Without a warrant, every police force in the country can look up what naughty websites suspects have been visiting.
Why do you think that is the proposal?
It says they needed a warrant to access the content of the website, but not the web address. And that powers would be extended to the police, not just the intelligence services.
Read the popular press and you think Corbyn was lucky to have escaped 13 years in Guantanamo. Listen to what he says or read between the lines as in the article Fox mentioned earlier or listen to Corbynistas like McDonnel and you see a different picture and one I can see having considerable public approval.
It's going to take time but this poll shows his personality and message is slowly getting through. This site is NOT a weathervane
Police are to get the power to view the web browsing history of everyone in the country. Home Secretary Theresa May will announce the plans when she introduces the Government's new surveillance bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
The Telegraph understands the new powers for the police will form part of the new bill.
It would make it a legal requirement for communications companies to retain all the web browsing history of customers for 12 months in case the spy agencies or police need to access them.
Police would be able to access specific web addresses visited by customers.
I think that's in line with phone data isn't it?
Slight problem with that, and I am sure everybody but the thickest opportunistic criminal (if they haven't already) just use things like a VPN.
Most VPN companies base their servers in other countries and make a point that their servers are shared connections and they can't easily work out who is accessing what even if they kept records, which a "good" VPN company won't. The result of this is your BT's, Virgin's etc have no bloody clue what they were looking at on the net, only that a load of encrypted packets of data are flowing to and from a user.
The spooks can (according to Snowdon), but PC Plod won't.
Multiple-choice questions are always tricky to interpret, but it's evident that people prepared to support the tax credit cuts are down to a subset of hardcore Conservatives - lots of Tory MPs have peeled off, and the Government is no longer bothering to defend its own policy. Since they were in no-compromise good two weeks ago, it's obviously a setback, and has hardened significantly since the early polls, which were roughly a third each for "for", "against" and "dunno".
Whether their revised policy is any good we shall see.
Without a warrant, every police force in the country can look up what naughty websites suspects have been visiting.
Why do you think that is the proposal?
I don't think we will know what the proposal is until the bill is actually published. The Telegraph article seems rather confused as it appears to indicate that a judicial warrant will not be necessary to see what websites you have been looking at but will be necessary to see what the content of the website is. Surely to do that all they have to do is go to the website themselves.
If the polls go up, Tories celebrate. If the polls go down, Tories celebrate.
Conclusion: They're a happy bunch, probably still celebrating May, but there's little evidence of cognition.
We're not celebrating. We're just not worried about polls five years from the next election when the opposition is a complete mess. As for lacking cognition, we're not the party that elected Jeremy Corbyn as their Prime Ministerial candidate.
I'm quite happy that Corbyn's Labour have yet to completely implode in the polls. If he were on 25% and falling then they'd want to get rid of him sooner! If he can say at 30% for a couple of years then, like Gordon and Ed before him, Corbyn is safe until the election.
IDS polled around 30 to 35%. It was coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him, he polled about what Howard got in 2005. Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP would be the most likely catalyst for Corbyn's fall
The Tories and Labour have fundamentally different systems and, even more crucially, cultures relating to the removal of leaders.
In any case, Labour *did* come third behind UKIP in Newark and Miliband stayed.
Hague lost Romsey in a by election and stayed but by IDS they had lost patience. If Labour come third in a by election in a northern Labour seat or a marginal they held until 2010 it will be curtains for Corbyn
You would think so but then there are still the questions of how it is to be done, and how you ensure that the far left doesn't win again.
With IDS, the parliamentary party just didn't see him as a winner. Now, that might very well have a close parallel with Corbyn but to take that parallel further, there was sufficient discipline within the Tory MPs to nominate only one person so as to avoid an election. Do Labour have someone of equivalent stature to Michael Howard to which they can turn, and even if they do, can they prevent, through whatever means, the far left from reaching the nominations threshold?
''It's going to take time but this poll shows his personality and message is slowly getting through. This site is NOT a weathervane.''
On what happened in May 2015, I'm afraid the evidence is completely against you.
The only problem for the PB tories is they were not correct enough. The brilliant poll filleting analyses of posters like chestnut would have saved many a poster a few quid. But hey, suit yourself.
Where desperate to make a story rules out all even the Tory press who called it for Corbyn. Nice spin, but pointless since PMQs is about morale on the backbenches, and MPs will know what they saw.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
Then, with respect, the Lib Dems should have allowed the boundary changes through when they still had a say in the process. Killing them off in the last parliament turned out to be unhelpful in the long run and didn't even help them save seats in the short term.
Lib Dems blocked the parliamentary boundary changes because the Conservatives scuttled House of Lords reform.
Well, it was what they used as an excuse for something they were desperate to do in what turned out to be a doomed attempt to save some seats.
''It's going to take time but this poll shows his personality and message is slowly getting through. This site is NOT a weathervane.''
On what happened in May 2015, I'm afraid the evidence is completely against you.
The only problem for the PB tories is they were not correct enough. The brilliant poll filleting analyses of posters like chestnut would have saved many a poster a few quid. But hey, suit yourself.
Where desperate to make a story rules out all even the Tory press who called it for Corbyn. Nice spin, but pointless since PMQs is about morale on the backbenches, and MPs will know what they saw.
If the polls go up, Tories celebrate. If the polls go down, Tories celebrate.
Conclusion: They're a happy bunch, probably still celebrating May, but there's little evidence of cognition.
We're not celebrating. We're just not worried about polls five years from the next election when the opposition is a complete mess. As for lacking cognition, we're not the party that elected Jeremy Corbyn as their Prime Ministerial candidate.
