I would agree with the conclusion of this article if I was sure the phone polls were correct. There's no reason to assume that, though, is there? It's quite possible that Leave is already in a better position than Indy-Yes finished in.
Leadership is a real problem for Leave and Farage could throw it away for them. On the other hand they have some major strengths:
* background dislike of the EU * events are very likely to work to Leave's advantage
But the dyamics are the opposite. Remain will gather momentum once Cameron and co have a basis to campaign on. They will also have a leader. Leave, by contrast, will still be arguing among themselves. It's 1975 all over again.
I wake up today to an article from Mr Herdson that seems logical and reasonable. But it is built on the sand that is our polling industry. We had in recent years polls that overall had but one conclusion. No Conservative majority. Problem was those polls had:- 1. Too many Labour supporters, too many young (Who also favour Remain) 2. Too few older voters and too few Conservatives. (Who also favour Leave)
Anyone spot the problem?
The piece doesn't mention the polls. It's all about the dynamics of the campaign between here and the vote - probably June if Cameron has any sense.
The polls dominate the top space of the article!!!!! Of course they influence people's reading.
I don't do the pictures illustrating the article. But even if Leave do have a lead now - which could only be a small one - that's still a long way from the size of swing that previous referendum campaigns have seen.
On Topic: I am persuadable to vote Leave but nobody is coming close to persuading me with any credible plan so it will be Remain if nothing changes
Off Topic: I skim read this blog frequently and find it irritating that it frequently goes off political topics to discuss the current state of test matches, football scores, films and even how to cook liver. If I wanted to know about those things (I often do) I would go to the sports blogs, film review sites or cookery sites. I doubt people will change so is there any chance that non-political posts could be highlighted in some way so that people like me can just skip over them.
Can I, as someone who has been lurking on pb for years, say how much I disagree with this statement? For me the joy of the site is the way that the conversation meanders across so many diverse topics, combined with the (generally) courteous tone with which posters with widely varying political positions discuss events.
Fair enough, I just find it irritating & a little self-indulgent.
I can understand that, but it seems a bit like going to a test match and complaining that the game is taking too long.
All I wondered was whether there was a way that the non-political stuff could be flagged in some way so you could skip it. I am a PL ST holder and our fan blog is split into 4;- topics concerning the club, topics concerning other clubs, topics about other sports and any thing else. I generally go on there to see what other fans think about a recent game/ player etc. If I want to know what other fans favourite way of cooking liver is I can go on to the 4th forum and find out. Otherwise I can skip it. I was suggesting something similar might work on here but all the regulars seem to prefer it the way it is, so end of discussion.
I take it you are not participating in the PB Fantasy Football competition then... sadly most people are beating TSE currently in that league table.... actually you could join now and probably catch him up...
Maybe TSE selects them based on their colour and style of boots?
On the subject of the referendum, I think SeanT is right. (Don't tell him I said that.)
In will win this time. But then at some time in the next five to ten years, there will be a proposed level of further integration that no UK government can possible agree to: perhaps an EU army, or something like that. That will provide the spark for the second referendum, at which we will vote Out
An EU army – or an EU wide diplomatic service which appropriates or usurps the use of every British Embassy and High Commission - Oops, I really shouldn’t give them ideas....
'Voting remain does not mean voting for ever closer union. Especially given "no more ever closer union" is part of our negotiations. '
That is either the most naive or disingenuous post I have ever read on this site - which is saying something
I am genuinely excited to see what Cameron comes back with. I look forward to seeing how he will exempt us from ever closer union. I suspect he won't be able to and his concessions will be picked apart in a matter of minutes.
On the subject of the referendum, I think SeanT is right. (Don't tell him I said that.)
In will win this time. But then at some time in the next five to ten years, there will be a proposed level of further integration that no UK government can possible agree to: perhaps an EU army, or something like that. That will provide the spark for the second referendum, at which we will vote Out
An EU army – or an EU wide diplomatic service which appropriates or usurps the use of every British Embassy and High Commission - Oops, I really shouldn’t give them ideas....
Actually, sharing embassies in some of the more remote parts of the world would probably be a very sensible idea
An EU army – or an EU wide diplomatic service which appropriates or usurps the use of every British Embassy and High Commission - Oops, I really shouldn’t give them ideas....
Moves that even I would probably baulk at, to be honest.
On the subject of the referendum, I think SeanT is right. (Don't tell him I said that.)
In will win this time. But then at some time in the next five to ten years, there will be a proposed level of further integration that no UK government can possible agree to: perhaps an EU army, or something like that. That will provide the spark for the second referendum, at which we will vote Out
An EU army – or an EU wide diplomatic service which appropriates or usurps the use of every British Embassy and High Commission - Oops, I really shouldn’t give them ideas....
Actually, sharing embassies in some of the more remote parts of the world would probably be a very sensible idea
The thing that will break the EU in the UK is the NHS.
This nearly happened a few years back under Brown - patients who were waiting for treatment in UK were going to doctors and hospitals on the Continent and getting reimbursed via the intra-EU system from the NHS. The government tried to stop them using private hospitals abroad - which was ruled by the EU to breach the rules on health care as a right...
The basic logic of the EU is that all services/companies etc are equal no matter their location. So allowing patients to go private abroad would mean allowing them to go private at home. BUPA on the NHS....
In the end the problem was pushed down the road - the Germans had some serious issues regarding health tourism.
But the desire to turn the European health system into a single cohesive whole remains. Given that private medicine is part of the system of every other country in Europe, there will be no sympathy for attempts to block it here.
I have been thinking about this on and off over the morning, and I think that 'Leave' need to frame 'Remain' as 'making a commitment to the EU'. We don't mind 'remaining', but we hate and fear commitment. Repeat that phrase often enough, and it will stick. The aim is not just to get people to vote 'Leave', it's to get soft-remainers to stay at home. No one except the last three Lib Dems likes the EU enough to make a commitment to it.
On the subject of the referendum, I think SeanT is right. (Don't tell him I said that.)
