The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?
The key EU reform that Cameron should have focussed IMHO on is the ability to reverse previous EU opt-ins taken by previous UK governments. I.e. A UK Parliament cannot bind its successor by ceding powers for good, and re opt-outs are possible.
If he'd got that, practical threshold limits for free movement, as well as protections for the UK as a non-eurozone member within a reformed single market, then there might be a renegotiation to sell.
I don't think that's possible, though.
In theory a Parliament can always repudiate a Treaty, so they are not bound. But I can't see that a hokey-cokey approach to the EU would be appealing to our partners.
Why should our partners care whether we're in the ECJ rulings, charter of fundamental rights, or the EAW?
People should be allowed to change their minds as circumstances dictate. It would also make the EU more democratic and responsive.
I thought your point was on previous EU opt-outs, not the ECJ
I think the EU renegotiation would have to recognise what competenxies were subject to a reversible opt-in, or surrendered opt-outs: that should include justice, foreign policy, rights, policing, criminal law, migration and social law.
I agree that if we remain a member we can't cherry pick the single market. But if that too had safeguards against the eurozone outvoting us, we'd have a deal for the long term IMHO.
Otherwise I think it is inevitable we will leave.
And that proposal is directly counter to the concept of ever closer union, so I don't think it would fly. Now that might be a good reason for you to vote OUT, but it's a little harsh to set Cameron a target that is unachievable and then lambast him when he fails to deliver.
Cameron will negotiate an exemption from ever closer union for the UK, so that shouldn't be an issue.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
Do the Lib Dems have any money?
They still owe Police Scotland £800k.
What was that for and when?
Policing costs for LibDem conferences
At £100K per MP I'd do the job myself, in person!
The number of Lib Dem MPs is the result of the FPTP system.
Under proportional representation they would have 50 MPs.
Does the Lib Dem conference even need a police presence ? PM/LOTO are positions of state, and there are associated terrorist risks. The Lib Dem conference is about as relevant to Gov't as a wargaming convention.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
In a controversial move, the Home Secretary will this morning say that the “net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero”.
“The evidence – from the OECD, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and many academics – shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade.”
If the net economic effect of all immigration is close to zero, it stands to reason that skilled immigration must be a positive and unskilled immigration must be a negative. Especially when some groups only have a quarter of their working age population in work.
Not necessarily. It could be the reverse, and unskilled immigrants readily fill employment gaps but skilled immigrants merely displace other workers. Or it might be that skilled or unskilled is a red herring and, as you suggest, it is about dependants. Or you could be right. We can't deduce it from that small extract.
In a controversial move, the Home Secretary will this morning say that the “net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero”.
“The evidence – from the OECD, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and many academics – shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade.”
The increase in population from immigration increases the UK's GDP but there is no increase in GDP per head from immigration.
Now that all the Lib Dem elected folk that embrace 8 at the HoC, 1 MEP, plus the Welsh Assembly, London Assembly and the Scots parliament can fit inside a 30 seater minibus, how small a vehicle will they need after next May's elections? Innocent face.
Does the Lib Dem conference even need a police presence ? PM/LOTO are positions of state, and there are associated terrorist risks. The Lib Dem conference is about as relevant to Gov't as a wargaming convention.
Funnily enough most of the wargamers I know are LDs.
In a controversial move, the Home Secretary will this morning say that the “net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero”.
“The evidence – from the OECD, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and many academics – shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade.”
If the net economic effect of all immigration is close to zero, it stands to reason that skilled immigration must be a positive and unskilled immigration must be a negative. Especially when some groups only have a quarter of their working age population in work.
Not necessarily. It could be the reverse, and unskilled immigrants readily fill employment gaps but skilled immigrants merely displace other workers. Or it might be that skilled or unskilled is a red herring and, as you suggest, it is about dependants. Or you could be right. We can't deduce it from that small extract.
Business complain that immigration limits stop them getting skilled labour, not unskilled labour. Plus on the fiscal side, it's very clear that a skilled immigrant will be earning more and be paying a bigger tax chunk.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
Well put Sir but I believe you are being overly generous. Cameron offered a referendum and having previously given a cast iron guarantee can't renege again. But therein lies the problem, there is no evidence to suggest he is anything but a committed Europhile, he now has to dance around the Eurosceptics both in and out of his own party in a ridiculous charade over renegotiation.
Cameron is popular within the tory party but he's had a blessed time in charge, first of all he had Clegg as his human shield, then Corbyn appeared out of nowhere to take the heat off. But the EU is going to define him, let's see what he's got when the guns against his head.
'And that proposal is directly counter to the concept of ever closer union, so I don't think it would fly...'
No genuine Tory can support the concept of ever closer union.
The excuse years ago used to be that it was just a load of aspirational rubbish the excitable Europeans liked to witter on about, so we could safely ignore it and concentrate on the economic 'benefits'.
That was always untrue, and the events of the last 20 years have demonstrated convincingly that ever closer union is a real process with major ramifications, which is not going to go away.
The other more recent excuse, that a wider Europe would mean a looser one, has also been shown to be completely false.
All Tories now have to face up to these facts and stop pretending there is some kind of tweak that can be done that will make everything OK.
There isn't. We either opt out of the political process altogether or we will be dragged along by it and Britain's political independence will have entirely vanished in another 10-20 years.
Casino_Royale - The key problem is that Cameron has let europhiles such as Liddington handle all the diplomacy ahead of the negotiations so the ground was not prepared well in advance. The FO's review of competencies under Hague was also loaded with items not to renegotiate. The majority of Conservative members are going to vote to leave. How Osborne thinks they will elect him as Cameron's replacement is the puzzle.
