politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As relations get even more strained with Mr. Putin Marf on Cameron’s cool response
The next PB gathering in London has been arranged for 7pm on March 17th at The Shooting Star 125-129 Middlesex Street London E1 7JF. This is just round the corner from Dirty Dicks. Hopefully the new venue will be more comfortable.
I should be getting a free pass on St Patrick's night, given my other half is northern Irish and will be celebrating elsewhere. So I'll do my best to turn up.
I really do not understand the mindset of the Channel 4 newscaster. And to think that people wonder why anti-semitism is on the rise.
Zvika Klein is an Israeli journalist who conducted a field experiment. It involved being filmed for 10 hours as he silently walked the streets of Paris. You may be one of the 4.2 million people who viewed it. The video Klein posted on YouTube shows him being abused, threatened, spat upon and harassed...
Then Klein was asked if his actions constituted “an act of provocation.”
Regrettably I'm on holiday for this next meet but if anyone's thinking of organising a Midlands one prior to the election that would be fantastic.
It is a successful and well-run industry, TP, and excellent that DC should be advertising the fact.
I note that his friend, former jockey and racehorse trainer Charlie Brookes, did not make an appearance however. Some friends, no matter how successful, are best left out of the picture. ;-)
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
On topic, an excellent summary by Marf. The problem for western countries, apart from having wound down their armed forces too far, is that Putin is taking advantage of the fact that the first priority in national security terms has to be the threat of Islamic extremism and that consequently Russia throwing its weight about is a second degree concern. Indeed, Putin ought to be an ally on the jihadist question. However, creating a foreign policy in a democracy that is consistent and justifiable to those who put ethical questions above those of pure national interest is difficult, which is why that of all the western countries is so confused and why Putin is taking advantage of that fact.
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
I'd love to have a go at campaigning, the trouble is, I dunno who the feck I'm gonna vote for! Nick, I suppose I could wear a FBU "We rescue people not banks" t-shirt, and just generally harangue everyone
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
Three choices are available:
Labour LDs for Palmer Tories for Palmer
Broxtowe works for me, too :-)
Nick was a steal at 1-2, even JackW with his 300+ Tory seat forecast thinks he'll get in !
On topic, an excellent summary by Marf. The problem for western countries, apart from having wound down their armed forces too far, is that Putin is taking advantage of the fact that the first priority in national security terms has to be the threat of Islamic extremism and that consequently Russia throwing its weight about is a second degree concern. Indeed, Putin ought to be an ally on the jihadist question. However, creating a foreign policy in a democracy that is consistent and justifiable to those who put ethical questions above those of pure national interest is difficult, which is why that of all the western countries is so confused and why Putin is taking advantage of that fact.
If Putin invades a member of Nato and the EU and Nato does not respond as it's required to do, it may as well wind itself up. The EU might as well do the same.
We're constantly being told that the EU has kept the peace in Europe since WW2 etc. It seems to have - to put it at its mildest - not helped matters in the Ukraine. If an actual member is invaded, we're in completely new territory. We can't even count on the US helping out. And the jihadist threat is likely to get worse.
Wasn't there supposed to be some EU person dealing with foreign affairs to avoid precisely this sort of mess? Ah yes, Cathy Ashton and now some other person no-one's heard of. Well that's all very comforting.
Philip Collins on how the LDs are likely to again be in coalition with the Tories, and to demand that the burden of ending the deficit is not produced by spending cuts alone (presumably by ending Cameron's tax cut plans) in return for agreeing to an EU referendum http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4359611.ece
Could have done with New Zealand winning the toss for the Overs run bet.
If Matt ever decided to leave the Telegraph, there would be a bidding war between the newspapers that would make the opening of the new Ikea in Edmonton look sedate.
"I've met a lot of blokes in the pub recently who voted labour last time round, but are just waking up to the fact that ed, is, actually, too crap to vote for. They tell me they are still saying "labour" to the pollsters, but increasingly realise that they just won't be voting that way."
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
CAMRA recently made this Broxtowe pub East Midlands pub of the year:
Philip Collins on how the LDs are likely to again be in coalition with the Tories, and to demand that the burden of ending the deficit is not produced by spending cuts alone (presumably by ending Cameron's tax cut plans) in return for agreeing to an EU referendum http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4359611.ece
There's a great piece on libdemvoice about said article. Amongst the comments below someone referenced Tim Montgomerie who apparently wrote a piece recently about how Nick Clegg is the unsung hero of our times. The general view is that the Times have decided the best hope of the Tories staying in power is in coalition with the Lib Dems. The tactic was compared to a farmer fattening up his prize pig.
If Putin invades a member of Nato and the EU and Nato does not respond as it's required to do, it may as well wind itself up. The EU might as well do the same.