In will win this time. But then at some time in the next five to ten years, there will be a proposed level of further integration that no UK government can possible agree to: perhaps an EU army, or something like that. That will provide the spark for the second referendum, at which we will vote Out
As long as we remain outside the Eurozone I doubt that will be the case and with the rise of Le Pen, Wilders, the AfD, the Swedish Democrats, Podemos and Syriza etc it is not only the UK who are causing problems for the EU
Freeing up social housing for people who actually need it? Outrageous.
Also - owning is always cheaper than renting. After 20 years of mortgage, you own your home. So when you retire you need much less money to have a good life on.
That was the philosophy that my mother subscribed to - born in Bexleyheath, classic working class. Lots of folk tales from other families of hiding from the rent man etc.
Bliss was to own your home outright, with a couple of years of wages saved up in building society, as your working life wound down.... That was what people aspired to.
On the subject of the referendum, I think SeanT is right. (Don't tell him I said that.)
In will win this time. But then at some time in the next five to ten years, there will be a proposed level of further integration that no UK government can possible agree to: perhaps an EU army, or something like that. That will provide the spark for the second referendum, at which we will vote Out
An EU army – or an EU wide diplomatic service which appropriates or usurps the use of every British Embassy and High Commission - Oops, I really shouldn’t give them ideas....
It's on the cards already. It will happen, and the current Conservative leadership cabal (obviously Cameron will be gone) will argue for it. The groundwork is already happening in many areas - proposed aircraft carrier sharing with France a while back, joint activity recently, being persuaded that we must bomb ISIS because we needed to stand shoulder to shoulder with France etc. It will be argued as a necessity because we can't afford our own. And of course once it does, that will be it for the UK ever getting out.
The reason imo is because the US wants and needs us to be in with everything, both to prevent Europe's Russia-ward drift and keep it US aligned, and to prevent any British pretensions to national sovereignty and national resurgence. They don't want to lose their man in the EU.
I believe the Netherlands 11th Airborne Brigade paratroopers are under German command. There will be more and more cooperation until an EU army is eventually formed.
Remain may not win in the long run, even if they win this round. The debate is between those who say the EU is awful and we should leave, and those who say EU is awful but we can't leave. That's not the basis for strong commitment to the EU.
Remain may not win in the long run, even if they win this round. The debate is between those who say the EU is awful and we should leave, and those who say EU is awful but we can't leave. That's not the basis for strong commitment to the EU.
Depends if the alternative is seen as even more awful ie international isolation and no say on trading terms with the EU. We are never going to be at the heart of the EU ie in the Eurozone I would agree on that, if we are to stay it will be in the Outer fringes, outside the Euro, along with Sweden, Denmark and parts of Eastern Europe
On the subject of the referendum, I think SeanT is right. (Don't tell him I said that.)
In will win this time. But then at some time in the next five to ten years, there will be a proposed level of further integration that no UK government can possible agree to: perhaps an EU army, or something like that. That will provide the spark for the second referendum, at which we will vote Out
An EU army – or an EU wide diplomatic service which appropriates or usurps the use of every British Embassy and High Commission - Oops, I really shouldn’t give them ideas....
It's on the cards already. It will happen, and the current Conservative leadership cabal (obviously Cameron will be gone) will argue for it. The groundwork is already happening in many areas - proposed aircraft carrier sharing with France a while back, joint activity recently, being persuaded that we must bomb ISIS because we needed to stand shoulder to shoulder with France etc. It will be argued as a necessity because we can't afford our own. And of course once it does, that will be it for the UK ever getting out.
The reason imo is because the US wants and needs us to be in with everything, both to prevent Europe's Russia-ward drift and keep it US aligned, and to prevent any British pretensions to national sovereignty and national resurgence. They don't want to lose their man in the EU.
I'd say preventing us from drifting towards Russia is rather a good idea.
Remain may not win in the long run, even if they win this round. The debate is between those who say the EU is awful and we should leave, and those who say EU is awful but we can't leave. That's not the basis for strong commitment to the EU.
Depends if the alternative is seen as even more awful ie international isolation and no say on trading terms with the EU. We are never going to be at the heart of the EU ie in the Eurozone I would agree on that, if we are to stay it will be in the Outer fringes, outside the Euro, along with Sweden, Denmark and parts of Eastern Europe
If UK trade continues to fall whilst trade with the ROW increases the economic case for remaining in tthe EU will start to crumble. More people will begin to question why we are remaining a member of an inward looking protectionist block whilst the majority of our trade is outside of the EU.
The problems holding the EU back will only be solved by political union which there is no appetite for.
Fantastic win for England! Stuart abroad again demolishing the SA batting second time around, even if our batsmen laboured a little towards the end. Great innings from Root to set up the result too.
Feel a little sorry for the sellout crowd tomorrow, another 3-day Test.
Pleased to be back to winning ways myself after messing up the odds last week!
Top stuff from England. Scores level after first innings should have favoured the Saffers, but Broad was brilliant and the other bowlers backed him up superbly. We are developing a very handy side. And it's great to see them play so positively.
Remain may not win in the long run, even if they win this round. The debate is between those who say the EU is awful and we should leave, and those who say EU is awful but we can't leave. That's not the basis for strong commitment to the EU.
But this referendum is only being held because of Cameron's fear of UKIP taking Tory votes. Most voters really aren't that bothered.
And that should be the point at which Cameron shuffles his papers back into his briefcase, and as he walks out the door, leaves them with this thought:
"Germany, of all the countries in Europe, should understand why the people of the United Kingdom will never, ever agree to give up its sovereign armed forces. We're finished here."
An Army which requires the agreement of 28 EU nations to be sent into battle would never leave its barracks. It would be like Trident under Corbyn; something which our enemies know will never be used.
Remain may not win in the long run, even if they win this round. The debate is between those who say the EU is awful and we should leave, and those who say EU is awful but we can't leave. That's not the basis for strong commitment to the EU.