I'm quite happy that Corbyn's Labour have yet to completely implode in the polls. If he were on 25% and falling then they'd want to get rid of him sooner! If he can say at 30% for a couple of years then, like Gordon and Ed before him, Corbyn is safe until the election.
IDS polled around 30 to 35%. It was coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him, he polled about what Howard got in 2005. Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP would be the most likely catalyst for Corbyn's fall
The Tories and Labour have fundamentally different systems and, even more crucially, cultures relating to the removal of leaders.
In any case, Labour *did* come third behind UKIP in Newark and Miliband stayed.
''It's going to take time but this poll shows his personality and message is slowly getting through. This site is NOT a weathervane.''
On what happened in May 2015, I'm afraid the evidence is completely against you.
The only problem for the PB tories is they were not correct enough. The brilliant poll filleting analyses of posters like chestnut would have saved many a poster a few quid. But hey, suit yourself.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Mark Senior since the election?
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
Then, with respect, the Lib Dems should have allowed the boundary changes through when they still had a say in the process. Killing them off in the last parliament turned out to be unhelpful in the long run and didn't even help them save seats in the short term.
Lib Dems blocked the parliamentary boundary changes because the Conservatives scuttled House of Lords reform.
Well, it was what they used as an excuse for something they were desperate to do in what turned out to be a doomed attempt to save some seats.
I'm fairly sure I remember a report that said that on the revised boundaries, they'd have been down to four, so in that sense they were successful. i don't know which the four were. Presumably Farron and Carmichael would be two.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
Then, with respect, the Lib Dems should have allowed the boundary changes through when they still had a say in the process. Killing them off in the last parliament turned out to be unhelpful in the long run and didn't even help them save seats in the short term.
Lib Dems blocked the parliamentary boundary changes because the Conservatives scuttled House of Lords reform.
Well, it was what they used as an excuse for something they were desperate to do in what turned out to be a doomed attempt to save some seats.
I'm fairly sure I remember a report that said that on the revised boundaries, they'd have been down to four, so in that sense they were successful. i don't know which the four were. Presumably Farron and Carmichael would be two.
Where desperate to make a story rules out all even the Tory press who called it for Corbyn. Nice spin, but pointless since PMQs is about morale on the backbenches, and MPs will know what they saw.
Corbyn doesn't have a chance of winning an election but he's been surprisingly good at PMQs, he clearly got the better of Cameron this week.
They will have seen that Corbyn is a steady performer but is completely unable to rally his MPs behind him?
They will have seen that Cameron holds him in such high regard that he doesn't even feel the need to come up with a plausible evasion strategy, simply spouting PR soundbites instead?
They will have seen that Corbyn cannot think on his feet to try and show the government has no answers on several key issues, or worse, that Corbyn is unaware that there is more to life than welfare?
Cameron used to marmalise Gordon Brown. He used to hold his own against Blair. He was rather disengaged against Miliband and is going through the motions against Corbyn. He is matching the performance to the opponent. That's not good for anyone.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
Then, with respect, the Lib Dems should have allowed the boundary changes through when they still had a say in the process. Killing them off in the last parliament turned out to be unhelpful in the long run and didn't even help them save seats in the short term.
Lib Dems blocked the parliamentary boundary changes because the Conservatives scuttled House of Lords reform.
Well, it was what they used as an excuse for something they were desperate to do in what turned out to be a doomed attempt to save some seats.
I'm fairly sure I remember a report that said that on the revised boundaries, they'd have been down to four, so in that sense they were successful. i don't know which the four were. Presumably Farron and Carmichael would be two.
Ceredigion and Leeds whatever Greg Mullholland holds would be the other two.
I'm not desperate for a story but Cameron refused to answer a question 6 times.
The Chancellor sets the budget, not the PM.
And he said that...
It's still the government's budget and the PM takes the responsibility for the government's actions.
Dave's timidity on the tax credits was foolish. He should have come out and said "yes, some people will lose." Everyone knows this so why try to hide it? The notion that no-one should ever lose out from any change the government ever makes is the politics of the playground: 'it's not fair: you're taking someone else's money away from me!'.
Where desperate to make a story rules out all even the Tory press who called it for Corbyn. Nice spin, but pointless since PMQs is about morale on the backbenches, and MPs will know what they saw.
Corbyn doesn't have a chance of winning an election but he's been surprisingly good at PMQs, he clearly got the better of Cameron this week.
They will have seen that Corbyn is a steady performer but is completely unable to rally his MPs behind him?
They will have seen that Cameron holds him in such high regard that he doesn't even feel the need to come up with a plausible evasion strategy, simply spouting PR soundbites instead?
They will have seen that Corbyn cannot think on his feet to try and show the government has no answers on any key issues, or worse, that Corbyn is unaware that there is more to life than welfare?
Cameron used to marmalise Gordon Brown. He used to hold his own against Blair. He was rather disengaged against Miliband and is going through the motions against Corbyn. He is matching the performance to the opponent. That's not good for anyone.
Where desperate to make a story rules out all even the Tory press who called it for Corbyn. Nice spin, but pointless since PMQs is about morale on the backbenches, and MPs will know what they saw.
Corbyn doesn't have a chance of winning an election but he's been surprisingly good at PMQs, he clearly got the better of Cameron this week.
They will have seen that Corbyn is a steady performer but is completely unable to rally his MPs behind him?
They will have seen that Cameron holds him in such high regard that he doesn't even feel the need to come up with a plausible evasion strategy, simply spouting PR soundbites instead?