We're constantly being told that the EU has kept the peace in Europe since WW2 etc. It seems to have - to put it at its mildest - not helped matters in the Ukraine. If an actual member is invaded, we're in completely new territory. We can't even count on the US helping out. And the jihadist threat is likely to get worse.
Wasn't there supposed to be some EU person dealing with foreign affairs to avoid precisely this sort of mess? Ah yes, Cathy Ashton and now some other person no-one's heard of. Well that's all very comforting.
The problem is the mindset is completely wrong. The EU, and Nato now to an extent, work on the assumption of gentlemen playing by the rules. Sometimes you play hard but when you're out, you walk. That is all very well for democracies who recognise the principles of human rights, separation of the justice and political systems and so on; it's a completely hopeless way of understanding dictatorships, never mind jihadist religious groups.
The EU (or ECSC/EEC/EC) did a great service in reintegrating W Germany into the democratic fold and its role there shouldn't be underestimated but it's a mistake to confuse the parallel processes that kept the peace in Europe during the Cold War of economic and political integration in the west and military preparedness against the east. There were not either/or options but complementary processes. However, they were of a time gone and we should no more look at the current situation through that lens as through the imperial lenses of the 19th century. History is relevant but each era has its unique aspects and policy has to be formed in the light of them.
Unfortunately, our leaders don't yet want to confront the multiple threats that continue to grow and to the extent that they recognise that they exist, they haven't yet developed the policies that follow from the strategies that must be developed to counter those threats. What is needed is a grand overarching geostrategic vision that is not reliant on the goodwill of those who do not offer it but is open to them should they do so. However, that has significant spending commitments and will not go down well with the public unless they buy into the vision: difficult in these cynical times.
Philip Collins on how the LDs are likely to again be in coalition with the Tories, and to demand that the burden of ending the deficit is not produced by spending cuts alone (presumably by ending Cameron's tax cut plans) in return for agreeing to an EU referendum http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4359611.ece
There's a great piece on libdemvoice about said article. Amongst the comments below someone referenced Tim Montgomerie who apparently wrote a piece recently about how Nick Clegg is the unsung hero of our times. The general view is that the Times have decided the best hope of the Tories staying in power is in coalition with the Lib Dems. The tactic was compared to a farmer fattening up his prize pig.
Philip Collins on how the LDs are likely to again be in coalition with the Tories, and to demand that the burden of ending the deficit is not produced by spending cuts alone (presumably by ending Cameron's tax cut plans) in return for agreeing to an EU referendum http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4359611.ece
There's a great piece on libdemvoice about said article. Amongst the comments below someone referenced Tim Montgomerie who apparently wrote a piece recently about how Nick Clegg is the unsung hero of our times. The general view is that the Times have decided the best hope of the Tories staying in power is in coalition with the Lib Dems. The tactic was compared to a farmer fattening up his prize pig.
Isn't Philip Collins a Socialist?
I don't think so. He was a speechwriter for Tony Blair who's made the seamless transition to being a Murdoch paper columnist.
FrankBooth But as the article makes quite clear if the Tories fail to achieve a majority this time the LDs will be clear to demand their pound of flesh
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
Philip Collins on how the LDs are likely to again be in coalition with the Tories, and to demand that the burden of ending the deficit is not produced by spending cuts alone (presumably by ending Cameron's tax cut plans) in return for agreeing to an EU referendum http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4359611.ece
There's a great piece on libdemvoice about said article. Amongst the comments below someone referenced Tim Montgomerie who apparently wrote a piece recently about how Nick Clegg is the unsung hero of our times. The general view is that the Times have decided the best hope of the Tories staying in power is in coalition with the Lib Dems. The tactic was compared to a farmer fattening up his prize pig.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
I'm not convinced they will go with another coalition unless they surpass expectations considerably.
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
CAMRA recently made this Broxtowe pub East Midlands pub of the year:
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
A ... senior Lib Dem source reckons 45 for both Clegg to hold his job and C&S to be offered.
Ah I see the meet has been announced - I won't be making it to this one, but I will be heading to Stonch's for the night itself
Has that now neen confirmed? ...... I must have missed it. I visited said establishment a couple of weeks ago and met mine host. An excellent choice to be sure.
Whether it is c and s or a formal coalition makes little real difference, as the Tories will still need LD votes to pass legislation and a budget in such a scenario
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
CAMRA recently made this Broxtowe pub East Midlands pub of the year:
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
If it ends up UKIP 4, Con 282, Lab 275, Lib Dems 28, SNP 40, PC 2 what will the Lib Dems do in this situation ?
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
I'm not convinced they will go with another coalition unless they surpass expectations considerably.
I think that they would not be able to sell it to either MPs or members if they lost half their seats, and not easy to sell if they lost more than 15.
More likely to want to rebuild in opposition, with both the big two fighting internally.
I see that Dair is our latest member of 'The troupe of Jockanese clowns'. I had better use small words so that he understands.