Depends if the alternative is seen as even more awful ie international isolation and no say on trading terms with the EU. We are never going to be at the heart of the EU ie in the Eurozone I would agree on that, if we are to stay it will be in the Outer fringes, outside the Euro, along with Sweden, Denmark and parts of Eastern Europe
If UK trade continues to fall whilst trade with the ROW increases the economic case for remaining in tthe EU will start to crumble. More people will begin to question why we are remaining a member of an inward looking protectionist block whilst the majority of our trade is outside of the EU.
The problems holding the EU back will only be solved by political union which there is no appetite for.
Already 60% (ish) of are trade is with the Rest of the world and this % will increase for so many reasons.
The economic arguments for remain get weaker all the time, but then so do memarys of the time before we were part of the EU/EEC.
And that should be the point at which Cameron shuffles his papers back into his briefcase, and as he walks out the door, leaves them with this thought:
"Germany, of all the countries in Europe, should understand why the people of the United Kingdom will never, ever agree to give up its sovereign armed forces. We're finished here."
An Army which requires the agreement of 28 EU nations to be sent into battle would never leave its barracks. It would be like Trident under Corbyn; something which our enemies know will never be used.
Such a proposal would be a Godsend to LEAVE.
Armed forces are a defining feature of a state. There can be no combined armed forces unless there is a combined government to direct them - trying to work it by committee is always going to end in failure. See Madison and Hamilton for details.
Not Mr Herdson's best or most insightful analysis, in fact very disappointing, fluff even. But as others have commented, it has done its job of provoking debate well.
And that should be the point at which Cameron shuffles his papers back into his briefcase, and as he walks out the door, leaves them with this thought:
"Germany, of all the countries in Europe, should understand why the people of the United Kingdom will never, ever agree to give up its sovereign armed forces. We're finished here."
An Army which requires the agreement of 28 EU nations to be sent into battle would never leave its barracks. It would be like Trident under Corbyn; something which our enemies know will never be used.
Such a proposal would be a Godsend to LEAVE.
Depends if it is a rapid reaction force to crisis hotspots or how it is structured
Remain may not win in the long run, even if they win this round. The debate is between those who say the EU is awful and we should leave, and those who say EU is awful but we can't leave. That's not the basis for strong commitment to the EU.
Depends if the alternative is seen as even more awful ie international isolation and no say on trading terms with the EU. We are never going to be at the heart of the EU ie in the Eurozone I would agree on that, if we are to stay it will be in the Outer fringes, outside the Euro, along with Sweden, Denmark and parts of Eastern Europe
If UK trade continues to fall whilst trade with the ROW increases the economic case for remaining in tthe EU will start to crumble. More people will begin to question why we are remaining a member of an inward looking protectionist block whilst the majority of our trade is outside of the EU.
The problems holding the EU back will only be solved by political union which there is no appetite for.
A European Army has been on the cards for years. I believe I'm right in thinking this is why when DAVID Miliband was Foreign Secretary, he closed some of our Embassies abroad, closed the Foreign Office Language School and for good measure sold off the contents of the Foreign Office Library. All in preparation of handing everything over to the EU. The only journalist who wrote about this at the time, was Peter Oborne.
I stand to be corrected of course, as my memory is not what is was!
Remain may not win in the long run, even if they win this round. The debate is between those who say the EU is awful and we should leave, and those who say EU is awful but we can't leave. That's not the basis for strong commitment to the EU.
Depends if the alternative is seen as even more awful ie international isolation and no say on trading terms with the EU. We are never going to be at the heart of the EU ie in the Eurozone I would agree on that, if we are to stay it will be in the Outer fringes, outside the Euro, along with Sweden, Denmark and parts of Eastern Europe
If UK trade continues to fall whilst trade with the ROW increases the economic case for remaining in tthe EU will start to crumble. More people will begin to question why we are remaining a member of an inward looking protectionist block whilst the majority of our trade is outside of the EU.
The problems holding the EU back will only be solved by political union which there is no appetite for.
Mr. HYUFD, it'll be the old boiled frog, one would've thought.
Mr Dancer, that's a really good analogy. It's exactly how the EU have always worked, by many incremental changes outside the major treaties.
As others have said, the idea of an EU armed force is preposterous, Eurocrats even talking about it in the run up to the referendum will cause a huge shift towards Leave.
1. 2010 LibDems split much more evenly. For those who care to look, they will see it suggested on here that this was long ago filed under NO SURPRISE THERE THEN. Basically, the Left-leaning L-DINO vote (who were Labour in all but tactical vote) flounced off to Labour as soon as the LibDems joined the Coalition. The more right-leaning Lib-Dems waited to see if it was worth hanging around. With the risk of Prime Minister Ed Miliband, they too buggered off - just much nearer the election.
2. UKIP much more evenly from main parties. It was clear for all to see that Labour was suffering a significant loss of its WWC vote in its urban English and Welsh heartlands. (Obviously the SNP destroyed this notion in Scotland.) Plenty of senior figures in Labour were worried, both privately but also in public.
3. Direct net flow from Labour to Conservatives. Whilst on the face of it this was the big surprise on the night, there were plenty on here who had suggested that it was possible to envisage Labour's vote share going backwards. Now partly that's down to Scotland, but also on the economy. Because there were those (admittedly deluded food, but they were there) who thought Gordon Brown had done a good job of saving the world and in 2010 voted to reward him/keep him in place for fear of something worse. That Labour had nothing to offer these 2010 voters in their fiasco of an economic offering shouldn't have been a surprise.
And that should be the point at which Cameron shuffles his papers back into his briefcase, and as he walks out the door, leaves them with this thought:
"Germany, of all the countries in Europe, should understand why the people of the United Kingdom will never, ever agree to give up its sovereign armed forces. We're finished here."
An Army which requires the agreement of 28 EU nations to be sent into battle would never leave its barracks. It would be like Trident under Corbyn; something which our enemies know will never be used.
Such a proposal would be a Godsend to LEAVE.
Depends if it is a rapid reaction force to crisis hotspots or how it is structured
Are you serious? The EU and Rapid Reaction are polar opposite concepts....