They will have seen that Corbyn cannot think on his feet to try and show the government has no answers on several key issues, or worse, that Corbyn is unaware that there is more to life than welfare?
Cameron used to marmalise Gordon Brown. He used to hold his own against Blair. He was rather disengaged against Miliband and is going through the motions against Corbyn. He is matching the performance to the opponent. That's not good for anyone.
@TSE are you sure about Ceredigion? I thought it was to be merged with Preseli Pembrokeshire which is a Conservative stronghold. Added together, there would be about a 6000 Conservative majority in that seat.
EDIT - I was wrong. It would be a 5,000 majority, but Labour would be in second.
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
I'm not desperate for a story but Cameron refused to answer a question 6 times.
The Chancellor sets the budget, not the PM.
And he said that...
It's still the government's budget and the PM takes the responsibility for the government's actions.
Dave's timidity on the tax credits was foolish. He should have come out and said "yes, some people will lose." Everyone knows this so why try to hide it? The notion that no-one should ever lose out from any change the government ever makes is the politics of the playground: 'it's not fair: you're taking someone else's money away from me!'.
Where desperate to make a story rules out all even the Tory press who called it for Corbyn. Nice spin, but pointless since PMQs is about morale on the backbenches, and MPs will know what they saw.
Corbyn doesn't have a chance of winning an election but he's been surprisingly good at PMQs, he clearly got the better of Cameron this week.
They will have seen that Corbyn is a steady performer but is completely unable to rally his MPs behind him?
They will have seen that Cameron holds him in such high regard that he doesn't even feel the need to come up with a plausible evasion strategy, simply spouting PR soundbites instead?
They will have seen that Corbyn cannot think on his feet to try and show the government has no answers on several key issues, or worse, that Corbyn is unaware that there is more to life than welfare?
Cameron used to marmalise Gordon Brown. He used to hold his own against Blair. He was rather disengaged against Miliband and is going through the motions against Corbyn. He is matching the performance to the opponent. That's not good for anyone.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
Then, with respect, the Lib Dems should have allowed the boundary changes through when they still had a say in the process. Killing them off in the last parliament turned out to be unhelpful in the long run and didn't even help them save seats in the short term.
Lib Dems blocked the parliamentary boundary changes because the Conservatives scuttled House of Lords reform.
Well, it was what they used as an excuse for something they were desperate to do in what turned out to be a doomed attempt to save some seats.
I'm fairly sure I remember a report that said that on the revised boundaries, they'd have been down to four, so in that sense they were successful. i don't know which the four were. Presumably Farron and Carmichael would be two.
Ceredigion and Leeds whatever Greg Mullholland holds would be the other two.
I'll take your word about Ceredigion, of which I know little, but Leeds NW I'm surprised about: Mulholland's majority is less than 3000 and there are precious few other Lib Dem voters around there.
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
When is Edinburgh West btw - noone voted for an independent MP there. Reminds me a bit of the Bradford East shennanigans last parliament.
Don't forget David Ward ran under a Lib Dem banner !
@TSE are you sure about Ceredigion? I thought it was to be merged with Preseli Pembrokeshire which is a Conservative stronghold. Added together, there would be about a 6000 Conservative majority in that seat.
EDIT - I was wrong. It would be a 5,000 majority, but Labour would be in second.
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
Surely Orkney would still be considered a Lib Dem hold? What happened in Oldham and Saddleworth - was that considered a 'Labour win' or 'Labour hold' this time around?
Perhaps it was a hint. With labour where they are, the libs should be positioning themselves as a sober, sensible loonie-free left of centre party ready to take up the slack. There should be measured criticism of the government, and labour's excesses too. And consideration of what turned the libs into electoral poison
Farron, as pointed out below, is a shriller socialist than many Corbynites.
'If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.'
@TSE are you sure about Ceredigion? I thought it was to be merged with Preseli Pembrokeshire which is a Conservative stronghold. Added together, there would be about a 6000 Conservative majority in that seat.
EDIT - I was wrong. It would be a 5,000 majority, but Labour would be in second.
I've looked at that now and I disagree with it. His assumption is highly suspect: 'The Lib Dems would probably manage to retain a seat based on their current Ceredigion.' But the current Ceredigion would have been obliterated, merged with the Preseli area. The Liberal Democrats have no strength in North Pembrokeshire. The suggestion that they could hold a marginal like Ceredigion added to a safe Conservative seat (formerly a Conservative/Labour marginal) does not work mathematically.* So actually, on his figures the Lib Dems are down to three.
*It might just have been enough had the merger been with Brecon and Radnor, but that wouldn't have met the population requirements.
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
Surely Orkney would still be considered a Lib Dem hold? What happened in Oldham and Saddleworth - was that considered a 'Labour win' or 'Labour hold' this time around?
Oldham was always a Lab hold. The Lib Dems never took the seat.
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
Surely Orkney would still be considered a Lib Dem hold? What happened in Oldham and Saddleworth - was that considered a 'Labour win' or 'Labour hold' this time around?
Oldham was always a Lab hold. The Lib Dems never took the seat.
And I would expect the Liberal Democrats to hold Orkney as well (*puts tin hat on*).
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
Surely Orkney would still be considered a Lib Dem hold? What happened in Oldham and Saddleworth - was that considered a 'Labour win' or 'Labour hold' this time around?
Oldham was always a Lab hold. The Lib Dems never took the seat.
And I would expect the Liberal Democrats to hold Orkney as well (*puts tin hat on*).
Will all come down tactical unionist votes.
If I lived in Orkney or Shetland (and I thank Allah I don't), I'd vote Lib Dem as I couldn't bear having narrow little nationalists like the SNP or UKIP representing me.
