Seems like no. 10 bad pr / media op. If they just said that straight away would have saved a lot of bad headlines.
One question...Cameron said he owns 1 house. What about the one in Witney?
Fact-checking takes time. It would have been career-ending to issue a trenchant denial only for it to emerge that there was a bijou overseas trust which had slipped the Prime Minister's mind.
Seems like no. 10 bad pr / media op. If they just said that straight away would have saved a lot of bad headlines.
One question...Cameron said he owns 1 house. What about the one in Witney?
Fact-checking takes time. It would have been career-ending to issue a trenchant denial only for it to emerge that there was a bijou overseas trust which had slipped the Prime Minister's mind.
I guess so but the it's a private matter was totally the wrong response. Also if Cameron's affairs are as simple as he says not that much fact checking to do.
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
Seriously: So what?
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
Actually, you do need to the following markets together:
Nigeria Colombia The Gulf Nations Russia Venezuela etc.
They are all countries who's exports are dominated by commodities. Russian GDP - US Dollar terms - has just been chopped in half. Commodity prices are likely to remain low for a sustained period of time, perhaps as long as 20 years if the history of the 80s and 90s repeats itself. Then, the growth economies of the 1970s - Latin America, Africa, etc. - turned from heroes to basket cases.
I'd expect the same to happen again.
Point of order, Robert - Colombia's $ GDP more than doubled between 1980 and 2000.
More generally you are almost certainly right that the very good days the commodity exporters had from say 2000-11 aren't coming back. But most of them will still comfortably outgrow the EU. They aren't all monocultures, and many also have positive demographics.
Russia, with its appalling demographics, is a special case. As is Venezuela where a shift to any vaguely realistic exchange rate will crush current $ GDP.
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
Seriously: So what?
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
Actually, you do need to the following markets together:
Nigeria Colombia The Gulf Nations Russia Venezuela etc.
They are all countries who's exports are dominated by commodities. Russian GDP - US Dollar terms - has just been chopped in half. Commodity prices are likely to remain low for a sustained period of time, perhaps as long as 20 years if the history of the 80s and 90s repeats itself. Then, the growth economies of the 1970s - Latin America, Africa, etc. - turned from heroes to basket cases.
I'd expect the same to happen again.
Point of order, Robert - Colombia's $ GDP more than doubled between 1980 and 2000.
More generally you are almost certainly right that the very good days the commodity exporters had from say 2000-11 aren't coming back. But most of them will still comfortably outgrow the EU. They aren't all monocultures, and many also have positive demographics.
Russia, with its appalling demographics, is a special case. As is Venezuela where a shift to any vaguely realistic exchange rate will crush current $ GDP.
Russia should be encouraging immigrants !
It does. Russian bombs are a major part of why Europe is getting so many immigrants.
My favourite observation on it was by William Hague
The Tory Party is an absolute monarchy, moderated by regicide
That's a reprise of an old line about Tsarist Russia. From memory: "Every country has its own constitutional system. Ours is tyranny, moderated by assassination'.
Four Tsars were murdered, or five if you count Nicholas II, but after he abdicated:
Ivan VI (1741) Peter III (1762) Paul I (1801) Alexander II (1881) Nicholas II (1918)
Can someone explain to me why Marco Rubio is now as short as 90 on Betfair for the Republican nomination?
The same reason he became favourite when he finished third in Iowa.
The Betfair market is bonkers at times!
The thing is that the percentage probabilities add up consistently to around 95% so there are those who back the field regardless of the individual odds. Whilst it seems a bit unlikely that Trump can win the nomination, it seems far less likely that anyone else can. The whole thing is a conundrum and the bizarreness of the situation can hardly be blamed on us poor betfair punters.
Late to the site today but on topic Until a couple of weeks ago I would have pretty much agreed with the forecast in the thread but I believe now that Labour will do a little better than the forecast number of losses and the Conservatives and UKIP a little worse . Public sentiment has turned against the government over the budget and Port Talbot though not ( yet ) to the extent that they will vote for anyone to show their displeasure . Re UKIP it is quite possible that UKIP will actually end up net losing seats . They.are defending relatively few but they have to defend 12 in Rotherham because there are allout elections there and though they will do better than in 2012 they may lose 5 or 6 of their seats . They won 0 in 2012 , 10 in 2014 and only 2 in 2015 . One other questionable point is how gains/losses will be treated in councils with all out elections on new boundaries . Take for example Winchester currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 councillors . A reasonable forecast for the new council which has 12 fewer councillors is Con 25 LD 20 . Con -8 Lab and LD -2 each . However Labour would not have had any councillors with the new boundaries anyway as the one ward they have is dismembered and split between other wards . Have Labour lost 2 councillors or not ? How will the official gains and losses be calculated on a council such as this ?
