"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur.
Yeah, I think that's why I presume it pejorative actually - to co-opt a rather grandiose self label. Sort of how, most of the time, woke is now pejorative.
A good essay on this lexical battle here (by a lefty Remainer)
"On 14 June, a short email popped up in the inboxes of all Financial Times editorial staff. It came from the paper’s style guru and announced tersely: ‘The out campaigners should be Brexiters, not Brexiteers.’ As usual for the FT’s style pronouncements, the memo did not lay out the reasoning behind the decision, but it followed a discussion among editors over whether the word ‘Brexiteer’ had connotations of swashbuckling adventure.
"Much has been said and written about the power of the Leave campaign’s simple and disciplined messaging. Both sides agree that the Remain camp never found a slogan with the clarity and muscular appeal of ‘Take Back Control’ — a potent and proven phrase adapted by Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings from the successful campaign against Britain joining the euro. (A 2001 contribution by Cummings to the BBC website ended: ‘Keep your job, keep control, keep the pound.’)
"But the FT style note was evidence of a little remarked on and perhaps quietly significant victory in another corner of the linguistic battlefield. Long before June’s seismic result, the Out camp had comprehensively won the battle of collective nouns.
"‘Brexiteer brings to mind buccaneer, pioneer, musketeer,’ says Michael Gove. ‘It lends a sense of panache and romance to the argument.’ For fellow Leave campaigner Daniel Hannan it had connotations of ‘dashing condottieri’. On the other side of the trenches Remain strategist Lord Cooper feared the word crystallised a feeling about the Out campaign. ‘It helped draw it out. It was exciting, invigorating, boundary-pushing, taking on the world… a positive frame that was taking on our negative frame.’"
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Odd that a Brexitr would want the gilded cage of an Apple product in the first place.
Any true Brit would be using a Psion, or Sinclair ZX
Transistors? No thanks. Vacuum tube computers in Bletchley, or you're basically a Yank.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Regardless of what you call them, are there actually that many of them left?
Oh yes. Oh yes yes yes very much so.
I don't think any Brexiteers in my circle of family and friends - and there are many - has recanted. Some have wobbled, no one has turned coat.
I'm surprised they didn't go with, 'Boris to ensure such storms will never hit Britain again'.
A Boris Barricade to be built, ro rise up from the sea to block out high winds.
I shall do a feasibility study for no more than £1m and report in 3 years. I'll partner up with a Tory doner to reassure the government this is all above board.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Odd that a Brexitr would want the gilded cage of an Apple product in the first place.
Any true Brit would be using a Psion, or Sinclair ZX
Transistors? No thanks. Vacuum tube computers in Bletchley, or you're basically a Yank.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Regardless of what you call them, are there actually that many of them left?
Oh yes. Oh yes yes yes very much so.
I don't think any Brexiteers in my circle of family and friends - and there are many - has recanted. Some have wobbled, no one has turned coat.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Regardless of what you call them, are there actually that many of them left?
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Indeed, remember even Trump managed to keep Biden to just a 5% victory margin in 2020 despite everything. Boris, like Trump, still fires up the conservative core vote even if they now turn off swing voters
What I feel has changed most, however, compared with the situation 25 years ago, is that the Conservative vote is also much more efficiently distributed. 31% earned John Major an almighty shellacking; nowadays, 33% (which is my best guess of what the irreducible Tory core vote now stands at) ought to be enough to leave the party on perhaps somewhere around 230 seats and Labour barely scraping to an overall majority; 35% would likely still leave the Conservatives as the second party, but in a competitive position to bounce back in a Hung Parliament.
What @stodge has said is also, of course, correct: the primary aim of the collective Opposition must be to deprive the Conservatives of the votes needed to govern. But I suspect that a lot of people are looking forward to Boris Johnson and his party being rewarded for their numerous misdemeanours and incompetent governance with an epochal defeat. My point is, simply, that this isn't going to happen - especially given that the elderly demographic continues to grow as a proportion of the entire electorate, and still breaks heavily in favour of the Conservatives. There's simply only so far the Government's vote is going to sink, regardless of how poor its overall reputation with the electorate becomes.
There was also a shit tonne of tactical voting in 1997.
The LibDems around 15% of their votes (from 6.0m to 5.2m), yet almost trebled their number of seats. (Or to put it differently - they had half the share of 1983, but had 2.5x the seats that was a 5x increase in their vote efficiency.)
Is that actually true? While the Lib Dems lost some votes, the Tories lost way, way more. Nationwide there was a 5% swing from the Tories to the Lib Dems because while the Lib Dems lost 1% of the vote, the Tories lost 11% of it.
So you'd expect with a 5% swing that the Lib Dems would pick up plenty of Tory/Lib Dem marginal seats even without tactical voting.
How many seats actually swung because of tactical voting, as opposed to UNS?
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
Those fateful negotiations between Cameron and the EU on the eve of the Brexit referendum are often portrayed in terms of "if only they had realised that the UK might actually vote to leave, they would have given the UK those minor concessions that Cameron sought on immigration and we would have voted to stay." I think that's misreading it.
The Commission knew that if the UK voted to stay, they would be able to continue apace with integration towards a federal EU without Cameron feeling obliged to try and block that course in deference to his Eurosceptic flank, given that the UK's position had been settled. But they also knew that if the UK voted to leave, then free of the UK they could ramp up the pace of integration further, as we have seen. Why then make any concessions on the eve of the referendum?