The US Navy have no plans to replace Trident before a replcement i s ready with an ISD of circa 2040. Ergo: Trident II is not yet on the design board (as far as we know).
Vanguard-class boats will need to be converted to 'Core-III' replacements for their own "'Ealth-n-safety" or replaced in total: Whatever the solution - refit or new build - Barrow will need a 'drum-beat' of news subs (c.f. Type 26 and Scotstoun) to maintain vital [English] sovereign skills and capabilities.
So the little fish wife of Edinborough (Holyrood Parish council) can STFU....
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
Is there a public statement to that effect? If so, that's incredibly important.
The New Statesman notes that:
"Some in Labour, including shadow cabinet members, will not contemplate any agreement with the “yellow bastards”. For them, the Tories are enemies but the Lib Dems are something worse: traitors. Among those who subscribe to this view is Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, Labour’s largest donor. He has publicly warned of a cut in funding and even of disaffiliation should Labour form a coalition with Clegg’s party."
If the Lib Dems are going to insist on coalition or nothing and Labour are going to insist on no coalition, that makes the maths of the next Parliament still more complicated.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
Not sure there is one; if the two main parties need them for a stable government and the Lib Dems want something in return, they'll go for it, but I'd say around 25 seats.
Of course, a coalition on 8-9% of the vote with 25 seats will look very different to one on 23% of the vote with 57 seats. I don't think they could ask for the DPM slot on that basis.
They'll get one government department, and a handful of junior ministers elsewhere. I suspect they'd want one of Education, Justice or Welfare and a chance to steer further written-in-blood constitutional reform.. Somehow.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
A ... senior Lib Dem source reckons 45 for both Clegg to hold his job and C&S to be offered.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
A ... senior Lib Dem source reckons 45 for both Clegg to hold his job and C&S to be offered.
@Antifrank The SNP will in all likelihood gain more seats than the Lib Dems - which means Conservative - Lib Dem coalition is the only option to my mind. I simply don't see a route for Labour-Lib Dem... unless Labour get over 300 seats or some such.
If the Lib Dems are going to insist on coalition or nothing and Labour are going to insist on no coalition, that makes the maths of the next Parliament still more complicated.
I'm not sure that's the position either. I'm not as hostile to Labour as many on here but I certainly appreciate many on the Labour side being hostile to the LDs (as some Tories have been hostile despite supposedly being in the same Coalition).
I've always said the LDs couldn't simply switch from Coalition with the Conservatives to Coalition with Labour - IF the election does not indicate a vote of confidence in the Coalition (and I agree 45 is about the number required) then the LDs will go into Opposition though that doesn't imply oppsing all Government measures either.
What it does mean is that neither Cameron nor MIliband can either a) count on LD support or b) assume the other side can count on it. It does, I think, make the SNP pivotal with all that entails.
The Lib Dems taking a no confidence and supply stance makes the possibility of a Conservatives minority government even less likely as the only way the Conservatives could get over 323 would with the DUP and UKIP confidence, meaning they'd need minimum 310 seats.
Labour would be able to run a minority on the other hand without Lib Dems confidence.
So in the Lib Dems mind it is realistically either a coalition with the Conservatives or issue by issue deals with Labour.
So in the Lib Dems mind it is realistically either a coalition with the Conservatives or issue by issue deals with Labour.
Again, no. There's no certainty of a second Coalition with the Conservatives - would the Conservatives want it - they don't seem that keen to be honest ?
There wouldn't be "an issue by issue deal" as you put it either. Labour plus SNP would support Government legislation - the Tories (and others) would oppose it. As to whether it would be a measure the LDs could support, that would depend on the issue. A sensible Government would seek measures that if not supported by the LDs wouldn't be opposed.
"...our life with communism taught us something. Since then, I have always tried to oppose lies and manipulative propaganda, which I see in this case just now. ‘
Moreover, in April in our commentary on the situation in Ukraine we stated that Ukraine was a heterogeneous, divided country, and that an attempt to forcefully and artificially change its geopolitical orientation would inevitably result in its break-up, if not its destruction. We considered the country too fragile and with too weak an internal coherence to try to make a sudden change. I am sorry to say that it developed according to our expectations. I am afraid that Ukraine was sort of misused. The West suddenly and unexpectedly offered Ukraine early EU affiliation.
"I am afraid that the West, especially western Europe, has accepted a very simplified interpretation of events in Ukraine. According to the West, the Ukraine crisis has been caused by external Russian aggression. The internal causes of the crisis have been ignored, and so are the evident ethnic, ideological and other divisions in Ukraine.
The developments that have taken place since the spring of this year have proved that this approach cannot lead to a solution of the problem. It only deepens the division of the country, increases the tragic costs of its crisis and further destabilises the country. So I do not see that the politicians in Ukraine are looking for a political solution. They do not have any compromise proposals that they could offer to the people of eastern Ukraine to win their confidence. They rely on fighting, on repression and on unrealistic expectations of western economic and military aid.’