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
Seriously: So what?
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
Actually, you do need to the following markets together:
Nigeria Colombia The Gulf Nations Russia Venezuela etc.
They are all countries who's exports are dominated by commodities. Russian GDP - US Dollar terms - has just been chopped in half. Commodity prices are likely to remain low for a sustained period of time, perhaps as long as 20 years if the history of the 80s and 90s repeats itself. Then, the growth economies of the 1970s - Latin America, Africa, etc. - turned from heroes to basket cases.
I'd expect the same to happen again.
Point of order, Robert - Colombia's $ GDP more than doubled between 1980 and 2000.
More generally you are almost certainly right that the very good days the commodity exporters had from say 2000-11 aren't coming back. But most of them will still comfortably outgrow the EU. They aren't all monocultures, and many also have positive demographics.
Russia, with its appalling demographics, is a special case. As is Venezuela where a shift to any vaguely realistic exchange rate will crush current $ GDP.
Russia should be encouraging immigrants !
They have quite a few from the Donbass Ukraine, but apparently not keen to settle permenantly.
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
Seriously: So what?
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
Actually, you do need to the following markets together:
Nigeria Colombia The Gulf Nations Russia Venezuela etc.
They are all countries who's exports are dominated by commodities. Russian GDP - US Dollar terms - has just been chopped in half. Commodity prices are likely to remain low for a sustained period of time, perhaps as long as 20 years if the history of the 80s and 90s repeats itself. Then, the growth economies of the 1970s - Latin America, Africa, etc. - turned from heroes to basket cases.
I'd expect the same to happen again.
Point of order, Robert - Colombia's $ GDP more than doubled between 1980 and 2000.
More generally you are almost certainly right that the very good days the commodity exporters had from say 2000-11 aren't coming back. But most of them will still comfortably outgrow the EU. They aren't all monocultures, and many also have positive demographics.
Russia, with its appalling demographics, is a special case. As is Venezuela where a shift to any vaguely realistic exchange rate will crush current $ GDP.
Russia should be encouraging immigrants !
It does. Russian bombs are a major part of why Europe is getting so many immigrants.
With the story of off shore trusts etc. Isn't it traditional to put them in either the wife's or mother's maiden name to throw investigating journos off the scent?
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Use of the words "do not benefit" is significant. The statement did not say "will never benefit" or even "will not benefit".
I can see why Cameron wants to retire early.
Hopefully this week. His authority has gone.
If he loses the referendum, then yes. Right now it's a bit up in the air.
HMG is going through one of those periods where "events" are causing problems.
Alan, I disappeared earlier , re previous discussion , I assume your wife was also OK.
Yeah malc as far as I can gather, down here they're being bloody awkward and keep postponing when they are talking to impacted employees. Bur she's not been invited to any meetings so that seems to be the all clear.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Two more EU Referendum polls from Populus (shown on the Britain Elects spreadsheet).
Populus online Leave 45% Remain 39%. Populus phone Leave 37%, Remain 48%.
I think their reputation would be higher of they'd just stayed silent.
"It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Your career doesn't go very far in the professions with that approach.
I prefer: know your subject, carefully research the client's problem, listen and offer a well-considered solution.
Hopefully you don't make a fool of yourself but it never ceases to amaze me how just one misplaced or carelessly chosen word can derail an entire presentation to a client, despite everything else having merit.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If he wins it by that much, he may just be safe. Much less than that and he's very very vulnerable even if he wins, due to how butthurt a lot of Tories seem to be.
Looks like the Guardian/Panama papers have got a big fish
The new head of world football has been caught up in the sport’s corruption scandal because of documents that have been revealed by the Panama Papers leak.
Files seen by the Guardian will raise questions about the role Fifa’s president, Gianni Infantino, played in deals that were concluded when he was director of legal services at Uefa, European football’s governing body.
According to records, Uefa concluded offshore deals with one of the indicted figures at the heart of an alleged “World Cup of fraud” despite previously insisting it had no dealings with any of them.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Nah. Osborne's goose is cooked. No foreseeable future in the leadership of the party after this budget.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Don't be silly Eagles
if he wins he'll breathe a huge sigh of relief and he and George will go back to closing down businesses as usual.