Seen through the eyes of the federalist Commission, the creation of a European superstate was the goal and the loss of the UK's budget contribution and possible (but not as it turns out actual) loss of tariff free access to the huge UK export market was small beer. So I think they weren't that bothered if we left because of the benefits to the Project if we did. And given the way that May hopelessly messed up the UK's position so early in the negotiations, I'm sure that the Commission definitely feels that way now.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.
I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac
And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
"How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.
I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac
And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
"How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Regardless of what you call them, are there actually that many of them left?
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Not at all consumed by Brexit at all. It is eating you alive.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
Those fateful negotiations between Cameron and the EU on the eve of the Brexit referendum are often portrayed in terms of "if only they had realised that the UK might actually vote to leave, they would have given the UK those minor concessions that Cameron sought on immigration and we would have voted to stay." I think that's misreading it.
The Commission knew that if the UK voted to stay, they would be able to continue apace with integration towards a federal EU without Cameron feeling obliged to try and block that course in deference to his Eurosceptic flank, given that the UK's position had been settled. But they also knew that if the UK voted to leave, then free of the UK they could ramp up the pace of integration further, as we have seen. Why then make any concessions on the eve of the referendum?
Seen through the eyes of the federalist Commission, the creation of a European superstate was the goal and the loss of the UK's budget contribution and possible (but not as it turns out actual) loss of tariff free access to the huge UK export market was small beer. So I think they weren't that bothered if we left because of the benefits to the Project if we did. And given the way that May hopelessly messed up the UK's position so early in the negotiations, I'm sure that the Commission definitely feels that way now.
I reckon that's a purist viewpoint only taken by a small minority of EUCO Federalists (tho I am sure it exists). In any sane world, a quasi-Federal union that loses its second/third largest member, equal most important military, best universities, most important soft power, most important city, only other nuclear power, only other USNC power, and a huge chunk of its population and influence, is badly damaged
More immediately, is there any sign the EU is further down the Federalist Road, minus the UK drag anchor?
Not much. Coronabonds yes, apart from that not really, tho they are trying. In some ways it is even more divided - Poland Hungary etc. Russia is peeling off members as well
Is that actually true? While the Lib Dems lost some votes, the Tories lost way, way more. Nationwide there was a 5% swing from the Tories to the Lib Dems because while the Lib Dems lost 1% of the vote, the Tories lost 11% of it.
So you'd expect with a 5% swing that the Lib Dems would pick up plenty of Tory/Lib Dem marginal seats even without tactical voting.
How many seats actually swung because of tactical voting, as opposed to UNS?
That's a valid point because in some seats the Conservatives held on because it was Labour, from third place, which moved forward while the LDs, from second, did not. Michael Howard in Folkestone was one such example.
There's plenty of comment about 1997 in terms of Conservative abstentions. I was working in Carshalton & Wallington for Tom Brake and our biggest problem was persuading the ex-Conservative vote to come to us rather than go straight to Labour.
In fact, the LDs went up 2,500, Labour went up 2,000, 1,300 voted Referendum, total votes cast down 4,300 and the Conservative vote total down 10,000 so it wasn't just abstentions - it was a fragmentation of the Conservative vote.
The question next time is whether we will see the Conservative vote from 2019 fragment in a similar way - to Labour, the LDs, Greens, Reform UK and abstention. The cumulative effect of the fragmentation will be fascinating but the specific constituency impacts may be harder to predict.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.
I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac
And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
"How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Not at all consumed by Brexit at all. It is eating you alive.
Jesus F Christ. You've all been discussing Brexit for hours. I joined the debate ten minutes ago
This is williamglenn at 6:24pm
"If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped place"
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Regardless of what you call them, are there actually that many of them left?
Broonie showing that he knows where Scotland G spot is.
If Brown is in charge a self-nuke is the only and unarguable option. I can only imagine the civil-service fucked up when he was PM. In hindsight that's good (life!), but really!
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.
I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac
And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
"How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Not at all consumed by Brexit at all. It is eating you alive.
Jesus F Christ. You've all been discussing Brexit for hours. I joined the debate ten minutes ago
This is williamglenn at 6:24pm
"If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped place"
Just ask yourself this question: Why have 3 people independently commented upon your fixation with Brexit and none of us have commented on anyone else talking about it? Could it maybe be the reason we have all given?
If they've blown up the Druzhba pipeline the Russians really have lost their marbles. It doesn't go anywhere their invading forces or occupied Ukraine, so they would have had to blow it up in Belarus.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.
I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac
And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
"How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Not at all consumed by Brexit at all. It is eating you alive.
Jesus F Christ. You've all been discussing Brexit for hours. I joined the debate ten minutes ago
This is williamglenn at 6:24pm
"If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped place"
Just ask yourself this question: Why have 3 people independently commented upon your fixation with Brexit and none of us have commented on anyone else talking about it? Could it maybe be the reason we have all given?
It's because you're all obsessed with me, in some weird way. Really. That's it
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Not at all consumed by Brexit at all. It is eating you alive.
Jesus F Christ. You've all been discussing Brexit for hours. I joined the debate ten minutes ago
This is williamglenn at 6:24pm
"If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped place"
Just ask yourself this question: Why have 3 people independently commented upon your fixation with Brexit and none of us have commented on anyone else talking about it? Could it maybe be the reason we have all given?
It's because you're all obsessed with me, in some weird way. Really. That's it
Funnily enough you are just so wrong, but if it makes you happy to think you are the centre of attraction go with that thought.
Broonie showing that he knows where Scotland G spot is.