He then adds: ‘ I cannot see inside the heads of leading Russian politicians but I do not believe that Russia wanted or needed this to happen. My understanding is that Russia was dragged into it. Dragging Russia into the conflict is a way of making Ukraine a permanent hotspot of global tensions and creating permanent instability in a country that deserves, after decades of suffering under communism, a quiet and positive evolution.’....
I am afraid that just reading the misleading headlines in the media and watching CNN or BBC news is giving such a distorted picture of the situation.
Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech republic, to House of Lords EU sub-committee on Russia
Published by Peter Hitchens in his blog today, 20th February.
"I've met a lot of blokes in the pub recently who voted labour last time round, but are just waking up to the fact that ed, is, actually, too crap to vote for. They tell me they are still saying "labour" to the pollsters, but increasingly realise that they just won't be voting that way."
was a joke - a satire on the pbtory anecdote.
Sorry for teasing you when it was already meant to be a joke! Bloody internet mangling intentions...
Which junction off the M1 is Broxtowe - 27 - something like that ?
Junction 25 for most of it, including the Horse and Jockey Pub in Stapleford. 26 takes you to the northern bit.
Obviously I'm going to be pretty busy, but after 845pm or so it's too late to pester people, so could join in then, together with anyone who'd joined in my efforts. I can provide local contacts for all parties (including the anti-feminist Men and Boys Party for the eccentrically-minded).
A Broxtowe PB meet around May 1 mght be fun. People could all give a hand to their preferred campaigns and meet in the pub afterwards to swap war stories...
I'd love to have a go at campaigning, the trouble is, I dunno who the feck I'm gonna vote for! Nick, I suppose I could wear a FBU "We rescue people not banks" t-shirt, and just generally harangue everyone
The local FBU has just donated £400 to my campaign, without being asked - they're not affiliated to the party, but I was helpful in getting them a hearing when I was an MP and they were locking horns with the Government, and to my surprise they remembered. If you want to try a couple of hours on the doorstep with me you'll be very welcome...
The Lib Dems taking a no confidence and supply stance makes the possibility of a Conservatives minority government even less likely as the only way the Conservatives could get over 323 would with the DUP and UKIP confidence, meaning they'd need minimum 310 seats.
Labour would be able to run a minority on the other hand without Lib Dems confidence.
So in the Lib Dems mind it is realistically either a coalition with the Conservatives or issue by issue deals with Labour.
Yup. For the Tories, it's majority, coalition with the Lib Dems or nothing. The majority of the small parties just aren't going to be willing to deal with the Tories -- even the DUP have sounded more enthusiastic about going with Labour than with the Tories.
Whereas Labour will have a lot more options in a hung parliament than just the Lib Dems (well, more options in terms of parliamentary arithmetic -- whether those other options would be accepted by public opinion is another matter).
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
I don't think it's as simple as that. Firstly, I'm not convinced there's a great deal of difference between C&S and coalition; the difference is between supporting Con or Lab in either way or not supporting one or the other. Secondly, there's the question of how much either the Tories or Labour need the Lib Dems - is an arrangement with another party possible, for example? Thirdly, there's the flip-side of that: how much can the Lib Dems offer. Their hand would be significantly weakened if they end up in the 1974 situation where they couldn't form a majority coalition with either? Fourthly, is Clegg staying on? It'd be far easier to form an arrangement if he is than if his party is electing a successor. Fifthly, and perhaps crucially, what is on the table? The bigger the bid from Labour or the Tories, the greater the chance the LDs will go for it (and indeed, the harder it would be to turn down).
Anecdote alert: While waiting for more canvassers, a couple of us were standing around when two kids (age guess 10 and 15) who were fooling around on scooters stopped and asked if we'd seen East Enders last night. I issued an ignoral, as John Prescott would say, but my colleague was on the ball and spent 5 minutes learnedly discussing all the possible suspects and how plausible the real denouement had been. The kids were as fluent and opinionated as any TV critics.
As the other canvassers turned up, the kids looked at us. "What yer doing anyway?" We explained we were campaigning for Labour in the election.
It's probably something of nothing, but it's nice to know the Telegraph keep this sort of thing up their sleeve to bring out when the self-righteous Guardian steps out of line.
"...our life with communism taught us something. Since then, I have always tried to oppose lies and manipulative propaganda, which I see in this case just now. ‘
Moreover, in April in our commentary on the situation in Ukraine we stated that Ukraine was a heterogeneous, divided country, and that an attempt to forcefully and artificially change its geopolitical orientation would inevitably result in its break-up, if not its destruction. We considered the country too fragile and with too weak an internal coherence to try to make a sudden change. I am sorry to say that it developed according to our expectations. I am afraid that Ukraine was sort of misused. The West suddenly and unexpectedly offered Ukraine early EU affiliation.