In a controversial move, the Home Secretary will this morning say that the “net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero”.
“The evidence – from the OECD, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and many academics – shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade.”
If the net economic effect of all immigration is close to zero, it stands to reason that skilled immigration must be a positive and unskilled immigration must be a negative. Especially when some groups only have a quarter of their working age population in work.
Not necessarily. It could be the reverse, and unskilled immigrants readily fill employment gaps but skilled immigrants merely displace other workers. Or it might be that skilled or unskilled is a red herring and, as you suggest, it is about dependants. Or you could be right. We can't deduce it from that small extract.
Business complain that immigration limits stop them getting skilled labour, not unskilled labour. Plus on the fiscal side, it's very clear that a skilled immigrant will be earning more and be paying a bigger tax chunk.
Dependents are also either skilled or unskilled. So start charging for work permits e.g. £10,000 a year for skilled folk.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
Do the Lib Dems have any money?
They still owe Police Scotland £800k.
What was that for and when?
Policing costs for LibDem conferences
At £100K per MP I'd do the job myself, in person!
The number of Lib Dem MPs is the result of the FPTP system.
Under proportional representation they would have 50 MPs.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
I'd also have some respect if he said the negotiations had gone nowhere but on balance it was better to vote In. That would at least be honest.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
Not much can be done in the EU by standing on a box and shouting about it. We actually don't know how ambitious is Cam's project, nor do we know what's being done behind the scenes. To make fundamental changes about freedom of movement, for example, is currently impossible partly because it's something the integrationists want to keep and partly nations like Poland appreciate the money that can be made by their citizens. Having said that, my gut feel is that the renegotiations will be a bit of a damp squib. For real change we will have to regain our sovereignty.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
TBF, my read is that Cameron thought he could get more than it looks like he will.
I would say there's possibly a 20-30% chance he will recommend leave. And I think his recommendation would be sufficient to swing the result.
It's an interesting scenario - and one that would transform Leave by sidelining some of nastier elements who support it
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
Not much can be done in the EU by standing on a box and shouting about it. We actually don't know how ambitious is Cam's project, nor do we know what's being done behind the scenes. To make fundamental changes about freedom of movement, for example, is currently impossible partly because it's something the integrationists want to keep and partly nations like Poland appreciate the money that can be made by their citizens. Having said that, my gut feel is that the renegotiations will be a bit of a damp squib. For real change we will have to regain our sovereignty.
May on now BBC Parly. She's w.earing a slash neck black dress that makes her look like a disembodied head against the navy blue background. Rather disconcerting
Casino_Royale - The key problem is that Cameron has let europhiles such as Liddington handle all the diplomacy ahead of the negotiations so the ground was not prepared well in advance. The FO's review of competencies under Hague was also loaded with items not to renegotiate. The majority of Conservative members are going to vote to leave. How Osborne thinks they will elect him as Cameron's replacement is the puzzle.
The problem with the whole European dynamic is this myth that you need to win influence by getting on with people. The media reports this a lot because the idea of research for most journalists is talking to a lot of people working in the field and reporting what they say.
So of course, when they report on Britain's renegotiation, the journalists talk to Eurocrats, foreign journalists and ambassadors and they will always say they are cross with people who throw spanners in the work, and we shouldn't do that sort of thing. Journalists don't ever stop to check on the actual results of different negotiation techniques in an objective manner, nor do they read up on the academic research about international negotiations. All of that shows that hard-nosed, aggressive negotiations makes the other side dislike you, but yields much better results.
I once read about how Richard Nixon was very keen on reading up game theory, and he realised that rational actors were at a disadvantage in negotiations because the other side can observe fairly easily what is rational for you and can push you to your limits. Irrational people are harder to predict, and if the other side wants a deal, they are more hesitant and give a wider berth to your red lines, knowing that you might judge things oddly and go over them. So for this reason when Nixon negotiated with the Russians and the Chinese, he would do deliberately odd and suddenly rash things to make them think he was unstable. Of course, he secured a very good deal with the Chinese.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
TBF, my read is that Cameron thought he could get more than it looks like he will.
I would say there's possibly a 20-30% chance he will recommend leave. And I think his recommendation would be sufficient to swing the result.
It's an interesting scenario - and one that would transform Leave by sidelining some of nastier elements who support it
Yes, this is the issue for Cameron. If he recommends Remain and we Leave then he loses control of the debate, and who knows where it will go. If he recommends Leave, then he can be fully in charge of the debate and negotiating an exit deal focused on looking after business. He would keep his party together and business could be kept on side, especially as they worry about Corbyn getting anywhere near power.
Of course, if he gets a good deal, that's all moot.
Casino_Royale - The key problem is that Cameron has let europhiles such as Liddington handle all the diplomacy ahead of the negotiations so the ground was not prepared well in advance. The FO's review of competencies under Hague was also loaded with items not to renegotiate. The majority of Conservative members are going to vote to leave. How Osborne thinks they will elect him as Cameron's replacement is the puzzle.
The problem with the whole European dynamic is this myth that you need to win influence by getting on with people. The media reports this a lot because the idea of research for most journalists is talking to a lot of people working in the field and reporting what they say.
So of course, when they report on Britain's renegotiation, the journalists talk to Eurocrats, foreign journalists and ambassadors and they will always say they are cross with people who throw spanners in the work, and we shouldn't do that sort of thing. Journalists don't ever stop to check on the actual results of different negotiation techniques in an objective manner, nor do they read up on the academic research about international negotiations. All of that shows that hard-nosed, aggressive negotiations makes the other side dislike you, but yields much better results.