Difficult to see how Danczuk can honourably stay within Labour, whatever the investigation's outcome: resignation or expulsion ought to be the only options if that is how he feels.
I agree with the analysis but am a bit surprised no mention is made of the Green impact.From the detailed figures the presence of a Green candidate on the ballot paper almost certainly cost Labour seven seats and so proved crucial to giving the Tories their small majority. Without that factor Labour would have managed 239 with the Tories on 323.
The Constitution was unacceptable, so they changed the title. They've learnt, so they'll call an army something more innocuous, then expand its budget and size and operations until its a fait accompli to change the name.
Assuming this is genuinely on the table. Nick Clegg said it wasn't. So it may well be.
Difficult to see how Danczuk can honourably stay within Labour, whatever the investigation's outcome: resignation or expulsion ought to be the only options if that is how he feels.
Maybe so - though it does raise questions as to why Labour failed to act sooner re- Greville Janner who clearly had far more to answer for.
1. 2010 LibDems split much more evenly. For those who care to look, they will see it suggested on here that this was long ago filed under NO SURPRISE THERE THEN. Basically, the Left-leaning L-DINO vote (who were Labour in all but tactical vote) flounced off to Labour as soon as the LibDems joined the Coalition. The more right-leaning Lib-Dems waited to see if it was worth hanging around. With the risk of Prime Minister Ed Miliband, they too buggered off - just much nearer the election.
2. UKIP much more evenly from main parties. It was clear for all to see that Labour was suffering a significant loss of its WWC vote in its urban English and Welsh heartlands. (Obviously the SNP destroyed this notion in Scotland.) Plenty of senior figures in Labour were worried, both privately but also in public.
3. Direct net flow from Labour to Conservatives. Whilst on the face of it this was the big surprise on the night, there were plenty on here who had suggested that it was possible to envisage Labour's vote share going backwards. Now partly that's down to Scotland, but also on the economy. Because there were those (admittedly deluded food, but they were there) who thought Gordon Brown had done a good job of saving the world and in 2010 voted to reward him/keep him in place for fear of something worse. That Labour had nothing to offer these 2010 voters in their fiasco of an economic offering shouldn't have been a surprise.
1. Surprised me. It didn't surprise me that Lib Dem MPs were very vulnerable to the Tories, in seats they'd gained since 1970. Typically, the Tory vote was still strong in most ex-Conservative seats at 35-40% whereas the Lib Dems had managed to unite the non-Tory vote behind them. Any Labour revival in such seats would hit the lib Dems hard. The fact that plenty of Lib Dems also switched over to UKIP just hit them harder.
Mr. Herdson, could one not say the same about an MP who defied the party whip on literally hundreds of occasions?
Naughty. But seriously, no. Defying the whip is one thing; threatening legal action is on a different level. It's going to take some serious backing down on one or both sides for them to come back together.
I agree with the analysis but am a bit surprised no mention is made of the Green impact.From the detailed figures the presence of a Green candidate on the ballot paper almost certainly cost Labour seven seats and so proved crucial to giving the Tories their small majority. Without that factor Labour would have managed 239 with the Tories on 323.
That's not strictly speaking a polling error though?
I agree with the analysis but am a bit surprised no mention is made of the Green impact.From the detailed figures the presence of a Green candidate on the ballot paper almost certainly cost Labour seven seats and so proved crucial to giving the Tories their small majority. Without that factor Labour would have managed 239 with the Tories on 323.
That's not strictly speaking a polling error though?
Yeah - that is a fair point in that the predicted higher Green vote would be likely to be detrimental to Labour whatever the actual national outcome.
The Constitution was unacceptable, so they changed the title. They've learnt, so they'll call an army something more innocuous, then expand its budget and size and operations until its a fait accompli to change the name.
Assuming this is genuinely on the table. Nick Clegg said it wasn't. So it may well be.
Won't work with an army though, Mr. Dancer. No state will allow its servicemen and women to be put in harms way on the say so of other states. The alternative, a directly recruited EU army, will fail because, though youngsters might join it, very few will actually be prepared to fight and die for the EU.
And that should be the point at which Cameron shuffles his papers back into his briefcase, and as he walks out the door, leaves them with this thought:
"Germany, of all the countries in Europe, should understand why the people of the United Kingdom will never, ever agree to give up its sovereign armed forces. We're finished here."
An Army which requires the agreement of 28 EU nations to be sent into battle would never leave its barracks. It would be like Trident under Corbyn; something which our enemies know will never be used.
Such a proposal would be a Godsend to LEAVE.
The correct response would be -
"Fine. Marvelous even. 10 minutes after the French had ok'd dismantling the CAP, an EU army"
It's all about the DKs. I suspect (but don't know) that they will turn out to be remains so currently we are looking at a stonking remain result of 65-35 or there about.
If Conservatives are still under-estimated (by pollsters) then that may make it look like Remain have a comfortable lead and the uncertain don't bother voting. It's possible (although very unlikely I think) that Leave could edge a victory this way.
I would be unsurprised if we had a result of 65/35 Remain (that or a little lower would be my guess).
Perhaps the bigger issue that needs to be acknowledged is that irrespective of the public polling, the Tories seem to have read the electorate better than Labour, UKIP and the LibDems did. Offered them what they wanted, didn't scare the horses with own their offering, brilliantly co-ordinated the fears of a cobbled together Rainbow Coalition* getting Ed Miliband into Number 10.
Obviously, the SNP were in a league of their own in setting out their stall to the electorate. Although even they weren't immune from getting it wrong. Their hubris (writing Labour's Budget, anyone?) may have gifted the Tories their majority. But that again is evidence of the Tories at least being best at reading the English electorate.
*(If a rainbow only has Richard Of York Gave....with no Battle In Vain)
And that should be the point at which Cameron shuffles his papers back into his briefcase, and as he walks out the door, leaves them with this thought:
"Germany, of all the countries in Europe, should understand why the people of the United Kingdom will never, ever agree to give up its sovereign armed forces. We're finished here."
