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.
When I said 'should' stay, I meant 'ought to' (for party and country) not that he will. The probability is that he will depart immediately as you assert, but in the circumstances where the Tories are the single largest party, and assuredly ahead in the popular vote, I wouldn't see his demise as inevitable, particularly with a second election looming, perhaps on my envisaged timescale or the slightly longer one predicted by David Herdson.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
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.
Not quite teetotal. But they all sell very good Coca-Cola anyway, so that's OK. :-)
The Victoria is the fortress of the Labour core vote - a huge, sprawling pub with numerous smallish rooms, packed with people with strong opinions on everything. Terrible place for a PB meet, though - the roar of conversation is continuous.
is the best for a chat meet - spacious rooms, tables well apart, even a library. But I've heard that purists sniff at Wetherspoons? We could have it as a fallback if the (nearby) Horse&Jockey is too crowded.
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.
Not quite teetotal. But they all sell very good Coca-Cola anyway, so that's OK. :-)
The Victoria is the fortress of the Labour core vote - a huge, sprawling pub with numerous smallish rooms, packed with people with strong opinions on everything. Terrible place for a PB meet, though - the roar of conversation is continuous.
is the best for a chat meet - spacious rooms, tables well apart, even a library. But I've heard that purists sniff at Wetherspoons? We could have it as a fallback if the (nearby) Horse&Jockey is too crowded.
"very good" and "Coca Cola" in the same sentence. Mr Palmer you've gone down in my estimation.
I'm back to the LD's (for a moment or two at least!)
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
Doubt it
Especially with Boris lurking...
It's just fun and games anyway as Dave will continue as PM with the Tories very comfortably ahead of Labour, and I'll win (most) of my bets with tim.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
If Cameron loses the election would he really wait for the formal procedures to be carried out? He'd voluntarily quit immediately I'd have thought.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
Echoing some comments on here from yesterday (or the day before), I'd quite enjoy Rees-Mogg as leader. We wouldn't get many votes, mind you.
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??
Eden? Some documentary - an Al-Beeb one in the early 'Noughties perhaps - suggested that the location was in that vicinity. I would imagine that Apple are quite willing to play the rule of a fallen angel....
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
Clarke. I've written a counter-factual of that scenario based on a single MP changing his or her vote in the final round of the MP's ballot.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
The vote of the Hersham jury would be Portillo and by some margin - in 2001 Ken was being as implacible as ever on Europe.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
Clarke. I've written a counter-factual of that scenario based on a single MP changing his or her vote in the final round of the MP's ballot.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
Clarke. I've written a counter-factual of that scenario based on a single MP changing his or her vote in the final round of the MP's ballot.
On the subject of counter-factuals, I've just wrapped up WWI by 1916 for those interested (well, to be fair, Theodore Roosevelt's done it):
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
The vote of the Hersham jury would be Portillo and by some margin - in 2001 Ken was being as implacible as ever on Europe.
(But I still voted for him against IDS!)
David Herdson says Clarke, you say Portillo. I'm still thinking about it 14 years on.
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.
How long was it that Russia was a monarchy? And how long after their March Revolution did it take them left to feck it up.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
Clarke. I've written a counter-factual of that scenario based on a single MP changing his or her vote in the final round of the MP's ballot.
Do you have a link please?
Not to that one yet though it may well go up in due course. I am hoping to have them published if at all possible.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
The vote of the Hersham jury would be Portillo and by some margin - in 2001 Ken was being as implacible as ever on Europe.
(But I still voted for him against IDS!)
David Herdson says Clarke, you say Portillo. I'm still thinking about it 14 years on.
(I also voted for Ken Clarke)
Clarke's 2001 campaign was arguably worse than that in 1997 (which itself was a bit too clever by half with the Redwood alliance).
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
The vote of the Hersham jury would be Portillo and by some margin - in 2001 Ken was being as implacible as ever on Europe.
(But I still voted for him against IDS!)
David Herdson says Clarke, you say Portillo. I'm still thinking about it 14 years on.
