Just to bore some more re Whisky..some of the ones I was given this Christmas The Old Malt Cask.. Tomintoul 1989 ..25 YEARS Montgomeries Single Cask..Longmorn 1984 28 years Old Malt Cask Speysides Finest..aged 28 years The Sovereign,,Cambus 1975 aged 40 years Montgomeries Single Cask..Bowmore 1990..aged 22 years. I have not had any of them before..any experts out there..
Afternoon Hurst, you could call it lust or future greed, they are looking to feather their own nests. Neither have shown any talent , I doubt they could run a bath. The dire lack of any talent is the real Labour issue rather than Corbyn , he is just the symptom of how poor the remainder of them really are. Hard to see Labour doing anything till thy get rid of these two and their ilk, it is unfortunate that Corbyn is not up to a cull of the dead wood. Now is the time to do it and hope some new talent surfaces by the next election, not as if they have much to beat.
The dire lack of talent is not something that afflicts Labour alone. The actual government Front Bench, never mind its shadow, does not exactly sparkle.
On a happy note, my boy bought me a bottle of the 16 year-old Jura for Christmas. I have had the Jura before but not that one - I have to say I am impressed (and me an Islay fan of many years standing).
Have you tried 18 year old Highland Park?
My publishers gave me a bottle as a present for getting a number 1 on the charts, and I looked at it askance at first: Just a bottle of malt, where's my vintage champagne, etc
Then I tried it. Bloody hell. An amazing whisky. Some say it's the best in the world and they might be right.
Just to bore some more re Whisky..some of the ones I was given this Christmas The Old Malt Cask.. Tomintoul 1989 ..25 YEARS Montgomeries Single Cask..Longmorn 1984 28 years Old Malt Cask Speysides Finest..aged 28 years The Sovereign,,Cambus 1975 aged 40 years Montgomeries Single Cask..Bowmore 1990..aged 22 years. I have not had any of them before..any experts out there..
Yes - 5 bottles equals kind and loving friends and family
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Corbyn will get the numbers needed to get the nominations. The situation is totally different now. Many of the current shadow cabinet and junior position holders will nominate him for a start. I reckon he will get 60 - 80 nominations today.
I think that is exactly right. One way or another, Corbyn will be on the ballot if he wants to be.
Someone - I think Stephen Bush - summed this up the other day:
* The only candidate who can replace Corbyn against his will is one who can beat Corbyn in a ballot of the membership.
* There is no such candidate in the PLP.
Conclusion: Corbyn will go when he chooses. Concerning when that will be, I thought the most significant line in the recent Independent article that trails these sackings was one that said that, after Oldham, Corbyn thinks he can win the election and become Prime Minister. I think we can safely say:
* While he thinks that he won't resign.
* He won't stop thinking that easily. That kind of thought is hard to dislodge.
For which reason, I think Corbyn will neither resign nor be ousted before 2020.
There is no point even challenging Corbyn if the members are consulted, a challenge would have to be an MP orchestrated coup and that is only likely to happen if Labour start losing seats to UKIP in by elections in which case there is no alternative
Labour MPs cannot impose a new leader. This is not the Tory party.
They did in 2007.
I think the rules are different when we are in government.
Not a chance. I'm a committed kipper but as it stands we don't have an earthly of winning a by election. No resources, no infrastructure, no money, we've even lost our message.
Re-reading Rod's thread from May 2014, the references to the UKIP position that was going to get them multiple MPs holding the balance of power this year was interesting. UKIP believed only they could force an In/Out Referendum. Being proven wrong that Cameron would never, ever deliver that referendum really does seem to have taken the wind out of UKIP's sails.
Yes but the referendum itself offers a second chance especially if it is a narrow In
The only way I see there being an appetite amongst the voters to keep In/Out alive following a vote to remain, is if the Scots and/or Welsh and/or NI voting for In has blocked the majority view in England to get Out.
But that will then be a wider constitutional clash, where the price to get out is the destruction of the United Kingdom. Will the English then vote to doubly go it alone - out of the EU AND out of the UK? I dunno, but I suspect those with the strongest loathing of the EU are those with the strongest attraction to the UK.
Perhaps although about a quarter of SNP voters back Brexit. However if Out get about 48% UKIP could easily win 20% at the 2020 election even if they get less than half of those Out voters
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
I am hiding from my rellies and working (albeit with Matt Smith era Dr Who episodes on in the background) so cannot comment overmuch. However this is an appropriate moment for Meme#2, to wit:
"The EU is an Universal Villain. Anything good that it does must be dismissed as "it would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly"
(Meme#1 is of course "If Cameron had negotiated X then I would have voted REMAIN, but he didn't so I'll vote LEAVE, such a pity", where X is a member of the set of all possible things)
So , what should Labour do in places like Cornwall ? Give up ? Cornwall is Britain's poorest county.
The Labour vote in 2010 in the six Cornish seats was 8.64%. In 2015 it was 12.3% The Tory vote also went up: from 40.95% to 43.10%. LD: 22.4% [41.76%]. UKIP 13.83% [4.9%]
In the past, Labour's policy was benign neglect. We sub-contracted out to the Lib Dems - the Tory "B" team.
It is to Ed Miliband's credit that the first "organisor" was appointed for Devon and Cornwall. I think you will find Labour will begin to win a few council seats. Labour should never again give up some regions. It is going to be a long haul.
I appreciate your dilemma, and sympathise. Heh.
And of course it is nice to gain members, and good to win council seats. But my larger point remains entirely valid. Barely a decade ago Labour actually had MPs in Cornwall, now they are utterly irrelevant.
Will a leftier Labour party full of excited, hairy, mildly insane defectors from the Greens win back any of those seats? No. (have you met any Cornish Greens? - I have, oh dear oh dear).
But they will give Labour the delusion they are recovering, which makes it all worse, as Corbyn depends on this false optimism. And the net effect will probably be a LOSS of seats in the end.
So, paradoxically, it would be better for you in the long term if Labour membership imploded right now, so Corbyn could be ousted.
Labour had only one MP in Camborne won in a landslide, She kept her seat in 2001 as that was largely the same result as in 1997. I am not sure when they had an MP before that.
