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.
Labels like Euro-phile and -sceptic don't really apply to Cameron and Osborne... they are British pragmatists. What they want is: control of immigration, protection for British business and banks, a broader single market, opt outs from home and social affairs legislation. And they will be in a stronger position if the Continental EU believes they 'could' recommend Leave. And our EU partners read the papers, they talk to Conservative politicians... they know the country would vote to leave if a deal does not deliver most, if not all, of those. George Osborne is a good poker player, and the FCO is a highly-experienced diplomatic machine. Together they can bring back a deal. But, make no mistake, if there is not a proper deal on the table, Osborne will recommend Leave and Cameron will follow his lead. Legacy either way.
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
Or she's values-signalling to the Tory electorate.
Precisely. And that's why the activist base will notice, smile at, and then cock an eyebrow and think perhaps afresh about her.
Meanwhile immigration will continue to increase untramelled. It's the ghastly cynical tokenism of it all that apalls me. All the delegates geeing themselves up - 'they really mean it this time'.
...If you are poor in London, you are more likely to send your kids to a school where the air is polluted if you are poor, your kids are 40 per cent more likely to die or be seriously injured in a road traffic accident
if you are poor your kids are far more likely to die in a domestic fire and so if you reduce all those evils as we have, in the last eight years
– crime down almost 20 per cent, – murder rate down 50 per cent, – air pollution down 20 pc for NOX and 15 pc for particulates, – deaths on the road down 40 per cent, – deaths from fire down 50 per cent
then you are doing something for fairness and for social justice
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.
As I understand it, the Lib Dem conference requires a full "potential terror threat" police presence, scouting by sniffer dogs, pre-event searches etc. Yes it is undoubtedly unnecessary but it's what the Lib Dems appear to want.
They don't make the same requests for their Scottish Conference but that is held in a rather small room.
US Presidential. It is a sign of how badly her campaign has gone over the summer that Hillary is even asked the question whether she would agree to be VP:
This second piece, which shows Hillary trailing Fiorina in Iowa (a State Obama won twice) by 14 points, contains an analysis that sounds eerily similar to Labour's tragicomedy:
"The message Democrats are sending Washington is clear. They are tired of half-measures and political leaders who value playing it safe over advancing deeply-held principles. These voters wager it’s time to force their leaders to acknowledge their righteous anger."
Until now, I had been under the assumption that Bernie (the name of our newest family member, a black and tan Jack Russell, but it short for Bernouilli as he flies over the tall grass) could not win the nomination, but would destroy Hillary to make way for a late entrant to win. Perhaps the Dems are in fact going to do their own Labour.
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.
A Motorbike and sidecar should cover them for Scotland.
Miss Plato, he may not step aside. Still doesn't mean he'll necessarily be there for 10 years.
Mr. Royale, he may wish to do that, but it'd be an abdication of responsibility. He's got to have a view on something like this, I think.
You're probably right. But still I struggle to see how he can keep a straight face and give a full-throated, full-blooded endorsement of his renegotiated Remain position anymore.
Unless, of course, there's something going on behind the scenes that none of us know about.
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.
- The LibDems will pick up some ex-Labour support but I think they will not recover very much any time soon.
- 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.
As I've posted a lot on this trying to get my head around what the possibilities are, one more won't do any harm:
- There is just a possibility that the SDP memory will fade if, instead of a Gang of Four, there seems the possibility of a Gang of Sixty or more sitting MPs. If so, it might be wise to try and effect some kind of non-aggression agreement with the (financially constrained) Lib Dems for target constituencies for 2020. I don't think this is the most likely outcome, but if the Corbynites overplay their control and attempt large scale deselections, I could see that being a trigger.
- Drift, rebellion, and so forth could happen, but as I have noted, Osborne's devolution could be a get out that provides moderates with an opportunity to actually run high-profile administrations. Again very dependent on how the left sew the party up, but I can see a number of Labour moderates sneaking through this process and elected mayors being something of a power base to rebuild the centre within Labour.
- Control of the Labour machine could take a generation to wrest back. A defeat in 2020 could start the process or not, but we may have to go through all the Kinnock and Blair internal reforms all over again. There may be a desire to fast-track such things this time round, but I'm not banking on it.
Why would they want/need to? I thought they could live here anyway?
It's a good question. Not an expert but isn't this about the millions going into Germany/Sweden trying to switch to the UK once they've got passports 5-10 years down the road?
Like the Somalis from the Netherlands.
Not sure how it's work though. Once they're citizens of the EU they no longer need to claim asylum.