(I also voted for Ken Clarke)
Clarke's 2001 campaign was arguably worse than that in 1997 (which itself was a bit too clever by half with the Redwood alliance).
Clarke would have won in 1997 were it not for Lady Thatcher's intervention, which ultimately buggered up Hague's career, which is another shame.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
The vote of the Hersham jury would be Portillo and by some margin - in 2001 Ken was being as implacible as ever on Europe.
(But I still voted for him against IDS!)
David Herdson says Clarke, you say Portillo. I'm still thinking about it 14 years on.
(I also voted for Ken Clarke)
Clarke's 2001 campaign was arguably worse than that in 1997 (which itself was a bit too clever by half with the Redwood alliance).
It probably was but Portillo was seen as too unreliable on any number of levels. My memory of the time is that plenty of Eurosceptics could have lived with Clarke on the basis that the overwhelming majority of the parliamentary party and shadow cabinet being Eurosceptic would have restrained him on that score.
I've had a change of heart about this election. I live in a safe Labour seat having lived in a Lib Dem seat last time. I voted Lib Dem at the last election and it's probably no secret on here that I've been unimpressed with their conduct since. I had been been tending towards voting Labour this time but their refusal to talk about political reform in spite of the polls showing the emergence of 5 or 6 party politics means I can't back them. They appear to have the attitude that governing on a third of the vote would be a okay. I've defended Miliband from his '35%' critics since I've seen no evidence that that is his plan - only speculation from people not well disposed to him.
So who to vote for? Possibly the Greens, who may be wrongheaded on some things but are a much preferable protest movement to Ukip. Otherwise it'll have to be a random independent which will be meaningless but will reduce the vote share of the other parties.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Not a fan of the quiet man?
Not a fan of his stint as leadership.
Oh I dunno - his pleas for unity and loyalty were particularly delicious......
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Not a fan of the quiet man?
Not a fan of his stint as leadership.
Oh I dunno - his pleas for unity and loyalty were particularly delicious......
It was the hypocrisy of IDS that annoyed me no end (apart from his crap leadership)
The serial Maastricht rebel who did so much to destabilise John Major's Premiership lecturing others on loyalty broke my irony meter on more than one occasion.
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.
Cameron will barely last 5 minutes if he loses. And he knows that.
Graham Brady will get 45 names or so very quickly !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
The vote of the Hersham jury would be Portillo and by some margin - in 2001 Ken was being as implacible as ever on Europe.
(But I still voted for him against IDS!)
David Herdson says Clarke, you say Portillo. I'm still thinking about it 14 years on.
(I also voted for Ken Clarke)
Clarke's 2001 campaign was arguably worse than that in 1997 (which itself was a bit too clever by half with the Redwood alliance).
Clarke would have won in 1997 were it not for Lady Thatcher's intervention, which ultimately buggered up Hague's career, which is another shame.
I have always had a soft spot for Hague since he was my campaign manager (as OUCA's Political Action Officer) in May 1982 for the Oxford Central Ward. I still lost (to the SDP) but he was a superb organizer. We kept in touch periodically when he was a junior Minister many years later.
I have always had a soft spot for Hague since he was my campaign manager (as OUCA's Political Action Officer) in May 1982 for the Oxford Central Ward. I still lost (to the SDP) but he was a superb organizer. We kept in touch periodically when he was a junior Minister many years later.
The counter factual I've always wanted to write is this one.
In May 1994, Tony Blair announces he won't be standing in the Labour leadership election and urges people to back Gordon Brown as John Smith's successor.
Could Ken Clarke really have won in 2001? Don't forget there was a widely held view that Tony Blair would try and hold a referendum on Euro membership. Given he'd just won a huge landslide again it wouldn't have seemed impossible for him to win it. Surely Clarke leading the Tories in a Euro referendum would have been a disaster?
I have always had a soft spot for Hague since he was my campaign manager (as OUCA's Political Action Officer) in May 1982 for the Oxford Central Ward. I still lost (to the SDP) but he was a superb organizer. We kept in touch periodically when he was a junior Minister many years later.