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
The SNP could go in notionally defending every seat in Scotland, if they do take a by-election in O&S.
(Yes, I know 'defences' are a bit ambiguous when there's a by-election gain since the last election but there'd be no doubt that people would see the SNP as defending it, with the Lib Dems looking to 'regain').
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
The SNP could go in notionally defending every seat in Scotland, if they do take a by-election in O&S.
(Yes, I know 'defences' are a bit ambiguous when there's a by-election gain since the last election but there'd be no doubt that people would see the SNP as defending it, with the Lib Dems looking to 'regain').
On election night I reported Rochester and Strood as Con HOLD.
Felt it didn't convey the full majesty of that result.
@TSE are you sure about Ceredigion? I thought it was to be merged with Preseli Pembrokeshire which is a Conservative stronghold. Added together, there would be about a 6000 Conservative majority in that seat.
EDIT - I was wrong. It would be a 5,000 majority, but Labour would be in second.
I've looked at that now and I disagree with it. His assumption is highly suspect: 'The Lib Dems would probably manage to retain a seat based on their current Ceredigion.' But the current Ceredigion would have been obliterated, merged with the Preseli area. The Liberal Democrats have no strength in North Pembrokeshire. The suggestion that they could hold a marginal like Ceredigion added to a safe Conservative seat (formerly a Conservative/Labour marginal) does not work mathematically.* So actually, on his figures the Lib Dems are down to three.
*It might just have been enough had the merger been with Brecon and Radnor, but that wouldn't have met the population requirements.
You can now see why the Tories want 600 seats. It has little to do with savings. After all, we have had more than 600 seats for god knows how many years. And secondly, why is cutting the number of people's representatives a good idea ?
The whole purpose of reducing the number of seats is that it effectively almost ensures that 90% of seats will have to be adjusted. It does not affect Labour that much but certainly will affect the smaller parties where they would not necessarily have the same level of support in the neighbouring seats.
Also, a seat today with the same number of voters as the average will not necessarily get through unscathed since neighbouring seats may need to be adjusted.
@TSE are you sure about Ceredigion? I thought it was to be merged with Preseli Pembrokeshire which is a Conservative stronghold. Added together, there would be about a 6000 Conservative majority in that seat.
EDIT - I was wrong. It would be a 5,000 majority, but Labour would be in second.
I've looked at that now and I disagree with it. His assumption is highly suspect: 'The Lib Dems would probably manage to retain a seat based on their current Ceredigion.' But the current Ceredigion would have been obliterated, merged with the Preseli area. The Liberal Democrats have no strength in North Pembrokeshire. The suggestion that they could hold a marginal like Ceredigion added to a safe Conservative seat (formerly a Conservative/Labour marginal) does not work mathematically.* So actually, on his figures the Lib Dems are down to three.
*It might just have been enough had the merger been with Brecon and Radnor, but that wouldn't have met the population requirements.
In fact, having looked carefully at the boundaries as proposed (p. 16) if anything other than Conservative the new Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire would be a notional Labour seat, as quite a large Conservative-leaning area has been left off while Newcastle Emlyn, which is Labour-leaning, has been added. So it would be a marginal, but not as Baston thought, for the Liberal Democrats would be trailing in third - quite a poor third at that.
In fact, having looked carefully at the boundaries as proposed (p. 16) if anything other than Conservative the new Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire would be a notional Labour seat, ... the Liberal Democrats would be trailing in third - quite a poor third at that.
I'm not desperate for a story but Cameron refused to answer a question 6 times.
The Chancellor sets the budget, not the PM.
And he said that...
It's still the government's budget and the PM takes the responsibility for the government's actions.
Dave's timidity on the tax credits was foolish. He should have come out and said "yes, some people will lose." Everyone knows this so why try to hide it? The notion that no-one should ever lose out from any change the government ever makes is the politics of the playground: 'it's not fair: you're taking someone else's money away from me!'.
The best line in PMQs yday was not the one about LD MPs, it was the tractor stats joke.
In fact, having looked carefully at the boundaries as proposed (p. 16) if anything other than Conservative the new Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire would be a notional Labour seat, ... the Liberal Democrats would be trailing in third - quite a poor third at that.
Now we see why Mrs B was in such a tizzy earlier
It's not all bad news for the Liberal Democrats - they would stand a fighting chance in South Powys even though both seats it was to be formed from are Conservative held at the moment (as a lot of Conservative areas would be put in Glyndwr and Clwyd South). I just don't think it would be one to be taken for granted.
The fun would happen in and around Cardiff - e.g. Bridgend, which on those boundaries looks a decent shout for a Conservative seat to me, while Cardiff North and Caerphilly would go the other way. Cardiff Central and Penarth might be interesting - anywhere that contains such a remarkable social mix as Butetown and Penarth is always going to be hard to call!
OT Times article: "increased CO2 in the atmosphere enhances plant growth" says "Tory peer Viscount Ridley, owner of the land on which England’s largest open-cast coal mine operates"
@JamieRoss7: We've been given a script for Corbyn's speech. We're a out eight sentences in and he's already gone wildly off-script to upset journalists.
@HTScotPol: .@jeremycorbyn script for #scotlab15: "I have hugely enjoyed working with Kezia Dugdale." That 'hugely' missing from delivered speech
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
The SNP could go in notionally defending every seat in Scotland, if they do take a by-election in O&S.
(Yes, I know 'defences' are a bit ambiguous when there's a by-election gain since the last election but there'd be no doubt that people would see the SNP as defending it, with the Lib Dems looking to 'regain').