An Army which requires the agreement of 28 EU nations to be sent into battle would never leave its barracks. It would be like Trident under Corbyn; something which our enemies know will never be used.
Such a proposal would be a Godsend to LEAVE.
If you read the article, there is no suggestion of anything resembling the UK giving up its sovereign armed forces. All we're being asked to do is to opt out and let others get on with it.
The only negative even the Telegraph can cook up is that an integrated European army might be actually effective and make our relationship with the US less special.
But then, the EU forced changes of government in both Italy and Greece. Is the initial, embryonic formation of an army more serious than that?
I do share some of your scepticism on the basis you outline, the problem is the ideological clowns seem intent on forcing a nation.
Mr. Dancer, one can create an army by dictat, one cannot get people to fight by the same method. Brussels could declare an EU army/air force/navy tomorrow but even if they could magic up the infrastructure, money and kit, who would, when push comes to a shove, put their life on the line for the EU? Ain't going to happen.
That leaves using existing troops from existing states under an integrated EU command. Solves the infrastructure, money, kit, and motivational problems, but just leaves the problem of consent. Belgium will not allow its platoon to be committed to war on Germany's say so, and nor will anyone else.
The idea of an EU army is fantasy pedaled by Euro-fanatics.
I agree with the analysis but am a bit surprised no mention is made of the Green impact.From the detailed figures the presence of a Green candidate on the ballot paper almost certainly cost Labour seven seats and so proved crucial to giving the Tories their small majority. Without that factor Labour would have managed 239 with the Tories on 323.
That's not strictly speaking a polling error though?
Yeah - that is a fair point in that the predicted higher Green vote would be likely to be detrimental to Labour whatever the actual national outcome.
Yes, I'm reasonably sure that the apparently pointless Green intervention in 2010 (they got 0.7%) cost me my seat (even if a chunk would otherwise not have voted), though in 2015 the Green vote inthe seat was only half the Tory majority. Conversely, to be fair, there were lots of people who would have liked to vote Green but didn't because of the marginal situation. But the need to stem the rise of the Greens was one reason I voted for Corbyn - with FPTP a well-established left-wing rival would be fatal, just as a strong right-wing option would be fatal for the Tories.
I agree with the analysis but am a bit surprised no mention is made of the Green impact.From the detailed figures the presence of a Green candidate on the ballot paper almost certainly cost Labour seven seats and so proved crucial to giving the Tories their small majority. Without that factor Labour would have managed 239 with the Tories on 323.
That's not strictly speaking a polling error though?
Yeah - that is a fair point in that the predicted higher Green vote would be likely to be detrimental to Labour whatever the actual national outcome.
Yes, I'm reasonably sure that the apparently pointless Green intervention in 2010 (they got 0.7%) cost me my seat (even if a chunk would otherwise not have voted), though in 2015 the Green vote inthe seat was only half the Tory majority. Conversely, to be fair, there were lots of people who would have liked to vote Green but didn't because of the marginal situation. But the need to stem the rise of the Greens was one reason I voted for Corbyn - with FPTP a well-established left-wing rival would be fatal, just as a strong right-wing option would be fatal for the Tories.
You mean like UKIP did for the Tories.....oh wait...
Top stuff from England. Scores level after first innings should have favoured the Saffers, but Broad was brilliant and the other bowlers backed him up superbly. We are developing a very handy side. And it's great to see them play so positively.
@Jamin2g: Things Labour need to say to themselves:
We lost.
We lost badly.
The voters were not wrong, we were.
#fab16
There's two hopes of that happening. And one of them is Bob.
We had a very civilised discussion among a number of centrist voters on here the other night. Labour's path to re-election is to offer a left of centre alternative to what the Conservatives are doing, but - and it's a really big but - they need to be seen as trustworthy when it comes to their maths. If they want to increase spending by 10% on health and education then there need to be proposed tax rises to raise the money (and not just on the mobile top earners), and to be trusted that the extra cash won't just disappear in higher salaries to their union member staff.
Difficult to see how Danczuk can honourably stay within Labour, whatever the investigation's outcome: resignation or expulsion ought to be the only options if that is how he feels.
I'd have thought the LibDems would seem an increasingly suitable home for him...
Difficult to see how Danczuk can honourably stay within Labour, whatever the investigation's outcome: resignation or expulsion ought to be the only options if that is how he feels.
I'd have thought the LibDems would seem an increasingly suitable home for him...
I absolutely hate that idea. A living historical building (even if mostly symbolic given the building mostly dates from the 19th Century) is so much more powerful, and since even in his example they'll need to spend money on maintaining it for public use, they might as well just spend the money needed to keep it fit for purpose.
I absolutely hate that idea. A living historical building (even if mostly symbolic given the building mostly dates from the 19th Century) is so much more powerful, and since even in his example they'll need to spend money on maintaining it for public use, they might as well just spend the money needed to keep it fit for purpose.
A horrid idea. The Houses of Parliament are part of our history.
I believe the Netherlands 11th Airborne Brigade paratroopers are under German command. There will be more and more cooperation until an EU army is eventually formed.
You might think so but I doubt it
''While there will be close German-Dutch cooperation in peacetime, one country is not obligated to join the other if it goes on a military mission.'' Hardly practical system where one country decides to keep its troops at home.
For whatever reason there has been a Dutch-German Corps since 1995
I thought the refurbishment was needed because it was crumbling? The massive cost of the refurb is going to be mostly necessary no matter what its eventual purpose (unless they knock it down!) so any proposal to permenantly relocate Parliament will cost extra.
I'm in favour of a temp relocation if it saves time and money though, would there be a room big enough in the QEII conference centre to host the Commons Chamber, or could they relocate it to Westminster Hall for a couple of years?
Edited extra bit: what he's proposing is to waste money designing and constructing a new building whilst also wasting money using* the former building as a museum.
Is he unaware people can already visit the Palace without being an MP or member of staff or peer?