He was my MP for a few years, everyone, and I mean everyone always spoke highly of him, they all had the same regret that he became Tory leader too soon
The counter factual I've always wanted to write is this one.
In May 1994, Tony Blair announces he won't be standing in the Labour leadership election and urges people to back Gordon Brown as John Smith's successor.
Farage's 2010 plane crash was much more serious. No survivors. Robert Killroy-Silk is installed as UKIP leader.
The counter factual I've always wanted to write is this one.
In May 1994, Tony Blair announces he won't be standing in the Labour leadership election and urges people to back Gordon Brown as John Smith's successor.
The counter factual I've always wanted to write is this one.
In May 1994, Tony Blair announces he won't be standing in the Labour leadership election and urges people to back Gordon Brown as John Smith's successor.
Farage's 2010 plane crash was much more serious. No survivors. Robert Killroy-Silk is installed as UKIP leader.
Or even David Cameron actually decided to thrown in the towel during the leadership contest as he almost did and David Davis became Tory leader.
Can anyone remember a single good England performance in a cricket world cup since John Major was prime minster ?
Not a good tournament - there's obviously been none of them - but a single good match performance.
To be fair the rot started in '96 didn't it? I don't follow it too closely nowadays but England getting to the World Cup final in '92 was perhaps the most obvious cricketing highlight from my youth.
Can anyone remember a single good England performance in a cricket world cup since John Major was prime minster ?
Not a good tournament - there's obviously been none of them - but a single good match performance.
To be fair the rot started in '96 didn't it? I don't follow it too closely nowadays but England getting to the World Cup final in '92 was perhaps the most obvious cricketing highlight from my youth.
To be fair, it was easier not to mind during the revival in Test form during the 2000s.
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.
Russia is reactive, it's the incompetence of the Russian authorities focusing on Sochi rather than Kiev that got them into this position. I really don't understand the basis on which it is claimed this was some master plan of Putin's. Of course they have played a weak hand very well since.
Shots across the bow to back off over HSBC. I'm sure they all have seriously murky stuff on each other. Apart from the Graun, natch, which is pristine and pure.
The counter factual I've always wanted to write is this one.
In May 1994, Tony Blair announces he won't be standing in the Labour leadership election and urges people to back Gordon Brown as John Smith's successor.
Labour would probably still be in power.
The Horror...
Mr Crosby,have you done your 2015 GE seats prediction on the thread below yet ;-)
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.
Russia is reactive, it's the incompetence of the Russian authorities focusing on Sochi rather than Kiev that got them into this position. I really don't understand the basis on which it is claimed this was some master plan of Putin's. Of course they have played a weak hand very well since.
Can anyone explain where the energy supplies required for the endless predicted 'growf' is supposed to come from ?
When we were on holiday in the north of Scotland last week, I was impressed by the number of large scale wind turbines and how many more are under construction.
Amusingly, given Anorak's comment below, we were staying next to Gyre.
The counter factual I've always wanted to write is this one.
In May 1994, Tony Blair announces he won't be standing in the Labour leadership election and urges people to back Gordon Brown as John Smith's successor.
For that to have happened it would require Mandelson to have been eaten by The Beast of Bodmin.
No literature from either Labour or the Lib Dems yet here.
I had a local council leaflet from Labour today which had nothing local on it. Only things that can be affected nationally (train prices, NHS, education). Priceless......
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
I suspect its more to do with the extortionate prices ( not least thanks to Messrs Miliband, Huhne & Davey) and people not being able to afford to use as much
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
I suspect its more to do with the extortionate prices and people not being able to afford to use as much
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
Shutting down the aluminium smelter at Lynemouth probably helped a bit too.
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
Really....can you give a link for that?
And is that consumer market less or total electricity usage as consumer part of the total power usage is quite a small %. Industrial usage, particularly chemical industry, eat up a huge % of UK total power demand.
Naively, given the massive rise in number of consumer electronics we all have and increased population, I would have thought we would be using more power than ever.
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
I suspect its more to do with the extortionate prices and people not being able to afford to use as much
Then you suspect wrong.
Well come one then produce your evidence if you are so certain. I know how much we've cut back and it has had nothing to do with lightbulbs.