Camborne was Labour from 1950-70.
Labour had tons of seats in the counties during that period, as did the Tories in the cities.
The long term urban-rural, north-south spatial polarization of votes has reduced these results to historical curiosities...
If Sadiq wins then the following cities will be under Labour control:
London Birmingham Manchester Leeds Sheffield Liverpool Newcastle Bristol Coventry Bradford Nottingham Leicester Norwich
Which will be seen as justification by the Corbynistas.
Anyone know what the biggest place which the Conservatives might now be able to win ?
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
However, the electoral arithmetic is stacked against Labour. But Labour needs a swing of just 1% to deny Tories absolute majority. Note Labour does not have to increase its own share. LD and UKIP can gain 2%.
It 's right that Labour supporters in Cornwall and Devon should have someone to vote for. There's probably a latent Labour vote of 20% or so, across both counties. That could be reduced in a particular constituency to 5%, due to tactical voting for Lib Dems.
Now, the Lib Dems are gone. Labour, UKIP, Greens (and remaining Lib Dems) are all scrapping for the non-Conservative vote. The Conservatives are sitting pretty on 45% or so.
One of the striking things of the general election was how the Conservatives now have, for the first time since the sixties or even fifties, safe seats in areas of former LibDem strength in south-west England, Herefordshire, Richmond, Berwick and mid Wales.
Not a chance. I'm a committed kipper but as it stands we don't have an earthly of winning a by election. No resources, no infrastructure, no money, we've even lost our message.
Re-reading Rod's thread from May 2014, the reference
Yes but the referendum itself offers a second chance especially if it is a narrow In
The only way I see there being an appetite amongst the voters to keep In/Out alive following a vote to remain, is if the Scots and/or Welsh and/or NI voting for In has blocked the majority view in England to get Out.
But that will then be a wider constitutional clash, where the price to get out is the destruction of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps although about a quarter of SNP voters back Brexit. However if Out get about 48% UKIP could easily win 20% at the 2020 election even if they get less than half of those Out voters
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
Maybe, but a majority of the main parties representatives will back Remain and if it is a narrow In UKIP will be the main vehicle will the main vehicle for disillusioned Outers. Most people in Scotland were actually not vehemently for or anti independence prior to indyref, other than a few diehard nationalists, but the full force of the referendum campaign set passions aflame, even if EUref sets passions only a little alight that still benefits UKIP. The SNP won almost all the Yes backers in 2015, even if UKIP win less than half the Out voters in 2020 they would still be on 20% or so and likely to win at least 10+ MPs
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
However, the electoral arithmetic is stacked against Labour. But Labour needs a swing of just 1% to deny Tories absolute majority. Note Labour does not have to increase its own share. LD and UKIP can gain 2%.
Maybe but that is irrelevant as even if they lose their majority the Tories would likely do a deal with UKIP and the Unionists and the LDs will oppose any Labour-SNP deal
I am hiding from my rellies and working (albeit with Matt Smith era Dr Who episodes on in the background) so cannot comment overmuch. However this is an appropriate moment for Meme#2, to wit:
"The EU is an Universal Villain. Anything good that it does must be dismissed as "it would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly"
(Meme#1 is of course "If Cameron had negotiated X then I would have voted REMAIN, but he didn't so I'll vote LEAVE, such a pity", where X is a member of the set of all possible things)
Actually the meme most commonly seen on here is exactly the opposite - that anything good in Europe today - peace, free trade, British economic success, foreign holidays and human rights - can only have come about because of the existence of the EU and could not have happened without it.
It is of course utter bollocks but that doesn't stop the Eurofanatics trying to push it.
So , what should Labour do in places like Cornwall ? Give up ? Cornwall is Britain's poorest county.
The Labour vote in 2010 in the six Cornish seats was 8.64%. In 2015 it was 12.3% The Tory vote also went up: from 40.95% to 43.10%. LD: 22.4% [41.76%]. UKIP 13.83% [4.9%]
In the past, Labour's policy was benign neglect. We sub-contracted out to the Lib Dems - the Tory "B" team.
It is to Ed Miliband's credit that the first "organisor" was appointed for Devon and Cornwall. I think you will find Labour will begin to win a few council seats. Labour should never again give up some regions. It is going to be a long haul.
I appreciate your dilemma, and sympathise. Heh.
And of course it is nice to gain members, and good to win council seats. But my larger point remains entirely valid. Barely a decade ago Labour actually had MPs in Cornwall, now they are utterly irrelevant.
Will a leftier Labour party full of excited, hairy, mildly insane defectors from the Greens win back any of those seats? No. (have you met any Cornish Greens? - I have, oh dear oh dear).
But they will give Labour the delusion they are recovering, which makes it all worse, as Corbyn depends on this false optimism. And the net effect will probably be a LOSS of seats in the end.
So, paradoxically, it would be better for you in the long term if Labour membership imploded right now, so Corbyn could be ousted.
Labour had only one MP in Camborne won in a landslide, She kept her seat in 2001 as that was largely the same result as in 1997. I am not sure when they had an MP before that.
Camborne was Labour from 1950-70.
Labour had tons of seats in the counties during that period, as did the Tories in the cities.
The long term urban-rural, north-south spatial polarization of votes has reduced these results to historical curiosities...
If Sadiq wins then the following cities will be under Labour control:
London Birmingham Manchester Leeds Sheffield Liverpool Newcastle Bristol Coventry Bradford Nottingham Leicester Norwich
Which will be seen as justification by the Corbynistas.
Anyone know what the biggest place which the Conservatives might now be able to win ?
It 's right that Labour supporters in Cornwall and Devon should have someone to vote for. There's probably a latent Labour vote of 20% or so, across both counties. That could be reduced in a particular constituency to 5%, due to tactical voting for Lib Dems.
Now, the Lib Dems are gone. Labour, UKIP, Greens (and remaining Lib Dems) are all scrapping for the non-Conservative vote. The Conservatives are sitting pretty on 45% or so.
One of the striking things of the general election was how the Conservatives now have, for the first time since the sixties or even fifties, safe seats in areas of former LibDem strength in south-west England, Herefordshire, Richmond, Berwick and mid Wales.