Labels like Euro-phile and -sceptic don't really apply to Cameron and Osborne... they are British pragmatists. What they want is: control of immigration, protection for British business and banks, a broader single market, opt outs from home and social affairs legislation. And they will be in a stronger position if the Continental EU believes they 'could' recommend Leave. And our EU partners read the papers, they talk to Conservative politicians... they know the country would vote to leave if a deal does not deliver most, if not all, of those. George Osborne is a good poker player, and the FCO is a highly-experienced diplomatic machine. Together they can bring back a deal. But, make no mistake, if there is not a proper deal on the table, Osborne will recommend Leave and Cameron will follow his lead. Legacy either way.
Except the EU are not playing the same game as the UK. They have certain basic rules and immutable principles that cannot be changed. And what Cameron needs to do is change them. Or rather convince the British public he has changed them even though he hasn't.
US Presidential. It is a sign of how badly her campaign has gone over the summer that Hillary is even asked the question whether she would agree to be VP:
This second piece, which shows Hillary trailing Fiorina in Iowa (a State Obama won twice) by 14 points, contains an analysis that sounds eerily similar to Labour's tragicomedy:
"The message Democrats are sending Washington is clear. They are tired of half-measures and political leaders who value playing it safe over advancing deeply-held principles. These voters wager it’s time to force their leaders to acknowledge their righteous anger."
Until now, I had been under the assumption that Bernie (the name of our newest family member, a black and tan Jack Russell, but it short for Bernouilli as he flies over the tall grass) could not win the nomination, but would destroy Hillary to make way for a late entrant to win. Perhaps the Dems are in fact going to do their own Labour.
Sanders beat Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire with NBC yesterday and tied Bush in the granite state and beat Fiorina. Hillary only beat Trump in New Hampshire, Trump beat her in Iowa. Of course Bush won New Hampshire in 2000 and Iowa in 2004 while both states voted for Obama
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
Or she's values-signalling to the Tory electorate.
Precisely. And that's why the activist base will notice, smile at, and then cock an eyebrow and think perhaps afresh about her.
Meanwhile immigration will continue to increase untramelled. It's the ghastly cynical tokenism of it all that apalls me. All the delegates geeing themselves up - 'they really mean it this time'.
Yes, I think it's probably wise to maintain a healthy scepticism until we see the meat.
Why would they want/need to? I thought they could live here anyway?
It's a good question. Not an expert but isn't this about the millions going into Germany/Sweden trying to switch to the UK once they've got passports 5-10 years down the road?
Like the Somalis from the Netherlands.
Not sure how it's work though. Once they're citizens of the EU they no longer need to claim asylum.
Or something more dark here..? If one of the EU nations goes rogue and gets nasty with inter ethnic and religious rioting (Hungary? Greece? Even Germany or Sweden) many thousands try and seek refuge in the UK?
But we are surely not anywhere near that point yet.
Labels like Euro-phile and -sceptic don't really apply to Cameron and Osborne... they are British pragmatists. What they want is: control of immigration, protection for British business and banks, a broader single market, opt outs from home and social affairs legislation. And they will be in a stronger position if the Continental EU believes they 'could' recommend Leave. And our EU partners read the papers, they talk to Conservative politicians... they know the country would vote to leave if a deal does not deliver most, if not all, of those. George Osborne is a good poker player, and the FCO is a highly-experienced diplomatic machine. Together they can bring back a deal. But, make no mistake, if there is not a proper deal on the table, Osborne will recommend Leave and Cameron will follow his lead. Legacy either way.
Except the EU are not playing the same game as the UK. They have certain basic rules and immutable principles that cannot be changed. And what Cameron needs to do is change them. Or rather convince the British public he has changed them even though he hasn't.
Indeed. I remain far from convinced they care enough - to some extent, but as they constantly tell us, they are tired of our whining - to even offer a bauble that can be sold to the public as significant change, but anything truly substantive requested will be met with contempt, time and again we see that to be the case (it's what turned me into a Leaver), so Cameron's task even with the more limited aim you mention remains difficult, let alone the first, which is impossible.
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.
He can make it plain as much as he likes, as much as I actually like Cameron, I don't think the choice will be his to stay on for the full term.
Boris' speech seems to have gone down well. Now how does he make himself heard for the next 364 days, there are very few opportunities for him to get such exposure as a backbencher.
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.
A Motorbike and sidecar should cover them for Scotland.
Is" no transport required" possible for LD scot reps following a by election and the Scot parliament elections?
I don't have very strong views on the next Tory leader but what a contrast to Labour are the number of real heavyweight possibilities for the blues and for the reds - nada, zilch, nothing!