I agree with the analysis but am a bit surprised no mention is made of the Green impact.From the detailed figures the presence of a Green candidate on the ballot paper almost certainly cost Labour seven seats and so proved crucial to giving the Tories their small majority. Without that factor Labour would have managed 239 with the Tories on 323.
That's not strictly speaking a polling error though?
Yeah - that is a fair point in that the predicted higher Green vote would be likely to be detrimental to Labour whatever the actual national outcome.
Yes, I'm reasonably sure that the apparently pointless Green intervention in 2010 (they got 0.7%) cost me my seat (even if a chunk would otherwise not have voted), though in 2015 the Green vote inthe seat was only half the Tory majority. Conversely, to be fair, there were lots of people who would have liked to vote Green but didn't because of the marginal situation. But the need to stem the rise of the Greens was one reason I voted for Corbyn - with FPTP a well-established left-wing rival would be fatal, just as a strong right-wing option would be fatal for the Tories.
@georgeeaton: Corbyn: "Having narrowly won the general election, the Tories are now trying to rig the system to keep themselves in power". #fab16
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament. #fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
When it come to rigging the system to stay in power, the Govt. should employ Mr Corbyn as an advisor....
As was pointed out in that discussion, the Tories got more votes, many more votes. and a larger share of the vote but fewer seats than Blair in 2005. Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
If Conservatives are still under-estimated (by pollsters) then that may make it look like Remain have a comfortable lead and the uncertain don't bother voting. It's possible (although very unlikely I think) that Leave could edge a victory this way.
I would be unsurprised if we had a result of 65/35 Remain (that or a little lower would be my guess).
I would expect at least around a general election turnout for EU ref and don't forget In is backed more by graduates who vote more often thus neutralising its higher support amongst the young who vote less often
Remain may not win in the long run, even if they win this round. The debate is between those who say the EU is awful and we should leave, and those who say EU is awful but we can't leave. That's not the basis for strong commitment to the EU.
Depends if the alternative is seen as even more awful ie international isolation and no say on trading terms with the EU. We are never going to be at the heart of the EU ie in the Eurozone I would agree on that, if we are to stay it will be in the Outer fringes, outside the Euro, along with Sweden, Denmark and parts of Eastern Europe
If UK trade continues to fall whilst trade with the ROW increases the economic case for remaining in tthe EU will start to crumble. More people will begin to question why we are remaining a member of an inward looking protectionist block whilst the majority of our trade is outside of the EU.
The problems holding the EU back will only be solved by political union which there is no appetite for.
'The idea of an EU army is fantasy pedaled by Euro-fanatics.'
People used to say that about the euro as well.
The point of view we might label as 'euro-fanatic' is very mainstream in most of Europe
Really? Which people used to say that about the Euro?
When the European coal and steel community was created, all the countries in it had their currencies tied together via Bretton Woods. Following its dissolution in the early 1970s, there was currency management first through the snake and then the ERM. The euro was pretty much publicly part of the programme from the mid 1970s, when the ECU was created.
I believe the Netherlands 11th Airborne Brigade paratroopers are under German command. There will be more and more cooperation until an EU army is eventually formed.
You might think so but I doubt it
''While there will be close German-Dutch cooperation in peacetime, one country is not obligated to join the other if it goes on a military mission.'' Hardly practical system where one country decides to keep its troops at home.
For whatever reason there has been a Dutch-German Corps since 1995
You might say my comments about the creation of an EU army are a dangerous fantasy but the German defence minister had this to say about the increased cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany:
The European Army is our long-term goal... but first we have to strengthen the European Defence Union... To achieve this, some nations with concrete military cooperation must come to the fore - and the Germans and the Dutch are doing this...
I thought the refurbishment was needed because it was crumbling? The massive cost of the refurb is going to be mostly necessary no matter what its eventual purpose (unless they knock it down!) so any proposal to permenantly relocate Parliament will cost extra.
I'm in favour of a temp relocation if it saves time and money though, would there be a room big enough in the QEII conference centre to host the Commons Chamber, or could they relocate it to Westminster Hall for a couple of years?
Yes the Commons Chamber can be relocated to Westminster Hall and the House of Lords to Newcastle Conference Centre.
I believe the Netherlands 11th Airborne Brigade paratroopers are under German command. There will be more and more cooperation until an EU army is eventually formed.
You might think so but I doubt it
''While there will be close German-Dutch cooperation in peacetime, one country is not obligated to join the other if it goes on a military mission.'' Hardly practical system where one country decides to keep its troops at home.
For whatever reason there has been a Dutch-German Corps since 1995
You might say my comments about the creation of an EU army are a dangerous fantasy but the German defence minister had this to say about the increased cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany:
The European Army is our long-term goal... but first we have to strengthen the European Defence Union... To achieve this, some nations with concrete military cooperation must come to the fore - and the Germans and the Dutch are doing this...
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
@georgeeaton: Corbyn: "Having narrowly won the general election, the Tories are now trying to rig the system to keep themselves in power". #fab16
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament. #fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
When it come to rigging the system to stay in power, the Govt. should employ Mr Corbyn as an advisor....
As was pointed out in that discussion, the Tories got more votes, many more votes. and a larger share of the vote but fewer seats than Blair in 2005. Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
Labour won most votes across the UK in 2005, the Tories were fractionally ahead in England. The LDs would have done a deal with Labour rather than the Tories had there been a hung parliament, probably with the requirement Brown replaced Blair. The party which won most votes has lost twice since the war, Labour in 1951 and the Tories in February 1974
I absolutely hate that idea. A living historical building (even if mostly symbolic given the building mostly dates from the 19th Century) is so much more powerful, and since even in his example they'll need to spend money on maintaining it for public use, they might as well just spend the money needed to keep it fit for purpose.
I agree. It is as much as symbol (for good or ill) as a building.
And alternatives can be vastly costly as well - just look at the Scottish parliament fiasco.
It should be noted that the building has had trouble since it was built - from memory its stonework was reclad early on, and then again in ?clipsham? stone between the wars, at vast expense.
I recall a story where the architect responsible was elderly, and went round lots of quarries. Colleagues disagreed with his choice, but none felt fit to argue. The original stonework was decaying almost as soon as it was erected.