You should thank your agents Clegg and Alexander for that. They f*cked their own party royally.
Alexander is going to the Chinese World Bank. Where is Clegg going ?
It was coalition, or another election, which would've had a classic two party squeeze. That may be better now for the Lib Dems, but it's easy to contemplate alternate history than it is to forecast the future.
I am hiding from my rellies and working (albeit with Matt Smith era Dr Who episodes on in the background) so cannot comment overmuch. However this is an appropriate moment for Meme#2, to wit:
"The EU is an Universal Villain. Anything good that it does must be dismissed as "it would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly"
(Meme#1 is of course "If Cameron had negotiated X then I would have voted REMAIN, but he didn't so I'll vote LEAVE, such a pity", where X is a member of the set of all possible things)
Actually the meme most commonly seen on here is exactly the opposite - that anything good in Europe today - peace, free trade, British economic success, foreign holidays and human rights - can only have come about because of the existence of the EU and could not have happened without it.
It is of course utter bollocks but that doesn't stop the Eurofanatics trying to push it.
I'm not sure we would agree on the definition of "here"
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
However, the electoral arithmetic is stacked against Labour. But Labour needs a swing of just 1% to deny Tories absolute majority. Note Labour does not have to increase its own share. LD and UKIP can gain 2%.
That's a huge simplification. FPTP is not a clockwork system, and a 2% increase in UKIP, for instance, would be doubtful in changing the 2015 result one jot...
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
However, the electoral arithmetic is stacked against Labour. But Labour needs a swing of just 1% to deny Tories absolute majority. Note Labour does not have to increase its own share. LD and UKIP can gain 2%.
Maybe but that is irrelevant as even if they lose their majority the Tories would likely do a deal with UKIP and the Unionists and the LDs will oppose any Labour-SNP deal
A 2% swing to Labour [ however, it comes about ] will make Britain ungovernable. I don't understand why you are harping about UKIP. They are as powerful as the Greens.
Re-reading Rod's thread from May 2014, the reference
Yes but the referendum itself offers a second chance especially if it is a narrow In
The only way I see there being an appetite amongst the voters to keep In/Out alive following a vote to remain, is if the Scots and/or Welsh and/or NI voting for In has blocked the majority view in England to get Out.
But that will then be a wider constitutional clash, where the price to get out is the destruction of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps although about a quarter of SNP voters back Brexit. However if Out get about 48% UKIP could easily win 20% at the 2020 election even if they get less than half of those Out voters
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
Maybe, but a majority of the main parties representatives will back Remain and if it is a narrow In UKIP will be the main vehicle will the main vehicle for disillusioned Outers. Most people in Scotland were actually not vehemently for or anti independence prior to indyref, other than a few diehard nationalists, but the full force of the referendum campaign set passions aflame, even if EUref sets passions only a little alight that still benefits UKIP. The SNP won almost all the Yes backers in 2015, even if UKIP win less than half the Out voters in 2020 they would still be on 20% or so and likely to win at least 10+ MPs
And voting NO didn't damage Scotland - on the contrary it shielded Scotland from the effects of the fall in the oil price.
Whereas a REMAIN vote is likely to be followed by more unpopular EU meddling.
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
However, the electoral arithmetic is stacked against Labour. But Labour needs a swing of just 1% to deny Tories absolute majority. Note Labour does not have to increase its own share. LD and UKIP can gain 2%.
That's a huge simplification. FPTP is not a clockwork system, and a 2% increase in UKIP, for instance, would be doubtful in changing the 2015 result one jot...
I know but we have always worked on average swings and it by and large works. There are some seats where if Tory votes went down by 2% and UKIP goes up by 2%, Labour wins.
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
However, the electoral arithmetic is stacked against Labour. But Labour needs a swing of just 1% to deny Tories absolute majority. Note Labour does not have to increase its own share. LD and UKIP can gain 2%.
That's a huge simplification. FPTP is not a clockwork system, and a 2% increase in UKIP, for instance, would be doubtful in changing the 2015 result one jot...
I know but we have always worked on average swings and it by and large works. There are some seats where if Tory votes went down by 2% and UKIP goes up by 2%, Labour wins.
But now we all know that the UKIP vote is not simply ex-Tory.
300 mad new members who love Jeremy Corbyn and his lovely vests are not going to make a whit of difference, except give the Corbynites reasons to cling on to the painful and fateful delusion that they can actually win back seats.
What's more, if you look at the data in that seat, and the hints in the allied article, it's clear where these new members are coming from: the even leftier Greens, who ran Labour a close 5th in North Cornwall.
These people will take Labour in Cornwall further from the centre.
I suspect the consequence for Labour, in the south west, of the Corbyn leadership, will be a net loss of MPs, as Ben Bradshaw is defeated in Exeter.
If Labour lose Exeter they'll be heading below 150MPs, almost all of whom will have urban constituencies.
It would be almost impossible to rebuild from that point.
It was coalition, or another election, which would've had a classic two party squeeze. That may be better now for the Lib Dems, but it's easy to contemplate alternate history than it is to forecast the future.
But it would not have reduced the Liberal s to 8 MPs. They could have stayed out on a "supply and confidence" basis. They would have kept their dignity.
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
Maybe, but a majority of the main parties representatives will back Remain and if it is a narrow In UKIP will be the main vehicle will the main vehicle for disillusioned Outers. Most people in Scotland were actually not vehemently for or anti independence prior to indyref, other than a few diehard nationalists, but the full force of the referendum campaign set passions aflame, even if EUref sets passions only a little alight that still benefits UKIP. The SNP won almost all the Yes backers in 2015, even if UKIP win less than half the Out voters in 2020 they would still be on 20% or so and likely to win at least 10+ MPs
I think the biggest difference is that the SNP, love it or hate it, is a formidable political party. It has iron message-discipline and has ruthlessly eliminated policy positions that would give people a reason not to vote for it. UKIP, love it or hate it, is the opposite.