I once read about how Richard Nixon was very keen on reading up game theory, and he realised that rational actors were at a disadvantage in negotiations because the other side can observe fairly easily what is rational for you and can push you to your limits. Irrational people are harder to predict, and if the other side wants a deal, they are more hesitant and give a wider berth to your red lines, knowing that you might judge things oddly and go over them. So for this reason when Nixon negotiated with the Russians and the Chinese, he would do deliberately odd and suddenly rash things to make them think he was unstable. Of course, he secured a very good deal with the Chinese.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
TBF, my read is that Cameron thought he could get more than it looks like he will.
I would say there's possibly a 20-30% chance he will recommend leave. And I think his recommendation would be sufficient to swing the result.
It's an interesting scenario - and one that would transform Leave by sidelining some of nastier elements who support it
Interesting that you see it that high Charles as 20%-30%. That seems too high for Cameron to buck the establishment consensus on Europe. I could only see it that high if Osborne judged that was his only chance of getting the Leadership. Maybe use the referendum to reject so that they go back and ask again for better terms. It is also quite clear that unlike Brown's coronation that there is a long queue of people considering standing for the Leadership.
Not sure if this has been answered for you Carlotta but yes, prisoners on remand can still vote.
Thank you.
So we already have different classes of prisoners, some with, some without voting rights.
The ECR's problem is?
It is not just prisoners on remand who can vote. Under the 2000 legislation according to the PSO, the following groups of prisoners are allowed to vote:
• Unconvicted prisoners • Convicted but unsentenced prisoners • Persons imprisoned for contempt of court and other prisoners classified under Prison Rule 7(3) • Those serving a term of imprisonment in default of payment of a sum of money, adjudged to be paid on conviction
Power is not an end, it's a means. The objective is to make the country better. And you don't do that by selling out everything you believe in to grab power.
Now, Corbyn might not be the best person to do that, but its better than another 10 years of being endlessly dragged to the right in the theory that if we agree to screw the poor a little harder, pander to racists and bigots a little more, waste a little more money on voodoo privatisation schemes then we can get in power and be a little less obnoxious than the tories - and ignoring that Labour's supineness gives the Tories license to be far more radical and nasty than otherwise.
Cameron is the "heir to blair" and that's the problem.
@Ghedebrav 'The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).' Holding onto 8 seats may be a reasonable target for 2020,if the new boundaries had been in place this year the Lib Dems would have had 4 seats.
I agree. They are probably a 50% chance of losing seats vs gaining them before the boundary changes. We can expect at least 3 retirements, Clegg, Pugh and Lamb.
An interesting discussion on this thread earlier on the long-term future of the left and a possible Tory hegemony. As the saying goes, "It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future", but here's my tuppence worth:
- I don't think there will be a formal split of the Labour Party, which will remain the principal party of opposition in England & Wales. The barriers to a split under FPTP are just too strong, and in particular Labour has the searing folk-memory of the SDP to act as a powerful disincentive.
- However, many of the more serious Labour politicians will drift off elsewhere, most likely to non-partisan roles (as per Lord Adonis). There may be a few defections, but I don't expect many. Of course one option for an MP who simply can't stomach Corbyn, and especially McDonnell, would be to become an independent voting with Labour in most cases but reserving the right to eschew loony leftism and other Corbynisms. Alternatively they can simply rebel - Corbyn is hardly in a position to complain.
- The LibDems will pick up some ex-Labour support but I think they will not recover very much any time soon.
- The danger of the Tories becoming complacent is a real one but not an immediate one. They have, after all, only a small majority, and there are multiple institutional constraints. There is also the BBC which acts as the de facto opposition. If the Labour madness were to persist for 15 or 20 years, then the lack of an effective official opposition would indeed become a problem, but we are a long way from that.
- Eventually Labour will come to its senses and the likes of Jonathan of this parish will regain control of the party. This however won't happen quickly - 2020 looks hopeless, but a recovery by 2025 might be possible.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
TBF, my read is that Cameron thought he could get more than it looks like he will.
I would say there's possibly a 20-30% chance he will recommend leave. And I think his recommendation would be sufficient to swing the result.
It's an interesting scenario - and one that would transform Leave by sidelining some of nastier elements who support it
Yes, this is the issue for Cameron. If he recommends Remain and we Leave then he loses control of the debate, and who knows where it will go. If he recommends Leave, then he can be fully in charge of the debate and negotiating an exit deal focused on looking after business. He would keep his party together and business could be kept on side, especially as they worry about Corbyn getting anywhere near power.
Of course, if he gets a good deal, that's all moot.
I'm also very sceptical that if the PM recommends 'Leave' then there are enough committed supporters of the EU to vote that down.
I think a lot of people will swing based on his recommendation - which is exactly as it should be for something as complex as this. This is why we appoint leaders to manage complex negotiations on our behalf.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
TBF, my read is that Cameron thought he could get more than it looks like he will.
I would say there's possibly a 20-30% chance he will recommend leave. And I think his recommendation would be sufficient to swing the result.
It's an interesting scenario - and one that would transform Leave by sidelining some of nastier elements who support it
Yes, this is the issue for Cameron. If he recommends Remain and we Leave then he loses control of the debate, and who knows where it will go. If he recommends Leave, then he can be fully in charge of the debate and negotiating an exit deal focused on looking after business. He would keep his party together and business could be kept on side, especially as they worry about Corbyn getting anywhere near power.