(I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm this story - I can't remember where I heard it. And the environment of Victorian London cannot have been good for most stonework. Perhaps they should have built it from Coade stone. ).
I thought the refurbishment was needed because it was crumbling? The massive cost of the refurb is going to be mostly necessary no matter what its eventual purpose (unless they knock it down!) so any proposal to permenantly relocate Parliament will cost extra.
They're talking about spending 6 billion on the refurb - add pork/incompetence that's going to be over 10 billion. There's no way a museum costs anything like that much.
I absolutely hate that idea. A living historical building (even if mostly symbolic given the building mostly dates from the 19th Century) is so much more powerful, and since even in his example they'll need to spend money on maintaining it for public use, they might as well just spend the money needed to keep it fit for purpose.
I agree. It is as much as symbol (for good or ill) as a building.
And alternatives can be vastly costly as well - just look at the Scottish parliament fiasco.
It should be noted that the building has had trouble since it was built - from memory its stonework was reclad early on, and then again in ?clipsham? stone between the wars, at vast expense.
I recall a story where the architect responsible was elderly, and went round lots of quarries. Colleagues disagreed with his choice, but none felt fit to argue. The original stonework was decaying almost as soon as it was erected.
(I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm this story - I can't remember where I heard it. And the environment of Victorian London cannot have been good for most stonework. Perhaps they should have built it from Coade stone. ).
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
Mr. 1000, you are John Bercow, and I claim a date with Snow White.
Mr. Andrew, that's to effect structural repairs (parts of the Palace of Westminster are actually sinking). A museum would also need such repairs, unless you propose demolishing, rather than converting, the building.
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
We could build an extra wing on Belmarsh and remove the 2nd homes subsidy at a stroke.
I thought the refurbishment was needed because it was crumbling? The massive cost of the refurb is going to be mostly necessary no matter what its eventual purpose (unless they knock it down!) so any proposal to permenantly relocate Parliament will cost extra.
They're talking about spending 6 billion on the refurb - add pork/incompetence that's going to be over 10 billion. There's no way a museum costs anything like that much.
Move it to Birmingham.
If it costs ten billion it will exceed our net contribution to the EU for a year. What greater evidence do we need of the utter corruption of British politics.
It's time to cast aside this relic of our past and create a new, cheaper Houses of Parliament.
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
A Parliament outside Westminster would seem non-serious to me and faintly illegitimate. (Of course that's not logical. There is some value in mystique though.)
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
We could build an extra wing on Belmarsh and remove the 2nd homes subsidy at a stroke.
While you are joking (and I am not), your point is a sound one. There are plenty of places in the UK that could be suitably repurposed at a fraction of the cost of refurbishing the Houses of Commons. Between Portcullis House and the Houses themselves there is perhaps ten billion pounds of real estate. (Prime cap rates are about 3% - and you would easily get 300m of rent for the site once its been built up into apartments.)
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Comments
This nearly happened a few years back under Brown - patients who were waiting for treatment in UK were going to doctors and hospitals on the Continent and getting reimbursed via the intra-EU system from the NHS. The government tried to stop them using private hospitals abroad - which was ruled by the EU to breach the rules on health care as a right...
The basic logic of the EU is that all services/companies etc are equal no matter their location. So allowing patients to go private abroad would mean allowing them to go private at home. BUPA on the NHS....
In the end the problem was pushed down the road - the Germans had some serious issues regarding health tourism.
But the desire to turn the European health system into a single cohesive whole remains. Given that private medicine is part of the system of every other country in Europe, there will be no sympathy for attempts to block it here.
"Merkel 'expects Cameron to back EU army' in exchange for renegotiation
German chancellor will ask UK to stand aside as she promotes ambitious plan to integrate continental Europe’s armed forces, The Telegraph has been told"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11861247/Merkel-expects-Cameron-to-back-EU-army-in-exchange-for-renegotiation.html
That was the philosophy that my mother subscribed to - born in Bexleyheath, classic working class. Lots of folk tales from other families of hiding from the rent man etc.
Bliss was to own your home outright, with a couple of years of wages saved up in building society, as your working life wound down.... That was what people aspired to.
The reason imo is because the US wants and needs us to be in with everything, both to prevent Europe's Russia-ward drift and keep it US aligned, and to prevent any British pretensions to national sovereignty and national resurgence. They don't want to lose their man in the EU.
The problems holding the EU back will only be solved by political union which there is no appetite for.
Feel a little sorry for the sellout crowd tomorrow, another 3-day Test.
Pleased to be back to winning ways myself after messing up the odds last week!
Oh, and Spurs won too.
Sometimes sport is just great!
"Germany, of all the countries in Europe, should understand why the people of the United Kingdom will never, ever agree to give up its sovereign armed forces. We're finished here."
An Army which requires the agreement of 28 EU nations to be sent into battle would never leave its barracks. It would be like Trident under Corbyn; something which our enemies know will never be used.
Such a proposal would be a Godsend to LEAVE.
https://twitter.com/xtophercook/status/688328694369267713
And here's the analysis behind it:
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/687774803365867520
The economic arguments for remain get weaker all the time, but then so do memarys of the time before we were part of the EU/EEC.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/itis/international-trade-in-services/2011/sty-international-trade-in-services.html
I stand to be corrected of course, as my memory is not what is was!
Mr. HYUFD, it'll be the old boiled frog, one would've thought.
Simon Danczuk threatens legal action over Labour suspension
Exclusive: Solicitors for MP who sent sex messages to teenager demand explanation for action ‘detrimental to his reputation’
http://gu.com/p/4fppt?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
We might need to sedate Scrapheap. England and Spurs win on the same afternoon
https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/half_uk_exports_europe-49441
http://hugelolcdn.com/i700/87718.jpg
As others have said, the idea of an EU armed force is preposterous, Eurocrats even talking about it in the run up to the referendum will cause a huge shift towards Leave.