If Lamont and whoever the speccy guy is are the speakers at the event, what do you want on the poster? Sydney Opera House? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon?
Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.
If they've blown up the Druzhba pipeline the Russians really have lost their marbles. It doesn't go anywhere their invading forces or occupied Ukraine, so they would have had to blow it up in Belarus.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.
I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac
And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
"How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."
Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.
My old dog used to show a far higher level of sophistication when gearing up to steal food from the table.
Putin's obviously quite happy to be wearing the emperor's new clothes.
Presumably your dog was aware that if he failed it was not only no food but the famous Bad Dog speech? And if he succeeded he had to get away with it to avoid the aforesaid BD speech?
This is a lesson Putin does not seem to have learned...
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
Not at all consumed by Brexit at all. It is eating you alive.
Jesus F Christ. You've all been discussing Brexit for hours. I joined the debate ten minutes ago
This is williamglenn at 6:24pm
"If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped place"
Just ask yourself this question: Why have 3 people independently commented upon your fixation with Brexit and none of us have commented on anyone else talking about it? Could it maybe be the reason we have all given?
It's because you're all obsessed with me, in some weird way. Really. That's it
Funnily enough you are just so wrong, but if it makes you happy to think you are the centre of attraction go with that thought.
So we're all happy. My narcissism is satisfied, your, er, obsession with my unjustified obsessions is gratified, or whatever it is you are trying to express
If they've blown up the Druzhba pipeline the Russians really have lost their marbles. It doesn't go anywhere their invading forces or occupied Ukraine, so they would have had to blow it up in Belarus.
If they've blown up the Druzhba pipeline the Russians really have lost their marbles. It doesn't go anywhere their invading forces or occupied Ukraine, so they would have had to blow it up in Belarus.
If they've blown up the Druzhba pipeline the Russians really have lost their marbles. It doesn't go anywhere their invading forces or occupied Ukraine, so they would have had to blow it up in Belarus.
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.
I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac
And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
"How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.
I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac
And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
"How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."
"Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.
Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.
We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason
Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.
Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)
Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.
I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac
And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown
"How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."
"SCOOP: Russia is building lists of high-profile political opponents to capture or kill if it invades Ukraine, four people familiar with U.S. intelligence tell @ak_mack , @RobbieGramer & me.
The U.S. has also been startled by how detailed the lists are."
Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.
My old dog used to show a far higher level of sophistication when gearing up to steal food from the table.
Putin's obviously quite happy to be wearing the emperor's new clothes.
Presumably your dog was aware that if he failed it was not only no food but the famous Bad Dog speech? And if he succeeded he had to get away with it to avoid the aforesaid BD speech?
This is a lesson Putin does not seem to have learned...
Actually my old dog was a bitch. There's no getting away from sexual stereotyping.
Assuming Russia invades, trumped up pretext or not, how do PBers think it will play out?
Swift Ukrainian capitulation, Russian puppet installed? Long drawn out war of attrition, Russia bogged down?
What sanctions will be invoked and will they have any impact on Russia? And what will be the effect on the global economy?
Global recession. Cold War. Possible new Vietnam for Putin if he tries to take the whole country, the Ukrainians will resist fiercely, at least in Kiev and west of the Dnieper
Real risk of full blown NATO-Russia conflict, but Putin must know he would lose that, unless it goes nuclear then everyone dies, including the Chinese: who won't be happy
Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.
My old dog used to show a far higher level of sophistication when gearing up to steal food from the table.
Putin's obviously quite happy to be wearing the emperor's new clothes.
Presumably your dog was aware that if he failed it was not only no food but the famous Bad Dog speech? And if he succeeded he had to get away with it to avoid the aforesaid BD speech?
This is a lesson Putin does not seem to have learned...
Actually my old dog was a bitch. There's no getting away from sexual stereotyping.
If only English had a third gender for living things, like Hebrew...such embarrassing gaffes could be avoided.
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.
My old dog used to show a far higher level of sophistication when gearing up to steal food from the table.
Putin's obviously quite happy to be wearing the emperor's new clothes.
Presumably your dog was aware that if he failed it was not only no food but the famous Bad Dog speech? And if he succeeded he had to get away with it to avoid the aforesaid BD speech?
This is a lesson Putin does not seem to have learned...
Actually my old dog was a bitch. There's no getting away from sexual stereotyping.
If only English had a third gender for living things, like Hebrew...such embarrassing gaffes could be avoided.
Yes. I was thinking only the other day how strange it was that it doesn't.
It feels instinctively wrong to call people and animals "it" (unless they are politicians).
Assuming Russia invades, trumped up pretext or not, how do PBers think it will play out?
Swift Ukrainian capitulation, Russian puppet installed? Long drawn out war of attrition, Russia bogged down?
What sanctions will be invoked and will they have any impact on Russia? And what will be the effect on the global economy?
Global recession. Cold War. Possible new Vietnam for Putin if he tries to take the whole country, the Ukrainians will resist fiercely, at least in Kiev and west of the Dnieper
Real risk of full blown NATO-Russia conflict, but Putin must know he would lose that, unless it goes nuclear then everyone dies, including the Chinese: who won't be happy
Perilous moment for the world
If everyone dies I think it's safe to say that no one will be happy.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 37m U.S. officials expect Russian attack on Ukraine in the next few days involving broad combination of jet fighters, tanks, ballistic missiles and cyberattacks to render Ukraine defenceless. Officials say prospects for averting war now very dim.
