I can well foresee a second referendum happening within about a decade, depending on how events unfold. For example, if Cameron comes back suggesting a few changes to benefits will limit EU immigration, and EU immigration continues to climb, discontent will continue to rumble. Another example is legal protections agreed without treaty change being undone in European courts. And Cameron's absurd push to allow the civil service to back one side in an election will give the eurosceptics the excuse they need to demand another one. The Scottish independence referendum is a good case of how the aftermath allows the issue to fester, and the eurosceptics could have a much stronger case than the Scottish nationalists do.
Of course, if the Prime Minister restores purdah, allows a free vote for ministers, and wins the referendum handily, this would all be avoided.
The only possible way forward for Douglas Carswell is to join Labour.There are already long-term BOOERs on the Labour benches like Kate Hoey who would befriend him but he would have to accept the NHS cannot be run like Tescos.He has probably realised he is the wrong party because of Farage' comments on HiV.Places like Jaywick might do better out of it.Labour could deliver the change needed.Carswell could tell them how. Off topic.Lib Dem leadership.It's clear a woman is needed to take over from Farron.Step forward Ms Williams from Wales as leader after next.Kirsty has a clear field against the white,middle class men.If Farron were to fail,I make her an odds-on fav.to succeed.Like Corbyn,she should not be 100-1.She is competent and impresses.
Looks like another episode of kicking the can down the road by the EU. 6 month extension and emergency funds for Greece so they can continue talks.
What a joke. The EU needs to lance the boil and chuck Greece out of the EMU and provide assistance for when the economy collapses.
They either need to kick Greece out or set up some sort of a transfer machanism. Kicking the can yet again helps precisely no-one except perhaps the German politicians.
Joys of filling in a tax form. I was under the impression I wouldn't have to pay any tax on the (small) inheritance I received earlier this year. The guidelines say I should fill in a long tax return. Online guidelines suggest (it was just a little money, no shares or anything like that) I have nothing to pay. *sighs*
Any inheritance tax falls on the estate of the deceased (and the executors should sort that out) and not on you the recipient - certainly normally - what makes you think you owe any tax on it?
Not quite correct. If money was given to someone greater than the gifting allowances in the 7 years before death, IHT can be claimed from the recipient if the deceased's estate exceeded their allowance.
Is that not to avoid someone giving so much away of their estate that the executors aren't able to then satisfy the tax that is due due to failed PETS/CLTs? Not a v common issue.
Yes PETs etc. A growing problem as we head towards 10% of estates paying IHT. Particularly in London.
Plato Those were anarchists, most of the protestors gave him a warmer reception, I would rather he at least now encourages people to vote, even if it is for Labour or the Greens or SNP, than encourage people to try and overturn the democratic system through violent revolution as anarchists ultimately wish to do. Indeed, some anarchists want the most economically rightwing government possible as they argue it is easier to rouse the masses in revolution against it
A bit like wrong type of snow? Wrong type of protestors?
On topic, it was certainly one of the most significant results of the night. As others have suggested Morley and Outwook and Thanet South were probably as important.
Cameron's being a lucky general seems to be continuing with the post-election shenanigans from UKIP, but he will have to accept that unless he achieves significant reform in his negotiations he will struggle to keep the party together. The Telegraph article looks like the first of many this week and there will undoubtedly be a lot more to come in the months ahead.
Plato Those were anarchists, most of the protestors gave him a warmer reception, I would rather he at least now encourages people to vote, even if it is for Labour or the Greens or SNP, than encourage people to try and overturn the democratic system through violent revolution as anarchists ultimately wish to do. Indeed, some anarchists want the most economically rightwing government possible as they argue it is easier to rouse the masses in revolution against it
A bit like wrong type of snow? Wrong type of protestors?
Lots on here clearly dislike Farage, may I ask: Do you dislike what he is or what he says, perhaps a combination of both? I'm genuinely interested in your views.
I am worried about the damage he will do to BOO. He switches off more voters than he attracts. Kippers are in the bag (for BOO) it is the floaters and undecided that matters.
That's an area where savings can be made immediately.
No it isn't. As Sir Humphrey said, they'd just spend the money on something else.
There are important health connotations, but not in cash terms. Btw, apparently public health is being squeezed further since it was moved from the NHS to local authorities.
Do you dislike what he is or what he says, perhaps a combination of both?
I'm genuinely interested in your views.
I like some of what he says. But I also think he has made some critical errors both in terms of his long term relationships with other individuals and in some of his more recent policy decisions.
I was heavily involved with the anti-EU movement long before Farage came on the scene so a party like UKIP that was campaigning for a British exit from the EU was perfect for me. If you go back a decade or so you will also find that UKIP was a far more Libertarian party than it is now - small state and freedom of the individual being key messages. It took an absolutely idiotic decision to turn them into a party that is associated with homophobia and social conservatism.
Similarly with the whole issue of race and immigration. As an anti-EU party UKIP were always going to have problems with the race card being used against them. But anyone with any nouse would have been able to deal with that by highlighting opposition to the EU as an entity rather than Europe as a place. Similarly it is perfectly possible to oppose mass migration on the basis of numbers without making it an issue of xenophobia or race. UKIP - and Farage in particular - have failed to do that. By pushing an anti-muslim agenda and making stupid comments about being willing to take refugees but only if they are Christians he plays right into the hands of the party's opponents. If done consciously as I believe it must have been, it is a core vote strategy that is bound to fail.
The biggest problem is Farage himself. There are many highly intelligent and well respected Eurosceptics who either served in the party or worked with us and who would have been able to give sensible advice to Farage and so prevent these massive mistakes. But Farage is, in the end, so arrogant and egotistical that these many people were driven out of UKIP, not just recently but over many years and are now running other mostly non political Eurosceptic organisations who frankly want nothing to do with UKIP. I have worked for many of them and know how badly they believe Farage has damaged the whole image of Euroscpticism.
This is why there is now such a movement to ensure his involvement in the referendum campaign is as small as possible.
Mr. Sandpit, thanks. Alonso was lucky [might've failed anyway, but we'll never know], but I've had bad luck earlier this season a few times and shan't complain about getting some good now
That was a good bet, I was struggling to see value in anything after Hamilton took the pole - although the betting is only virtual this week as can't get on very easily from the big sandpit!
Are you going to Silverstone? There's still a few tickets left at reasonable prices for Fri and Sat.
I'd have thought the bigger deterrent to would-be defectors is the treatment of Douglas Carswell. Nigel Farage seems to have more of a problem with the success of others than with failure. Any would-be defector can persuade himself at the key moment that his electoral charms are superior (or that the conditions are now more fruitful). But they'll want to know that the future after their defection is not going to be blighted by jealousy.
Bit harsh. UKIP need money desperately, Carswell took the principled stance. Beyond that the two have a professional working relationship with plenty of mutual respect.
Just to want to make sure I understand correctly.
You think it would have been ok for UKIP to take the money and, by implication, use it for things which it wasn't intended for, because they desperately needed it?