On election night I reported Rochester and Strood as Con HOLD.
Felt it didn't convey the full majesty of that result.
OGH "The Tory position has not been helped by analysts suggesting that the impact on many families will not be alleviated that much by his new National Living Wage."
Having watched This Week, Julia Hartley-Brewer made a much better case of the Tax Credits change than all the Govt spokes people that have attempted to explain it.
Meanwhile Osborne continues to spread himself far too thinly and is the main person highlighted as behind two Govt announcements this AM. 1. Appointig the Infrastructure Team (anyone remember Osborne's HR failure on Coulson?) 2. the EC negotiations
Plain madness for Osborne to spread so wide and mistakes like the Tax Credit analysis and communication are inevitable.
He is the defacto deputy PM. First Secretary of State. This is what the job entails. He makes a likely prospect for being the next PM, but I think there is a danger of anti Osborne maniacs getting too obsessive. Deputy PM is not a bad job and with a following wind it makes for a smooth change over of leadership. But it might be quite all that Osborne has in mind, as I say its not a bad job, he is doing a lot in govt already. The onus surely is on someone else to start achieving something and looking viable as a future leader.
Deputy PM, Chief Party Strategist, Head of EC negotiations, CofExchequer, Head of Infrastructure etc etc is way too many jobs. It also suffers from the problem of divergent skills and the person then switches to their comfort zone (political strategy) and neglects the other things. Hence we have a poorly planned and communicated Tax Credit mess. Also an EC negotiation where the other side do not yet know what we are asking for.
OGH "The Tory position has not been helped by analysts suggesting that the impact on many families will not be alleviated that much by his new National Living Wage."
Having watched This Week, Julia Hartley-Brewer made a much better case of the Tax Credits change than all the Govt spokes people that have attempted to explain it.
Meanwhile Osborne continues to spread himself far too thinly and is the main person highlighted as behind two Govt announcements this AM. 1. Appointig the Infrastructure Team (anyone remember Osborne's HR failure on Coulson?) 2. the EC negotiations
Plain madness for Osborne to spread so wide and mistakes like the Tax Credit analysis and communication are inevitable.
He is the defacto deputy PM. First Secretary of State. This is what the job entails. He makes a likely prospect for being the next PM, but I think there is a danger of anti Osborne maniacs getting too obsessive. Deputy PM is not a bad job and with a following wind it makes for a smooth change over of leadership. But it might be quite all that Osborne has in mind, as I say its not a bad job, he is doing a lot in govt already. The onus surely is on someone else to start achieving something and looking viable as a future leader.
Deputy PM, Chief Party Strategist, Head of EC negotiations, CofExchequer, Head of Infrastructure etc etc is way too many jobs. It also suffers from the problem of divergent skills and the person then switches to their comfort zone (political strategy) and neglects the other things. Hence we have a poorly planned and communicated Tax Credit mess. Also an EC negotiation where the other side do not yet know what we are asking for.
We should just call him Pooh Bah and have done with it. But I don't think he would set any limits to his own pride.
If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.
The SNP could go in notionally defending every seat in Scotland, if they do take a by-election in O&S.
(Yes, I know 'defences' are a bit ambiguous when there's a by-election gain since the last election but there'd be no doubt that people would see the SNP as defending it, with the Lib Dems looking to 'regain').
On election night I reported Rochester and Strood as Con HOLD.
Felt it didn't convey the full majesty of that result.
"UKIPTPD evicted" would be more accurate?
I wanted to go for TPD has his arse kicked into the next millennium.
Pretty much everything I wanted to happen on election night happened bar the Tories being the second party in Scotland.
Tory Maj, Reckless loses, Cable loses, Balls loses, Farage loses were the highlights (apart from a plethora of winning bets)
I still think it is all a dream. Next Labour will elect Jeremy Corbyn as leader and I'll wake up.
@JamieRoss7: We've been given a script for Corbyn's speech. We're a out eight sentences in and he's already gone wildly off-script to upset journalists.
@HTScotPol: .@jeremycorbyn script for #scotlab15: "I have hugely enjoyed working with Kezia Dugdale." That 'hugely' missing from delivered speech
Could have been worse. He could have missed out 'enjoyed' and said he was 'hugely working' Kezia Dugdale, although I could do without that mental image
''It's going to take time but this poll shows his personality and message is slowly getting through. This site is NOT a weathervane.''
On what happened in May 2015, I'm afraid the evidence is completely against you.
The only problem for the PB tories is they were not correct enough. The brilliant poll filleting analyses of posters like chestnut would have saved many a poster a few quid. But hey, suit yourself.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Mark Senior since the election?
If the polls go up, Tories celebrate. If the polls go down, Tories celebrate.
Conclusion: They're a happy bunch, probably still celebrating May, but there's little evidence of cognition.
Who needs polls when we have JackW telling us Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Incorrect.
I advised PB that :
Jeremy Corbyn Will Never be First Lord Of The Treasury
AKA JCWNBFLOTT
Can one be PM without being First Lord of the Treasury?
Last one to be one without the other was Lord Salisbury 1895-1902, whose official title was first Foreign Secretary and then Lord Privy Seal while Balfour was FLT in the House of Commons. A similar compromise was suggested for Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 (the 'Relugas Compact') but he told Asquith to get stuffed.
However, Baldwin was de facto Prime Minister from 1933-35 while Lord President of the Council under Macdonald's official leadership, if that counts. Since then, the two have always been firmly merged.
OGH "The Tory position has not been helped by analysts suggesting that the impact on many families will not be alleviated that much by his new National Living Wage."