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
However, the electoral arithmetic is stacked against Labour. But Labour needs a swing of just 1% to deny Tories absolute majority. Note Labour does not have to increase its own share. LD and UKIP can gain 2%.
That's a huge simplification. FPTP is not a clockwork system, and a 2% increase in UKIP, for instance, would be doubtful in changing the 2015 result one jot...
I know but we have always worked on average swings and it by and large works. There are some seats where if Tory votes went down by 2% and UKIP goes up by 2%, Labour wins.
But now we all know that the UKIP vote is not simply ex-Tory.
FFS. These are just simulations. First I thought you needed a sense of humour transplant. Now I think the operation may have to extended.
It was coalition, or another election, which would've had a classic two party squeeze. That may be better now for the Lib Dems, but it's easy to contemplate alternate history than it is to forecast the future.
But it would not have reduced the Liberal s to 8 MPs. They could have stayed out on a "supply and confidence" basis. They would have kept their dignity.
They could, and I think they should be given credit for not doing that. (This is like saying the rain should be less wet.)
"And voting NO didn't damage Scotland - on the contrary it shielded Scotland from the effects of the fall in the oil price."
The vote itself did damage Scotland - I think this is understood by both sides, admittedly politicos feel it more presumably. Wounds that will take a Generation to heal is the hyperbolic phrasing
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
Maybe, but a majority of the main parties representatives will back Remain and if it is a narrow In UKIP will be the main vehicle will the main vehicle for disillusioned Outers. Most people in Scotland were actually not vehemently for or anti independence prior to indyref, other than a few diehard nationalists, but the full force of the referendum campaign set passions aflame, even if EUref sets passions only a little alight that still benefits UKIP. The SNP won almost all the Yes backers in 2015, even if UKIP win less than half the Out voters in 2020 they would still be on 20% or so and likely to win at least 10+ MPs
I think the biggest difference is that the SNP, love it or hate it, is a formidable political party. It has iron message-discipline and has ruthlessly eliminated policy positions that would give people a reason not to vote for it. UKIP, love it or hate it, is the opposite.
Given that Yessers will still win the election next year - 10 mins of FMQs should be enough for anyone, to use the current parlance, think ; check the absolute state of Scottish politics
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
Maybe, but a majority of the main parties representatives will back Remain and if it is a narrow In UKIP will be the main vehicle will the main vehicle for disillusioned Outers. Most people in Scotland were actually not vehemently for or anti independence prior to indyref, other than a few diehard nationalists, but the full force of the referendum campaign set passions aflame, even if EUref sets passions only a little alight that still benefits UKIP. The SNP won almost all the Yes backers in 2015, even if UKIP win less than half the Out voters in 2020 they would still be on 20% or so and likely to win at least 10+ MPs
I think the biggest difference is that the SNP, love it or hate it, is a formidable political party. It has iron message-discipline and has ruthlessly eliminated policy positions that would give people a reason not to vote for it. UKIP, love it or hate it, is the opposite.
The SNP only saw their big jump after the referendum, in 2010 they won only 6 MPs, it was the referendum which boosted them not the iron discipline though that may have followed
It was coalition, or another election, which would've had a classic two party squeeze. That may be better now for the Lib Dems, but it's easy to contemplate alternate history than it is to forecast the future.
But it would not have reduced the Liberal s to 8 MPs. They could have stayed out on a "supply and confidence" basis. They would have kept their dignity.
They could, and I think they should be given credit for not doing that. (This is like saying the rain should be less wet.)
I am coming to the conclusion that some Lib Dems are born stupid. You risked annihilation and you say it was a job well done.
If the Lib Dems did such a good job, how come they were shafted all over the country, region by region.
Or, are you going to blame the people ? They are ungrateful.
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
However, the electoral arithmetic is stacked against Labour. But Labour needs a swing of just 1% to deny Tories absolute majority. Note Labour does not have to increase its own share. LD and UKIP can gain 2%.
Maybe but that is irrelevant as even if they lose their majority the Tories would likely do a deal with UKIP and the Unionists and the LDs will oppose any Labour-SNP deal
A 2% swing to Labour [ however, it comes about ] will make Britain ungovernable. I don't understand why you are harping about UKIP. They are as powerful as the Greens.
If UKIP were to get to 20% they would probably get at least 10 MPs which would be more than the DUP and LDs and make them rather more powerful than the Greens
The SNP only saw their big jump after the referendum, in 2010 they won only 6 MPs, it was the referendum which boosted them not the iron discipline though that may have followed
Not really - they'd already got a majority in a parliamentary voting system designed to make this unreachable.
PM says he'll do whatever is needed re the floods.
Well if we leave the EU we can dredge rivers when we like and instead of wasting £55m a day on bureaucrats Xmas bonuses we can help flood victims.
There you go Dave, sorted.
You should be moderated !
You'd like me to be moderated because you are typical of a metropolitan type that has no knowledge of or interest in what happens outside of the M25. This rainfall isn't outrageous, farmers have dredged waterways for years, it enables water to flow, in 2000 EU made steps to preventing it from happening and people wail about climate change instead of facing reality.
It was coalition, or another election, which would've had a classic two party squeeze. That may be better now for the Lib Dems, but it's easy to contemplate alternate history than it is to forecast the future.
After the 2010 election, that was true. But if they'd run a sensible campaign in 2005 they could have had an opportunity to aim for government on their own.
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
FFS. These are just simulations. First I thought you needed a sense of humour transplant. Now I think the operation may have to extended.
Huh? I was merely pointing out that a direct Tory>UKIP swing is unlikely. If you are going to have simulations, they should at least have some semblance of realism.
The short version is that if dredging will cause any sort of deterioration in the surface water quality then countries are not allowed to dredge the waterway without specific exception requested from the Environment Agency. Typically this would be if there was sediments or pollutants of the bed of the waterway that would be stirred up into the main body of the water. The number of available exclusions from this rule is a close approximation to zero.