I believe this is it. Russia will either invade over the weekend, or it's not going to happen. But I fear it is going to happen
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
If the Tories get fewer than 318 seats then there is no chance of a Tory majority government. The SNP will eat into the CON 6 seats in Scotland, the LDs will take at least 20 seats with similar profiles to C&A which leaves LAB with an easy target.
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
Labour doesn't need Blairism to win, Blair just got it to 2 consecutive landslides and crushing Tory defeats in 1997 and 2001 and a third term in 2005 too. Attlee won twice, Wilson won 4 times and John Smith would almost certainly have won in 1997 as well.
Even Brown in 2010 and Corbyn in 2017 managed to get hung parliaments and on current polling Starmer will at least comfortably get that. If he does he would probably end up PM with SNP and LD support. If Labour is winning voters like you who are centre right economically it is heading for a landslide majority not just government with a small majority or most seats.
Even if Starmer does lose I cannot see Labour going back to Corbynism after Corbyn was so trounced in 2019. Starmer would almost certainly at least have cut the Tory majority a la 1992. More likely Burnham, newly returned as an MP, would replace him as Labour leader, better able to appeal to redwall seats than the North London Starmer
Andrew Neil @afneil · 37m U.S. officials expect Russian attack on Ukraine in the next few days involving broad combination of jet fighters, tanks, ballistic missiles and cyberattacks to render Ukraine defenceless. Officials say prospects for averting war now very dim.
I believe this is it. Russia will either invade over the weekend, or it's not going to happen. But I fear it is going to happen
Looks like it’ll be tomorrow.
I’m slightly worried some of the European states will step back from more severe sanctions, but there we go.
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
If the Tories get fewer than 318 seats then there is no chance of a Tory majority government. The SNP will eat into the CON 6 seats in Scotland, the LDs will take at least 20 seats with similar profiles to C&A which leaves LAB with an easy target.
Boris will be desperate enough to stay in power and give the SNP a second indyref. As we've seen Tory MPs will take no action to get rid of him and just quietly go along with it.
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
When you put it like that, you, I - we all - are duty bound to vote for Starmer at the next GE, even without much enthusiasm!
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
If the Tories get fewer than 318 seats then there is no chance of a Tory majority government. The SNP will eat into the CON 6 seats in Scotland, the LDs will take at least 20 seats with similar profiles to C&A which leaves LAB with an easy target.
Boris will be desperate enough to stay in power and give the SNP a second indyref. As we've seen Tory MPs will take no action to get rid of him and just quietly go along with it.
Bonkers. Boris will never grant indyref2 and if he did he would be deposed within minutes by Tory MPs. HYUFD knows the Tory party better than you
Andrew Neil @afneil · 37m U.S. officials expect Russian attack on Ukraine in the next few days involving broad combination of jet fighters, tanks, ballistic missiles and cyberattacks to render Ukraine defenceless. Officials say prospects for averting war now very dim.
I believe this is it. Russia will either invade over the weekend, or it's not going to happen. But I fear it is going to happen
Looks like it’ll be tomorrow.
I’m slightly worried some of the European states will step back from more severe sanctions, but there we go.
It will depend on what Putin actually does. If he annexes Donetsk and Luhansk and stops there, given he already de facto controls them I agree there will be at best limited sanctions. Similar to the ones after Crimea. If he tries to go further I think they will be unnerved enough to consider something more punitive. It's how long they keep it up for that might be the issue.
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
If the Tories get fewer than 318 seats then there is no chance of a Tory majority government. The SNP will eat into the CON 6 seats in Scotland, the LDs will take at least 20 seats with similar profiles to C&A which leaves LAB with an easy target.
Boris will be desperate enough to stay in power and give the SNP a second indyref. As we've seen Tory MPs will take no action to get rid of him and just quietly go along with it.
I am of the view that Johnson has a good chance of leading the party at the general election. They had a chance to boot him out three weeks ago but fluffed it.
No thanks, not behind Boris. The guy is an arse and a liability. At a time like this we need a serious PM, Boris will undoubtedly make things worse.
Although with one or two exceptions, we are in fact United in thinking Johnson is a tosser who needs to be removed and replaced by somebody honest, sane, coherent and reasonably intelligent.
I think Ukraine and I think it is over Russian agrression
It's Ukrainian TV but they're speaking Russian. The person being punched is Nestor Shufrych, who's a political figure from the far *west* of Ukraine who has been targetted by nationalists in the past.
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
If the Tories get fewer than 318 seats then there is no chance of a Tory majority government. The SNP will eat into the CON 6 seats in Scotland, the LDs will take at least 20 seats with similar profiles to C&A which leaves LAB with an easy target.
Boris will be desperate enough to stay in power and give the SNP a second indyref. As we've seen Tory MPs will take no action to get rid of him and just quietly go along with it.
Bonkers. Boris will never grant indyref2 and if he did he would be deposed within minutes by Tory MPs. HYUFD knows the Tory party better than you
With no Scottish MPs at stake and an SNP landslide in Scotland? And a 14 year gap between 2014 and some 2028 referendum (timed to bind the SNP to not deposing him). The Tories are spineless. They've shown over the last few days that a few junior payroll MPs can scare them into line. The whole party is rotten and the political calculation will be made to jettison Scotland so Boris can stay as PM.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 37m U.S. officials expect Russian attack on Ukraine in the next few days involving broad combination of jet fighters, tanks, ballistic missiles and cyberattacks to render Ukraine defenceless. Officials say prospects for averting war now very dim.
I believe this is it. Russia will either invade over the weekend, or it's not going to happen. But I fear it is going to happen
What, it might happen or it might not happen? This is just the sort of hot geopolitical poop that makes PB invaluable.