US Presidential. It is a sign of how badly her campaign has gone over the summer that Hillary is even asked the question whether she would agree to be VP:
This second piece, which shows Hillary trailing Fiorina in Iowa (a State Obama won twice) by 14 points, contains an analysis that sounds eerily similar to Labour's tragicomedy:
"The message Democrats are sending Washington is clear. They are tired of half-measures and political leaders who value playing it safe over advancing deeply-held principles. These voters wager it’s time to force their leaders to acknowledge their righteous anger."
Until now, I had been under the assumption that Bernie (the name of our newest family member, a black and tan Jack Russell, but it short for Bernouilli as he flies over the tall grass) could not win the nomination, but would destroy Hillary to make way for a late entrant to win. Perhaps the Dems are in fact going to do their own Labour.
Sanders beat Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire with NBC yesterday and tied Bush in the granite state and beat Fiorina. Hillary only beat Trump in New Hampshire, Trump beat her in Iowa. Of course Bush won New Hampshire in 2000 and Iowa in 2004 while both states voted for Obama
But Bernie could not win the general, unless its Trump, Carson or Cruz.
The polls now do not reflect the electorate who will be engaged in November 2016. Given that the GOP is larger than the progressive wing of the Dems, and that the bulk of the Independents (now the largest grouping) will split for a GOP candidate over a self-avowed Socialist, and the right wing of the Dems will be soft voters for Bernie (unless they are fending off a Cruz etc...), the numbers just don't add up for him.
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.
He can make it plain as much as he likes, as much as I actually like Cameron, I don't think the choice will be his to stay on for the full term.
Labels like Euro-phile and -sceptic don't really apply to Cameron and Osborne... they are British pragmatists. What they want is: control of immigration, protection for British business and banks, a broader single market, opt outs from home and social affairs legislation. ....... But, make no mistake, if there is not a proper deal on the table, Osborne will recommend Leave and Cameron will follow his lead. Legacy either way.
Opt outs of the social legislation have not appeared in the negotiations according to all reports. Cameron no longer mentions it publicly no does Lidington.
Labels like Euro-phile and -sceptic don't really apply to Cameron and Osborne... they are British pragmatists. What they want is: control of immigration, protection for British business and banks, a broader single market, opt outs from home and social affairs legislation. ....... But, make no mistake, if there is not a proper deal on the table, Osborne will recommend Leave and Cameron will follow his lead. Legacy either way.
Opt outs of the social legislation have not appeared in the negotiations according to all reports. Cameron no longer mentions it publicly no does Lidington.
This could just because they are softballing expectations to beat them when they announce the deal. If John Major can get an opt out to social legislation, there's no reason why Cameron can't.
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 hadn't even considered Ennis-Hill and I'm a reasonably keen Athletics fan. I'm surprised she would be evens, yes a good result but it just doesn't stand out to me.
100/1 is good odds for a couple of quid each way on Armistead. But while the GOTV is good for cycling, you'll have an audience that pretty much knows women's cycling is still a fairly weak sport lacking depth and where Vos was absent for most of the season. Arguably the Yates twins achievements this years are equal to Armistead.
Looking at the odds, Andy Murray at 8/1 is a stand out. If Britain wins the Davis Cup. Not only will it be a news dominating performance, it will be very fresh in the voters minds. Much more so than Ennis-Hill, Armistead or Froome.
How do the numbers look on cashing out Armistead when she makes the shortlist?
The proportion of workless households between April and June of this year was lower than in Northern Ireland (22.7%) and Scotland (17.9%), but higher than the UK average 15.8%.
Of the regions in England and countries of the UK, the North East had the highest percentage of workless households at 22.9%, while the East of England had the lowest at 11.9%, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures have revealed.
Mr. Dair, but do people outside of serious tennis fans care about the Davis Cup?
Our usual modus operandi of having one really good tennis player at once means we haven't done well in it for ages, so I don't think it's high in the public consciousness.
As I've posted a lot on this trying to get my head around what the possibilities are, one more won't do any harm:
- There is just a possibility that the SDP memory will fade if, instead of a Gang of Four, there seems the possibility of a Gang of Sixty or more sitting MPs. If so, it might be wise to try and effect some kind of non-aggression agreement with the (financially constrained) Lib Dems for target constituencies for 2020. I don't think this is the most likely outcome, but if the Corbynites overplay their control and attempt large scale deselections, I could see that being a trigger.
- Drift, rebellion, and so forth could happen, but as I have noted, Osborne's devolution could be a get out that provides moderates with an opportunity to actually run high-profile administrations. Again very dependent on how the left sew the party up, but I can see a number of Labour moderates sneaking through this process and elected mayors being something of a power base to rebuild the centre within Labour.