Of course, if he gets a good deal, that's all moot.
I'm also very sceptical that if the PM recommends 'Leave' then there are enough committed supporters of the EU to vote that down.
If Cameron recommends in we'll likely stay in.
If Cameron recommends out we'll leave with a thumping majority.
Does the Lib Dem conference even need a police presence ? PM/LOTO are positions of state, and there are associated terrorist risks. The Lib Dem conference is about as relevant to Gov't as a wargaming convention.
Funnily enough most of the wargamers I know are LDs.
Excuse me. I run one (actually two) of the most successful wargames conventions in the country which brings in visitors from all over the world.
Power is not an end, it's a means. The objective is to make the country better. And you don't do that by selling out everything you believe in to grab power.
Now, Corbyn might not be the best person to do that, but its better than another 10 years of being endlessly dragged to the right in the theory that if we agree to screw the poor a little harder, pander to racists and bigots a little more, waste a little more money on voodoo privatisation schemes then we can get in power and be a little less obnoxious than the tories - and ignoring that Labour's supineness gives the Tories license to be far more radical and nasty than otherwise.
So the Tories aren't that bad then. It's not worth pandering to anyone, or compromising with anyone, to win, in which case Tories being in charge is ok, if not ideal. That's fine, I can understand that - my problem is it doesn't fit with the rhetoric of the 'Tory Scum' crowd who also support that idea, that Tories are evil. If they were evil, you'd do what you have to to beat them, rather than let the people suffer until they learn they need to come to your side.
If staying true and maybe winning eventually is better than making unacceptable compromises in order to win, that is ok, but it just seems incompatible with the other half of the argument many people make about how evil the opponents are.
Cameron is a superb pm and no likely contender matches up to him. Only his covert europhilia gives rise to doubts. Osborne, though politically astute, is best as an éminence grise. Not cut out for leader. He's even more opaque than Cameron on the EU. That may be part of his poker playing persona but it won't do anything for support among a largely eurosceptic party.
'Power is not an end, it's a means. The objective is to make the country better. And you don't do that by selling out everything you believe in to grab power.'
So 1997 - 2010 was a complete failure in terms of 'making the country better' just a complete sell out for the sake of power?
An interesting discussion on this thread earlier on the long-term future of the left and a possible Tory hegemony. As the saying goes, "It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future", but here's my tuppence worth:
- I don't think there will be a formal split of the Labour Party, which will remain the principal party of opposition in England & Wales. The barriers to a split under FPTP are just too strong, and in particular Labour has the searing folk-memory of the SDP to act as a powerful disincentive.
- However, many of the more serious Labour politicians will drift off elsewhere, most likely to non-partisan roles (as per Lord Adonis). There may be a few defections, but I don't expect many. Of course one option for an MP who simply can't stomach Corbyn, and especially McDonnell, would be to become an independent voting with Labour in most cases but reserving the right to eschew loony leftism and other Corbynisms. Alternatively they can simply rebel - Corbyn is hardly in a position to complain.
- The LibDems will pick up some ex-Labour support but I think they will not recover very much any time soon.
- The danger of the Tories becoming complacent is a real one but not an immediate one. They have, after all, only a small majority, and there are multiple institutional constraints. There is also the BBC which acts as the de facto opposition. If the Labour madness were to persist for 15 or 20 years, then the lack of an effective official opposition would indeed become a problem, but we are a long way from that.
- Eventually Labour will come to its senses and the likes of Jonathan of this parish will regain control of the party. This however won't happen quickly - 2020 looks hopeless, but a recovery by 2025 might be possible.
Those fighting the good fight within Labour have my huge admiration. Activists like Jonathan and various MPs. They have a long, hard slog ahead. For me, life is too short. I just don't have the energy or the commitment. I am glad others do though and I hope they are successful. I'd like voting Labour to be a realistic option again for me before I die. I am 51, so it's probably touch and go.
I rather liked this article about growing hostility to the media:
Power is not an end, it's a means. The objective is to make the country better. And you don't do that by selling out everything you believe in to grab power.
Now, Corbyn might not be the best person to do that, but its better than another 10 years of being endlessly dragged to the right in the theory that if we agree to screw the poor a little harder, pander to racists and bigots a little more, waste a little more money on voodoo privatisation schemes then we can get in power and be a little less obnoxious than the tories - and ignoring that Labour's supineness gives the Tories license to be far more radical and nasty than otherwise.
Cameron is the "heir to blair" and that's the problem.
I agree it is a means but without power you will never be able to make the country "better" and in fact while you are flailing about on the sidelines the Tories are busy doing things which you think will make the country "worse" like the Trade Union reforms. The lesson from Blair and Cameron is that you start in the centre and when you have won people's trust you can then move out to the left/right and be more radical.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
Thank you. So the difference is that in England & Wales the Home Office (for England & Wales) pays such bills but in Scotland the Scottish Govt chooses not to pay these bills although police are a devolved matter. Presumably the SNP is always sent a bill which it always pays for all its Conferences.
Only ever seen complaints about the Libdems, Police have never ever mentioned any other party.
PS: When was the Home Office changed to be just England and Wales
Q: When was the Home Office changed to be just England and Wales A: When funding police attendance at such events. Scotland had this money and responsibility devolved according to the article.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
TBF, my read is that Cameron thought he could get more than it looks like he will.
I would say there's possibly a 20-30% chance he will recommend leave. And I think his recommendation would be sufficient to swing the result.