I hate to tell you this Richard, but emerging markets ex China are already a slightly larger share of world GDP than the EU (ex UK) is. In 2030, they may be 50-70% larger.
Sure, but they are fragmented. You can't lump together India, Nigeria and Columbia as though they were a single export market.
Seriously: So what?
There is zero requirement or obligation for them to be lumped together for us to be able to trade with them.
If anything their being fragmented is a good thing as it means if we are to negotiate a free trade deal one-on-one with them in an EFTA-style agreement then we are the "big boy" in the negotiations.
Actually, you do need to the following markets together:
Nigeria Colombia The Gulf Nations Russia Venezuela etc.
They are all countries who's exports are dominated by commodities. Russian GDP - US Dollar terms - has just been chopped in half. Commodity prices are likely to remain low for a sustained period of time, perhaps as long as 20 years if the history of the 80s and 90s repeats itself. Then, the growth economies of the 1970s - Latin America, Africa, etc. - turned from heroes to basket cases.
I'd expect the same to happen again.
Point of order, Robert - Colombia's $ GDP more than doubled between 1980 and 2000.
More generally you are almost certainly right that the very good days the commodity exporters had from say 2000-11 aren't coming back. But most of them will still comfortably outgrow the EU. They aren't all monocultures, and many also have positive demographics.
Russia, with its appalling demographics, is a special case. As is Venezuela where a shift to any vaguely realistic exchange rate will crush current $ GDP.
Russia should be encouraging immigrants !
It does. Russian bombs are a major part of why Europe is getting so many immigrants.
I wonder how much of that uptick will survive 2015-2016. I have a strong suspicion it was driven by migrant workers from FSU countries flocking to work for remittances, rather than a rise in birthrates. Many of the migrants have returned home with Russia's economic downturn.
Looks like the Guardian/Panama papers have got a big fish
The new head of world football has been caught up in the sport’s corruption scandal because of documents that have been revealed by the Panama Papers leak.
Files seen by the Guardian will raise questions about the role Fifa’s president, Gianni Infantino, played in deals that were concluded when he was director of legal services at Uefa, European football’s governing body.
According to records, Uefa concluded offshore deals with one of the indicted figures at the heart of an alleged “World Cup of fraud” despite previously insisting it had no dealings with any of them.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If he wins it by that much, he may just be safe. Much less than that and he's very very vulnerable even if he wins, due to how butthurt a lot of Tories seem to be.
I was surprised to hear Peter Bone the other day chime up and say, no matter the outcome, Dave is staying.
He said Dave had given us a referendum, he proposed a question, let the electoral commission change it, let cabinet ministers and MPs campaign against him.
Whatever the outcome, he will thankful for the PM for giving the country the option to Leave the EU, and it was up to him [Bone] and the Leavers to win it.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If the result is that emphatic. Osborne will go full caporegime and be dishing out punishment kneecappings to anyone that ever dared to doubt him. It's business, nothing personal etc.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If he wins it by that much, he may just be safe. Much less than that and he's very very vulnerable even if he wins, due to how butthurt a lot of Tories seem to be.
I was surprised to hear Peter Bone the other day chime up and say, no matter the outcome, Dave is staying.
He said Dave had given us a referendum, he proposed a question, let the electoral commission change it, let cabinet ministers and MPs campaign against him.
Whatever the outcome, he will thankful for the PM for giving the country the option to Leave the EU, and it was up to him [Bone] and the Leavers to win it.
Spoken like a man of honour who truly believes in democracy. What is he doing in politics?
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If the result is that emphatic. Osborne will go full caporegime and be dishing out punishment kneecappings to anyone that ever dared to doubt him. It's business, nothing personal etc.
Having been thwarted on tax credit cuts, pension reforms and changes to benefits, George Osborne understands better than any other politician in Parliament that 12 is the magic number.
The Conservative leadership simply cannot go around duffing up everyone they hate after the referendum result. Numbers are far too tight.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If he wins it by that much, he may just be safe. Much less than that and he's very very vulnerable even if he wins, due to how butthurt a lot of Tories seem to be.
I was surprised to hear Peter Bone the other day chime up and say, no matter the outcome, Dave is staying.
He said Dave had given us a referendum, he proposed a question, let the electoral commission change it, let cabinet ministers and MPs campaign against him.