Plato Those were anarchists, most of the protestors gave him a warmer reception, I would rather he at least now encourages people to vote, even if it is for Labour or the Greens or SNP, than encourage people to try and overturn the democratic system through violent revolution as anarchists ultimately wish to do. Indeed, some anarchists want the most economically rightwing government possible as they argue it is easier to rouse the masses in revolution against it
A bit like wrong type of snow? Wrong type of protestors?
The left seem to have a Judean front set of splits every week. The young and gullible follow the advice of one "icon" Brand and then do not vote..... Then they protest about the outcome... WTF. How Brand is welcomed back to speak after that folly is very funny.
Mr. Sandpit, I did very briefly see Hamilton was 1.68 or so for the win and considered laying, but I really didn't think Rosberg would beat him fair and square. Lots of other things appeared marginal value (Grosjean and Raikkonen retiring meant several I considered would've failed).
I hadn't intended the McLaren bet, but I was browsing and the odds seemed long, so I checked, saw their retirements (below) and backed both to fail to be classified: Australia – 1 Malaysia – 2 China – 0 Bahrain – 1 Spain – 1 Monaco – 1 Canada – 2
I shan't be going to Silverstone. The great joy (momentary false alarm aside) of a tax return is reminding oneself of just how bloody horrendous the finances are.
Charles, I haven't said they should have taken the money, I was simply pointing out that Farage and Carswell had different opinions. I applaud Carswell's principled stance, he would have been under a deal of pressure owing to Ukip's financial situation.
Former defence secretary Liam Fox said the Prime Minister must lay out the powers he wants back from Brussels before the party meets in October.
Potential candidates for resignation include Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling and Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers.
Dr Fox also asked for an assurance that the party would not use any of its money to back the 'In' campaign, saying it would be 'wrong' to do so.
Mr. Sandpit, I did very briefly see Hamilton was 1.68 or so for the win and considered laying, but I really didn't think Rosberg would beat him fair and square. Lots of other things appeared marginal value (Grosjean and Raikkonen retiring meant several I considered would've failed).
I hadn't intended the McLaren bet, but I was browsing and the odds seemed long, so I checked, saw their retirements (below) and backed both to fail to be classified: Australia – 1 Malaysia – 2 China – 0 Bahrain – 1 Spain – 1 Monaco – 1 Canada – 2
I shan't be going to Silverstone. The great joy (momentary false alarm aside) of a tax return is reminding oneself of just how bloody horrendous the finances are.
They're 40% off until midday if you change your mind. 37.50 for Friday and 49.99 Saturday general admission. The Saturday seems value as it's the fastest you'll see the F1 cars all weekend and includes the GP2, GP3 and Porsche support races. http://www.silverstone.co.uk/events/2015-british-grand-prix/
The main problem with Farage is that you cannot indefinitely enjoy four bottle lunches and hope to be a credible political figure. He is what he is: a very intelligent pisshead who, like most pissheads, struggles to accommodate other points of view and other ways of doing things.
Charles, I haven't said they should have taken the money, I was simply pointing out that Farage and Carswell had different opinions. I applaud Carswell's principled stance, he would have been under a deal of pressure owing to Ukip's financial situation.
Yes, very good comment from Mr Tyndall. Carswell strikes me as an honest and principled guy, in marked contrast to both Farage and Reckless.
Carswell and his old friend Dan Hannan need to be leading the right wing Out campaign, with Farage as far away from it as possible. Whether Nigel can see this or not is a very different matter.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers for the heads up, but I'll not be going. Besides, if I did I wouldn't be able to offer tips
No worries. I can't make it this year either unfortunately, should be a great atmosphere with a British world champion racing. Hoping to get to Singapore and Abu Dhabi though, that should make up for the disappointment
Charles, I haven't said they should have taken the money, I was simply pointing out that Farage and Carswell had different opinions. I applaud Carswell's principled stance, he would have been under a deal of pressure owing to Ukip's financial situation.
Yes, very good comment from Mr Tyndall. Carswell strikes me as an honest and principled guy, in marked contrast to both Farage and Reckless.
Carswell and his old friend Dan Hannan need to be leading the right wing Out campaign, with Farage as far away from it as possible. Whether Nigel can see this or not is a very different matter.
I would vote for Douglas Carswell. I would not vote for either Farage or Reckless. I would also vote for Richard Tyndall, should he ever be persuaded to stand.
For the record, I would vote for quite a few PBers. I would vote for foxinsox, should he choose to stand, for example. I think I'd even vote for NPXMP.
Plato Those were anarchists, most of the protestors gave him a warmer reception, I would rather he at least now encourages people to vote, even if it is for Labour or the Greens or SNP, than encourage people to try and overturn the democratic system through violent revolution as anarchists ultimately wish to do. Indeed, some anarchists want the most economically rightwing government possible as they argue it is easier to rouse the masses in revolution against it
A bit like wrong type of snow? Wrong type of protestors?
The left seem to have a Judean front set of splits every week. The young and gullible follow the advice of one "icon" Brand and then do not vote..... Then they protest about the outcome... WTF. How Brand is welcomed back to speak after that folly is very funny.
"The left seem to have a Judean front set of splits every week" Whereas UKIP ...?
I don't know where all these "sixth month extension" rumours come from. I am on a call with a a senior Greek politician (from Potami) this afternoon, and will let everyone know what they say.
Miss Plato, hmm. A simplified front wing would also cut downforce, reducing grip (in wet weather especially). Canopies are double-edged swords. A few years ago Massa was hit by a spring that came from Barrichello's car and had an effective impact speed of something crazy like 200mph or more. If that had struck a canopy, it's possible shards of the canopy could've ripped into Massa. Escaping from an upturned/burning F1 car would also become harder, and you'd need to make sure the rain going over the canopy didn't disturb vision.
Mr. Sandpit, sounds swanky. Mildly surprised you're not opting for somewhere like Spa, though.
The Farage unresignation was stupid. Personality clashes at the top of UKIP are stupid.
But, in terms of overall strategy, I think UKIP got it right over the past 5 years. I'd suggest there is very little mass support for a libertarian Eurosceptic party in this country (or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter). There is a good deal of mass support for a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic party.
Former defence secretary Liam Fox said the Prime Minister must lay out the powers he wants back from Brussels before the party meets in October.
Potential candidates for resignation include Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling and Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers.
Dr Fox also asked for an assurance that the party would not use any of its money to back the 'In' campaign, saying it would be 'wrong' to do so.
Genuine question: does Liam Fox matter very much in today's Conservative Party? The impression from outside is that he'd like to be a big beast but is seen more as a rentaquote. Is that unfair?
Either way, it is hard to see any of those named resigning.
Miss Plato, hmm. A simplified front wing would also cut downforce, reducing grip (in wet weather especially). Canopies are double-edged swords. A few years ago Massa was hit by a spring that came from Barrichello's car and had an effective impact speed of something crazy like 200mph or more. If that had struck a canopy, it's possible shards of the canopy could've ripped into Massa. Escaping from an upturned/burning F1 car would also become harder, and you'd need to make sure the rain going over the canopy didn't disturb vision.
Mr. Sandpit, sounds swanky. Mildly surprised you're not opting for somewhere like Spa, though.