Having watched This Week, Julia Hartley-Brewer made a much better case of the Tax Credits change than all the Govt spokes people that have attempted to explain it.
Meanwhile Osborne continues to spread himself far too thinly and is the main person highlighted as behind two Govt announcements this AM. 1. Appointig the Infrastructure Team (anyone remember Osborne's HR failure on Coulson?) 2. the EC negotiations
Plain madness for Osborne to spread so wide and mistakes like the Tax Credit analysis and communication are inevitable.
He is the defacto deputy PM. First Secretary of State. This is what the job entails. He makes a likely prospect for being the next PM, but I think there is a danger of anti Osborne maniacs getting too obsessive. Deputy PM is not a bad job and with a following wind it makes for a smooth change over of leadership. But it might be quite all that Osborne has in mind, as I say its not a bad job, he is doing a lot in govt already. The onus surely is on someone else to start achieving something and looking viable as a future leader.
Deputy PM, Chief Party Strategist, Head of EC negotiations, CofExchequer, Head of Infrastructure etc etc is way too many jobs. It also suffers from the problem of divergent skills and the person then switches to their comfort zone (political strategy) and neglects the other things. Hence we have a poorly planned and communicated Tax Credit mess. Also an EC negotiation where the other side do not yet know what we are asking for.
We should just call him Pooh Bah and have done with it. But I don't think he would set any limits to his own pride.
@JamieRoss7: We've been given a script for Corbyn's speech. We're a out eight sentences in and he's already gone wildly off-script to upset journalists.
@HTScotPol: .@jeremycorbyn script for #scotlab15: "I have hugely enjoyed working with Kezia Dugdale." That 'hugely' missing from delivered speech
Could have been worse. He could have missed out 'enjoyed' and said he was 'hugely working' Kezia Dugdale, although I could do without that mental image
Only if she stopped talking. She is a major motor-mouth.
OGH "The Tory position has not been helped by analysts suggesting that the impact on many families will not be alleviated that much by his new National Living Wage."
Having watched This Week, Julia Hartley-Brewer made a much better case of the Tax Credits change than all the Govt spokes people that have attempted to explain it.
Meanwhile Osborne continues to spread himself far too thinly and is the main person highlighted as behind two Govt announcements this AM. 1. Appointig the Infrastructure Team (anyone remember Osborne's HR failure on Coulson?) 2. the EC negotiations
Plain madness for Osborne to spread so wide and mistakes like the Tax Credit analysis and communication are inevitable.
He is the defacto deputy PM. First Secretary of State. This is what the job entails. He makes a likely prospect for being the next PM, but I think there is a danger of anti Osborne maniacs getting too obsessive. Deputy PM is not a bad job and with a following wind it makes for a smooth change over of leadership. But it might be quite all that Osborne has in mind, as I say its not a bad job, he is doing a lot in govt already. The onus surely is on someone else to start achieving something and looking viable as a future leader.
Deputy PM, Chief Party Strategist, Head of EC negotiations, CofExchequer, Head of Infrastructure etc etc is way too many jobs. It also suffers from the problem of divergent skills and the person then switches to their comfort zone (political strategy) and neglects the other things. Hence we have a poorly planned and communicated Tax Credit mess. Also an EC negotiation where the other side do not yet know what we are asking for.
We should just call him Pooh Bah and have done with it. But I don't think he would set any limits to his own pride.
Sowing the seeds of his own destruction.
Well, indeed. Pooh Bah decided to stop taking more offices and therefore escaped being Lord High Substitute - and having his head cut off! Maybe Osborne will not draw back in time?
If the polls go up, Tories celebrate. If the polls go down, Tories celebrate.
Conclusion: They're a happy bunch, probably still celebrating May, but there's little evidence of cognition.
Who needs polls when we have JackW telling us Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Incorrect.
I advised PB that :
Jeremy Corbyn Will Never be First Lord Of The Treasury
AKA JCWNBFLOTT
Can one be PM without being First Lord of the Treasury?
Last one to be one without the other was Lord Salisbury 1895-1902, whose official title was first Foreign Secretary and then Lord Privy Seal while Balfour was FLT in the House of Commons. A similar compromise was suggested for Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 (the 'Relugas Compact') but he told Asquith to get stuffed.
However, Baldwin was de facto Prime Minister from 1933-35 while Lord President of the Council under Macdonald's official leadership, if that counts. Since then, the two have always been firmly merged.
Cheers. On the letterbox of no 10 it says First Lord of the Treasury.
WhenIf I were to become Prime Minister, I fear I'd go all Idi Amin on the titles front.
I'm not sure Mike can draw that conclusion. Respondents were only given the option to approve of one of the options (or signify their top priority). There may well be many who think the UK spends too much on aid but would like tax credits cut too.
Your Herculean spin to try and disguise the fact that cutting blue-collar workers' wages, is about as popular as the bubonic plague, is impressive.
Though this comment doesn't quite top a few weeks ago, when you said anyone who answered "Don't Know" to the question on tax credits really meant that they supported it.
If the polls go up, Tories celebrate. If the polls go down, Tories celebrate.
Conclusion: They're a happy bunch, probably still celebrating May, but there's little evidence of cognition.
Who needs polls when we have JackW telling us Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Incorrect.
I advised PB that :
Jeremy Corbyn Will Never be First Lord Of The Treasury
AKA JCWNBFLOTT
Can one be PM without being First Lord of the Treasury?
Yes. Although by modern convention (from the early 19th century) they are seen as one and the same.
It's also worthy of note that 10 Downing Street is the official residence of The First Lord of the Treasury and not the PM, whose official residence is Chequers.