Can anyone explain where the energy supplies required for the endless predicted 'growf' is supposed to come from ?
The owners of the power stations are rational. They see excess power generating capacity in the UK for the next decade, thanks to a stagnant demand, and new wind and nuclear plants.
Plus, these are inefficient plants relative to the newest ccgts, so would only run during peak periods.
Evening all, so have we had the details of the LibDem magic beans poll pretending they aren't going to be filleted in 10 weeks time?
I personally cannot see another coalition with the LibDems. I could imagine David Cameron inviting some of the few surviving LibDems to join the government, people like Alistair Carmichael who might be needed as Sec of St for Scotland. Equally I would imagine Dave would rather fry in oil before inviting the likes of Cable or Farron into government, both being socialists of the old Wilsonesque school.
Can anyone explain where the energy supplies required for the endless predicted 'growf' is supposed to come from ?
The owners of the power stations are rational. They see excess power generating capacity in the UK for the next decade, thanks to a stagnant demand, and new wind and nuclear plants.
Plus, these are inefficient plants relative to the newest ccgts, so would only run during peak periods.
Can you remember the LD bets we had w my UKIP Wythenshawe winnings? £30 I think on Lib Dems doing badly at 11/2
zerohedge @zerohedge 16m16 minutes ago Greece folds but only gets two thirds of the 6 month bailout extension it asked for
Germany caved in !
What has to happen next according to The Times is ... 'international creditors gave Greece until the end of Monday to present a list of reform measures and set a deadline of the end of April for creditors agreeing to a final list'' Just what reforms can we expect? How long will it take for the Greek govt to judge the electorate have forgotten the prospectus they voted for? 4 months?
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
Really....can you give a link for that?
And is that consumer market less or total electricity usage as consumer part of the total power usage is quite a small %. Industrial usage, particularly chemical industry, eat up a huge % of UK total power demand.
Naively, given the massive rise in number of consumer electronics we all have and increased population, I would have thought we would be using more power than ever.
Running a business, installing LED bulbs led to a significant decrease in energy bills despite having some machinery you'd think would use much more. Lighting isn't just necessary for consumers but industry, retail, offices and every other business in the country.
Can anyone explain where the energy supplies required for the endless predicted 'growf' is supposed to come from ?
The owners of the power stations are rational. They see excess power generating capacity in the UK for the next decade, thanks to a stagnant demand, and new wind and nuclear plants.
Plus, these are inefficient plants relative to the newest ccgts, so would only run during peak periods.
Can you remember the LD bets we had w my UKIP Wythenshawe winnings? £30 I think on Lib Dems doing badly at 11/2
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
Unfortunately low energy lightbulbs have almost nothing to do with it. Domestic energy consumption is almost unchanged. The really big decline has been in the industrial use of energy and whether that is a good or bad thing would depend on what the cause is - greater efficiency or lower production.
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
Really....can you give a link for that?
And is that consumer market less or total electricity usage as consumer part of the total power usage is quite a small %. Industrial usage, particularly chemical industry, eat up a huge % of UK total power demand.
Naively, given the massive rise in number of consumer electronics we all have and increased population, I would have thought we would be using more power than ever.
Given the other factors involved and the trivial cost in electricity for lighting things as opposed to heating them or making them move, I would also like to see a link to support the light-bulb hypothesis.
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??
Isn't Iraq thought to be the location of the original Garden of Eden. (Mind you the forbidden fruit isn't actually described as an Apple.)
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
I suspect its more to do with the extortionate prices and people not being able to afford to use as much
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
Really....can you give a link for that?
And is that consumer market less or total electricity usage as consumer part of the total power usage is quite a small %. Industrial usage, particularly chemical industry, eat up a huge % of UK total power demand.
Naively, given the massive rise in number of consumer electronics we all have and increased population, I would have thought we would be using more power than ever.
Running a business, installing LED bulbs led to a significant decrease in energy bills despite having some machinery you'd think would use much more. Lighting isn't just necessary for consumers but industry, retail, offices and every other business in the country.