Yep, closed canopies are a complete no-go in an F1 car - can't get out of them quickly enough in an accident and can trap the driver if the car is upturned. That design is good looking though!
Would love to go to Spa (is on the bucket list of life along with Monaco and Le Mans), but I have customers in SG and UAE (am in Dubai atm) so find it easier to get to those races, in places where the city pretty much stops for the weekend!
Mr. Pulpstar, I'd not considered that. Calendar could be rejigged, as it is they get a core temperature of something stupid like 40C and lose litres of fluid. Abu Dhabi and Bahrain are twilight/night events [I forget if Bahrain remained nocturnal this year], but Singapore's also pretty humid, even at night.
DecrepitJohnL Liam Fox beat Ken Clarke in the 2005 leadership ballot amongst MPs and very nearly beat David Davis to enter the run-off members ballot against Cameron
Do you dislike what he is or what he says, perhaps a combination of both?
I'm genuinely interested in your views.
I'm in the middle. I don't agree with plenty of what he says (and am only a very recent convert to Out), but I've always found him refreshing and amusing and wished UKIP well, and thought on balance he had undoubtedly been positivve for his cause. But he does clearly have an enormous ego and a very thin skin, and in the aftermath of what was a disappointing GE (even if 18 months earlier it would have been a good result to get 1 MP) those flaws have been more apparent and damaging for the party.
But, in terms of overall strategy, I think UKIP got it right over the past 5 years. I'd suggest there is very little mass support for a libertarian Eurosceptic party in this country (or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter). There is a good deal of mass support for a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic party.
Surely that depends on what they want to achieve. If it is to represent a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic position, that might have a useful role in a PR system,. However, we don't have a PR system, we have FPTP, and under FPTP it is at best irrelevant and more likely actively damaging to the causes they want to promote.
Alternatively, if the objective is to get us out of the EU, then UKIP has been completely counter-productive ever since Cameron pledged the referendum. Fortunately they failed in their attempt to sabotage the referendum altogether and install Miliband in No 10. In addition they have so far failed to do anything to make an Out vote more likely, and it doesn't look likely that that will change.
I remain completely baffled as to what they actually think they are doing.
But, in terms of overall strategy, I think UKIP got it right over the past 5 years. I'd suggest there is very little mass support for a libertarian Eurosceptic party in this country (or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter). There is a good deal of mass support for a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic party.
Surely that depends on what they want to achieve. If it is to represent a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic position, that might have a useful role in a PR system,. However, we don't have a PR system, we have FPTP, and under FPTP it is at best irrelevant and more likely actively damaging to the causes they want to promote.
Alternatively, if the objective is to get us out of the EU, then UKIP has been completely counter-productive ever since Cameron pledged the referendum. Fortunately they failed in their attempt to sabotage the referendum altogether and install Miliband in No 10. In addition they have so far failed to do anything to make an Out vote more likely, and it doesn't look likely that that will change.
I remain completely baffled as to what they actually think they are doing.
I think they were hoping they would get 6-12 MPs and be required to pass the EU referendum bill. Then they could have made sure things like purdah and a fairer question were covered.
But, in terms of overall strategy, I think UKIP got it right over the past 5 years. I'd suggest there is very little mass support for a libertarian Eurosceptic party in this country (or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter). There is a good deal of mass support for a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic party.
Surely that depends on what they want to achieve. If it is to represent a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic position, that might have a useful role in a PR system,. However, we don't have a PR system, we have FPTP, and under FPTP it is at best irrelevant and more likely actively damaging to the causes they want to promote.
Alternatively, if the objective is to get us out of the EU, then UKIP has been completely counter-productive ever since Cameron pledged the referendum. Fortunately they failed in their attempt to sabotage the referendum altogether and install Miliband in No 10. In addition they have so far failed to do anything to make an Out vote more likely, and it doesn't look likely that that will change.
I remain completely baffled as to what they actually think they are doing.
Without UKIP, (or if UKIP had remained on c.3% of the vote) there would never have been a referendum pledge.
But, in relation to your first point, I think it's entirely reasonable to put forward a policy position that isn't represented by any of the Conservatives, Labour, or Lib Dems.
Three chaps got proclaimed emperor by their troops (Albinus, Niger and Septimius Severus). Severus, being sly, 'allied' with Albinus to be co-emperors, then destroyed Niger. After which he destroyed Albinus.
Mr. Sandpit, fair enough. Hmm. I don't think either of those races has ever had rain (Abu Dhabi nearly did for one practice session).
Both often see rain around that time of year - often an inch or two at a time! I think you are right that it's never affected the races themselves though.
Singapore is right on the equator and always hot and sticky, Malaysia the same. Bahrain and AD are on the tropic of Cancer and have the races either side of the hot and humid summer season.
Dubai is about 45 degrees today, and so humid that your sunglasses steam up within a second of walking outside. Quite horrible, but the same weather they were suggesting for the Qatar world cup! At night it might get as low as 38 but just as humid. Oh, and it's Ramadan at the moment, so not allowed to drink even water in public and have to go to an hotel to find a coffee shop open during the day!
I don't know where all these "sixth month extension" rumours come from. I am on a call with a a senior Greek politician (from Potami) this afternoon, and will let everyone know what they say.
This can has been kicked down the road so many times, I can quite easily believe rumours are flying around that of course it is again, even if there was no basis for it.
In terms of a PB Cabinet, I wonder who would serve. A place would have to be found for Cyclefree.
Without UKIP, (or if UKIP had remained on c.3% of the vote) there would never have been a referendum pledge.
But, in relation to your first point, I think it's entirely reasonable to put forward a policy position that isn't represented by any of the Conservatives, Labour, or Lib Dems.
I accept your first point, but the situation changed when the pledge was made.
On the second point, yes, of course it is reasonable, but in practice doesn't get you anywhere (and, to the extent it had any success, would take the country in the opposite direction).
Excellent stuff, antifrank - an interesting perspective.
Seconded! Or more accurately, fourthed!
Comparing results with 1992, the Conservatives have never really recovered from their collapse in suburban North London in 1997.
Harrow West, Ealing Acton, Ealing North, Enfield North, Edmonton, Ilford North and South, Brent North were all won in 1992 (some by very comfortable margins) and all lost in 2015.
SeanF Ed Miliband may also have got a 'north London' bounce in 2015 being a North London boy after all. Brown got a bounce in Scotland in 2010, Howard in Wales in 2005, Hague in Yorkshire in 2001, Kinnock in Wales in 1992
The Tories did hold Enfield Southgate and Harrow East though
I don't know where all these "sixth month extension" rumours come from. I am on a call with a a senior Greek politician (from Potami) this afternoon, and will let everyone know what they say.
This can has been kicked down the road so many times, I can quite easily believe rumours are flying around that of course it is again, even if there was no basis for it.
In terms of a PB Cabinet, I wonder who would serve. A place would have to be found for Cyclefree.
I think they were hoping they would get 6-12 MPs and be required to pass the EU referendum bill. Then they could have made sure things like purdah and a fairer question were covered.
No, the only realistic hope they ever had was to damage the Conservatives, thereby ensuring a referendum wouldn't happen.