1. 2010 LibDems split much more evenly. For those who care to look, they will see it suggested on here that this was long ago filed under NO SURPRISE THERE THEN. Basically, the Left-leaning L-DINO vote (who were Labour in all but tactical vote) flounced off to Labour as soon as the LibDems joined the Coalition. The more right-leaning Lib-Dems waited to see if it was worth hanging around. With the risk of Prime Minister Ed Miliband, they too buggered off - just much nearer the election.
2. UKIP much more evenly from main parties. It was clear for all to see that Labour was suffering a significant loss of its WWC vote in its urban English and Welsh heartlands. (Obviously the SNP destroyed this notion in Scotland.) Plenty of senior figures in Labour were worried, both privately but also in public.
3. Direct net flow from Labour to Conservatives. Whilst on the face of it this was the big surprise on the night, there were plenty on here who had suggested that it was possible to envisage Labour's vote share going backwards. Now partly that's down to Scotland, but also on the economy. Because there were those (admittedly deluded food, but they were there) who thought Gordon Brown had done a good job of saving the world and in 2010 voted to reward him/keep him in place for fear of something worse. That Labour had nothing to offer these 2010 voters in their fiasco of an economic offering shouldn't have been a surprise.
Something like this won't shift votes, I think. Those who believe it might happen are, I would guess, likely to be sceptics already.
Mr. Eagles, that picture seems very popular in Twitterland.
The Constitution was unacceptable, so they changed the title. They've learnt, so they'll call an army something more innocuous, then expand its budget and size and operations until its a fait accompli to change the name.
Assuming this is genuinely on the table. Nick Clegg said it wasn't. So it may well be.
"Fine. Marvelous even. 10 minutes after the French had ok'd dismantling the CAP, an EU army"
But then, the EU forced changes of government in both Italy and Greece. Is the initial, embryonic formation of an army more serious than that?
I do share some of your scepticism on the basis you outline, the problem is the ideological clowns seem intent on forcing a nation.
If Conservatives are still under-estimated (by pollsters) then that may make it look like Remain have a comfortable lead and the uncertain don't bother voting. It's possible (although very unlikely I think) that Leave could edge a victory this way.
I would be unsurprised if we had a result of 65/35 Remain (that or a little lower would be my guess).
Obviously, the SNP were in a league of their own in setting out their stall to the electorate. Although even they weren't immune from getting it wrong. Their hubris (writing Labour's Budget, anyone?) may have gifted the Tories their majority. But that again is evidence of the Tories at least being best at reading the English electorate.
*(If a rainbow only has Richard Of York Gave....with no Battle In Vain)
The only negative even the Telegraph can cook up is that an integrated European army might be actually effective and make our relationship with the US less special.
We lost.
We lost badly.
The voters were not wrong, we were.
#fab16
That leaves using existing troops from existing states under an integrated EU command. Solves the infrastructure, money, kit, and motivational problems, but just leaves the problem of consent. Belgium will not allow its platoon to be committed to war on Germany's say so, and nor will anyone else.
The idea of an EU army is fantasy pedaled by Euro-fanatics.
People used to say that about the euro as well.
The point of view we might label as 'euro-fanatic' is very mainstream in most of Europe
Do they really want us to leave?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12103359/German-finance-minister-proposes-EU-wide-petrol-tax-to-pay-for-refugee-costs.html
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/688394542102515717
Come on Villa!
And look at the form of palace and norwich....
I'm off to buy £20 of lucky dip lotto tickets.
We had a very civilised discussion among a number of centrist voters on here the other night. Labour's path to re-election is to offer a left of centre alternative to what the Conservatives are doing, but - and it's a really big but - they need to be seen as trustworthy when it comes to their maths. If they want to increase spending by 10% on health and education then there need to be proposed tax rises to raise the money (and not just on the mobile top earners), and to be trusted that the extra cash won't just disappear in higher salaries to their union member staff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35330331
How few MPs does Mr Corbyn want Labour to have?
''While there will be close German-Dutch cooperation in peacetime, one country is not obligated to join the other if it goes on a military mission.''
Hardly practical system where one country decides to keep its troops at home.
For whatever reason there has been a Dutch-German Corps since 1995
I'm in favour of a temp relocation if it saves time and money though, would there be a room big enough in the QEII conference centre to host the Commons Chamber, or could they relocate it to Westminster Hall for a couple of years?
Edited extra bit: what he's proposing is to waste money designing and constructing a new building whilst also wasting money using* the former building as a museum.
Is he unaware people can already visit the Palace without being an MP or member of staff or peer?
Edited 2: *converting to, rather than 'using as'.
Why do some have a modernising fetish?
Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
When the European coal and steel community was created, all the countries in it had their currencies tied together via Bretton Woods. Following its dissolution in the early 1970s, there was currency management first through the snake and then the ERM. The euro was pretty much publicly part of the programme from the mid 1970s, when the ECU was created.
Has been done before by a German called Himmler when he extended his Waffen SS franchise to non-Germanic units.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
And alternatives can be vastly costly as well - just look at the Scottish parliament fiasco.
It should be noted that the building has had trouble since it was built - from memory its stonework was reclad early on, and then again in ?clipsham? stone between the wars, at vast expense.
I recall a story where the architect responsible was elderly, and went round lots of quarries. Colleagues disagreed with his choice, but none felt fit to argue. The original stonework was decaying almost as soon as it was erected.
(I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm this story - I can't remember where I heard it. And the environment of Victorian London cannot have been good for most stonework. Perhaps they should have built it from Coade stone.
I'm assuming OGH is implying Labour have taken the lead?
Move it to Birmingham.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
Mr. Andrew, that's to effect structural repairs (parts of the Palace of Westminster are actually sinking). A museum would also need such repairs, unless you propose demolishing, rather than converting, the building.
It's time to cast aside this relic of our past and create a new, cheaper Houses of Parliament.
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/architecture/palacestructure/the-stonework/
Edit:
Although apparently the original stonewor was renovated around 1906 with the same stone.
http://www.j31.co.uk/harycrof.htm
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.