Very few WFD exemptions apply if an activity will cause deterioration in status at water body level. Article 4(6) allows for temporary deterioration due to natural causes but is very unlikely to be applicable to dredging and disposal activities. The only possible exemption is for physical modifications (hydromorphological changes) which are required to support a defined sustainable human activity such as navigation
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
The man is a buffoon. Hundreds of years ago we irrigated the countryside, there was a reason we built dykes and regularly cleared them. Now he is calling in the army and metropolitan goons are blaming climate change.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
I am hiding from my rellies and working (albeit with Matt Smith era Dr Who episodes on in the background) so cannot comment overmuch. However this is an appropriate moment for Meme#2, to wit:
"The EU is an Universal Villain. Anything good that it does must be dismissed as "it would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly"
(Meme#1 is of course "If Cameron had negotiated X then I would have voted REMAIN, but he didn't so I'll vote LEAVE, such a pity", where X is a member of the set of all possible things)
I am not doctrinally against the EU. Indeed, I would be for it if it functioned (to my mind) properly - that is if it: 1. concentrated only on issues where a supranational approach is sensible and lived by the doctrine of subsidiarity to the letter and spirit for the rest; 2. did so competently, fairly and transparently.
It succeeds sometimes and fails sometimes on 1 and there will be good faith differences between Member States occasionally on what should be a supranational issue - such as hosting refugees. It is pretty hit and miss on each element of 2.
So the question is how can you get the best overall result - through staying in the EU or via some other arrangement. It is the answer to that question that will determine my stance, although I am biased towards leave at this point.
FPT: If R&T are correct in their estimate - and Corbyn doesn't dramatically improve during 2017-2019 - a 1% loss in the NEV next year would suggest that Labour are looking down the barrel of a landslide defeat in 2020...
In excess of a 10% deficit in the PV.
PV generally means postal votes. What are you referring to?
Popular Vote.
By 10% deficit in the popular vote do you mean 10% of the party's GE2015 share or ten percentage points i.e 28% of the GB vote or 21%?
I was reading it as 10 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
Perhaps Rod can clarify
I think he meant 21% instead of 31% in 2015.
10% behind the winner of the popular vote.
So, like 1987 ?
Kinnock started both his two terms as leader with a 1% loss in the NEV, so it seems eminently possible, barring a dramatic change.
Also, electoral bias is now favouring the Tories more than at any time since the 1950s, and will be cemented by the boundary changes.
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
FPTP benefits the winning party, thus the Tories won crushing wins over Labour in the eighties and Labour over the Tories in the late nineties and early noughties and the Tories won a majority in 2015 on just 37% of the vote. If and when the mood moves back to Labour, probably not until at least 2025, no reason there should not be an equally large swing back
However, the electoral arithmetic is stacked against Labour. But Labour needs a swing of just 1% to deny Tories absolute majority. Note Labour does not have to increase its own share. LD and UKIP can gain 2%.
That's a huge simplification. FPTP is not a clockwork system, and a 2% increase in UKIP, for instance, would be doubtful in changing the 2015 result one jot...
I know but we have always worked on average swings and it by and large works. There are some seats where if Tory votes went down by 2% and UKIP goes up by 2%, Labour wins.
Not necessarily. If the swing is in Labour seats, it makes no difference.
But if they'd run a sensible campaign in 2005 they could have had an opportunity to aim for government on their own.
I'll have what you're having
No, really. The decapitation strategy assumed that the LDs could replace the Tories as one of the two main parties. This was always obviously nonsense but they couldn't see it.
It was coalition, or another election, which would've had a classic two party squeeze. That may be better now for the Lib Dems, but it's easy to contemplate alternate history than it is to forecast the future.
But it would not have reduced the Liberal s to 8 MPs. They could have stayed out on a "supply and confidence" basis. They would have kept their dignity.
They could, and I think they should be given credit for not doing that. (This is like saying the rain should be less wet.)
Or, are you going to blame the people ? They are ungrateful.
That is actually probably often the case. People make decisions on who to vote for for many reasons, not all of them good or fair, and good candidates in the wrong place and time will suffer from that, sometimes in large numbers.
It is, however, inadvisable for a party to state such a thing - even if it is true, and it is not always going to be, it doesn't help them any to say it, it doesn't help coming up with new ideas to appeal to those voters. I feel like you can tell when they believe it though. LDs going through torturous logic to avoid blaming the public, which I'm sure the Tories did in the late 90s and early 2000s, and we've seen it with Labour since 2015 too (see Corbyn for one stating people didn't understand what they were voting for when they elected the Conservatives, suggesting people are either idiots or Labour did their own job poorly in explaining what the Tories would do).
No, really. The decapitation strategy assumed that the LDs could replace the Tories as one of the two main parties. This was always obviously nonsense but they couldn't see it.
That strategy was designed to get them a few more seats. You sound young
The SNP only saw their big jump after the referendum, in 2010 they won only 6 MPs, it was the referendum which boosted them not the iron discipline though that may have followed
Not really - they'd already got a majority in a parliamentary voting system designed to make this unreachable.
UKIP won the 2014 European Elections, it was only the referendum which brought the SNP's big breakthrough at Westminster
The SNP only saw their big jump after the referendum, in 2010 they won only 6 MPs, it was the referendum which boosted them not the iron discipline though that may have followed
Not really - they'd already got a majority in a parliamentary voting system designed to make this unreachable.
UKIP won the 2014 European Elections, it was only the referendum which brought the SNP's big breakthrough at Westminster
Hmmm, bit pedantic - as said - they'd already got a majority at Holyrood (hense the referendum) - we're just defining "breakthough" now and under your terms you're obviously right
I believe similar dredging comments were made regarding the Somerset floods a few years ago (farmers used to do it, then someone or other, maybe the Environment Agency, insisted it must be handled by them, and they did sod all).
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
Maybe, but a majority of the main parties representatives will back Remain and if it is a narrow In UKIP will be the main vehicle will the main vehicle for disillusioned Outers. Most people in Scotland were actually not vehemently for or anti independence prior to indyref, other than a few diehard nationalists, but the full force of the referendum campaign set passions aflame, even if EUref sets passions only a little alight that still benefits UKIP. The SNP won almost all the Yes backers in 2015, even if UKIP win less than half the Out voters in 2020 they would still be on 20% or so and likely to win at least 10+ MPs
I think the biggest difference is that the SNP, love it or hate it, is a formidable political party. It has iron message-discipline and has ruthlessly eliminated policy positions that would give people a reason not to vote for it. UKIP, love it or hate it, is the opposite.