I reckon Putin will attack tonight, if he is not already doing so. He cannot wait much longer
He has the pretext, the false flag, he has ALL the troops ready, he has started the cyberwar. What else is he waiting for?
Either he attacks or he pulls back, but he will lose too much face by doing nothing. He will start the assault in the next few hours, is my guess, and I hope to God I am wrong
No thanks, not behind Boris. The guy is an arse and a liability. At a time like this we need a serious PM, Boris will undoubtedly make things worse.
Although with one or two exceptions, we are in fact United in thinking Johnson is a tosser who needs to be removed and replaced by somebody honest, sane, coherent and reasonably intelligent.
And I agree but that is not happening while this immediate threat is hanging over Europe
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
When you put it like that, you, I - we all - are duty bound to vote for Starmer at the next GE, even without much enthusiasm!
I reckon Putin will attack tonight, if he is not already doing so. He cannot wait much longer
He has the pretext, the false flag, he has ALL the troops ready, he has started the cyberwar. What else is he waiting for?
Either he attacks or he pulls back, but he will lose too much face by doing nothing. He will start the assault in the next few hours, is my guess, and I hope to God I am wrong
Assuming Russia invades, trumped up pretext or not, how do PBers think it will play out?
Swift Ukrainian capitulation, Russian puppet installed? Long drawn out war of attrition, Russia bogged down?
What sanctions will be invoked and will they have any impact on Russia? And what will be the effect on the global economy?
Global recession. Cold War. Possible new Vietnam for Putin if he tries to take the whole country, the Ukrainians will resist fiercely, at least in Kiev and west of the Dnieper
Real risk of full blown NATO-Russia conflict, but Putin must know he would lose that, unless it goes nuclear then everyone dies, including the Chinese: who won't be happy
Perilous moment for the world
Unless Putin goes beyond Ukraine and invades Poland, there is no chance of a full blown Nato-Russia conflict
No thanks, not behind Boris. The guy is an arse and a liability. At a time like this we need a serious PM, Boris will undoubtedly make things worse.
Although with one or two exceptions, we are in fact United in thinking Johnson is a tosser who needs to be removed and replaced by somebody honest, sane, coherent and reasonably intelligent.
And I agree but that is not happening while this immediate threat is hanging over Europe
On the contrary, @MaxPB is right it makes it much more urgent to get rid of him. Just as the fall of Norway made it imperative to get rid of Chamberlain. You need serious politicians for these times, not buffoons and serial failures.
No thanks, not behind Boris. The guy is an arse and a liability. At a time like this we need a serious PM, Boris will undoubtedly make things worse.
And how do you achieve that in view of Bidens words tonight
He'll find a way. Maybe he'll send that lightweight foreign secretary of his to go and play Mrs Thatcher dress up and tell Russia that we don't recognise their sovereignty over Kaliningrad or something.
I think Ukraine and I think it is over Russian agrression
It's Ukrainian TV but they're speaking Russian. The person being punched is Nestor Shufrych, who's a political figure from the far *west* of Ukraine who has been targetted by nationalists in the past.
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
If the Tories get fewer than 318 seats then there is no chance of a Tory majority government. The SNP will eat into the CON 6 seats in Scotland, the LDs will take at least 20 seats with similar profiles to C&A which leaves LAB with an easy target.
Boris will be desperate enough to stay in power and give the SNP a second indyref. As we've seen Tory MPs will take no action to get rid of him and just quietly go along with it.
Although I think such a scenario arising is unlikely (SNP would much rather support Lab and get same deal), it is possible and if so I agree. Boris is desperate to stay in power and has no core beliefs.
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
When you put it like that, you, I - we all - are duty bound to vote for Starmer at the next GE, even without much enthusiasm!
Blair was a better politician than Starmer, but ultimately far more dangerous in terms of his ideas.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 37m U.S. officials expect Russian attack on Ukraine in the next few days involving broad combination of jet fighters, tanks, ballistic missiles and cyberattacks to render Ukraine defenceless. Officials say prospects for averting war now very dim.
I believe this is it. Russia will either invade over the weekend, or it's not going to happen. But I fear it is going to happen
What, it might happen or it might not happen? This is just the sort of hot geopolitical poop that makes PB invaluable.
I'm saying it will happen, on the "balance of probabilities". You, as ever, will probably exude some geriatric banter and express no interesting opinion at all
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Indeed, remember even Trump managed to keep Biden to just a 5% victory margin in 2020 despite everything. Boris, like Trump, still fires up the conservative core vote even if they now turn off swing voters
What I feel has changed most, however, compared with the situation 25 years ago, is that the Conservative vote is also much more efficiently distributed. 31% earned John Major an almighty shellacking; nowadays, 33% (which is my best guess of what the irreducible Tory core vote now stands at) ought to be enough to leave the party on perhaps somewhere around 230 seats and Labour barely scraping to an overall majority; 35% would likely still leave the Conservatives as the second party, but in a competitive position to bounce back in a Hung Parliament.
What @stodge has said is also, of course, correct: the primary aim of the collective Opposition must be to deprive the Conservatives of the votes needed to govern. But I suspect that a lot of people are looking forward to Boris Johnson and his party being rewarded for their numerous misdemeanours and incompetent governance with an epochal defeat. My point is, simply, that this isn't going to happen - especially given that the elderly demographic continues to grow as a proportion of the entire electorate, and still breaks heavily in favour of the Conservatives. There's simply only so far the Government's vote is going to sink, regardless of how poor its overall reputation with the electorate becomes.