Domestic and service use - which I assume might include the sort of business you are talking about - are only down by 7% and 5% respectively. Industrial use is down by over 30%.
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 !
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
Clarke. I've written a counter-factual of that scenario based on a single MP changing his or her vote in the final round of the MP's ballot.
Portillo would have won, hands-down. The election took place at the height of euromania in the UK, and Clarke's support for that was terminal. Conservative Future was also rooting for Portillo big time as the first of the early modernisers.
Incidentally, I tried to vote objectively in the 2001 ballot as I did have concerns about IDS. However, I found Clarke's campaign material so poor and its tone so arrogant that it simply firmed up my vote for IDS.
Labour plans pension raid to fund lower student fees....Pensions seem like bankers bonuses, just something politicians feel they can "dip into" and it wont have any impact. Gordo already screwed them up, so here comes his right hand man Balls looking to repeat the same thing.
The counter factual I've always wanted to write is this one.
In May 1994, Tony Blair announces he won't be standing in the Labour leadership election and urges people to back Gordon Brown as John Smith's successor.
Very interesting. There are probably 35-45 Tory seats that wouldn't have gone to Labour in 1997 for a start, including Portillo's. But Labour probably would have won the 2001 election with a decent majority too, even under Gordon.
The reality is with university courses are that some science courses cost ~£15k a year to put on, where as some arts courses with limited teaching time can be put on for £3-4k a year.
No politician or university seems to want to admit this and tackle it honestly.
Labour plans pension raid to fund lower student fees....Pensions seem like bankers bonuses, just something politicians feel they can "dip into" and it wont have any impact. Gordo already screwed them up, so here comes his right hand man Balls looking to repeat the same thing.
It's cropped, but that'd presumably be funded by dropping the annual 40k savings cap for private pensions even further. Makes it much harder for the self-employed to build up a decent tax-free pot. Discouraging saving could also mean far more reliance on the State in older age.
Tactically, a foolish move to if it encourages the over-50s to run scared of Labour and switch from UKIP to Conservative to protect their pensions.
That demographic is much more likely to vote too than the very young (and parents of teenagers) who Labour are presumably trying to attract with this.
@Casino_Royale NATO poses a threat to all of us, top Russian general says?
Last time I checked NATO weren't unilaterally annexing territory near Russia's borders, nor aggressively testing the air defences near Russia with military aircraft maintaining transponder silence, or stoking insurrections in sovereign countries with their own troops in plain clothes.
Athens shifts its migrant problem to rest of Europe
The Greek government has quietly issued Syrian refugees with the residency permits that grant them the legal right to leave for more prosperous nations
@Casino_Royale NATO poses a threat to all of us, top Russian general says?
Last time I checked NATO weren't unilaterally annexing territory near Russia's borders, nor aggressively testing the air defences near Russia with military aircraft maintaining transponder silence, or stoking insurrections in sovereign countries with their own troops in plain clothes.
But perhaps I'm not up to speed.
Putin poses a real threat. The relationship between Russia and Western or NATO states is dysfunctional and dangerous. I can envisage it deteriorating very quickly to be the least stable, safe or secure we have experienced since WWII.
Labour plans pension raid to fund lower student fees....Pensions seem like bankers bonuses, just something politicians feel they can "dip into" and it wont have any impact. Gordo already screwed them up, so here comes his right hand man Balls looking to repeat the same thing.
It's cropped, but that'd presumably be funded by dropping the annual 40k savings cap for private pensions even further. Makes it much harder for the self-employed to build up a decent tax-free pot. Discouraging saving could also mean far more reliance on the State in older age.
Tactically, a foolish move to if it encourages the over-50s to run scared of Labour and switch from UKIP to Conservative to protect their pensions.
That demographic is much more likely to vote too than the very young (and parents of teenagers) who Labour are presumably trying to attract with this.
All Labour seem to want to is tax more, spend more and borrow more and blow it all on a bunch of left wing policies that just pour the money down the drain.
Labour plans pension raid to fund lower student fees....Pensions seem like bankers bonuses, just something politicians feel they can "dip into" and it wont have any impact. Gordo already screwed them up, so here comes his right hand man Balls looking to repeat the same thing.