It's an interesting scenario - and one that would transform Leave by sidelining some of nastier elements who support it
Yes, this is the issue for Cameron. If he recommends Remain and we Leave then he loses control of the debate, and who knows where it will go. If he recommends Leave, then he can be fully in charge of the debate and negotiating an exit deal focused on looking after business. He would keep his party together and business could be kept on side, especially as they worry about Corbyn getting anywhere near power.
Of course, if he gets a good deal, that's all moot.
I'm also very sceptical that if the PM recommends 'Leave' then there are enough committed supporters of the EU to vote that down.
If Cameron recommends in we'll likely stay in.
If Cameron recommends out we'll leave with a thumping majority.
Probably, but possibly not.
Now that Labour are unelectable, perhaps the only way to express displeasure over the Tory government will be to vote against what DC and GO campaign for in the referendum.
Is this Michelle woman a tory..MG seems to think she is..that girl flits about a bit...SNP yesterday.. Tory today..
Even a dullard like you would understand the political make up in Scotland means many "Tories" are in the SNP, given they have no Scottish Conservative party.
Those fighting the good fight within Labour have my huge admiration. Activists like Jonathan and various MPs. They have a long, hard slog ahead. For me, life is too short. I just don't have the energy or the commitment. I am glad others do though and I hope they are successful. I'd like voting Labour to be a realistic option again for me before I die. I am 51, so it's probably touch and go.
Yes, they certainly have a long hard slog ahead, and it is going to get very unpleasant personally for many of them. It will be a thankless task. In the end it will be some younger group which emerges to restore the party to sanity.
Does the Lib Dem conference even need a police presence ? PM/LOTO are positions of state, and there are associated terrorist risks. The Lib Dem conference is about as relevant to Gov't as a wargaming convention.
At the time they were the government, sponging toerags.
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
Will be usual Tory stuff, plenty of big talk and no action , look for increased immigration numbers next year.
TOTALLY off-topic, but I see Lizzie Armitstead is 100/1 at Corals for SPOTY. Given she won the cycling world championships road race AND the season-long World Cup competition I think there's a reasonable chance she'll be nominated. I doubt she'll win (despite getting my vote!) but backing here might set up a reasonable trading position once the noms are out.
Soon after graduating in medicine, Dr Mathias was a refugee worker for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the Gaza Strip and treated HIV, AIDS and tuberculosis patients in Africa. She has also treated leprosy patients in North Bihar, India and South China. She is currently employed by the NHS as an eye doctor.[4]
Mr. Ghedebrav, interesting choice. Cycling does seem able to get its vote out. On the other hand, there's neither an Olympics nor a Tour de France win for her, and those are the things that count most.
Mind you, who are the other candidates? Hamilton's cruising to victory (and may have won it last year). Murray?
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
'Power is not an end, it's a means. The objective is to make the country better. And you don't do that by selling out everything you believe in to grab power.'
So 1997 - 2010 was a complete failure in terms of 'making the country better' just a complete sell out for the sake of power?
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
Will be usual Tory stuff, plenty of big talk and no action , look for increased immigration numbers next year.
I actually agree with you on this Malcolm. Sounds good, big words, clear messaging but where's the beef?
I heard a lot of this at Conference 2014 from Cameron.
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
Will be usual Tory stuff, plenty of big talk and no action , look for increased immigration numbers next year.
I actually agree with you on this Malcolm. Sounds good, big words, clear messaging but where's the beef?
I heard a lot of this at Conference 2014 from Cameron.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
TBF, my read is that Cameron thought he could get more than it looks like he will.
I would say there's possibly a 20-30% chance he will recommend leave. And I think his recommendation would be sufficient to swing the result.
It's an interesting scenario - and one that would transform Leave by sidelining some of nastier elements who support it
Yes, this is the issue for Cameron. If he recommends Remain and we Leave then he loses control of the debate, and who knows where it will go. If he recommends Leave, then he can be fully in charge of the debate and negotiating an exit deal focused on looking after business. He would keep his party together and business could be kept on side, especially as they worry about Corbyn getting anywhere near power.
Of course, if he gets a good deal, that's all moot.
I'm also very sceptical that if the PM recommends 'Leave' then there are enough committed supporters of the EU to vote that down.
If Cameron recommends in we'll likely stay in.
If Cameron recommends out we'll leave with a thumping majority.
I almost agree: if Cameron says IN it will be very close, I can't see anything happening in the next 18 months that will strengthen his position. But yes if he says OUT the whole country will accept we have to get out quick.
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
what's the Spanish protocol?
Why haven't we applied that before?
It's small beer in cost terms, but I'd imagine that the capacity utilisation is more of an issue
'I'm also very sceptical that if the PM recommends 'Leave' then there are enough committed supporters of the EU to vote that down.'
Correct. That is why the FO and EU are concentrating so hard on getting Cameron to recommend we stay in. It's the only chance they have of winning and they know it - i.e. selling the UK voters another pup like the 'renegotiation' of 1975.
'Power is not an end, it's a means. The objective is to make the country better. And you don't do that by selling out everything you believe in to grab power.'
So 1997 - 2010 was a complete failure in terms of 'making the country better' just a complete sell out for the sake of power?
Well, 2001-2010 was.
Wasn't that the period though where Lab had a massive ramp up of public spending? I would have thought you would have liked that?
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
what's the Spanish protocol?
Why haven't we applied that before?
It's small beer in cost terms, but I'd imagine that the capacity utilisation is more of an issue
I'm still not convinced there's any real prospect of Cameron recommending Out, nor of the contest being close. I think In will win by a comfortable degree. Recent woes haven't helped the EU, but they are unlikely to be in play in 2017.