- Control of the Labour machine could take a generation to wrest back. A defeat in 2020 could start the process or not, but we may have to go through all the Kinnock and Blair internal reforms all over again. There may be a desire to fast-track such things this time round, but I'm not banking on it.
You make some good points there. You're right about elected mayors and other local-government positions offering opportunities for the moderates. For that matter, if Sadiq Khan wins in London he'd be in a good position to establish an alternative non-Corbyn powerbase.
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.
Maybe not but it's hard see the EU running out of woes.
I don't have very strong views on the next Tory leader but what a contrast to Labour are the number of real heavyweight possibilities for the blues and for the reds - nada, zilch, nothing!
LOL - Sajid Javid and Nicky Morgan are pretty strange definitions of "heavyweights".
Mr. Tokyo, yeah, but there's woe and then there's woe. The Greek and migrant situations are dramatic and serious.
I actually think there is every chance that both the Greek crisis and the migrant crisis will still be in play in 2017 precisely because of the way they have been handled so far by the EU.
Interesting that the turnout filter actually increases Stay's lead - I would've thought it would be the opposite given how Stay's supporters are on average younger.
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.
Maybe not but it's hard see the EU running out of woes.
Personally, I think it will only take another major EU disastrous policy snafu for the UK to turn significantly towards Leave. With Greece and 'refugees' we have two. What will the third be? No shortage of options, including issues not currently on the radar screen.
US Presidential. It is a sign of how badly her campaign has gone over the summer that Hillary is even asked the question whether she would agree to be VP:
This second piece, which shows Hillary trailing Fiorina in Iowa (a State Obama won twice) by 14 points, contains an analysis that sounds eerily similar to Labour's tragicomedy:
"The message Democrats are sending Washington is clear. They are tired of half-measures and political leaders who value playing it safe over advancing deeply-held principles. These voters wager it’s time to force their leaders to acknowledge their righteous anger."
Until now, I had been under the assumption that Bernie (the name of our newest family member, a black and tan Jack Russell, but it short for Bernouilli as he flies over the tall grass) could not win the nomination, but would destroy Hillary to make way for a late entrant to win. Perhaps the Dems are in fact going to do their own Labour.
Sanders beat Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire with NBC yesterday and tied Bush in the granite state and beat Fiorina. Hillary only beat Trump in New Hampshire, Trump beat her in Iowa. Of course Bush won New Hampshire in 2000 and Iowa in 2004 while both states voted for Obama
But Bernie could not win the general, unless its Trump, Carson or Cruz.
The polls now do not reflect the electorate who will be engaged in November 2016. Given that the GOP is larger than the progressive wing of the Dems, and that the bulk of the Independents (now the largest grouping) will split for a GOP candidate over a self-avowed Socialist, and the right wing of the Dems will be soft voters for Bernie (unless they are fending off a Cruz etc...), the numbers just don't add up for him.
Who tops the polls for the GOP nomination? Trump followed by Carson and Cruz has also been gaining. I am sorry but against Trump Hispanics will be strongly for Sanders as will graduates and indeed even some independents. Sanders could beat Trump. Though personally I hope Bloomberg would run as an independent
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.
Maybe not but it's hard see the EU running out of woes.
Personally, I think it will only take another major EU disastrous policy snafu for the UK to turn significantly towards Leave. With Greece and 'refugees' we have two. What will the third be? No shortage of options, including issues not currently on the radar screen.
An attack on our financial services industry/The City of London.
Just been for a walk around the edges of the conference, and happy to report that it all seems a lot more normal today. There's still the odd angry protestor, but the probably-law-abiding seem to outnumber the possibly-criminal by enough that the atmosphere of threat that there was yesterday isn't there. The more esoteric protestors are more visible today - hardcore Christians and environmentalists, and so forth. Nick Palmer, if you've been for a mooch around and are now wondering what the fuss was about, I promise it wasn't like that yesterday!
Mr. Dair, but do people outside of serious tennis fans care about the Davis Cup?
Our usual modus operandi of having one really good tennis player at once means we haven't done well in it for ages, so I don't think it's high in the public consciousness.
On the other hand, somebody's got to win...
Mr Dancer,
"I wasn't the best because I won tennis matches quickly. I was the best because the crowd loved me. Win the crowd and you will win your Freedom!"
Interesting that the turnout filter actually increases Stay's lead - I would've thought it would be the opposite given how Stay's supporters are on average younger.
What's most notable is the volatility of these polls. There's a seriously big swing vote here.