Whatever the outcome, he will thankful for the PM for giving the country the option to Leave the EU, and it was up to him [Bone] and the Leavers to win it.
On the other hand you have Remain ministers giving off the record briefings that they think Dave is serious trouble no matter what the outcome.
The most shocking thing about tax evasion (or, indeed, avoidance) is that one fails to fully participate in projects such as HS2, The UK Foreign Aid Budget, or, indeed, paying 180,000 for some illegal immigrant's use of our National Treasure.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If he wins it by that much, he may just be safe. Much less than that and he's very very vulnerable even if he wins, due to how butthurt a lot of Tories seem to be.
I was surprised to hear Peter Bone the other day chime up and say, no matter the outcome, Dave is staying.
He said Dave had given us a referendum, he proposed a question, let the electoral commission change it, let cabinet ministers and MPs campaign against him.
Whatever the outcome, he will thankful for the PM for giving the country the option to Leave the EU, and it was up to him [Bone] and the Leavers to win it.
I am surprised to hear it. I was about to say I don't believe a word of it, as it applies to Leaver Tories as a whole, but on reflection it's more perhaps that he and others know Dave is going of his own accord if Leave wins, so they don't even need to put their thoughts to the matter - if they win, he goes anyway, and saying he goes even if Remain wins looks like whining
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If the result is that emphatic. Osborne will go full caporegime and be dishing out punishment kneecappings to anyone that ever dared to doubt him. It's business, nothing personal etc.
Having been thwarted on tax credit cuts, pension reforms and changes to benefits, George Osborne understands better than any other politician in Parliament that 12 is the magic number.
The Conservative leadership simply cannot go around duffing up everyone they hate after the referendum result. Numbers are far too tight.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If he wins it by that much, he may just be safe. Much less than that and he's very very vulnerable even if he wins, due to how butthurt a lot of Tories seem to be.
I was surprised to hear Peter Bone the other day chime up and say, no matter the outcome, Dave is staying.
He said Dave had given us a referendum, he proposed a question, let the electoral commission change it, let cabinet ministers and MPs campaign against him.
Whatever the outcome, he will thankful for the PM for giving the country the option to Leave the EU, and it was up to him [Bone] and the Leavers to win it.
Spoken like a man of honour who truly believes in democracy. What is he doing in politics?
Indeed.
I've always considered the 'awkward squad' and 'bastards' to be labels applied by patronising careerist politicians who are shown up by true patriots.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If the result is that emphatic. Osborne will go full caporegime and be dishing out punishment kneecappings to anyone that ever dared to doubt him. It's business, nothing personal etc.
Osborne needs MPs and the party, more than they need him. The clock's ticking.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
Basically, the current leadership is in awful shape no matter what the result of the referendum. If Leave win, they're politically vaporised. If Remain win by any margin, there will be a body of Leaver MPs who will be profoundly alienated from their leadership and looking to sabotage it at every corner.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
How Dave campaigns will be decided next Thursday.
If Vote Leave becomes the official leave campaign, then it will be a more of a calmer, rational debate, as it will be Dave v Gove kinda situations, where there will be mutual respect.
If Arron Banks lot get it, then Dave will be campaigning very differently, as the Banks strategy is going to be talk about immigration and put Farage front and centre, and make it about Cameron.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I can't stand the witch hunt media at the moment. Wish the papers would just go back to having decent margins and market shares or simply disappear. This present whole thrashing cavalcade of a dying media sector is undermining people's trust and spreading hatred amongst people who are not able to understand the finer points of politics, history or international relations.
The world needs a snopes type source for current affairs to counter the guff that fills most newspapers and sites
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If the result is that emphatic. Osborne will go full caporegime and be dishing out punishment kneecappings to anyone that ever dared to doubt him. It's business, nothing personal etc.
Having been thwarted on tax credit cuts, pension reforms and changes to benefits, George Osborne understands better than any other politician in Parliament that 12 is the magic number.
The Conservative leadership simply cannot go around duffing up everyone they hate after the referendum result. Numbers are far too tight.
This is correct. And I speak as someone sympathetic to all those measures, except pensions.
Osborne made a calculation he could take Conservative support for granted off the back of the GE2015 and use the election of Corbyn to dress to the Left.
He was wrong.