As for the purdah (and even more absurdly the referendum question) - they are being completely bonkers. It's a classic loser's gambit, although usually losers don't complain until after the race has been run. Rather than faffing around moaning about trivia, and complaining that life ain't fair, and accusing Cameron of lying, and getting into a logical knot about the renegotiation, they should be putting 100% effort into preparing the Out case. (Indeed they should have been doing so for the last two years).
It was always going to be extremely hard for the Out side to win a referendum, but it's extraordinary that they are making no serious effort to do so and to build up a consensus as to what the alternative should be.
Looks like another episode of kicking the can down the road by the EU. 6 month extension and emergency funds for Greece so they can continue talks.
What a joke. The EU needs to lance the boil and chuck Greece out of the EMU and provide assistance for when the economy collapses.
I have been completely persuaded for some time that there will be a managed Greek default which will not result in Greece leaving the euro. Regional administrations in America have defaulted and have not left the dollar.
Greece is desperate to stay in the Euro because anything else takes them back towards being a basket case ruled by the army. Europe is keen to keep Greece in the euro to prove there's no reverse gear to ever closer union. Germany is desperate to keep Greece in the euro to prove that it's not Germany's fault.
Literally nobody is anxious to see Greece leave the euro. So it won't happen.
I think his valid observations put the "efficiency" argument into perspective and indicate the nature of the problem. The tories found it easy to increase their dominance where they were already strong in the south west. Trying to recover northern seats where demographic and other trends have been against them for decades would be a different question altogether. The logic of this is that you go for the easy targets which increases the disparity between areas of strength and weakness.
The Tory vote increased to a Labour like level of efficiency because they concentrated on winning votes where they count. Both the main parties are now doing this and barely campaigning in ever larger parts of the country. The inevitable consequence is ever more safe seats and ever fewer votes which actually count with ever greater disengagement as a result. This is not healthy.
An optimist would say that nature abhors a vacuum and the collapse of the Lib Dems means there are vacancies for a credible opposition to the Tories in the south and Labour in the north. It is possible that UKIP could fill that vacuum although this looks a lot less likely after the election.
A pessimist would look at the map. The sea of blue west and south of London (with Ben Bradshaw's island of Exeter being one of very few exceptions) shows a level of dominance that makes SLAB's grip on Scotland even at its peak look partial. It is closer to the SNP grip on Scotland at the moment and covers far more people.
And as antifrank points out these areas are not going to be losers when the next boundary commission comes into effect. Without Scotland Labour may one day struggle to find more than 350 seats in which they are competitive. Doesn't make a Labour majority impossible. Doesn't make it easy either.
Charles, I haven't said they should have taken the money, I was simply pointing out that Farage and Carswell had different opinions. I applaud Carswell's principled stance, he would have been under a deal of pressure owing to Ukip's financial situation.
On rereading your post, I appreciate that, so apologies.
Still I think my comment applies to the UKIP leadership, if not to you.
I have reluctantly concurred with TSE that to interject myself into the Labour leadership campaign by paying £3 would not be in the spirit of the [stupid] rules.
However that won't stop me joining the campaign...
"We endorse Jeremy Corbyn as the only Labour leadership contender with the skills necessary to guarantee five years of stable, sensible government in 2020."
Greece is desperate to stay in the Euro because anything else takes them back towards being a basket case ruled by the army. Europe is keen to keep Greece in the euro to prove there's no reverse gear to ever closer union. Germany is desperate to keep Greece in the euro to prove that it's not Germany's fault.
Literally nobody is anxious to see Greece leave the euro. So it won't happen.
All that is true, but the other side of the coin is that the other main Eurozone countries, and Germany in particular, are desperate not to establish a precedent whereby a Eurozone country can run up irresponsible Euro-denominated debts and effectively rely on Germany to pick up the tab.
They are faced with two possible outcomes both of which are totally unacceptable to them.
Without UKIP, (or if UKIP had remained on c.3% of the vote) there would never have been a referendum pledge.
In other words the party whose reason for being is to take Britain out of the EU has successfully brought about the event that will kill their best argument - democratic legitimacy.
DavidL 350 seats would give a Labour majority of course. Blair won 314 seats in England and Wales in 2005, 357 in 2001 for perspective. Of course if Labour can win back some seats from the SNP that means they need to win fewer south of the border
I think they were hoping they would get 6-12 MPs and be required to pass the EU referendum bill. Then they could have made sure things like purdah and a fairer question were covered.
No, the only realistic hope they ever had was to damage the Conservatives, thereby ensuring a referendum wouldn't happen.
As for the purdah (and even more absurdly the referendum question) - they are being completely bonkers. It's a classic loser's gambit, although usually losers don't complain until after the race has been run. Rather than faffing around moaning about trivia, and complaining that life ain't fair, and accusing Cameron of lying, and getting into a logical knot about the renegotiation, they should be putting 100% effort into preparing the Out case. (Indeed they should have been doing so for the last two years).
It was always going to be extremely hard for the Out side to win a referendum, but it's extraordinary that they are making no serious effort to do so and to build up a consensus as to what the alternative should be.
But, there is no such consensus. A left wing Eurosceptic is likely to want something very different from a right wing Eurosceptic.
As to the rest, it's incorrect that if you don't vote Conservative, you must want Labour to win. Actually, there's no reason at all to vote Conservative, even tactically in c.500 seats. Either they're safe for Labour or SNP, or there's no chance of Labour winning them.
Greece is desperate to stay in the Euro because anything else takes them back towards being a basket case ruled by the army. Europe is keen to keep Greece in the euro to prove there's no reverse gear to ever closer union. Germany is desperate to keep Greece in the euro to prove that it's not Germany's fault.
Literally nobody is anxious to see Greece leave the euro. So it won't happen.
All that is true, but the other side of the coin is that the other main Eurozone countries, and Germany in particular, are desperate not to establish a precedent whereby a Eurozone country can run up irresponsible Euro-denominated debts and effectively rely on Germany to pick up the tab.
They are faced with two possible outcomes both of which are totally unacceptable to them.
Well, there's a third alternative: Management By Procrastination. When faced with a choice between options that are hard to choose between, do nothing and eventually all but one option will disappear. So you do that one.
This avoids your having to judge between choices or make a decision.
So there's Option "A" (Outcome "A"), Option "B" (Outcome "B"), and Option "C" (procrastinate and choose neither "A" nor "B").
Why can each side not simply procrastinate indefinitely? How long can Option "C" last?
I'm not saying it would be smart, of course, just questioning why it could not happen. Perhaps this is what euro default looks like.
SeanF Ed Miliband may also have got a 'north London' bounce in 2015 being a North London boy after all. Brown got a bounce in Scotland in 2010, Howard in Wales in 2005, Hague in Yorkshire in 2001, Kinnock in Wales in 1992
The Tories did hold Enfield Southgate and Harrow East though
Actually, the real damage was done in 1997. The Conservatives began to recover in North London from 2005 onwards, and their vote share held up pretty well this year. It's just they haven't regained the support they lost in that fateful year.
Greece is desperate to stay in the Euro because anything else takes them back towards being a basket case ruled by the army. Europe is keen to keep Greece in the euro to prove there's no reverse gear to ever closer union. Germany is desperate to keep Greece in the euro to prove that it's not Germany's fault.