There was also a shit tonne of tactical voting in 1997.
The LibDems around 15% of their votes (from 6.0m to 5.2m), yet almost trebled their number of seats. (Or to put it differently - they had half the share of 1983, but had 2.5x the seats that was a 5x increase in their vote efficiency.)
The Tories would only have lost 19 seats in 1992 if it hadn't been for tactical voting, reducing their majority from 102 to 63, instead of the 21 that actually happened.
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
If the Tories get fewer than 318 seats then there is no chance of a Tory majority government. The SNP will eat into the CON 6 seats in Scotland, the LDs will take at least 20 seats with similar profiles to C&A which leaves LAB with an easy target.
Boris will be desperate enough to stay in power and give the SNP a second indyref. As we've seen Tory MPs will take no action to get rid of him and just quietly go along with it.
I agree. Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.
If the Tories end up on 315 seats and with a clear majority in England then a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/PC/Green/SDLP rainbow coalition isn't going to be viable as much as people want to make it work.
A second IndyRef and Tories continuing in Downing Street is entirely viable. Especially since the stupid 'generation' line is really wearing thin now, by the end of the next Parliament (2029) it will have been 15 years since the last referendum. That's practically a generation.
There's no need for the SNP to give confidence and supply in that scenario, just abstain on English matters while the Tories help facilitate the SNP getting their second vote on Scottish matters.
Assuming Russia invades, trumped up pretext or not, how do PBers think it will play out?
Swift Ukrainian capitulation, Russian puppet installed? Long drawn out war of attrition, Russia bogged down?
What sanctions will be invoked and will they have any impact on Russia? And what will be the effect on the global economy?
Global recession. Cold War. Possible new Vietnam for Putin if he tries to take the whole country, the Ukrainians will resist fiercely, at least in Kiev and west of the Dnieper
Real risk of full blown NATO-Russia conflict, but Putin must know he would lose that, unless it goes nuclear then everyone dies, including the Chinese: who won't be happy
Perilous moment for the world
Unless Putin goes beyond Ukraine and invades Poland, there is no chance of a full blown Nato-Russia conflict
There is a very real possibility this will conflate large parts of Europe and as for Ukrainian refugees there will be millions pouring over Europe's borders
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
If the Tories get fewer than 318 seats then there is no chance of a Tory majority government. The SNP will eat into the CON 6 seats in Scotland, the LDs will take at least 20 seats with similar profiles to C&A which leaves LAB with an easy target.
Boris will be desperate enough to stay in power and give the SNP a second indyref. As we've seen Tory MPs will take no action to get rid of him and just quietly go along with it.
Bonkers. Boris will never grant indyref2 and if he did he would be deposed within minutes by Tory MPs. HYUFD knows the Tory party better than you
With no Scottish MPs at stake and an SNP landslide in Scotland? And a 14 year gap between 2014 and some 2028 referendum (timed to bind the SNP to not deposing him). The Tories are spineless. They've shown over the last few days that a few junior payroll MPs can scare them into line. The whole party is rotten and the political calculation will be made to jettison Scotland so Boris can stay as PM.
Absolutely not, as a Tory member and branch chairman I would demand Boris be removed tomorrow if he allowed indyref2. There would be uproar in the party. Partygate is one thing and he has the benefit of the doubt for that from me for now but allowing the SNP indyref2 would be unforgiveable treachery.
I would march on Downing Street and drag him out myself. I would even prefer a grand coalition with Starmer than a Tory PM doing a deal with the SNP for indyref2
"Massive explosions rip through Russian separatist city of Luhansk in eastern Ukraine hours after car bomb and mass evacuation of 700,000 civilians - as Biden says Putin 'will invade in days'"
Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
Yes agree, it's going to be more like 1992, Starmer is no Blair. He doesn't reach into the Tory vote anywhere near as much as Blair was able to. My three red lines from earlier today would have easily been met by Blair. He's not Boris, he'd commit to status quo on the EU question and he'd already have dealt with the gender rights mentalists and told them to get fucked. Instinctively Blair was in tune with middle England in a way that Starmer isn't. That's why the new methodology from Opinium doesn't rate Labour. Starmer isn't winning voters like me, unhappy with Boris but not convinced that Labour will be able to resist the insane leftist culture warriors.
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
If the Tories get fewer than 318 seats then there is no chance of a Tory majority government. The SNP will eat into the CON 6 seats in Scotland, the LDs will take at least 20 seats with similar profiles to C&A which leaves LAB with an easy target.
Boris will be desperate enough to stay in power and give the SNP a second indyref. As we've seen Tory MPs will take no action to get rid of him and just quietly go along with it.
Bonkers. Boris will never grant indyref2 and if he did he would be deposed within minutes by Tory MPs. HYUFD knows the Tory party better than you
With no Scottish MPs at stake and an SNP landslide in Scotland? And a 14 year gap between 2014 and some 2028 referendum (timed to bind the SNP to not deposing him). The Tories are spineless. They've shown over the last few days that a few junior payroll MPs can scare them into line. The whole party is rotten and the political calculation will be made to jettison Scotland so Boris can stay as PM.
Absolutely not, as a Tory member and branch chairman I would demand Boris be removed tomorrow if he allowed indyref2. There would be uproar in the party. Partygate is one thing and he has the benefit of the doubt for that from me for now but allowing the SNP indyref2 would be unforgiveable treachery.