It's cropped, but that'd presumably be funded by dropping the annual 40k savings cap for private pensions even further. Makes it much harder for the self-employed to build up a decent tax-free pot. Discouraging saving could also mean far more reliance on the State in older age.
Tactically, a foolish move to if it encourages the over-50s to run scared of Labour and switch from UKIP to Conservative to protect their pensions.
That demographic is much more likely to vote too than the very young (and parents of teenagers) who Labour are presumably trying to attract with this.
All Labour seem to want to is tax more, spend more and borrow more and blow it all on a bunch of left wing policies that just pour the money down the drain.
Why does anyone support them?
Because they will be the beneficiaries of their largesse
@Casino_Royale Of course we are whiter than white, and it is them that are the aggressors,but you know what Russian propaganda is like? They will claim that the west broke agreements on the neutrality of the Ukraine in an expansionist move eastwards in order to gain a military and economic advantage.
@Casino_Royale Of course we are whiter than white, and it is them that are the aggressors,but you know what Russian propaganda is like? They will claim that the west broke agreements on the neutrality of the Ukraine in an expansionist move eastwards in order to gain a military and economic advantage.
The Ukrainians overthrew their own president when he gave the order to fire on his own people.
It is nobody's business but the Ukrainians as to what destiny they choose.
@Casino_Royale NATO poses a threat to all of us, top Russian general says?
Last time I checked NATO weren't unilaterally annexing territory near Russia's borders, nor aggressively testing the air defences near Russia with military aircraft maintaining transponder silence, or stoking insurrections in sovereign countries with their own troops in plain clothes.
But perhaps I'm not up to speed.
Well you see, apparently everyone has to accept that Russia has a sphere of influence, and if one of the nations in that sphere should want - or be tempted - to move in another direction, it is their and the West's fault for provoking Russia and they are therefore responsible for anything that all sides then do. Everyone just has to accept that Russia has indirect sovereignty over certain areas, and if those areas, at the behest of others or of their own initiative, want to try something different, they have no right to do so as they are not as sovereign as they think.
It would make things simpler for everyone if those areas accepted they were within Russia's sphere and should either remain unaligned or be Russia aligned of course.
Comments
The Victoria is the fortress of the Labour core vote - a huge, sprawling pub with numerous smallish rooms, packed with people with strong opinions on everything. Terrible place for a PB meet, though - the roar of conversation is continuous.
Arguably
http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/home/pubs/admiral-sir-john-borlase-warren
is the best for a chat meet - spacious rooms, tables well apart, even a library. But I've heard that purists sniff at Wetherspoons? We could have it as a fallback if the (nearby) Horse&Jockey is too crowded.
It made me sick and think we should ban Mumsnet.
Members of the parenting website Mumsnet have been getting the hots for the UK's top polticians.
One member described Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls as a "sexy beast."
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was dubbed "mysterious and moody" on the Mumsnet forum, while London Major Boris Johnson is seen as "fun."
But Labour leader Ed Miliband fared less well in this poll about which politician would make the best lover, as did Prime Minister David Cameron.
Many mothers revealed they would rather have a night of passion with Ed's brother David Miliband.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11426299/Ed-Balls-is-a-sexy-beast-Boris-Johnson-looks-fun-in-bed.html
I'm back to the LD's (for a moment or two at least!)
Especially with Boris lurking...
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
(But I still voted for him against IDS!)
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=340616
(I also voted for Ken Clarke)
:tell-it-to-Kronstadt:
So who to vote for? Possibly the Greens, who may be wrongheaded on some things but are a much preferable protest movement to Ukip. Otherwise it'll have to be a random independent which will be meaningless but will reduce the vote share of the other parties.
The serial Maastricht rebel who did so much to destabilise John Major's Premiership lecturing others on loyalty broke my irony meter on more than one occasion.
Doesn't he know that the UK is now an 'Aid Superpower' ???
Not a good tournament - there's obviously been none of them - but a single good match performance.