Literally nobody is anxious to see Greece leave the euro. So it won't happen.
All that is true, but the other side of the coin is that the other main Eurozone countries, and Germany in particular, are desperate not to establish a precedent whereby a Eurozone country can run up irresponsible Euro-denominated debts and effectively rely on Germany to pick up the tab.
They are faced with two possible outcomes both of which are totally unacceptable to them.
Well, there's a third alternative: Management By Procrastination. When faced with a choice between options that are hard to choose between, do nothing and eventually all but one option will disappear. So you do that one.
This avoids your having to judge between choices or make a decision.
Why can each side not simply procrastinate indefinitely? I'm not saying it would be smart, of course, just questioning why it could not happen. Perhaps this is what euro default looks like.
Procrastination is generally the most popular policy option.
Greece is desperate to stay in the Euro because anything else takes them back towards being a basket case ruled by the army. Europe is keen to keep Greece in the euro to prove there's no reverse gear to ever closer union. Germany is desperate to keep Greece in the euro to prove that it's not Germany's fault.
Literally nobody is anxious to see Greece leave the euro. So it won't happen.
All that is true, but the other side of the coin is that the other main Eurozone countries, and Germany in particular, are desperate not to establish a precedent whereby a Eurozone country can run up irresponsible Euro-denominated debts and effectively rely on Germany to pick up the tab.
They are faced with two possible outcomes both of which are totally unacceptable to them.
Well, there's a third alternative: Management By Procrastination. When faced with a choice between options that are hard to choose between, do nothing and eventually all but one option will disappear. So you do that one.
This avoids your having to judge between choices or make a decision.
Why can each side not simply procrastinate indefinitely? I'm not saying it would be smart, of course, just questioning why it could not happen. Perhaps this is what euro default looks like.
Procrastination is generally the most popular policy option.
Indeed, and while you were replying I was editing my post to wonder whether there is in effect a time limit on such procrastination. I suspect not actually.
DavidL 350 seats would give a Labour majority of course. Blair won 314 seats in England and Wales in 2005, 357 in 2001 for perspective. Of course if Labour can win back some seats from the SNP that means they need to win fewer south of the border
Indeed. As I say it will not be impossible but they are getting to the point where they really need to sweep the board in seats where they are competitive. The trends have moved a long way since Blair who in any event could win seats beyond anyone else in Labour.
About the only seat that really went against the trend antifrank identifies is Hove, a Labour gain on the south coast. An excellent result for Mr Kyle but it will be hard to keep.
For me the logical conclusion is that Labour need a leader who can compete in the areas which they need to win back. Is Burnham that man? I really don't think so. He would simply play well in areas where they are already strong and have little to gain.
SeanF Yet elsewhere the Tories have won back most of the seats they lost in 1997, in most of the North London seats they not only failed to win most of their targets in 2010, there was a small swing to Labour in 2015, demographic change and the increasing ethnic minority population is probably the most likely explanation
I think they were hoping they would get 6-12 MPs and be required to pass the EU referendum bill. Then they could have made sure things like purdah and a fairer question were covered.
No, the only realistic hope they ever had was to damage the Conservatives, thereby ensuring a referendum wouldn't happen.
As for the purdah (and even more absurdly the referendum question) - they are being completely bonkers. It's a classic loser's gambit, although usually losers don't complain until after the race has been run. Rather than faffing around moaning about trivia, and complaining that life ain't fair, and accusing Cameron of lying, and getting into a logical knot about the renegotiation, they should be putting 100% effort into preparing the Out case. (Indeed they should have been doing so for the last two years).
It was always going to be extremely hard for the Out side to win a referendum, but it's extraordinary that they are making no serious effort to do so and to build up a consensus as to what the alternative should be.
Simply untrue. Indeed the best result for them - which was achievable if they had been more sensible - was for those 6 or so MPs but still a very small Tory majority. In that case they would have had both the referendum and the ability to put pressure on Tory MPs so that Cameron would have been forced to take a much tougher negotiating stance.
And of course I am not surprised to see you supporting the Government abandoning the basic rules that applied in the two previous referenda. You were never as undecided as you claimed and basically will support Cameron even if he comes back with absolutely nothing - something that has long been obvious to some of us here.
but in real life has a purpose - if the need or the specs for something you have to do / create is unstable, postpone that bit of a task and do all the other stuff first. That way you only waste time when everything else has been done.
It's not quite what I'm proposing but it does seem to me that can-klcking is morphing into an option in its own right where Greece is concerned.
DavidL 350 seats would give a Labour majority of course. Blair won 314 seats in England and Wales in 2005, 357 in 2001 for perspective. Of course if Labour can win back some seats from the SNP that means they need to win fewer south of the border
Indeed. As I say it will not be impossible but they are getting to the point where they really need to sweep the board in seats where they are competitive. The trends have moved a long way since Blair who in any event could win seats beyond anyone else in Labour.
About the only seat that really went against the trend antifrank identifies is Hove, a Labour gain on the south coast. An excellent result for Mr Kyle but it will be hard to keep.
For me the logical conclusion is that Labour need a leader who can compete in the areas which they need to win back. Is Burnham that man? I really don't think so. He would simply play well in areas where they are already strong and have little to gain.
The very poor field of candidates on its own tells you that Labour's next PM is not in the HoC yet. Realistically they are looking at 2030, based on someone half-decent getting elected after defeat in 2020 and standing for leader after defeat in 2025. By 2030 as in 1997 there'll be potential voters who weren't born when Labour was last in and who therefore don't remember what they are actually like in power.
Until then, for as long as the SNP potentially hold the balance of power, Labour are toast. Everyone knows a Labour minority government would abase itself before the SNP and would rob the English trying to buy back its lost Scottish seats. The only way to avoid this is to vote the Conservatives in.
Greece is desperate to stay in the Euro because anything else takes them back towards being a basket case ruled by the army. Europe is keen to keep Greece in the euro to prove there's no reverse gear to ever closer union. Germany is desperate to keep Greece in the euro to prove that it's not Germany's fault.
Literally nobody is anxious to see Greece leave the euro. So it won't happen.
All that is true, but the other side of the coin is that the other main Eurozone countries, and Germany in particular, are desperate not to establish a precedent whereby a Eurozone country can run up irresponsible Euro-denominated debts and effectively rely on Germany to pick up the tab.
They are faced with two possible outcomes both of which are totally unacceptable to them.
Well, there's a third alternative: Management By Procrastination. When faced with a choice between options that are hard to choose between, do nothing and eventually all but one option will disappear. So you do that one.
This avoids your having to judge between choices or make a decision.
Why can each side not simply procrastinate indefinitely? I'm not saying it would be smart, of course, just questioning why it could not happen. Perhaps this is what euro default looks like.
Procrastination is generally the most popular policy option.
Pre the 2015 GE, there was a lot of discussion and conjecture of how the 2010LD vote would split and also which party(s) the UKIP votes would come from.
For 2020 will a main discussion be how the 2015 UKIP vote splits?