"I am afraid that the West, especially western Europe, has accepted a very simplified interpretation of events in Ukraine. According to the West, the Ukraine crisis has been caused by external Russian aggression. The internal causes of the crisis have been ignored, and so are the evident ethnic, ideological and other divisions in Ukraine.
The developments that have taken place since the spring of this year have proved that this approach cannot lead to a solution of the problem. It only deepens the division of the country, increases the tragic costs of its crisis and further destabilises the country. So I do not see that the politicians in Ukraine are looking for a political solution. They do not have any compromise proposals that they could offer to the people of eastern Ukraine to win their confidence. They rely on fighting, on repression and on unrealistic expectations of western economic and military aid.’
He then adds: ‘ I cannot see inside the heads of leading Russian politicians but I do not believe that Russia wanted or needed this to happen. My understanding is that Russia was dragged into it. Dragging Russia into the conflict is a way of making Ukraine a permanent hotspot of global tensions and creating permanent instability in a country that deserves, after decades of suffering under communism, a quiet and positive evolution.’....
I am afraid that just reading the misleading headlines in the media and watching CNN or BBC news is giving such a distorted picture of the situation.
Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech republic, to House of Lords EU sub-committee on Russia
Published by Peter Hitchens in his blog today, 20th February.
"...our life with communism taught us something. Since then, I have always tried to oppose lies and manipulative propaganda, which I see in this case just now. ‘
Moreover, in April in our commentary on the situation in Ukraine we stated that Ukraine was a heterogeneous, divided country, and that an attempt to forcefully and artificially change its geopolitical orientation would inevitably result in its break-up, if not its destruction. We considered the country too fragile and with too weak an internal coherence to try to make a sudden change. I am sorry to say that it developed according to our expectations. I am afraid that Ukraine was sort of misused. The West suddenly and unexpectedly offered Ukraine early EU affiliation.
"I am afraid that the West, especially western Europe, has accepted a very simplified interpretation of events in Ukraine. According to the West, the Ukraine crisis has been caused by external Russian aggression. The internal causes of the crisis have been ignored, and so are the evident ethnic, ideological and other divisions in Ukraine.
The developments that have taken place since the spring of this year have proved that this approach cannot lead to a solution of the problem. It only deepens the division of the country, increases the tragic costs of its crisis and further destabilises the country. So I do not see that the politicians in Ukraine are looking for a political solution. They do not have any compromise proposals that they could offer to the people of eastern Ukraine to win their confidence. They rely on fighting, on repression and on unrealistic expectations of western economic and military aid.’
He then adds: ‘ I cannot see inside the heads of leading Russian politicians but I do not believe that Russia wanted or needed this to happen. My understanding is that Russia was dragged into it. Dragging Russia into the conflict is a way of making Ukraine a permanent hotspot of global tensions and creating permanent instability in a country that deserves, after decades of suffering under communism, a quiet and positive evolution.’....
I am afraid that just reading the misleading headlines in the media and watching CNN or BBC news is giving such a distorted picture of the situation.
Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech republic, to House of Lords EU sub-committee on Russia
Published by Peter Hitchens in his blog today, 20th February.
It's probably something of nothing, but it's nice to know the Telegraph keep this sort of thing up their sleeve to bring out when the self-righteous Guardian steps out of line.
Although I wonder what interest Apple has in Iraq??
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
If it ends up UKIP 4, Con 282, Lab 275, Lib Dems 28, SNP 40, PC 2 what will the Lib Dems do in this situation ?
What will anyone do?
I don't think a Labour/SNP alliance is a done deal, by any means. The two parties are like SPD/Die Linke in Germany.
It's probably something of nothing, but it's nice to know the Telegraph keep this sort of thing up their sleeve to bring out when the self-righteous Guardian steps out of line.
Although I wonder what interest Apple has in Iraq??
I scanned it and it's not so much Iraq, more a case of Apple not wanting their adverts to be on the same page as bad news (which is most news!). I guess it's a little bit like the adverts on controversial Facebook pages.
It's probably something of nothing, but it's nice to know the Telegraph keep this sort of thing up their sleeve to bring out when the self-righteous Guardian steps out of line.
Although I wonder what interest Apple has in Iraq??
I scanned it and it's not so much Iraq, more a case of Apple not wanting their adverts to be on the same page as bad news (which is most news!). I guess it's a little bit like the adverts on controversial Facebook pages.
Good point. Surely the solution would be to not show apple ads on a subset of pages?
Patrick Lowe was banned from the Moulsecoomb Local Action Team and escorted out of the building by two Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) on the instruction of the Chairwoman, Labour Councillor Anne Meadows, The Argus reports.
So it seems a deal has been done re Greece to kick the can down the road for four months (thereby removing one Black Swan for our election). It'll be interesting to see the details when they come out.