The SNP only saw their big jump after the referendum, in 2010 they won only 6 MPs, it was the referendum which boosted them not the iron discipline though that may have followed
The SNP won a landslide at Holyrood in 2011 and their Westminster polling overtook Labour in August 2011 and again in April - June 2014. The signs were there.
There were also reports of a tiny Conservative membership in Morley & Outwood constituency - perhaps David Herdson could verify whether that was true.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I failed to renew my membership of my local constituency, because I got so fed up with some of the right wing Tory MP's. I thought the Coalition was actually good for Britain, irrespective of the beard wearing/ sandal types that made up part of the coalition. And I am not going to renew either, some of the Kipper types in the Tory party make me feel uncomfortable so I am in limbo.
I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out pretty much 24/7/365 but I am not happy about it. I feel for poor old Dave and the types on here who are so critical of him.. They don't know how damned lucky they are.
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
The man is a buffoon. Hundreds of years ago we irrigated the countryside, there was a reason we built dykes and regularly cleared them. Now he is calling in the army and metropolitan goons are blaming climate change.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
This kind of event will become more common in a warmer climate (according to people far more qualified than you!)
So , what should Labour do in places like Cornwall ? Give up ? Cornwall is Britain's poorest county.
The Labour vote in 2010 in the six Cornish seats was 8.64%. In 2015 it was 12.3% The Tory vote also went up: from 40.95% to 43.10%. LD: 22.4% [41.76%]. UKIP 13.83% [4.9%]
In the past, Labour's policy was benign neglect. We sub-contracted out to the Lib Dems - the Tory "B" team.
It is to Ed Miliband's credit that the first "organisor" was appointed for Devon and Cornwall. I think you will find Labour will begin to win a few council seats. Labour should never again give up some regions. It is going to be a long haul.
I appreciate your dilemma, and sympathise. Heh.
And of course it is nice to gain members, and good to win council seats. But my larger point remains entirely valid. Barely a decade ago Labour actually had MPs in Cornwall, now they are utterly irrelevant.
Will a leftier Labour party full of excited, hairy, mildly insane defectors from the Greens win back any of those seats? No. (have you met any Cornish Greens? - I have, oh dear oh dear).
But they will give Labour the delusion they are recovering, which makes it all worse, as Corbyn depends on this false optimism. And the net effect will probably be a LOSS of seats in the end.
So, paradoxically, it would be better for you in the long term if Labour membership imploded right now, so Corbyn could be ousted.
Labour had only one MP in Camborne won in a landslide, She kept her seat in 2001 as that was largely the same result as in 1997. I am not sure when they had an MP before that.
Camborne was Labour from 1950-70.
Labour had tons of seats in the counties during that period, as did the Tories in the cities.
The long term urban-rural, north-south spatial polarization of votes has reduced these results to historical curiosities...
If Sadiq wins then the following cities will be under Labour control:
London Birmingham Manchester Leeds Sheffield Liverpool Newcastle Bristol Coventry Bradford Nottingham Leicester Norwich
Which will be seen as justification by the Corbynistas.
Anyone know what the biggest place which the Conservatives might now be able to win ?
Coventry was Conservative controlled during the Brown years but I doubt that will happen again.
Coventry will remain under Labour control for the forseeable future, there is quite an interesting internal civil war within Labour there - Mutton leading the Corbynistas I suspect against Lucas and other more moderate Labour members.
No, really. The decapitation strategy assumed that the LDs could replace the Tories as one of the two main parties. This was always obviously nonsense but they couldn't see it.
That strategy was designed to get them a few more seats. You sound young
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
The man is a buffoon. Hundreds of years ago we irrigated the countryside, there was a reason we built dykes and regularly cleared them. Now he is calling in the army and metropolitan goons are blaming climate change.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
This kind of event will become more common in a warmer climate (according to people far more qualified than you!)
I am hiding from my rellies and working (albeit with Matt Smith era Dr Who episodes on in the background) so cannot comment overmuch. However this is an appropriate moment for Meme#2, to wit:
"The EU is an Universal Villain. Anything good that it does must be dismissed as "it would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly"
(Meme#1 is of course "If Cameron had negotiated X then I would have voted REMAIN, but he didn't so I'll vote LEAVE, such a pity", where X is a member of the set of all possible things)
I am not doctrinally against the EU. Indeed, I would be for it if it functioned (to my mind) properly - that is if it: 1. concentrated only on issues where a supranational approach is sensible and lived by the doctrine of subsidiarity to the letter and spirit for the rest; 2. did so competently, fairly and transparently.
It succeeds sometimes and fails sometimes on 1 and there will be good faith differences between Member States occasionally on what should be a supranational issue - such as hosting refugees. It is pretty hit and miss on each element of 2.
So the question is how can you get the best overall result - through staying in the EU or via some other arrangement. It is the answer to that question that will determine my stance, although I am biased towards leave at this point.
Weirdly this is the essence of the question. The EU is changing to involve an inner core and an outer shell. The question for the UK is whether it is better for it to be in the outer core or out of the EU. Although I suspect we will disagree on the answer, we are at least agreeing on the question
I now return you to the PB discussion on whether the EU causes rain in winter...
It was coalition, or another election, which would've had a classic two party squeeze. That may be better now for the Lib Dems, but it's easy to contemplate alternate history than it is to forecast the future.
But it would not have reduced the Liberal s to 8 MPs. They could have stayed out on a "supply and confidence" basis. They would have kept their dignity.
They could, and I think they should be given credit for not doing that. (This is like saying the rain should be less wet.)
Or, are you going to blame the people ? They are ungrateful.
That is actually probably often the case. People make decisions on who to vote for for many reasons, not all of them good or fair, and good candidates in the wrong place and time will suffer from that, sometimes in large numbers.