Pre the 2015 GE, there was a lot of discussion and conjecture of how the 2010LD vote would split and also which party(s) the UKIP votes would come from.
For 2020 will a main discussion be how the 2015 UKIP vote splits?
Pre the 2015 GE, there was a lot of discussion and conjecture of how the 2010LD vote would split and also which party(s) the UKIP votes would come from.
For 2020 will a main discussion be how the 2015 UKIP vote splits?
What a good point. Maybe OGH will also chime in to remind us that the Tories need an 11% poll lead for a 1% majority....
Rochester is the perfect example of how the Tories won the election by terrifying voters about the possibility of a lab/SNP coalition. Tolhurst was a dreadful candidate but still won comfortably. Reckless, who was a very good MP, is now head of policy at ukip.
As opposed to Labour constantly " terrifying" the weakest in society the "old the sick and the needy" as Labour always put it by always stating the end of the NHS. Well It's still here and will always be.
however had Ed done better he would have gone in with the SNP even on confidence and supply. His life aim and the destruction of his family guaranteed that.
But, in terms of overall strategy, I think UKIP got it right over the past 5 years. I'd suggest there is very little mass support for a libertarian Eurosceptic party in this country (or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter). There is a good deal of mass support for a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic party.
Surely that depends on what they want to achieve. If it is to represent a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic position, that might have a useful role in a PR system,. However, we don't have a PR system, we have FPTP, and under FPTP it is at best irrelevant and more likely actively damaging to the causes they want to promote.
Alternatively, if the objective is to get us out of the EU, then UKIP has been completely counter-productive ever since Cameron pledged the referendum. Fortunately they failed in their attempt to sabotage the referendum altogether and install Miliband in No 10. In addition they have so far failed to do anything to make an Out vote more likely, and it doesn't look likely that that will change.
I remain completely baffled as to what they actually think they are doing.
Without UKIP, (or if UKIP had remained on c.3% of the vote) there would never have been a referendum pledge.
But, in relation to your first point, I think it's entirely reasonable to put forward a policy position that isn't represented by any of the Conservatives, Labour, or Lib Dems.
Categorically untrue. It had nothing to do with UKIP and everything to do with the rebel Tory backbenchers which is why we're having a referendum. UKIP's hoovering up some minor votes is a distraction, over 80 Tory MPs rebelling was a critical failure that needed resolving.
Most of the so-called rise of UKIP has happened after Cameron pledged to have a referendum, which happened within months of the Tory rebellion.
DavidL 350 seats would give a Labour majority of course. Blair won 314 seats in England and Wales in 2005, 357 in 2001 for perspective. Of course if Labour can win back some seats from the SNP that means they need to win fewer south of the border
Indeed. As I say it will not be impossible but they are getting to the point where they really need to sweep the board in seats where they are competitive. The trends have moved a long way since Blair who in any event could win seats beyond anyone else in Labour.
About the only seat that really went against the trend antifrank identifies is Hove, a Labour gain on the south coast. An excellent result for Mr Kyle but it will be hard to keep.
For me the logical conclusion is that Labour need a leader who can compete in the areas which they need to win back. Is Burnham that man? I really don't think so. He would simply play well in areas where they are already strong and have little to gain.
Until then, for as long as the SNP potentially hold the balance of power, Labour are toast. Everyone knows a Labour minority government would abase itself before the SNP and would rob the English trying to buy back its lost Scottish seats. The only way to avoid this is to vote the Conservatives in.
Quite. The reason the Salmond and Miliband poster worked so well is that Eck was seen as a strong leader and Ed a weak one - it was really obvious how the public would perceive the dynamic between them would work.
The only way this changes is if Labour can choose someone with gravitas who might actually stand up to the SNP rather than roll over and have their tummy tickled. Good luck!
DavidL Not necessarily, most of the Labour seats in 2005 and many in 1997 and 2001 were also won by Wilson and Attlee. Labour really don't need to win seats like Wimbledon and Newark and Gillingham and Dorset South Blair won because of his landslides, where they do need to win is seats like Nuneaton, Crawley, Blackpool, Scarborough, Plymouth, Dover etc which would respond to a grittier leader like Burnham, from a northern lower middle/working class background educated at a Catholic Comp and Cambridge.
RichardN UKIP's best bet is a narrow In vote, as a Narrow No was for the SNP, it keeps the issue alive without removing their main grievance
Only if UKIP don't want Out. If they do then any Out vote even by a single vote is best.
As for the issue being alive, this has nothing to do with the Scottish vote. The SNP surge occurred before the Indyref, polling well over 40% in Holyrood '11 and there has been never been an equivalent surge of 40% +for UKIP.
BJB Rubbish, I could certainly see Burnham, Cooper or Kendall beating Osborne in 2020. There was an above average swing to the Tories in marginals in 2015 to stop the SNP holding the balance of power, there could easily be an above average swing back there if voters want a Labour government and prefer the Labour leader to ensure a Labour majority, or at least a deal with the LDs and that is presupposing Labour do not win back some seats from the SNP anyway which is not impossible
Plato Those were anarchists, most of the protestors gave him a warmer reception, I would rather he at least now encourages people to vote, even if it is for Labour or the Greens or SNP, than encourage people to try and overturn the democratic system through violent revolution as anarchists ultimately wish to do. Indeed, some anarchists want the most economically rightwing government possible as they argue it is easier to rouse the masses in revolution against it
A bit like wrong type of snow? Wrong type of protestors?
The left seem to have a Judean front set of splits every week. The young and gullible follow the advice of one "icon" Brand and then do not vote..... Then they protest about the outcome... WTF. How Brand is welcomed back to speak after that folly is very funny.
"The left seem to have a Judean front set of splits every week" Whereas UKIP ...?
BJB Rubbish, I could certainly see Burnham, Cooper or Kendall beating Osborne in 2020. There was an above average swing to the Tories in marginals in 2015 to stop the SNP holding the balance of power, there could easily be an above average swing back there if voters want a Labour government and prefer the Labour leader to ensure a Labour majority, or at least a deal with the LDs and that is presupposing Labour do not win back some seats from the SNP anyway which is not impossible
I make that five ifs:
- if voters want a Labour government - if they prefer the Labour leader - if they want a Labour majority (doesn't follow from the previous; see 2010) - if there are LDs to do a deal with - if they win back some seats from the SNP.
PT Well their supporters may want Out but for the party the best result is a small In as once the UK has 'achieved independence' there becomes little need for a UK independence party
PT The SNP also won 32% at the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections, only 19% at the 2010 general election, so the surge at Westminster was a result of the indyref result
PT Well their supporters may want Out but for the party the best result is a small In as once the UK has 'achieved independence' there becomes little need for a UK independence party
Correct, and this must explain why UKIP has been so totally ineffectual as MEPs.
Admittedly all MEPs are useless and so far as I can see MEP elections are wholly without point. That said, UKIP supposedly exist to get Britain out of Europe. One way would be an Out vote, but another surely would be to get us expelled. I would have thought an obvious strategy for UKIP's block of MEPs would have been to disrupt the functioning of the European parliament to the limits of their ability. What they actually do is fill their pockets with our money and make little comedy speeches that Farage then puts on YouTube. WTF is that achieving?