I would march on Downing Street and drag him out myself. I would even prefer a grand coalition with Starmer than a Tory PM doing a deal with the SNP for indyref2
But it would be up to Tory MPs and they've proved they're all spineless stooges. Your marches and protests would fall on deaf ears.
Assuming Russia invades, trumped up pretext or not, how do PBers think it will play out?
Swift Ukrainian capitulation, Russian puppet installed? Long drawn out war of attrition, Russia bogged down?
What sanctions will be invoked and will they have any impact on Russia? And what will be the effect on the global economy?
Global recession. Cold War. Possible new Vietnam for Putin if he tries to take the whole country, the Ukrainians will resist fiercely, at least in Kiev and west of the Dnieper
Real risk of full blown NATO-Russia conflict, but Putin must know he would lose that, unless it goes nuclear then everyone dies, including the Chinese: who won't be happy
Perilous moment for the world
Unless Putin goes beyond Ukraine and invades Poland, there is no chance of a full blown Nato-Russia conflict
You're saying he will meekly accept any sanctions like a good little boy?
I think not. The risk of him doing something silly in response is actually quite high.
I hope all have survived unscathed and I hope @IanB2 gets his roof repaired soon.
I managed to slip and fall on the terrace while pushing a down pipe back into position. I thought I'd just grazed my arm and it was only when I found blood dripping over the sofa and floor that I realised I'd got a nasty gash down my lower arm. Silly me. Anyway all bandaged now.
A couple of interesting R4 radio programmes on iPlayer.
1. File on 4 - A First Class Scandal - about one of the many impacts of the Post Office scandal is well worth hearing. The human consequences are awful. 2. Nazanin - about her and the tank contract and the debt Britain owes Iraq. Really gives the background to this horrible affair.
Comments
"On 14 June, a short email popped up in the inboxes of all Financial Times editorial staff. It came from the paper’s style guru and announced tersely: ‘The out campaigners should be Brexiters, not Brexiteers.’ As usual for the FT’s style pronouncements, the memo did not lay out the reasoning behind the decision, but it followed a discussion among editors over whether the word ‘Brexiteer’ had connotations of swashbuckling adventure.
"Much has been said and written about the power of the Leave campaign’s simple and disciplined messaging. Both sides agree that the Remain camp never found a slogan with the clarity and muscular appeal of ‘Take Back Control’ — a potent and proven phrase adapted by Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings from the successful campaign against Britain joining the euro. (A 2001 contribution by Cummings to the BBC website ended: ‘Keep your job, keep control, keep the pound.’)
"But the FT style note was evidence of a little remarked on and perhaps quietly significant victory in another corner of the linguistic battlefield. Long before June’s seismic result, the Out camp had comprehensively won the battle of collective nouns.
"‘Brexiteer brings to mind buccaneer, pioneer, musketeer,’ says Michael Gove. ‘It lends a sense of panache and romance to the argument.’ For fellow Leave campaigner Daniel Hannan it had connotations of ‘dashing condottieri’. On the other side of the trenches Remain strategist Lord Cooper feared the word crystallised a feeling about the Out campaign. ‘It helped draw it out. It was exciting, invigorating, boundary-pushing, taking on the world… a positive frame that was taking on our negative frame.’"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/victory-of-the-swashbucklers
The supposedly smarter Remainers named their campaign with a word that reminded people of death, decay and human corpses. Genius
Vacuum tube computers in Bletchley, or you're basically a Yank.
I don't think any Brexiteers in my circle of family and friends - and there are many - has recanted. Some have wobbled, no one has turned coat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0anIyVGeWOI
Or at a pinch the AFCT in HMS Belfast, as recently discussed.
What you're telling us is that Johnson's net approval rating is still above -50%.
This is obviously a major disaster for Sir Keir Starmer.
So you'd expect with a 5% swing that the Lib Dems would pick up plenty of Tory/Lib Dem marginal seats even without tactical voting.
How many seats actually swung because of tactical voting, as opposed to UNS?
The Commission knew that if the UK voted to stay, they would be able to continue apace with integration towards a federal EU without Cameron feeling obliged to try and block that course in deference to his Eurosceptic flank, given that the UK's position had been settled. But they also knew that if the UK voted to leave, then free of the UK they could ramp up the pace of integration further, as we have seen. Why then make any concessions on the eve of the referendum?
Seen through the eyes of the federalist Commission, the creation of a European superstate was the goal and the loss of the UK's budget contribution and possible (but not as it turns out actual) loss of tariff free access to the huge UK export market was small beer. So I think they weren't that bothered if we left because of the benefits to the Project if we did. And given the way that May hopelessly messed up the UK's position so early in the negotiations, I'm sure that the Commission definitely feels that way now.
Hahahahah
More immediately, is there any sign the EU is further down the Federalist Road, minus the UK drag anchor?
Not much. Coronabonds yes, apart from that not really, tho they are trying. In some ways it is even more divided - Poland Hungary etc. Russia is peeling off members as well
There's plenty of comment about 1997 in terms of Conservative abstentions. I was working in Carshalton & Wallington for Tom Brake and our biggest problem was persuading the ex-Conservative vote to come to us rather than go straight to Labour.
In fact, the LDs went up 2,500, Labour went up 2,000, 1,300 voted Referendum, total votes cast down 4,300 and the Conservative vote total down 10,000 so it wasn't just abstentions - it was a fragmentation of the Conservative vote.
The question next time is whether we will see the Conservative vote from 2019 fragment in a similar way - to Labour, the LDs, Greens, Reform UK and abstention. The cumulative effect of the fragmentation will be fascinating but the specific constituency impacts may be harder to predict.