Those fighting the good fight within Labour have my huge admiration. Activists like Jonathan and various MPs. They have a long, hard slog ahead. For me, life is too short. I just don't have the energy or the commitment. I am glad others do though and I hope they are successful. I'd like voting Labour to be a realistic option again for me before I die. I am 51, so it's probably touch and go.
What is this "51 and then you die" stuff?????? I am older than that!!!!!!
I agree with the hostility to the media though. The internet is becoming a cess pit of shoutiness and adverts, adverts, adverts, adverts, adverts, ...... (your content you wished to read is under that advert at the bottom right. Now, buy this nice Volkswagen, massively reduced in price, brand new)
Twitter is a waste of time. Cameron's famous remark about too many tweets seems to have been prophetically accurate.
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
There seems to be sensible policies there, but nothing to actually reduce legal immigration numbers, which are currently three times too high. Is May out of ideas? What about tightening the English language requirement? What about making the UK citizenship test actually require more than a week's study? What about limiting students to quality universities? What about tackling student dependents (I don't see why Saudi students should be able to bring along several wives)? What about bringing back the primary purpose rule to make sure we're not being taken for a ride?
Is this Michelle woman a tory..MG seems to think she is..that girl flits about a bit...SNP yesterday.. Tory today..
Even a dullard like you would understand the political make up in Scotland means many "Tories" are in the SNP, given they have no Scottish Conservative party.
Funnily enough at Assembly elections Plaid get a fair degree of support from Tories. I have often wondered why,when they are to the left of Labour.
Power is not an end, it's a means. The objective is to make the country better. And you don't do that by selling out everything you believe in to grab power.
Now, Corbyn might not be the best person to do that, but its better than another 10 years of being endlessly dragged to the right in the theory that if we agree to screw the poor a little harder, pander to racists and bigots a little more, waste a little more money on voodoo privatisation schemes then we can get in power and be a little less obnoxious than the tories - and ignoring that Labour's supineness gives the Tories license to be far more radical and nasty than otherwise.
Cameron is the "heir to blair" and that's the problem.
I agree it is a means but without power you will never be able to make the country "better" and in fact while you are flailing about on the sidelines the Tories are busy doing things which you think will make the country "worse" like the Trade Union reforms. The lesson from Blair and Cameron is that you start in the centre and when you have won people's trust you can then move out to the left/right and be more radical.
But Milliband wouldn't have moved out the left. He lacked the balls, and he's limited by the right wing parliamentary labour party. So all his government would really do is shift the center ground to the right. Then Labour are defeated heavily by an even more right wing tory government that passes the same or worse anti-union legislation, and then the labour leadership decide that they need to be in the centre to win the next election and thus move to the new center - which is probably about where Cameron is now.
@Charles - I'm voting to Leave anyway. I'm merely outlining the terms on which I'd seriously consider voting to Remain.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
TBF, my read is that Cameron thought he could get more than it looks like he will.
I would say there's possibly a 20-30% chance he will recommend leave. And I think his recommendation would be sufficient to swing the result.
It's an interesting scenario - and one that would transform Leave by sidelining some of nastier elements who support it
@SeanFear - i agree with you on respecting his honesty if he does do that.
Various others: thanks for your insights and kind words. Sorry can't respond to all - on an iPhone. This is a fascinating topic whatever we all might think.
Mr. Ghedebrav, interesting choice. Cycling does seem able to get its vote out. On the other hand, there's neither an Olympics nor a Tour de France win for her, and those are the things that count most.
Mind you, who are the other candidates? Hamilton's cruising to victory (and may have won it last year). Murray?
Afternoon.
Jess Ennis-Hill leads the betting, practically evens, then Murray, Hamilton & Froome on 8s.
As you say, cycling fans have a good GOTV and Armitstead's achievement - which in the the context of the sport is huge - has the ingredients for a solid campaign to get behind her (especially if there's any whiff of a potential 'snub'). There is Froome, of course, and his second Tour win was fantastic - but he fails the 'personality test' even more than Murray - he races for Britain but was born in Kenya, brought up in South Africa, lives in Monaco etc. (plus - crucially - he is much less magnetic than Bradley Wiggins).
I'm still not convinced there's any real prospect of Cameron recommending Out, nor of the contest being close. I think In will win by a comfortable degree. Recent woes haven't helped the EU, but they are unlikely to be in play in 2017.
I'm still not convinced there's any real prospect of Cameron recommending Out, nor of the contest being close. I think In will win by a comfortable degree. Recent woes haven't helped the EU, but they are unlikely to be in play in 2017.
Most seem to think that the referendum will be next year - but I'm inclined to agree with you that it will be 2017 - just because the government will hope that it's a more favourable environment by then.
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
Will be usual Tory stuff, plenty of big talk and no action , look for increased immigration numbers next year.
I actually agree with you on this Malcolm. Sounds good, big words, clear messaging but where's the beef?
I heard a lot of this at Conference 2014 from Cameron.
Yes, unfortunately we have been here before. Would be great if they actually did something about it but usually it is purely to make them look good and then is quickly forgotten.
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
• Strict new rules for "people who abuse the system" • Asylum for those in conflict areas "rather than those that have made it to Britain" • Documents on file for those who destroy their identification documents will be used to return people to their home countries UK will "retaliate" if the home country refuses to accept the validity of those documents • Spanish Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty will be used for the first time • Aid budget to be used to help councils deal with refugees
Will be usual Tory stuff, plenty of big talk and no action , look for increased immigration numbers next year.
I actually agree with you on this Malcolm. Sounds good, big words, clear messaging but where's the beef?