Patrick Lowe was banned from the Moulsecoomb Local Action Team and escorted out of the building by two Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) on the instruction of the Chairwoman, Labour Councillor Anne Meadows, The Argus reports.
It’s quite amusing in a way. Complaints are being made that the Police are the “agents of the Left”! Most of us on the Left have traditonally regarded the police as agents of the Right! Especially during the Thatcher years.
Survation. @Survation 16m16 minutes ago We'll publish a batch of large sample seat polls next week. Join our PR list here: http://eepurl.com/mOK8P for info. Have a great weekend!
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
If it ends up UKIP 4, Con 282, Lab 275, Lib Dems 28, SNP 40, PC 2 what will the Lib Dems do in this situation ?
What will anyone do?
I don't think a Labour/SNP alliance is a done deal, by any means. The two parties are like SPD/Die Linke in Germany.
I would hazard Miliband as PM of a minority government, huge financial instability and a second election in September or October. Cameron should remain Tory leader in those cicumstances (as Heath did after Feb 1974).
Patrick Lowe was banned from the Moulsecoomb Local Action Team and escorted out of the building by two Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) on the instruction of the Chairwoman, Labour Councillor Anne Meadows, The Argus reports.
It’s quite amusing in a way. Complaints are being made that the Police are the “agents of the Left”! Most of us on the Left have traditonally regarded the police as agents of the Right! Especially during the Thatcher years.
Indeed the left always have had a rather distorted perverted view of such things. Nothing's changed.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
If it ends up UKIP 4, Con 282, Lab 275, Lib Dems 28, SNP 40, PC 2 what will the Lib Dems do in this situation ?
What will anyone do?
I don't think a Labour/SNP alliance is a done deal, by any means. The two parties are like SPD/Die Linke in Germany.
I would hazard Miliband as PM of a minority government, huge financial instability and a second election in September or October. Cameron should remain Tory leader in those cicumstances (as Heath did after Feb 1974).
September or October would be too early. It's difficult to see parliament No Confidencing him in some mini-session in September (if one even takes place), only four months after putting him into No10, even if things have gone a bit pear-shaped in between, which is no given in such a short timescale. Similarly, he won't be able to go to the Palace as Wilson did without repealing the FTPA and that wouldn't be a simple matter, particularly with no majority.
I think that November is the earliest realistic date for a second election and even that's unlikely; early 2016 is a more likely date, once parliament has had chance to get a decent session under its belt and take stock of the new government. After all, hung parliaments with minority governments are in the interests of minor parties whose votes then really matter every division.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
If it ends up UKIP 4, Con 282, Lab 275, Lib Dems 28, SNP 40, PC 2 what will the Lib Dems do in this situation ?
What will anyone do?
I don't think a Labour/SNP alliance is a done deal, by any means. The two parties are like SPD/Die Linke in Germany.
I would hazard Miliband as PM of a minority government, huge financial instability and a second election in September or October. Cameron should remain Tory leader in those cicumstances (as Heath did after Feb 1974).
Cameron will barely last 5 minutes if he loses. And he knows that.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
If it ends up UKIP 4, Con 282, Lab 275, Lib Dems 28, SNP 40, PC 2 what will the Lib Dems do in this situation ?
Actually, there seems to be more of a consensus on pb.com on GE2015 than you'd think.
On the Lib Dems, the majority are 30 +/- 5 seats, SNP are around 33 +/- 8 seats, UKIP is more or less 4-6 seats for almost all of us, and the Con/Lab totals seem to hinge on around 15 Con/Lab marginal seats.
So we're really arguing about just 30 seats. And 15 Con/Lab super-marginals in particular.
On the subject of Broxtowe pubs, I think the horse and jockey must be the third Broxtowe pub in recent years to be awarded CAMRA pub of the year (if memory serves, both the Victoria and the Crown in Beeston have had that accolade (or something similar) over the past couple of decades). I can't help thinking this rich territory is slightly wasted in this respect on its teetotal (I think?) Labour PPC.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
If it ends up UKIP 4, Con 282, Lab 275, Lib Dems 28, SNP 40, PC 2 what will the Lib Dems do in this situation ?
What will anyone do?
I don't think a Labour/SNP alliance is a done deal, by any means. The two parties are like SPD/Die Linke in Germany.
I would hazard Miliband as PM of a minority government, huge financial instability and a second election in September or October. Cameron should remain Tory leader in those cicumstances (as Heath did after Feb 1974).
Cameron will barely last 5 minutes if he loses. And he knows that.
Graham Brady will get 45 names or so very quickly !
Comments
EDIT: like the Tories in Solihull....
Brer Rabbit and Brer Bear are out in the woods. "Brer Rabbit" asks Brer Bear "does shit stick to your fur?"