BJB Well most Tories who hoped for a majority in 2015 were seen as quite the optimists too, as were Labour supporters in 1992 hoping for a 160 majority in 1997, who knows what will happen!
RD Osborne polls far worse than Cameron, he is less likeable and less charismatic and Chancellors do not have a great record taking over as leader, see Brown and Callaghan and while Major did win 1 election he lost the second. The next Labour leader will be better than Ed M and Osborne will also have to deal with the fallout from EUref, even if he has achieved a surplus and the economy is still growing that does not guarantee a Tory victory either, see 1997
Comments
Do you dislike what he is or what he says, perhaps a combination of both?
I'm genuinely interested in your views.
I can well foresee a second referendum happening within about a decade, depending on how events unfold. For example, if Cameron comes back suggesting a few changes to benefits will limit EU immigration, and EU immigration continues to climb, discontent will continue to rumble. Another example is legal protections agreed without treaty change being undone in European courts. And Cameron's absurd push to allow the civil service to back one side in an election will give the eurosceptics the excuse they need to demand another one. The Scottish independence referendum is a good case of how the aftermath allows the issue to fester, and the eurosceptics could have a much stronger case than the Scottish nationalists do.
Of course, if the Prime Minister restores purdah, allows a free vote for ministers, and wins the referendum handily, this would all be avoided.
What a joke. The EU needs to lance the boil and chuck Greece out of the EMU and provide assistance for when the economy collapses.
They really don't do irony, do they?
Off topic.Lib Dem leadership.It's clear a woman is needed to take over from Farron.Step forward Ms Williams from Wales as leader after next.Kirsty has a clear field against the white,middle class men.If Farron were to fail,I make her an odds-on fav.to succeed.Like Corbyn,she should not be 100-1.She is competent and impresses.
But in 2014-15, Public Health England set aside only £9.4million for the Change4Life campaign to tackle obesity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3128522/
That's an area where savings can be made immediately.
Cameron's being a lucky general seems to be continuing with the post-election shenanigans from UKIP, but he will have to accept that unless he achieves significant reform in his negotiations he will struggle to keep the party together. The Telegraph article looks like the first of many this week and there will undoubtedly be a lot more to come in the months ahead.
There are important health connotations, but not in cash terms. Btw, apparently public health is being squeezed further since it was moved from the NHS to local authorities.
I was heavily involved with the anti-EU movement long before Farage came on the scene so a party like UKIP that was campaigning for a British exit from the EU was perfect for me. If you go back a decade or so you will also find that UKIP was a far more Libertarian party than it is now - small state and freedom of the individual being key messages. It took an absolutely idiotic decision to turn them into a party that is associated with homophobia and social conservatism.
Similarly with the whole issue of race and immigration. As an anti-EU party UKIP were always going to have problems with the race card being used against them. But anyone with any nouse would have been able to deal with that by highlighting opposition to the EU as an entity rather than Europe as a place. Similarly it is perfectly possible to oppose mass migration on the basis of numbers without making it an issue of xenophobia or race. UKIP - and Farage in particular - have failed to do that. By pushing an anti-muslim agenda and making stupid comments about being willing to take refugees but only if they are Christians he plays right into the hands of the party's opponents. If done consciously as I believe it must have been, it is a core vote strategy that is bound to fail.
The biggest problem is Farage himself. There are many highly intelligent and well respected Eurosceptics who either served in the party or worked with us and who would have been able to give sensible advice to Farage and so prevent these massive mistakes. But Farage is, in the end, so arrogant and egotistical that these many people were driven out of UKIP, not just recently but over many years and are now running other mostly non political Eurosceptic organisations who frankly want nothing to do with UKIP. I have worked for many of them and know how badly they believe Farage has damaged the whole image of Euroscpticism.
This is why there is now such a movement to ensure his involvement in the referendum campaign is as small as possible.
Are you going to Silverstone? There's still a few tickets left at reasonable prices for Fri and Sat.
You think it would have been ok for UKIP to take the money and, by implication, use it for things which it wasn't intended for, because they desperately needed it?
I hadn't intended the McLaren bet, but I was browsing and the odds seemed long, so I checked, saw their retirements (below) and backed both to fail to be classified:
Australia – 1
Malaysia – 2
China – 0
Bahrain – 1
Spain – 1
Monaco – 1
Canada – 2
I shan't be going to Silverstone. The great joy (momentary false alarm aside) of a tax return is reminding oneself of just how bloody horrendous the finances are.
Charles, I haven't said they should have taken the money, I was simply pointing out that Farage and Carswell had different opinions. I applaud Carswell's principled stance, he would have been under a deal of pressure owing to Ukip's financial situation.
Potential candidates for resignation include Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling and Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers.
Dr Fox also asked for an assurance that the party would not use any of its money to back the 'In' campaign, saying it would be 'wrong' to do so.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3133865/Let-ministers-EU-exit-ll-quit-Cabinet-PM-warned-Eurosceptics-demand-Cameron-gives-details-negotiations-Tory-Party-conference.html
http://www.silverstone.co.uk/events/2015-british-grand-prix/
Carswell and his old friend Dan Hannan need to be leading the right wing Out campaign, with Farage as far away from it as possible. Whether Nigel can see this or not is a very different matter.
For the record, I would vote for quite a few PBers. I would vote for foxinsox, should he choose to stand, for example. I think I'd even vote for NPXMP.
Whereas UKIP ...?
I don't know where all these "sixth month extension" rumours come from. I am on a call with a a senior Greek politician (from Potami) this afternoon, and will let everyone know what they say.
Mr. Sandpit, sounds swanky. Mildly surprised you're not opting for somewhere like Spa, though.
"I don't know where all these "sixth month extension" rumours come from."
I listened to a couple of German finance people on R5L this morning. They're not happy bunnies and in no mood for can-kicking.
Also - door mechanism fails with car on fire...
It might solve some safety issues, but it'll create others.
But, in terms of overall strategy, I think UKIP got it right over the past 5 years. I'd suggest there is very little mass support for a libertarian Eurosceptic party in this country (or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter). There is a good deal of mass support for a moderately socially conservative eurosceptic party.
Either way, it is hard to see any of those named resigning.
Would love to go to Spa (is on the bucket list of life along with Monaco and Le Mans), but I have customers in SG and UAE (am in Dubai atm) so find it easier to get to those races, in places where the city pretty much stops for the weekend!
Alternatively, if the objective is to get us out of the EU, then UKIP has been completely counter-productive ever since Cameron pledged the referendum. Fortunately they failed in their attempt to sabotage the referendum altogether and install Miliband in No 10. In addition they have so far failed to do anything to make an Out vote more likely, and it doesn't look likely that that will change.
I remain completely baffled as to what they actually think they are doing.
http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2015-06-22/bristol-west-mp-diagnosed-with-breast-cancer/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-33211823
How can there still be 'hundreds' of young girls undergoing FGM, and still nobody prosecuted.