What I suspect will be most important is the 78% of voters that think it's important to limit the numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK. I really don't think Remain can win without addressing this, which is probably why Cameron wants more renegotiation time.
Interesting that the turnout filter actually increases Stay's lead - I would've thought it would be the opposite given how Stay's supporters are on average younger.
What's most notable is the volatility of these polls. There's a seriously big swing vote here.
What I suspect will be most important is the 78% of voters that think it's important to limit the numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK. I really don't think Remain can win without addressing this, which is probably why Cameron wants more renegotiation time.
The referendum will come down to has the best scare story
3 million jobs at risk vs 3 million new immigrants a year
It's funny that the Blairite metropolitan commentators are all over Twitter saying how Theresa May's speech was apparently less astute than Osborne's speech. My guess is it would be the complete opposite to Joe Public: a crackdown on immigration is a much more popular sell than cutting poor people's wages.
Just been for a walk around the edges of the conference, and happy to report that it all seems a lot more normal today. There's still the odd angry protestor, but the probably-law-abiding seem to outnumber the possibly-criminal by enough that the atmosphere of threat that there was yesterday isn't there. The more esoteric protestors are more visible today - hardcore Christians and environmentalists, and so forth. Nick Palmer, if you've been for a mooch around and are now wondering what the fuss was about, I promise it wasn't like that yesterday!
Yes, I'm around and doing a fringe at 17.45 (Midland Houghton Room) - come and say hello if you've got a free moment! It did strike me that it seemed jolly peaceful today but assumed the demo yesterday was a one-day thing.
Interesting that the turnout filter actually increases Stay's lead - I would've thought it would be the opposite given how Stay's supporters are on average younger.
What's most notable is the volatility of these polls. There's a seriously big swing vote here.
What I suspect will be most important is the 78% of voters that think it's important to limit the numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK. I really don't think Remain can win without addressing this, which is probably why Cameron wants more renegotiation time.
The referendum will come down to has the best scare story
3 million jobs at risk vs 3 million new immigrants a year
I don't think it will boil down so neatly, but if it does, I think Leave would win. People know jobs can be regained, but mass immigration changes our society for decades and decades to come.
Has the "hanging Tory effigy" story been discussed here already, or something?
To me it is astonishing.
I've just clicked on the link Sean... It's sick, but strangely expected.
The loony left see nothing wrong with this sort of thing. Tories are Evil Scum and this is Class War is it not?
Comments down thread on here show this is even true of the softer (yet still loony) left. Tories, without exception, are selfish, bigoted, racist homophobic wbankers, who should be hounded out of the country.
Comments down thread on here show this is even true of the softer (yet still loony) left. Tories, without exception, are selfish, bigoted, racist homophobic wbankers, who should be hounded out of the country.
I thought it was interesting that the DT journo running their live blog inc only tweets from Lefty journalists saying how horrible it was - and Kirkup is getting a huge panning for his article saying the same.
It's funny that the Blairite metropolitan commentators are all over Twitter saying how Theresa May's speech was apparently less astute than Osborne's speech. My guess is it would be the complete opposite to Joe Public: a crackdown on immigration is a much more popular sell than cutting poor people's wages.
Has the "hanging Tory effigy" story been discussed here already, or something?
To me it is astonishing.
Hasn't been mentioned, as far as I'm aware.
I think it is horrific. It reminds me of Isis or those drug cartels in Mexico.
Yet the kind of person who does such a thing probably seriously thinks of themselves as a caring, compassionate decent sort - not like those Tory scum.
By the way, have Wings Over Somerset complied with the law yet & filed their spending with the Electoral Commission? (since you're so keen on accurate reporting?)
FYI - Today is the 8th anniversary of Gordon Brown's decision not to hold the election that never was. I think Labour still haven't recovered properly from that.
Has the "hanging Tory effigy" story been discussed here already, or something?
To me it is astonishing.
Hasn't been mentioned, as far as I'm aware.
I think it is horrific. It reminds me of Isis or those drug cartels in Mexico.
Yet the kind of person who does such a thing probably seriously thinks of themselves as a caring, compassionate decent sort - not like those Tory scum.
Indeed. I remain far from convinced they care enough - to some extent, but as they constantly tell us, they are tired of our whining - to even offer a bauble that can be sold to the public as significant change, but anything truly substantive requested will be met with contempt, time and again we see that to be the case (it's what turned me into a Leaver), so Cameron's task even with the more limited aim you mention remains difficult, let alone the first, which is impossible.