If the polls go up, Tories celebrate. If the polls go down, Tories celebrate.
Conclusion: They're a happy bunch, probably still celebrating May, but there's little evidence of cognition.
Who needs polls when we have JackW telling us Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Incorrect.
I advised PB that :
Jeremy Corbyn Will Never be First Lord Of The Treasury
AKA JCWNBFLOTT
Can one be PM without being First Lord of the Treasury?
Yes. Although by modern convention (from the early 19th century) they are seen as one and the same.
It's also worthy of note that 10 Downing Street is the official residence of The First Lord of the Treasury and not the PM, whose official residence is Chequers.
On a related matter the Prime Minister is not the most senior member of the government in precedence. Cameron ranks second behind Michael Gove who as Lord Chancellor is top of the pecking order.
Peter the Punter would agree as he's clearly of the view that any male minister that wears stockings should be top dog !!
If the polls go up, Tories celebrate. If the polls go down, Tories celebrate.
Conclusion: They're a happy bunch, probably still celebrating May, but there's little evidence of cognition.
Who needs polls when we have JackW telling us Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
Incorrect.
I advised PB that :
Jeremy Corbyn Will Never be First Lord Of The Treasury
AKA JCWNBFLOTT
Can one be PM without being First Lord of the Treasury?
Last one to be one without the other was Lord Salisbury 1895-1902, whose official title was first Foreign Secretary and then Lord Privy Seal while Balfour was FLT in the House of Commons. A similar compromise was suggested for Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 (the 'Relugas Compact') but he told Asquith to get stuffed.
However, Baldwin was de facto Prime Minister from 1933-35 while Lord President of the Council under Macdonald's official leadership, if that counts. Since then, the two have always been firmly merged.
Cheers. On the letterbox of no 10 it says First Lord of the Treasury.
WhenIf I were to become Prime Minister, I fear I'd go all Idi Amin on the titles front.
Ah, but Salisbury didn't live in Downing Street, Balfour (and earlier Iddesleigh) did. Salisbury had his own house in London and used that.
The idea of 10 Downing Street was it would be used by those Prime Ministers who did not have palatial London residences (as that of Chequers was to allow PMs to entertain foreign visitors in a country house style, even if they didn't have a country house of their own). It was therefore frequently used by other politicians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - e.g. Peel used it, but not Wellington. So although it says 'First Lord of the Treasury' on the door, that could be a bit flexible.
If every poll between now and 2020 showed Corbyn ahead and I would still expect the Conservatives to win. I say that as an ex-Labour party member & voter. My default position now is that if the polls show Corbyn winning a GE then the polls are wrong. It would take something monumental to change me from that viewpoint.
I'm not sure Mike can draw that conclusion. Respondents were only given the option to approve of one of the options (or signify their top priority). There may well be many who think the UK spends too much on aid but would like tax credits cut too.
Your Herculean spin to try and disguise the fact that cutting blue-collar workers' wages, is about as popular as the bubonic plague, is impressive.
Though this comment doesn't quite top a few weeks ago, when you said anyone who answered "Don't Know" to the question on tax credits really meant that they supported it.
Not to worry, because the man you supported virtually extinguished Labour as the party of real opposition, Osborne, has over 4 years to build a war chest for the next election. Ed, truly was shite. Corbyn, will go on to make Ed look like a winner, he really is that bad.
Exclusive: Left-wing mob forces Scottish Tories to cancel conference on police advice. https://t.co/6xOMflXXXW
Those Nats don't like democracy do they?
LOL, given the consensus on here is that SNP are right wing and Tartan Tories , what a leap of faith to think a left wing "mob" were SNP. Given it was that clown Roden reporting it was probably two pensioners fighting over a set of false teeth.
"Don't the idiots understand that mob rule really doesn't benefit their cause?"
I doubt if they care. In Monty Python World, you've got to really really hate the Romans. Virtue signalling is more important than persuading others.
What is worse is that idiots like you believe the "mob rule" guff written by a cretin. What really happened no doubt is that they were not going to get close to the expected 75 attendees and were not going to be able to pay for the wake and so needed a handy tool to write some bollocks for them
Comments
It's going to take time but this poll shows his personality and message is slowly getting through. This site is NOT a weathervane
Cameron spouted PR for sure, he always resorts to type.
Most VPN companies base their servers in other countries and make a point that their servers are shared connections and they can't easily work out who is accessing what even if they kept records, which a "good" VPN company won't. The result of this is your BT's, Virgin's etc have no bloody clue what they were looking at on the net, only that a load of encrypted packets of data are flowing to and from a user.
The spooks can (according to Snowdon), but PC Plod won't.
Whether their revised policy is any good we shall see.
Like I say, a very confused article.
And he said that...
With IDS, the parliamentary party just didn't see him as a winner. Now, that might very well have a close parallel with Corbyn but to take that parallel further, there was sufficient discipline within the Tory MPs to nominate only one person so as to avoid an election. Do Labour have someone of equivalent stature to Michael Howard to which they can turn, and even if they do, can they prevent, through whatever means, the far left from reaching the nominations threshold?
On what happened in May 2015, I'm afraid the evidence is completely against you.
The only problem for the PB tories is they were not correct enough. The brilliant poll filleting analyses of posters like chestnut would have saved many a poster a few quid. But hey, suit yourself.
Conservative Association hits back at Labour Club’s “Dress as a Tory” Halloween party
http://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2015/10/29/conservative-association-hits-back-at-labour-clubs-dress-as-a-tory-halloween-party-60237
And a few brave voices Said No. That is the message for me from GE2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_by-election,_1993
Labour's dash to the cliff would leave lemmings panting for breath.