But, in relation to your first point, I think it's entirely reasonable to put forward a policy position that isn't represented by any of the Conservatives, Labour, or Lib Dems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescennius_Niger
Three chaps got proclaimed emperor by their troops (Albinus, Niger and Septimius Severus). Severus, being sly, 'allied' with Albinus to be co-emperors, then destroyed Niger. After which he destroyed Albinus.
Singapore is right on the equator and always hot and sticky, Malaysia the same. Bahrain and AD are on the tropic of Cancer and have the races either side of the hot and humid summer season.
Dubai is about 45 degrees today, and so humid that your sunglasses steam up within a second of walking outside. Quite horrible, but the same weather they were suggesting for the Qatar world cup! At night it might get as low as 38 but just as humid. Oh, and it's Ramadan at the moment, so not allowed to drink even water in public and have to go to an hotel to find a coffee shop open during the day!
In terms of a PB Cabinet, I wonder who would serve. A place would have to be found for Cyclefree.
On the second point, yes, of course it is reasonable, but in practice doesn't get you anywhere (and, to the extent it had any success, would take the country in the opposite direction).
Harrow West, Ealing Acton, Ealing North, Enfield North, Edmonton, Ilford North and South, Brent North were all won in 1992 (some by very comfortable margins) and all lost in 2015.
The Tories did hold Enfield Southgate and Harrow East though
As for the purdah (and even more absurdly the referendum question) - they are being completely bonkers. It's a classic loser's gambit, although usually losers don't complain until after the race has been run. Rather than faffing around moaning about trivia, and complaining that life ain't fair, and accusing Cameron of lying, and getting into a logical knot about the renegotiation, they should be putting 100% effort into preparing the Out case. (Indeed they should have been doing so for the last two years).
It was always going to be extremely hard for the Out side to win a referendum, but it's extraordinary that they are making no serious effort to do so and to build up a consensus as to what the alternative should be.
Greece is desperate to stay in the Euro because anything else takes them back towards being a basket case ruled by the army. Europe is keen to keep Greece in the euro to prove there's no reverse gear to ever closer union. Germany is desperate to keep Greece in the euro to prove that it's not Germany's fault.
Literally nobody is anxious to see Greece leave the euro. So it won't happen.
I think his valid observations put the "efficiency" argument into perspective and indicate the nature of the problem. The tories found it easy to increase their dominance where they were already strong in the south west. Trying to recover northern seats where demographic and other trends have been against them for decades would be a different question altogether. The logic of this is that you go for the easy targets which increases the disparity between areas of strength and weakness.
The Tory vote increased to a Labour like level of efficiency because they concentrated on winning votes where they count. Both the main parties are now doing this and barely campaigning in ever larger parts of the country. The inevitable consequence is ever more safe seats and ever fewer votes which actually count with ever greater disengagement as a result. This is not healthy.
An optimist would say that nature abhors a vacuum and the collapse of the Lib Dems means there are vacancies for a credible opposition to the Tories in the south and Labour in the north. It is possible that UKIP could fill that vacuum although this looks a lot less likely after the election.
A pessimist would look at the map. The sea of blue west and south of London (with Ben Bradshaw's island of Exeter being one of very few exceptions) shows a level of dominance that makes SLAB's grip on Scotland even at its peak look partial. It is closer to the SNP grip on Scotland at the moment and covers far more people.
And as antifrank points out these areas are not going to be losers when the next boundary commission comes into effect. Without Scotland Labour may one day struggle to find more than 350 seats in which they are competitive. Doesn't make a Labour majority impossible. Doesn't make it easy either.
Still I think my comment applies to the UKIP leadership, if not to you.
However that won't stop me joining the campaign...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Conservative-Friends-of-Jeremy-Corbyn/1444029165902915?fref=ts
"We endorse Jeremy Corbyn as the only Labour leadership contender with the skills necessary to guarantee five years of stable, sensible government in 2020."
They are faced with two possible outcomes both of which are totally unacceptable to them.
As to the rest, it's incorrect that if you don't vote Conservative, you must want Labour to win. Actually, there's no reason at all to vote Conservative, even tactically in c.500 seats. Either they're safe for Labour or SNP, or there's no chance of Labour winning them.
This avoids your having to judge between choices or make a decision.
So there's Option "A" (Outcome "A"), Option "B" (Outcome "B"), and Option "C" (procrastinate and choose neither "A" nor "B").
Why can each side not simply procrastinate indefinitely? How long can Option "C" last?
I'm not saying it would be smart, of course, just questioning why it could not happen. Perhaps this is what euro default looks like.
Take a look at this map:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11584325/full-results-map-uk-2015.html
About the only seat that really went against the trend antifrank identifies is Hove, a Labour gain on the south coast. An excellent result for Mr Kyle but it will be hard to keep.
For me the logical conclusion is that Labour need a leader who can compete in the areas which they need to win back. Is Burnham that man? I really don't think so. He would simply play well in areas where they are already strong and have little to gain.
Will he become a second Heath?
And of course I am not surprised to see you supporting the Government abandoning the basic rules that applied in the two previous referenda. You were never as undecided as you claimed and basically will support Cameron even if he comes back with absolutely nothing - something that has long been obvious to some of us here.
http://www.executivebrief.com/blogs/management-by-procrastination/
but in real life has a purpose - if the need or the specs for something you have to do / create is unstable, postpone that bit of a task and do all the other stuff first. That way you only waste time when everything else has been done.
It's not quite what I'm proposing but it does seem to me that can-klcking is morphing into an option in its own right where Greece is concerned.
Until then, for as long as the SNP potentially hold the balance of power, Labour are toast. Everyone knows a Labour minority government would abase itself before the SNP and would rob the English trying to buy back its lost Scottish seats. The only way to avoid this is to vote the Conservatives in.
For 2020 will a main discussion be how the 2015 UKIP vote splits?
however had Ed done better he would have gone in with the SNP even on confidence and supply. His life aim and the destruction of his family guaranteed that.
Most of the so-called rise of UKIP has happened after Cameron pledged to have a referendum, which happened within months of the Tory rebellion.
The only way this changes is if Labour can choose someone with gravitas who might actually stand up to the SNP rather than roll over and have their tummy tickled. Good luck!
As for the issue being alive, this has nothing to do with the Scottish vote. The SNP surge occurred before the Indyref, polling well over 40% in Holyrood '11 and there has been never been an equivalent surge of 40% +for UKIP.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33220534
http://caterpillarsandbutterflies1.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/doc022-they-quit-ukip-mostly-in-disgust.html
- if voters want a Labour government
- if they prefer the Labour leader
- if they want a Labour majority (doesn't follow from the previous; see 2010)
- if there are LDs to do a deal with
- if they win back some seats from the SNP.
Quite the optimist.
PT The SNP also won 32% at the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections, only 19% at the 2010 general election, so the surge at Westminster was a result of the indyref result
Admittedly all MEPs are useless and so far as I can see MEP elections are wholly without point. That said, UKIP supposedly exist to get Britain out of Europe. One way would be an Out vote, but another surely would be to get us expelled. I would have thought an obvious strategy for UKIP's block of MEPs would have been to disrupt the functioning of the European parliament to the limits of their ability. What they actually do is fill their pockets with our money and make little comedy speeches that Farage then puts on YouTube. WTF is that achieving?