You're right, but the trick is to find something that we are keen on and they basically don't care about (the equivalent of early-years Gorbachev announcing that he was fine with people buying Bibles in Hebrew, which had mysteriously been banned up to then - even the hardest of hard-liners felt OK, yeah, we can agree to that much). The obvious one is copper-bottomed, gold-plated guarantees for the City, but there is probably scope for something on benefits for migrants.
The key point, though, is that there won't be anything concrete in 2017, so Cameron has the choice of selling the referendum on promises ("this is what we'd like, are you OK with membership on that basis?") or delaying for years. I've never understood why the Out people aren't demanding to know if they'll get a second referendum on the actual outcome in the former case.
Who tops the polls for the GOP nomination? Trump followed by Carson and Cruz has also been gaining. I am sorry but against Trump Hispanics will be strongly for Sanders as will graduates and indeed even some independents. Sanders could beat Trump. Though personally I hope Bloomberg would run as an independent
HYUFD And if the polls tomorrow tell us someone else is on top, you'll be trumpeting that they will win. Give it a rest. None of those three will win the nomination - and Cruz is the only one with a path to the ticket however small the probabilities.
Analyzing the polls is like analyzing the stock market. You have your technicals and fundamentals. The technicals are important if you want to trade day to day, the fundamentals if you are trying to guess where a stock is going in the medium-term. If you want to discuss who will win, stop reading the technicals and focus on the fundamentals.
By the way, have Wings Over Somerset complied with the law yet & filed their spending with the Electoral Commission? (since you're so keen on accurate reporting?)
Yes, he's even got a screen shot of his filing.
Alistair, you cannot expect the frothers to care about the truth, smears, lies and innuendo are their forte.
FYI - Today is the 8th anniversary of Gordon Brown's decision not to hold the election that never was. I think Labour still haven't recovered properly from that.
Mr. Dair, but do people outside of serious tennis fans care about the Davis Cup?
Our usual modus operandi of having one really good tennis player at once means we haven't done well in it for ages, so I don't think it's high in the public consciousness.
On the other hand, somebody's got to win...
It will be live on the BBC on free to air and the BBC themselves will make a huge deal of it. While the public might not really care much about tennis, the BBC do. There will be follow up programmes, profiles of Murray (probably just an update of the 2013 one) and features before and after on the history of the Davis Cup.
GB are 1/3 to win the Davis Cup. That makes 8/1 for Murray to win SPOTY a real bargain price. Davis Cup win is a certainty to put Murray in the top three. That's printing money on an each way bet even at 8/1
FYI - Today is the 8th anniversary of Gordon Brown's decision not to hold the election that never was. I think Labour still haven't recovered properly from that.
I think it's largely irrelevant. At best Labour would have stayed in office 'til 2012. But the price it would have paid would have been to go down to a heavier defeat than in 2015.
We would now be three years into the Ed era with a far stronger Lib Dem opposition bench.
Off topic, since when have the Institute of Directors and CBI gone rogue?
The IoD invited Corbyn. Now they're laying into May for anti-immigration rhetoric with all the usual left-wing shibboleths - helpfully quoted by the BBC:
"Director general Simon Walker said:
We are astonished by the irresponsible rhetoric and pandering to anti-immigration sentiment from the home secretary. It is yet another example of the home secretary turning away the world’s best and brightest, putting internal party politics ahead of the country, and helping our competitor economies instead of our own."
Eh? That wasn't her pitch or purpose at all. He sounds like Christian Aid.
I can't recall the last time the CBI were right about anything, and are also now just a bit pathetic - they seem to be a big business producer bureaucracy to me - and they weighed in with:
"Its director general John Cridland says economic migrants "add to the wellness of society". He accepts there are social implications - such as pressures on public services - but concludes that "economic migration is positive for society"."
Back in the day, these institutions were the Thatcherite praetorian guard.
I can't work out if Theresa May is playing "bad cop" to Cameron's "slightly better cop" out of a sense of duty or genuine belief in the role.
I believe that Theresa truly believes what she says. She has been consistent in her utterances. A good candidate for Leader/PM.
There is definitely a role for a further to the right prominent front bencher. I thought she wasn't so fluent, not perhaps even genuine, on WatO but the message came over and that will reassure some to shore up the flanks esp. as few voted Cons for them to come over all woolly liberal.
I think Theresa May is the closest the Tories have to a "continuity Cameron" candidate. She has the same brand strengths as him: she naturally has a leader's "gravitas", she projects steady competence, she's good at atleast pretending she's doing what she thinks is best for the country rather than playing political games. Plus, although she doesn't exactly ooze charm, she doesn't come across as outright dislikeable in the way Osborne does either.