I have always had a soft spot for Hague since he was my campaign manager (as OUCA's Political Action Officer) in May 1982 for the Oxford Central Ward. I still lost (to the SDP) but he was a superb organizer. We kept in touch periodically when he was a junior Minister many years later.
In May 1994, Tony Blair announces he won't be standing in the Labour leadership election and urges people to back Gordon Brown as John Smith's successor.
And a couple of days ago I had a similar accidental hearing of some Labour economics woman (Rachel Reeves maybe) on BBC Radio Sheffield.
Both were the usual crap about investments and minimum pay rises and apprentices.
But I was struck by their tone rather than by the actual words.
It was like listening to a blind person talk about colour - they really didn't seem to have a clue about anything outside their ivory towers.
The Horror...
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2636177
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-31548855
Can anyone explain where the energy supplies required for the endless predicted 'growf' is supposed to come from ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11426319/Times-publisher-News-UK-launches-internal-investigation-after-suicides-of-two-members-of-its-commercial-staff.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/jacques-attali-russia-should-be-our-ally/
I think the entire French establishment has now openly opposed the US agenda.
http://aco.nato.int/new-satellite-imagery-exposes-russian-combat-troops-inside-ukraine.aspx
Amusingly, given Anorak's comment below, we were staying next to Gyre.
Apparently Britain uses less electricity than ten years ago - energy-efficient lightbulbs ended up making a big difference, and with LEDs on their way now there is some hope that will continue.
And is that consumer market less or total electricity usage as consumer part of the total power usage is quite a small %. Industrial usage, particularly chemical industry, eat up a huge % of UK total power demand.
Naively, given the massive rise in number of consumer electronics we all have and increased population, I would have thought we would be using more power than ever.
Plus, these are inefficient plants relative to the newest ccgts, so would only run during peak periods.
I personally cannot see another coalition with the LibDems. I could imagine David Cameron inviting some of the few surviving LibDems to join the government, people like Alistair Carmichael who might be needed as Sec of St for Scotland. Equally I would imagine Dave would rather fry in oil before inviting the likes of Cable or Farron into government, both being socialists of the old Wilsonesque school.
Just what reforms can we expect? How long will it take for the Greek govt to judge the electorate have forgotten the prospectus they voted for? 4 months?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/337452/ecuk_chapter_1_overall_factsheet.pdf
final page - domestic is about one third of total
https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=eg_use_elec_kh_pc&idim=country:GBR:FRA:ITA&hl=en&dl=en
consumption peaks 2006
Given the other factors involved and the trivial cost in electricity for lighting things as opposed to heating them or making them move, I would also like to see a link to support the light-bulb hypothesis.
Don't know if this link to independent article had been posted.Briefly it suggests that swing
to SNP from labour is lower in wealthier constituencies.Opens up the prospect of a lot of four way marginals. and a lower number of SNP gains.
Incidentally, I tried to vote objectively in the 2001 ballot as I did have concerns about IDS. However, I found Clarke's campaign material so poor and its tone so arrogant that it simply firmed up my vote for IDS.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/568896633947234304
After that, I have no idea.
No politician or university seems to want to admit this and tackle it honestly.
Vice chancellor pay doesn't even seemed to have taken a hit !
http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6886
NATO poses a threat to all of us, top Russian general says?
Tactically, a foolish move to if it encourages the over-50s to run scared of Labour and switch from UKIP to Conservative to protect their pensions.
That demographic is much more likely to vote too than the very young (and parents of teenagers) who Labour are presumably trying to attract with this.
But perhaps I'm not up to speed.
The Greek government has quietly issued Syrian refugees with the residency permits that grant them the legal right to leave for more prosperous nations
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4360850.ece
Why does anyone support them?
Of course we are whiter than white, and it is them that are the aggressors,but you know what Russian propaganda is like?
They will claim that the west broke agreements on the neutrality of the Ukraine in an expansionist move eastwards in order to gain a military and economic advantage.
It is nobody's business but the Ukrainians as to what destiny they choose.
It would make things simpler for everyone if those areas accepted they were within Russia's sphere and should either remain unaligned or be Russia aligned of course.