, though it's not clear whether Cameron or May had more to do with it.

Running deficits in recessions is generally a good thing if the money is being put to good use (investment, typically). In times of growth, however, I'm of the opinion that it's a bit unhealthy (though as I think I've said before, some economists argue that because of low interest rates and in spite of the state of the global economy, now is a good time to borrow lots).

I think this is wrong. Investment for capital projects is always a good thing and the amount should depend more on the cost of borrowing than on the deficit, which should not include capital spending. At present the cost of borrowing is so low that we should be having massive investment programmes. With the effect of inflation and present levels of interest rates the future costs will be minimal and in some cases negative.

The level of the deficit on current spending (what Councils etc call revenue spending) should vary according to the position in an economic cycle.

But also remember that the controllers of the currency (in our case this country) can print as much money is they like. The only real constraints are from the impact on inflation. Because we have all (above a certain age anyway) been accustomed to inflation being a major problem, "printing money" is thought to be a bad thing. However we did effectively print £425billion disguised as Quantitative Easing and given the present prevailing downward pressures on inflation the Government could print a lot more now and use it for more beneficial purposes than filling the bankers' back pockets! (That is a slightly ironic over-comment).