Boris is something of a risk in that he potentially throws away the Cameron strength of gravitas, but he also has strengths which Cameron doesn't: namely people who would ordinarily detest the Tories like him and will be willing to listen to him (especially youngsters).
Osborne conversely lacks many of Cameron's strengths, but doesn't bring anything to the table which Cameron doesn't: he doesn't come across as a natural leader with "gravitas", he's not likeable in the slightest, and he's very transparent at playing political games which the public just doesn't like (see Brown). Yet the Tories are apparently intent on shooting themselves in the foot by choosing him.
Has the "hanging Tory effigy" story been discussed here already, or something?
To me it is astonishing.
The hanging or burning of effigies has a long and illustrious history in Great Britain.
I believe there is even a national festival dedicated to just such things.
I agree. The line should be drawn at actual physical violence. I do however include spitting in that. Personally I am of the view that spitting at someone should be considered to be assault. It is a disgusting habit which, in the past, has been associated with the spread of disease. And I would hate to think what diseases some of the protesting crusties are harbouring.
Comments
they are British pragmatists.
What they want is: control of immigration, protection for British business and banks, a broader single market, opt outs from home and social affairs legislation. And they will be in a stronger position if the Continental EU believes they 'could' recommend Leave.
And our EU partners read the papers, they talk to Conservative politicians... they know the country would vote to leave if a deal does not deliver most, if not all, of those.
George Osborne is a good poker player, and the FCO is a highly-experienced diplomatic machine. Together they can bring back a deal.
But, make no mistake, if there is not a proper deal on the table, Osborne will recommend Leave and Cameron will follow his lead.
Legacy either way.
Mr. Royale, he may wish to do that, but it'd be an abdication of responsibility. He's got to have a view on something like this, I think.
They don't make the same requests for their Scottish Conference but that is held in a rather small room.
"Less tax and less blacks"
Except we now need to add the word "credits" after "tax"
TTFN
Unconvinced, myself. But, if you think it's credible then backing Red Bull for top 6 finishes and Ferrari to top score would be bets I'd look at.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-im-not-interested-vp-job-n438616
This second piece, which shows Hillary trailing Fiorina in Iowa (a State Obama won twice) by 14 points, contains an analysis that sounds eerily similar to Labour's tragicomedy:
"The message Democrats are sending Washington is clear. They are tired of half-measures and political leaders who value playing it safe over advancing deeply-held principles. These voters wager it’s time to force their leaders to acknowledge their righteous anger."
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/the-democrats-trump-moment/
Until now, I had been under the assumption that Bernie (the name of our newest family member, a black and tan Jack Russell, but it short for Bernouilli as he flies over the tall grass) could not win the nomination, but would destroy Hillary to make way for a late entrant to win. Perhaps the Dems are in fact going to do their own Labour.
Unless, of course, there's something going on behind the scenes that none of us know about.
- There is just a possibility that the SDP memory will fade if, instead of a Gang of Four, there seems the possibility of a Gang of Sixty or more sitting MPs. If so, it might be wise to try and effect some kind of non-aggression agreement with the (financially constrained) Lib Dems for target constituencies for 2020. I don't think this is the most likely outcome, but if the Corbynites overplay their control and attempt large scale deselections, I could see that being a trigger.
- Drift, rebellion, and so forth could happen, but as I have noted, Osborne's devolution could be a get out that provides moderates with an opportunity to actually run high-profile administrations. Again very dependent on how the left sew the party up, but I can see a number of Labour moderates sneaking through this process and elected mayors being something of a power base to rebuild the centre within Labour.
- Control of the Labour machine could take a generation to wrest back. A defeat in 2020 could start the process or not, but we may have to go through all the Kinnock and Blair internal reforms all over again. There may be a desire to fast-track such things this time round, but I'm not banking on it.
Like the Somalis from the Netherlands.
Not sure how it's work though. Once they're citizens of the EU they no longer need to claim asylum.
But we are surely not anywhere near that point yet.
@JGForsyth
Gove making the case 4 giving criminals a 2nd chance in distinctly Tory language. The aim is the same as Roy Jenkins, but the idiom is Tory
The polls now do not reflect the electorate who will be engaged in November 2016. Given that the GOP is larger than the progressive wing of the Dems, and that the bulk of the Independents (now the largest grouping) will split for a GOP candidate over a self-avowed Socialist, and the right wing of the Dems will be soft voters for Bernie (unless they are fending off a Cruz etc...), the numbers just don't add up for him.
Jeremy Corbyn has much to learn from the politicians of Wales, apparently...