"No, not at all!" says a smug Brer Rabbit
At which point, Brer Bear picks up Brer Rabbit and proceeds to use him to wipe his.....
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/john-gosden-pm-cameron-heaps-praise-on-racing-industry/1825177/
Regrettably I'm on holiday for this next meet but if anyone's thinking of organising a Midlands one prior to the election that would be fantastic.
I note that his friend, former jockey and racehorse trainer Charlie Brookes, did not make an appearance however. Some friends, no matter how successful, are best left out of the picture. ;-)
Labour
LDs for Palmer
Tories for Palmer
Broxtowe works for me, too :-)
Nick, I suppose I could wear a FBU "We rescue people not banks" t-shirt, and just generally harangue everyone
We're constantly being told that the EU has kept the peace in Europe since WW2 etc. It seems to have - to put it at its mildest - not helped matters in the Ukraine. If an actual member is invaded, we're in completely new territory. We can't even count on the US helping out. And the jihadist threat is likely to get worse.
Wasn't there supposed to be some EU person dealing with foreign affairs to avoid precisely this sort of mess? Ah yes, Cathy Ashton and now some other person no-one's heard of. Well that's all very comforting.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4359611.ece
"I've met a lot of blokes in the pub recently who voted labour last time round, but are just waking up to the fact that ed, is, actually, too crap to vote for. They tell me they are still saying "labour" to the pollsters, but increasingly realise that they just won't be voting that way."
was a joke - a satire on the pbtory anecdote.
Nothing gets past our Dave.
https://sites.google.com/site/hnjstabbo/
Sounds promising.
The EU (or ECSC/EEC/EC) did a great service in reintegrating W Germany into the democratic fold and its role there shouldn't be underestimated but it's a mistake to confuse the parallel processes that kept the peace in Europe during the Cold War of economic and political integration in the west and military preparedness against the east. There were not either/or options but complementary processes. However, they were of a time gone and we should no more look at the current situation through that lens as through the imperial lenses of the 19th century. History is relevant but each era has its unique aspects and policy has to be formed in the light of them.
Unfortunately, our leaders don't yet want to confront the multiple threats that continue to grow and to the extent that they recognise that they exist, they haven't yet developed the policies that follow from the strategies that must be developed to counter those threats. What is needed is a grand overarching geostrategic vision that is not reliant on the goodwill of those who do not offer it but is open to them should they do so. However, that has significant spending commitments and will not go down well with the public unless they buy into the vision: difficult in these cynical times.
Peter No, he is a Blairite
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/libdems-need-to-win-45-seats-for-clegg-to-stay-on-as-leader-10011033.html
That'd be bizarre.
More likely to want to rebuild in opposition, with both the big two fighting internally.
I see that Dair is our latest member of 'The troupe of Jockanese clowns'. I had better use small words so that he understands.
The US Navy have no plans to replace Trident before a replcement i s ready with an ISD of circa 2040. Ergo: Trident II is not yet on the design board (as far as we know).
Vanguard-class boats will need to be converted to 'Core-III' replacements for their own "'Ealth-n-safety" or replaced in total: Whatever the solution - refit or new build - Barrow will need a 'drum-beat' of news subs (c.f. Type 26 and Scotstoun) to maintain vital [English] sovereign skills and capabilities.
So the little fish wife of Edinborough (Holyrood Parish council) can STFU....
The New Statesman notes that:
"Some in Labour, including shadow cabinet members, will not contemplate any agreement with the “yellow bastards”. For them, the Tories are enemies but the Lib Dems are something worse: traitors. Among those who subscribe to this view is Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, Labour’s largest donor. He has publicly warned of a cut in funding and even of disaffiliation should Labour form a coalition with Clegg’s party."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/labour-and-lib-dems-have-much-common-will-tribalism-prevent-coalition
If the Lib Dems are going to insist on coalition or nothing and Labour are going to insist on no coalition, that makes the maths of the next Parliament still more complicated.
Of course, a coalition on 8-9% of the vote with 25 seats will look very different to one on 23% of the vote with 57 seats. I don't think they could ask for the DPM slot on that basis.
They'll get one government department, and a handful of junior ministers elsewhere. I suspect they'd want one of Education, Justice or Welfare and a chance to steer further written-in-blood constitutional reform.. Somehow.
I've always said the LDs couldn't simply switch from Coalition with the Conservatives to Coalition with Labour - IF the election does not indicate a vote of confidence in the Coalition (and I agree 45 is about the number required) then the LDs will go into Opposition though that doesn't imply oppsing all Government measures either.
What it does mean is that neither Cameron nor MIliband can either a) count on LD support or b) assume the other side can count on it. It does, I think, make the SNP pivotal with all that entails.
Labour would be able to run a minority on the other hand without Lib Dems confidence.
So in the Lib Dems mind it is realistically either a coalition with the Conservatives or issue by issue deals with Labour.