It is, however, inadvisable for a party to state such a thing - even if it is true, and it is not always going to be, it doesn't help them any to say it, it doesn't help coming up with new ideas to appeal to those voters. I feel like you can tell when they believe it though. LDs going through torturous logic to avoid blaming the public, which I'm sure the Tories did in the late 90s and early 2000s, and we've seen it with Labour since 2015 too (see Corbyn for one stating people didn't understand what they were voting for when they elected the Conservatives, suggesting people are either idiots or Labour did their own job poorly in explaining what the Tories would do).
But to lose two-thirds of your votes, across the board, takes some beating ! Did the LDs have no inkling about this since September 2010 ?
I am told many believed that this crash preceded the "tuition fee" betrayal. Also, the troops accepted the inevitable with equanimity. Hardly anyone challenged Clegg. Surprising that the recent Syria bombing had a larger rebellion.
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
The man is a buffoon. Hundreds of years ago we irrigated the countryside, there was a reason we built dykes and regularly cleared them. Now he is calling in the army and metropolitan goons are blaming climate change.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
This kind of event will become more common in a warmer climate (according to people far more qualified than you!)
Kipper and Kipper in agreement surprise surprise.. what is surprising is that you didn't find some way to blame it on immigrants.
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
The man is a buffoon. Hundreds of years ago we irrigated the countryside, there was a reason we built dykes and regularly cleared them. Now he is calling in the army and metropolitan goons are blaming climate change.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
This kind of event will become more common in a warmer climate (according to people far more qualified than you!)
Kipper and Kipper in agreement surprise surprise.. what is surprising is that you didn't find some way to blame it on immigrants.
LOL!
I can see that the Xmas juice hasn't quite exited the bloodstream yet....
Well in retrospect iit was a bit farcical. It was a bit of a personal vote test tactic thing. But no-one at the time was thinking anything other than a fancy tactic to up their seat total a bit. You could argue the opposite - the fact they were utilising such fancy tactics means they knew they had no chance of governing on their own.
It was coalition, or another election, which would've had a classic two party squeeze. That may be better now for the Lib Dems, but it's easy to contemplate alternate history than it is to forecast the future.
But it would not have reduced the Liberal s to 8 MPs. They could have stayed out on a "supply and confidence" basis. They would have kept their dignity.
They could, and I think they should be given credit for not doing that. (This is like saying the rain should be less wet.)
Or, are you going to blame the people ? They are ungrateful.
That is actually probably often the case. People make decisions on who to vote for for many reasons, not all of them good or fair, and good candidates in the wrong place and time will suffer from that, sometimes in large numbers.
It is, however, inadvisable for a party to state such a thing - even if it is true, and it is not always going to be, it doesn't help them any to say it, it doesn't help coming up with new ideas to appeal to those voters. I feel like you can tell when they believe it though. LDs going through torturous logic to avoid blaming the public, which I'm sure the Tories did in the late 90s and early 2000s, and we've seen it with Labour since 2015 too (see Corbyn for one stating people didn't understand what they were voting for when they elected the Conservatives, suggesting people are either idiots or Labour did their own job poorly in explaining what the Tories would do).
But to lose two-thirds of your votes, across the board, takes some beating ! Did the LDs have no inkling about this since September 2010 ?
Seems impossible, and I would have thought senior people must have known (although why they didn't do anything is curious), but believe it or not I actually met a LD in early 2014 who was quite convinced that they would replace Labour as the second biggest party in the UK within 10-15 years. It turned out a lot of the LD vote was soft, but amazingly it does have a core of true believers who see positives no matter how dark things are, and they looked dark in 2014.
Not that I think it will occur, but if Labour do split and collapse, and somehow the LDs are the ones to benefit, I may need to recontact that LD as they will clearly have had uncanny precognitive powers.
The SNP only saw their big jump after the referendum, in 2010 they won only 6 MPs, it was the referendum which boosted them not the iron discipline though that may have followed
Not really - they'd already got a majority in a parliamentary voting system designed to make this unreachable.
UKIP won the 2014 European Elections, it was only the referendum which brought the SNP's big breakthrough at Westminster
Hmmm, bit pedantic - as said - they'd already got a majority at Holyrood (hense the referendum) - we're just defining "breakthough" now and under your terms you're obviously right
Yes and in 2007 they were the largest party at Holyrood but won only 6 MPs in 2010, it was the referendum which saw them break through at Westminster
There were also reports of a tiny Conservative membership in Morley & Outwood constituency - perhaps David Herdson could verify whether that was true.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I failed to renew my membership of my local constituency, because I got so fed up with some of the right wing Tory MP's. I thought the Coalition was actually good for Britain, irrespective of the beard wearing/ sandal types that made up part of the coalition. And I am not going to renew either, some of the Kipper types in the Tory party make me feel uncomfortable so I am in limbo.
I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out pretty much 24/7/365 but I am not happy about it. I feel for poor old Dave and the types on here who are so critical of him.. They don't know how damned lucky they are.
Don't worry we'll all think gratefully of Dave as we pay back all those hundreds of billions extra he borrowed in order to buy his reelection.
It's worth remembering that there are two significant difference between the SNP post independence referendum, and UKIP post Brexit referendum:
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
Maybe, but a majority of the main parties representatives will back Remain and if it is a narrow In UKIP will be the main vehicle will the main vehicle for disillusioned Outers. Most people in Scotland were actually not vehemently for or anti independence prior to indyref, other than a few diehard nationalists, but the full force of the referendum campaign set passions aflame, even if EUref sets passions only a little alight that still benefits UKIP. The SNP won almost all the Yes backers in 2015, even if UKIP win less than half the Out voters in 2020 they would still be on 20% or so and likely to win at least 10+ MPs
I think the biggest difference is that the SNP, love it or hate it, is a formidable political party. It has iron message-discipline and has ruthlessly eliminated policy positions that would give people a reason not to vote for it. UKIP, love it or hate it, is the opposite.
The SNP only saw their big jump after the referendum, in 2010 they won only 6 MPs, it was the referendum which boosted them not the iron discipline though that may have followed
The SNP won a landslide at Holyrood in 2011 and their Westminster polling overtook Labour in August 2011 and again in April - June 2014. The signs were there.