100/1 is good odds for a couple of quid each way on Armistead. But while the GOTV is good for cycling, you'll have an audience that pretty much knows women's cycling is still a fairly weak sport lacking depth and where Vos was absent for most of the season. Arguably the Yates twins achievements this years are equal to Armistead.
Looking at the odds, Andy Murray at 8/1 is a stand out. If Britain wins the Davis Cup. Not only will it be a news dominating performance, it will be very fresh in the voters minds. Much more so than Ennis-Hill, Armistead or Froome.
How do the numbers look on cashing out Armistead when she makes the shortlist?
Our usual modus operandi of having one really good tennis player at once means we haven't done well in it for ages, so I don't think it's high in the public consciousness.
On the other hand, somebody's got to win...
Latest poll for Daily Mail
http://t.co/YRqcxx6ur7 http://t.co/hAXaYBrfe9
Thank you SWP types you've made the Tories even more determined to win in 2020 than they were in 2015
CON voters split 35% LEAVE to 56% saying REMAIN
That's pushing me to vote to Leave
In Nicky Morgan's case, I'd prefer it if the party was led by a conservative, and not a socialist.
"I wasn't the best because I won tennis matches quickly. I was the best because the crowd loved me. Win the crowd and you will win your Freedom!"
What I suspect will be most important is the 78% of voters that think it's important to limit the numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK. I really don't think Remain can win without addressing this, which is probably why Cameron wants more renegotiation time.
3 million jobs at risk vs 3 million new immigrants a year
You kind of get desensitised to it all
Even more so if Germany runs out of desire to fund Greece bailout #4 and unilaterally decides the UK has to pay its fair share.
It's sick, but strangely expected.
The loony left see nothing wrong with this sort of thing. Tories are Evil Scum and this is Class War is it not?
Comments down thread on here show this is even true of the softer (yet still loony) left. Tories, without exception, are selfish, bigoted, racist homophobic wbankers, who should be hounded out of the country.
I think it is horrific. It reminds me of Isis or those drug cartels in Mexico.
Yet the kind of person who does such a thing probably seriously thinks of themselves as a caring, compassionate decent sort - not like those Tory scum.
"For someone like myself who looks at politics as being about winning power this seems totally and utterly incomprehensible."
Politics isn't about winning power, it's about exercising power.
(did Wigan North Western last Friday).
The key point, though, is that there won't be anything concrete in 2017, so Cameron has the choice of selling the referendum on promises ("this is what we'd like, are you OK with membership on that basis?") or delaying for years. I've never understood why the Out people aren't demanding to know if they'll get a second referendum on the actual outcome in the former case.
Analyzing the polls is like analyzing the stock market. You have your technicals and fundamentals. The technicals are important if you want to trade day to day, the fundamentals if you are trying to guess where a stock is going in the medium-term. If you want to discuss who will win, stop reading the technicals and focus on the fundamentals.
True One Nation Conservatism that Disraeli would have approved of.
GB are 1/3 to win the Davis Cup. That makes 8/1 for Murray to win SPOTY a real bargain price. Davis Cup win is a certainty to put Murray in the top three. That's printing money on an each way bet even at 8/1
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
We would now be three years into the Ed era with a far stronger Lib Dem opposition bench.
The IoD invited Corbyn. Now they're laying into May for anti-immigration rhetoric with all the usual left-wing shibboleths - helpfully quoted by the BBC:
"Director general Simon Walker said:
We are astonished by the irresponsible rhetoric and pandering to anti-immigration sentiment from the home secretary. It is yet another example of the home secretary turning away the world’s best and brightest, putting internal party politics ahead of the country, and helping our competitor economies instead of our own."
Eh? That wasn't her pitch or purpose at all. He sounds like Christian Aid.
I can't recall the last time the CBI were right about anything, and are also now just a bit pathetic - they seem to be a big business producer bureaucracy to me - and they weighed in with:
"Its director general John Cridland says economic migrants "add to the wellness of society". He accepts there are social implications - such as pressures on public services - but concludes that "economic migration is positive for society"."
Back in the day, these institutions were the Thatcherite praetorian guard.
I believe there is even a national festival dedicated to just such things.
Boris is something of a risk in that he potentially throws away the Cameron strength of gravitas, but he also has strengths which Cameron doesn't: namely people who would ordinarily detest the Tories like him and will be willing to listen to him (especially youngsters).
Osborne conversely lacks many of Cameron's strengths, but doesn't bring anything to the table which Cameron doesn't: he doesn't come across as a natural leader with "gravitas", he's not likeable in the slightest, and he's very transparent at playing political games which the public just doesn't like (see Brown). Yet the Tories are apparently intent on shooting themselves in the foot by choosing him.