The arithmetic is becoming simple - how close will Labour plus SNP be to the Conservatives plus (perhaps) DUP ?
There wouldn't be "an issue by issue deal" as you put it either. Labour plus SNP would support Government legislation - the Tories (and others) would oppose it. As to whether it would be a measure the LDs could support, that would depend on the issue. A sensible Government would seek measures that if not supported by the LDs wouldn't be opposed.
"...our life with communism taught us something. Since then, I have always tried to oppose lies and manipulative propaganda, which I see in this case just now. ‘
Moreover, in April in our commentary on the situation in Ukraine we stated that Ukraine was a heterogeneous, divided country, and that an attempt to forcefully and artificially change its geopolitical orientation would inevitably result in its break-up, if not its destruction. We considered the country too fragile and with too weak an internal coherence to try to make a sudden change. I am sorry to say that it developed according to our expectations. I am afraid that Ukraine was sort of misused. The West suddenly and unexpectedly offered Ukraine early EU affiliation.
"I am afraid that the West, especially western Europe, has accepted a very simplified interpretation of events in Ukraine. According to the West, the Ukraine crisis has been caused by external Russian aggression. The internal causes of the crisis have been ignored, and so are the evident ethnic, ideological and other divisions in Ukraine.
The developments that have taken place since the spring of this year have proved that this approach cannot lead to a solution of the problem. It only deepens the division of the country, increases the tragic costs of its crisis and further destabilises the country. So I do not see that the politicians in Ukraine are looking for a political solution. They do not have any compromise proposals that they could offer to the people of eastern Ukraine to win their confidence. They rely on fighting, on repression and on unrealistic expectations of western economic and military aid.’
He then adds: ‘ I cannot see inside the heads of leading Russian politicians but I do not believe that Russia wanted or needed this to happen. My understanding is that Russia was dragged into it. Dragging Russia into the conflict is a way of making Ukraine a permanent hotspot of global tensions and creating permanent instability in a country that deserves, after decades of suffering under communism, a quiet and positive evolution.’....
I am afraid that just reading the misleading headlines in the media and watching CNN or BBC news is giving such a distorted picture of the situation.
Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech republic, to House of Lords EU sub-committee on Russia
Published by Peter Hitchens in his blog today, 20th February.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
Obviously I'm going to be pretty busy, but after 845pm or so it's too late to pester people, so could join in then, together with anyone who'd joined in my efforts. I can provide local contacts for all parties (including the anti-feminist Men and Boys Party for the eccentrically-minded). The local FBU has just donated £400 to my campaign, without being asked - they're not affiliated to the party, but I was helpful in getting them a hearing when I was an MP and they were locking horns with the Government, and to my surprise they remembered. If you want to try a couple of hours on the doorstep with me you'll be very welcome...
Whereas Labour will have a lot more options in a hung parliament than just the Lib Dems (well, more options in terms of parliamentary arithmetic -- whether those other options would be accepted by public opinion is another matter).
Count 320
Cons (Avg) 284.67
Lab (Avg) 280.41
Lib Dem (Avg) 27.31
UKIP (Avg) 4.36
Green (Avg) 1.01
SNP (Avg) 33.08
As the other canvassers turned up, the kids looked at us. "What yer doing anyway?" We explained we were campaigning for Labour in the election.
"Uh. What's an election?"
Sigh.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11425580/Guardian-changed-Iraq-article-to-avoid-offending-Apple.html
It's probably something of nothing, but it's nice to know the Telegraph keep this sort of thing up their sleeve to bring out when the self-righteous Guardian steps out of line.
I don't think a Labour/SNP alliance is a done deal, by any means. The two parties are like SPD/Die Linke in Germany.
Patrick Lowe was banned from the Moulsecoomb Local Action Team and escorted out of the building by two Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) on the instruction of the Chairwoman, Labour Councillor Anne Meadows, The Argus reports.
Most of us on the Left have traditonally regarded the police as agents of the Right! Especially during the Thatcher years.
We'll publish a batch of large sample seat polls next week. Join our PR list here: http://eepurl.com/mOK8P for info. Have a great weekend!
Not tonight then..
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/the-daily-telegraphs-promise-to-its-readers-sponsored-by-canesten-2015022095559
Greece folds but only gets two thirds of the 6 month bailout extension it asked for
I think that November is the earliest realistic date for a second election and even that's unlikely; early 2016 is a more likely date, once parliament has had chance to get a decent session under its belt and take stock of the new government. After all, hung parliaments with minority governments are in the interests of minor parties whose votes then really matter every division.
On the Lib Dems, the majority are 30 +/- 5 seats, SNP are around 33 +/- 8 seats, UKIP is more or less 4-6 seats for almost all of us, and the Con/Lab totals seem to hinge on around 15 Con/Lab marginal seats.
So we're really arguing about just 30 seats. And 15 Con/Lab super-marginals in particular.