April-June 2014 was all the lead-up to the referendum
Comments
The Old Malt Cask.. Tomintoul 1989 ..25 YEARS
Montgomeries Single Cask..Longmorn 1984 28 years
Old Malt Cask Speysides Finest..aged 28 years
The Sovereign,,Cambus 1975 aged 40 years
Montgomeries Single Cask..Bowmore 1990..aged 22 years.
I have not had any of them before..any experts out there..
Labour's best hope seems to be pacts, or PR...
1. The SNP was the only voice of Scottish nationalism. There were no major Labour, Conservative or LibDem figures campaigning for Independence; and all those parties were seen as impacable opponents of Independence. At least a third of Tory MPs, and a significant minority of Labour MPs will campaign for Brexit.
2. Independence and Brexit do not - outside of PB - attract the same degree of passions. Most people in Scotland were either vehemently for, or vehemently against, Independence. Most people in the UK are vehemently indifferent to the EU. In - or out - very little will change in most people's lives in the event of us choosing to exit the EU.
For that reason, I think UKIP will not be beneficiaries of a close In vote to the same extent that the SNP was.
"The EU is an Universal Villain. Anything good that it does must be dismissed as "it would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly"
(Meme#1 is of course "If Cameron had negotiated X then I would have voted REMAIN, but he didn't so I'll vote LEAVE, such a pity", where X is a member of the set of all possible things)
London
Birmingham
Manchester
Leeds
Sheffield
Liverpool
Newcastle
Bristol
Coventry
Bradford
Nottingham
Leicester
Norwich
Which will be seen as justification by the Corbynistas.
Anyone know what the biggest place which the Conservatives might now be able to win ?
Plymouth ? Southampton ? Portsmouth ? Northampton ? Reading ? Swindon ?
Coventry was Conservative controlled during the Brown years but I doubt that will happen again.
It is of course utter bollocks but that doesn't stop the Eurofanatics trying to push it.
I've heard it's quite an important location.
Alexander is going to the Chinese World Bank. Where is Clegg going ?
It was coalition, or another election, which would've had a classic two party squeeze. That may be better now for the Lib Dems, but it's easy to contemplate alternate history than it is to forecast the future.
Whereas a REMAIN vote is likely to be followed by more unpopular EU meddling.
It would be almost impossible to rebuild from that point.
The vote itself did damage Scotland - I think this is understood by both sides, admittedly politicos feel it more presumably. Wounds that will take a Generation to heal is the hyperbolic phrasing
I agree they'd likely be in a better position right now, but they may have still been consigned to irrelevancy, and without having held power at all.
Thanks for Ratty Marf. A Happy New Year to you and let's see more of Ratty in your cartoons; theres always room for him.
Well if we leave the EU we can dredge rivers when we like and instead of wasting £55m a day on bureaucrats Xmas bonuses we can help flood victims.
There you go Dave, sorted.
If the Lib Dems did such a good job, how come they were shafted all over the country, region by region.
Or, are you going to blame the people ? They are ungrateful.
We're governed by idiots.
But his appearance on the BBC News about the floods, takes this seasons biscuit. There he was, self satisfied, as he had the temerity to say that the flood defences now in place did their job and -listen to this - slowed down the flooding. The most transparent lie ever uttered by him. Whats more, I'm sure that he himself believes it.
With the most extensive and deep floods ever to appear in the last 100 years in Britain, (Canvey Island excepted) he suggests that another 500 troops will help. Well they will, but what a poltroon Cammo is.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297370/78_11_LIT7299_4fedaa.pdf
The short version is that if dredging will cause any sort of deterioration in the surface water quality then countries are not allowed to dredge the waterway without specific exception requested from the Environment Agency. Typically this would be if there was sediments or pollutants of the bed of the waterway that would be stirred up into the main body of the water. The number of available exclusions from this rule is a close approximation to zero.
He's a phucking idiot and the climate change mugs are even worse.
1. concentrated only on issues where a supranational approach is sensible and lived by the doctrine of subsidiarity to the letter and spirit for the rest;
2. did so competently, fairly and transparently.
It succeeds sometimes and fails sometimes on 1 and there will be good faith differences between Member States occasionally on what should be a supranational issue - such as hosting refugees. It is pretty hit and miss on each element of 2.
So the question is how can you get the best overall result - through staying in the EU or via some other arrangement. It is the answer to that question that will determine my stance, although I am biased towards leave at this point.
" According to press reports, Tory membership in Sherwood constituency has fallen to the astonishingly low number of 30. "
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/sherwood/comment-page-3/#comments
There were also reports of a tiny Conservative membership in Morley & Outwood constituency - perhaps David Herdson could verify whether that was true.
It is, however, inadvisable for a party to state such a thing - even if it is true, and it is not always going to be, it doesn't help them any to say it, it doesn't help coming up with new ideas to appeal to those voters. I feel like you can tell when they believe it though. LDs going through torturous logic to avoid blaming the public, which I'm sure the Tories did in the late 90s and early 2000s, and we've seen it with Labour since 2015 too (see Corbyn for one stating people didn't understand what they were voting for when they elected the Conservatives, suggesting people are either idiots or Labour did their own job poorly in explaining what the Tories would do).
I believe similar dredging comments were made regarding the Somerset floods a few years ago (farmers used to do it, then someone or other, maybe the Environment Agency, insisted it must be handled by them, and they did sod all).
Get a grip indeed.
I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out pretty much 24/7/365 but I am not happy about it. I feel for poor old Dave and the types on here who are so critical of him.. They don't know how damned lucky they are.
It's a very simple question which you'll no doubt be able to answer directly.
I now return you to the PB discussion on whether the EU causes rain in winter...
I am told many believed that this crash preceded the "tuition fee" betrayal. Also, the troops accepted the inevitable with equanimity. Hardly anyone challenged Clegg. Surprising that the recent Syria bombing had a larger rebellion.
I can see that the Xmas juice hasn't quite exited the bloodstream yet....
Me a kipper? LOL
Not that I think it will occur, but if Labour do split and collapse, and somehow the LDs are the ones to benefit, I may need to recontact that LD as they will clearly have had uncanny precognitive powers.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/27/justin-bieber-nhs-health-service