Definitely not Pugh.
They will have seen that Cameron holds him in such high regard that he doesn't even feel the need to come up with a plausible evasion strategy, simply spouting PR soundbites instead?
They will have seen that Corbyn cannot think on his feet to try and show the government has no answers on several key issues, or worse, that Corbyn is unaware that there is more to life than welfare?
Cameron used to marmalise Gordon Brown. He used to hold his own against Blair. He was rather disengaged against Miliband and is going through the motions against Corbyn. He is matching the performance to the opponent. That's not good for anyone.
Dave's timidity on the tax credits was foolish. He should have come out and said "yes, some people will lose." Everyone knows this so why try to hide it? The notion that no-one should ever lose out from any change the government ever makes is the politics of the playground: 'it's not fair: you're taking someone else's money away from me!'.
I compared Corbyn poorly to EdM FFS.
EDIT - I was wrong. It would be a 5,000 majority, but Labour would be in second.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/comments/22/MarkSenior
Don't forget David Ward ran under a Lib Dem banner !
@TSEofPB: From earlier on this year @lewis_baston's analysis on boundary changes. https://t.co/LutjCIuJPG
I'll try his home email later. We had dinner and swapped books so hope all is well.
Perhaps it was a hint. With labour where they are, the libs should be positioning themselves as a sober, sensible loonie-free left of centre party ready to take up the slack. There should be measured criticism of the government, and labour's excesses too. And consideration of what turned the libs into electoral poison
Farron, as pointed out below, is a shriller socialist than many Corbynites.
'If the courts find Alastair Carmichael has been a very naughty boy the Lib Dems could go into the next election with only 3 notional holds and UKIP none.'
Another dockside hooker pounding on the cards ?
*It might just have been enough had the merger been with Brecon and Radnor, but that wouldn't have met the population requirements.
If I lived in Orkney or Shetland (and I thank Allah I don't), I'd vote Lib Dem as I couldn't bear having narrow little nationalists like the SNP or UKIP representing me.
(Yes, I know 'defences' are a bit ambiguous when there's a by-election gain since the last election but there'd be no doubt that people would see the SNP as defending it, with the Lib Dems looking to 'regain').
I have thought of a better example for demonstrating the nonsense of that question.
Would you like, tax-free:
a) £10,000?
b) £100,000?
c) £1,000,000?
d) £10,000,000?
The poll shows 0% of people want a million pounds for free. Simply astounding.
Felt it didn't convey the full majesty of that result.
THANK YOU FOR VOTING
72% AGREE WITH YOU THAT CORBYN WON PMQs
9305 voters
Nowt equals complete climb down from Osborne?
The whole purpose of reducing the number of seats is that it effectively almost ensures that 90% of seats will have to be adjusted. It does not affect Labour that much but certainly will affect the smaller parties where they would not necessarily have the same level of support in the neighbouring seats.
Also, a seat today with the same number of voters as the average will not necessarily get through unscathed since neighbouring seats may need to be adjusted.
Right...
https://twitter.com/ruthdavidsonmsp/status/660104664826961920
The fun would happen in and around Cardiff - e.g. Bridgend, which on those boundaries looks a decent shout for a Conservative seat to me, while Cardiff North and Caerphilly would go the other way. Cardiff Central and Penarth might be interesting - anywhere that contains such a remarkable social mix as Butetown and Penarth is always going to be hard to call!
Unlucky...
"increased CO2 in the atmosphere enhances plant growth" says "Tory peer Viscount Ridley, owner of the land on which England’s largest open-cast coal mine operates"
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/blog/science-and-climate-sceptics-should-come-clean/1021325.article?cmpid=tenews_1718517
@HTScotPol: .@jeremycorbyn script for #scotlab15: "I have hugely enjoyed working with Kezia Dugdale." That 'hugely' missing from delivered speech
I advised PB that :
Jeremy Corbyn Will Never be First Lord Of The Treasury
AKA JCWNBFLOTT
Wonder if the Time will carry on with theirs?
Pretty much everything I wanted to happen on election night happened bar the Tories being the second party in Scotland.
Tory Maj, Reckless loses, Cable loses, Balls loses, Farage loses were the highlights (apart from a plethora of winning bets)
I still think it is all a dream. Next Labour will elect Jeremy Corbyn as leader and I'll wake up.
However he has been on site in recent months including in the past day.
However, Baldwin was de facto Prime Minister from 1933-35 while Lord President of the Council under Macdonald's official leadership, if that counts. Since then, the two have always been firmly merged.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dVLS6FazQ4
WhenIf I were to become Prime Minister, I fear I'd go all Idi Amin on the titles front.
Though this comment doesn't quite top a few weeks ago, when you said anyone who answered "Don't Know" to the question on tax credits really meant that they supported it.
It's also worthy of note that 10 Downing Street is the official residence of The First Lord of the Treasury and not the PM, whose official residence is Chequers.
Peter the Punter would agree as he's clearly of the view that any male minister that wears stockings should be top dog !!
The idea of 10 Downing Street was it would be used by those Prime Ministers who did not have palatial London residences (as that of Chequers was to allow PMs to entertain foreign visitors in a country house style, even if they didn't have a country house of their own). It was therefore frequently used by other politicians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - e.g. Peel used it, but not Wellington. So although it says 'First Lord of the Treasury' on the door, that could be a bit flexible.
What really happened no doubt is that they were not going to get close to the expected 75 attendees and were not going to be able to pay for the wake and so needed a handy tool to write some bollocks for them