I heard a lot of this at Conference 2014 from Cameron.
Ok. But where's the stuff on 'students', importing spouses and families?
@gabyhinsliff: Buy Boris. Sell Theresa. Hold onto Osborne as longterm investment. (Note; the value of your holdings can go up as well as down) #cpc2015
I'm still not convinced there's any real prospect of Cameron recommending Out, nor of the contest being close. I think In will win by a comfortable degree. Recent woes haven't helped the EU, but they are unlikely to be in play in 2017.
Thinking out loud here.. Could Cameron end up with an 'inconclusive' conclusion on EU membership - I Dave think it's marginally still In for now but tbh I didn't get much and it might get worse in the future so am relaxed about the British people's decision either way - and allow May to do Out and Osborne to do In?
Post referendum result: Cameron steps down and then they fight it out to be leader.
Comments
At £100K per MP I'd do the job myself, in person!
The number of Lib Dem MPs is the result of the FPTP system.
Under proportional representation they would have 50 MPs.
If Cameron tries to sell us a pup - and I think he will, falling way short of his own targets - I will critique it and his renegotiation strategy, which has been full of holes.
If he genuinely throws his hands up in the air, says he tried but got nowhere and reluctantly must recommend we Leave then I will commend his honesty, and let sleeping dogs lie even if criticisms could be made.
On one matter I have sympathy for him: it's a very, very difficult thing to do. Where he's got it wrong IMHO is not ambitious enough, not being crystal in communicating what he wants and executing the diplomatic stuff smoothly.
If he has genuinely done all that behind the scenes - and we just don't know it yet - I'm all ears to him being honest about it at the end.
Not necessarily. It could be the reverse, and unskilled immigrants readily fill employment gaps but skilled immigrants merely displace other workers. Or it might be that skilled or unskilled is a red herring and, as you suggest, it is about dependants. Or you could be right. We can't deduce it from that small extract.
Innocent face.
Business complain that immigration limits stop them getting skilled labour, not unskilled labour. Plus on the fiscal side, it's very clear that a skilled immigrant will be earning more and be paying a bigger tax chunk.
Dependents are also either skilled or unskilled.
Cameron is popular within the tory party but he's had a blessed time in charge, first of all he had Clegg as his human shield, then Corbyn appeared out of nowhere to take the heat off. But the EU is going to define him, let's see what he's got when the guns against his head.
No genuine Tory can support the concept of ever closer union.
The excuse years ago used to be that it was just a load of aspirational rubbish the excitable Europeans liked to witter on about, so we could safely ignore it and concentrate on the economic 'benefits'.
That was always untrue, and the events of the last 20 years have demonstrated convincingly that ever closer union is a real process with major ramifications, which is not going to go away.
The other more recent excuse, that a wider Europe would mean a looser one, has also been shown to be completely false.
All Tories now have to face up to these facts and stop pretending there is some kind of tweak that can be done that will make everything OK.
There isn't. We either opt out of the political process altogether or we will be dragged along by it and Britain's political independence will have entirely vanished in another 10-20 years.
Toast should be on the menu.
Dependents are also either skilled or unskilled.
So start charging for work permits e.g. £10,000 a year for skilled folk.
Under proportional representation they would have 50 MPs.
I play by the rules of the game.
http://order-order.com/2015/10/06/truth-behind-that-osborne-photo/#:PzB971INIfrTsA
Having said that, my gut feel is that the renegotiations will be a bit of a damp squib. For real change we will have to regain our sovereignty.
I would say there's possibly a 20-30% chance he will recommend leave. And I think his recommendation would be sufficient to swing the result.
It's an interesting scenario - and one that would transform Leave by sidelining some of nastier elements who support it
'It was the lawyers fault', 'Tory concerts make a profit', McBlah, McBlah, McBlah.
So of course, when they report on Britain's renegotiation, the journalists talk to Eurocrats, foreign journalists and ambassadors and they will always say they are cross with people who throw spanners in the work, and we shouldn't do that sort of thing. Journalists don't ever stop to check on the actual results of different negotiation techniques in an objective manner, nor do they read up on the academic research about international negotiations. All of that shows that hard-nosed, aggressive negotiations makes the other side dislike you, but yields much better results.
I once read about how Richard Nixon was very keen on reading up game theory, and he realised that rational actors were at a disadvantage in negotiations because the other side can observe fairly easily what is rational for you and can push you to your limits. Irrational people are harder to predict, and if the other side wants a deal, they are more hesitant and give a wider berth to your red lines, knowing that you might judge things oddly and go over them. So for this reason when Nixon negotiated with the Russians and the Chinese, he would do deliberately odd and suddenly rash things to make them think he was unstable. Of course, he secured a very good deal with the Chinese.
Of course, if he gets a good deal, that's all moot.
'The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).'
Holding onto 8 seats may be a reasonable target for 2020,if the new boundaries had been in place this year the Lib Dems would have had 4 seats.
• Unconvicted prisoners
• Convicted but unsentenced prisoners
• Persons imprisoned for contempt of court and other prisoners classified under Prison Rule 7(3)
• Those serving a term of imprisonment in default of payment of a sum of money, adjudged to be paid on conviction
Now, Corbyn might not be the best person to do that, but its better than another 10 years of being endlessly dragged to the right in the theory that if we agree to screw the poor a little harder, pander to racists and bigots a little more, waste a little more money on voodoo privatisation schemes then we can get in power and be a little less obnoxious than the tories - and ignoring that Labour's supineness gives the Tories license to be far more radical and nasty than otherwise.