This is williamglenn at 6:24pm
"If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped place"
https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1494785046254915594
Edit: I think some of the details are muddled as to whether it was an oil or a gas pipeline
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article258094343.html
My own thought is, that GOP may have been scammed itself, by canvassers paid for each new Republican registration they garnered?
In WA State similar has been known to happen re: signature gathering for ballot measures.
If they've blown up the Druzhba pipeline the Russians really have lost their marbles. It doesn't go anywhere their invading forces or occupied Ukraine, so they would have had to blow it up in Belarus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhba_pipeline
More likely the South Stream gas pipeline, which does go through Eastern Ukraine.
Putin's obviously quite happy to be wearing the emperor's new clothes.
The greatest crossover that never was.
The day that Allo Allo and Doctor Who were filming at the same time, and the fire alarm went off.
https://t.co/Smscswvxen
This is a lesson Putin does not seem to have learned...
We can all move on. Sweet!
Joe Saward
@joesaward
Unable to buy a team, it seems that Michael Andretti has applied for an entry in 2024.
Swift Ukrainian capitulation, Russian puppet installed? Long drawn out war of attrition, Russia bogged down?
What sanctions will be invoked and will they have any impact on Russia? And what will be the effect on the global economy?
"SCOOP: Russia is building lists of high-profile political opponents to capture or kill if it invades Ukraine, four people familiar with U.S. intelligence tell
@ak_mack
,
@RobbieGramer
& me.
The U.S. has also been startled by how detailed the lists are."
https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1494686914561064962?s=20&t=qlsd-1hB8xHSd1C5ZgrJvg
Wiki seems to have that for most recent elections, but I've never been able to find one for 1997 or earlier.
What's in a name. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
Having a leader with a French name, gave, dare I say it an almost exotic quality.
Real risk of full blown NATO-Russia conflict, but Putin must know he would lose that, unless it goes nuclear then everyone dies, including the Chinese: who won't be happy
Perilous moment for the world
Oh, wait...
I think he's also severely lacking in retail offers to middle England, targeting foreign tax resident ownership of property is a very easy retail offer that everyone understands. Targeting residential landlords for tax is something with which everyone other than the landlords will agree. Cutting some kind of headline tax like NI and "putting money back in your pocket" is the kind of thing Blair would do to flummox the Tories who seem committed to a high tax, high spend, low yield economy.
What worries me is that Starmer will come up short, Boris stays on as PM in a minority government and then the idiots in the Labour party will say "see we tried dull centrism and it didn't work, welcome back Jez" and because of Tory incompetence and fatigue in 2029 we end up with a hard left Labour government.
Mark Weber
@web61
·
20s
@JacquiHeinrich
Areas around Donestsk, Ukraine are reporting explosions and gun fire. Air raid sirens also are going off.
It feels instinctively wrong to call people and animals "it" (unless they are politicians).
https://twitter.com/SMusaieva/status/1494790133266198528?s=20&t=qlsd-1hB8xHSd1C5ZgrJvg
I think Ukraine and I think it is over Russian agrression
Absolutely no idea what Putin achieves from this.
@afneil
·
37m
U.S. officials expect Russian attack on Ukraine in the next few days involving broad combination of jet fighters, tanks, ballistic missiles and cyberattacks to render Ukraine defenceless. Officials say prospects for averting war now very dim.
I believe this is it. Russia will either invade over the weekend, or it's not going to happen. But I fear it is going to happen
Even Brown in 2010 and Corbyn in 2017 managed to get hung parliaments and on current polling Starmer will at least comfortably get that. If he does he would probably end up PM with SNP and LD support. If Labour is winning voters like you who are centre right economically it is heading for a landslide majority not just government with a small majority or most seats.
Even if Starmer does lose I cannot see Labour going back to Corbynism after Corbyn was so trounced in 2019. Starmer would almost certainly at least have cut the Tory majority a la 1992. More likely Burnham, newly returned as an MP, would replace him as Labour leader, better able to appeal to redwall seats than the North London Starmer
I’m slightly worried some of the European states will step back from more severe sanctions, but there we go.
We need to unite in this time of great peril
He has the pretext, the false flag, he has ALL the troops ready, he has started the cyberwar. What else is he waiting for?
Either he attacks or he pulls back, but he will lose too much face by doing nothing. He will start the assault in the next few hours, is my guess, and I hope to God I am wrong
Joe Biden says he is 'convinced' Russian president Vladimir Putin has already decided to invade Ukraine
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1494797138131406856
If the Tories end up on 315 seats and with a clear majority in England then a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/PC/Green/SDLP rainbow coalition isn't going to be viable as much as people want to make it work.
A second IndyRef and Tories continuing in Downing Street is entirely viable. Especially since the stupid 'generation' line is really wearing thin now, by the end of the next Parliament (2029) it will have been 15 years since the last referendum. That's practically a generation.
There's no need for the SNP to give confidence and supply in that scenario, just abstain on English matters while the Tories help facilitate the SNP getting their second vote on Scottish matters.
I would march on Downing Street and drag him out myself. I would even prefer a grand coalition with Starmer than a Tory PM doing a deal with the SNP for indyref2
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10527897/Ukraine-crisis-Pro-Moscow-rebels-start-evacuating-civilians.html
@BNONews
·
1m
U.S. official says 40 to 50% of Russian troops near the border with Ukraine are in "attack positions" - Reuters
Looks like he has massively miscalculated.
Massive info war campaign from US.
I think not. The risk of him doing something silly in response is actually quite high.