Cameron is the "heir to blair" and that's the problem.
- I don't think there will be a formal split of the Labour Party, which will remain the principal party of opposition in England & Wales. The barriers to a split under FPTP are just too strong, and in particular Labour has the searing folk-memory of the SDP to act as a powerful disincentive.
- However, many of the more serious Labour politicians will drift off elsewhere, most likely to non-partisan roles (as per Lord Adonis). There may be a few defections, but I don't expect many. Of course one option for an MP who simply can't stomach Corbyn, and especially McDonnell, would be to become an independent voting with Labour in most cases but reserving the right to eschew loony leftism and other Corbynisms. Alternatively they can simply rebel - Corbyn is hardly in a position to complain.
- The LibDems will pick up some ex-Labour support but I think they will not recover very much any time soon.
- The danger of the Tories becoming complacent is a real one but not an immediate one. They have, after all, only a small majority, and there are multiple institutional constraints. There is also the BBC which acts as the de facto opposition. If the Labour madness were to persist for 15 or 20 years, then the lack of an effective official opposition would indeed become a problem, but we are a long way from that.
- Eventually Labour will come to its senses and the likes of Jonathan of this parish will regain control of the party. This however won't happen quickly - 2020 looks hopeless, but a recovery by 2025 might be possible.
I think a lot of people will swing based on his recommendation - which is exactly as it should be for something as complex as this. This is why we appoint leaders to manage complex negotiations on our behalf.
If Cameron recommends out we'll leave with a thumping majority.
And I am certainly not a Lib Dem!!!
If staying true and maybe winning eventually is better than making unacceptable compromises in order to win, that is ok, but it just seems incompatible with the other half of the argument many people make about how evil the opponents are.
Osborne, though politically astute, is best as an éminence grise. Not cut out for leader. He's even more opaque than Cameron on the EU. That may be part of his poker playing persona but it won't do anything for support among a largely eurosceptic party.
'Power is not an end, it's a means. The objective is to make the country better. And you don't do that by selling out everything you believe in to grab power.'
So 1997 - 2010 was a complete failure in terms of 'making the country better' just a complete sell out for the sake of power?
I rather liked this article about growing hostility to the media:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/10/05/hatred-of-the-press-is-reaching-toxic-levels
Rings true to me.
A: When funding police attendance at such events. Scotland had this money and responsibility devolved according to the article.
Only the responsibility , not the money
Now that Labour are unelectable, perhaps the only way to express displeasure over the Tory government will be to vote against what DC and GO campaign for in the referendum.
She's got a cracking CV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tania_Mathias - one to watch closely, me thinks.
Mr. Ghedebrav, interesting choice. Cycling does seem able to get its vote out. On the other hand, there's neither an Olympics nor a Tour de France win for her, and those are the things that count most.
Mind you, who are the other candidates? Hamilton's cruising to victory (and may have won it last year). Murray?
http://www.refworld.org/docid/474e89551e.html
I actually agree with you on this Malcolm. Sounds good, big words, clear messaging but where's the beef?
I heard a lot of this at Conference 2014 from Cameron.
I actually agree with you on this Malcolm. Sounds good, big words, clear messaging but where's the beef?
I heard a lot of this at Conference 2014 from Cameron.
Why haven't we applied that before?
It's small beer in cost terms, but I'd imagine that the capacity utilisation is more of an issue
Correct. That is why the FO and EU are concentrating so hard on getting Cameron to recommend we stay in. It's the only chance they have of winning and they know it - i.e. selling the UK voters another pup like the 'renegotiation' of 1975.
It's small beer in cost terms, but I'd imagine that the capacity utilisation is more of an issue
I agree with the hostility to the media though. The internet is becoming a cess pit of shoutiness and adverts, adverts, adverts, adverts, adverts, ...... (your content you wished to read is under that advert at the bottom right. Now, buy this nice Volkswagen, massively reduced in price, brand new)
Twitter is a waste of time. Cameron's famous remark about too many tweets seems to have been prophetically accurate.
Either May knows that freedom of movement is back in UK EU renegotiation or this speech is her dabbling with Brexit. Big potatoes either way
Zac is late to this party...
Boris "The London Labour Party - men of vested interests, and interesting vests"
@SeanFear - i agree with you on respecting his honesty if he does do that.
Various others: thanks for your insights and kind words. Sorry can't respond to all - on an iPhone. This is a fascinating topic whatever we all might think.
His speech will be about later - worth reading if you're a Londoner.
Jess Ennis-Hill leads the betting, practically evens, then Murray, Hamilton & Froome on 8s.
As you say, cycling fans have a good GOTV and Armitstead's achievement - which in the the context of the sport is huge - has the ingredients for a solid campaign to get behind her (especially if there's any whiff of a potential 'snub'). There is Froome, of course, and his second Tour win was fantastic - but he fails the 'personality test' even more than Murray - he races for Britain but was born in Kenya, brought up in South Africa, lives in Monaco etc. (plus - crucially - he is much less magnetic than Bradley Wiggins).
I actually agree with you on this Malcolm. Sounds good, big words, clear messaging but where's the beef?
I heard a lot of this at Conference 2014 from Cameron.
Yes, unfortunately we have been here before. Would be great if they actually did something about it but usually it is purely to make them look good and then is quickly forgotten.
I heard a lot of this at Conference 2014 from Cameron.
Ok. But where's the stuff on 'students', importing spouses and families?
These are all big contributors to net migration.
Post referendum result: Cameron steps down and then they fight it out to be leader.
It does not relate in any way to the legality of a purchase at "below market value".