I think Osborne/Cameron have missed the Lib Dems. It is interesting to consider how different things now might be if they effectively considered themselves in coalition with their own party, and ran a "Quad" equivalent too.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
If the result is that emphatic. Osborne will go full caporegime and be dishing out punishment kneecappings to anyone that ever dared to doubt him. It's business, nothing personal etc.
Having been thwarted on tax credit cuts, pension reforms and changes to benefits, George Osborne understands better than any other politician in Parliament that 12 is the magic number.
The Conservative leadership simply cannot go around duffing up everyone they hate after the referendum result. Numbers are far too tight.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
Basically, the current leadership is in awful shape no matter what the result of the referendum. If Leave win, they're politically vaporised. If Remain win by any margin, there will be a body of Leaver MPs who will be profoundly alienated from their leadership and looking to sabotage it at every corner.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
I can't see how the GOP can choose any of the withdrawn candidates - they completely failed to win the vote after all. So that leaves the other two - but how on earth do you explain that you're going with the less popular man?
Somehow to invent a candidate anew is troubled as well. Romney? McCain? Palin?!!
I've stopped betting on this, because I have quite enough. I think I must be wrong somehow, but I've yet to see an explanation.
As I see it unless someone is able to disable Trump by finding some reason why he's ineligible, then he sort of has to be it.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
So Leavers can campaign for Leave, but Remainers can't campaign for Remain.
Yes, I can see why Leavers might feel that sounds reasonable.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
Basically, the current leadership is in awful shape no matter what the result of the referendum. If Leave win, they're politically vaporised. If Remain win by any margin, there will be a body of Leaver MPs who will be profoundly alienated from their leadership and looking to sabotage it at every corner.
I might write a thread about this.
Go for it. Just perhaps noting there are a body of 30-40 Leavers who I think you most often think of but 140 Tory MPs in total who are in that camp overall.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
So Leavers can campaign for Leave, but Remainers can't campaign for Remain.
Yes, I can see why Leavers might feel that sounds reasonable.
A nice soundbite, but not what I said.
Remainers can do what they want. But Cameron has endangered the future of the Tory party by so vehemently backing a weak deal.
I'm not entirely sure why you like to keep pointing out false inconsistencies Alastair. Listen to members (or ex-members) here to see the reaction amongst the party. Witness the huge number of non-payroll MPs who have come out for Leave. Witness the discomfort displayed by some of those who plumped for Leave likely because of expectations of a result, and a future leadership, that now look terribly in doubt.
And, again, I was on the fence until the 'deal'. I benefit from Remain. Leave will cost me money.
I should be about as reluctant a Leaver as can be, yet I'm thinking that the £150 usually going to the local party at this time of year might be better in Vote Leave's coffers; for the good of the Tory party as much as anything....
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
How Dave campaigns will be decided next Thursday.
If Vote Leave becomes the official leave campaign, then it will be a more of a calmer, rational debate, as it will be Dave v Gove kinda situations, where there will be mutual respect.
If Arron Banks lot get it, then Dave will be campaigning very differently, as the Banks strategy is going to be talk about immigration and put Farage front and centre, and make it about Cameron.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
So Leavers can campaign for Leave, but Remainers can't campaign for Remain.
Yes, I can see why Leavers might feel that sounds reasonable.
A nice soundbite, but not what I said.
Remainers can do what they want. But Cameron has endangered the future of the Tory party by so vehemently backing a weak deal.
I'm not entirely sure why you like to keep pointing out false inconsistencies Alastair. Listen to members (or ex-members) here to see the reaction amongst the party. Witness the huge number of non-payroll MPs who have come out for Leave. Witness the discomfort by some of those who plumped for Leave likely because of expectations of a result, and a future leadership, that now look terribly in doubt.
And, again, I was on the fence until the 'deal'. I benefit from Remain. Leave will cost me money.
I should be about as reluctant a Leaver as can be.
Thinking the £150 usually going to the local party at this time of year might be better in Vote Leave's coffers; for the good of the Tory party as much as anything....
It's pretty much exactly what you said. Your complaint is that the Prime Minister is a formidable campaigner. Therefore you want him on your side or effectively muzzled. It's noteworthy that you didn't say that you expected him to stay quiet if he had hypothetically walked away and backed Leave. But you did expect him to rise above it once he'd backed Remain.
Why on earth should the Prime Minister not be able to campaign vigorously for the deal that he evidently thinks is the right thing for Britain?
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
Basically, the current leadership is in awful shape no matter what the result of the referendum. If Leave win, they're politically vaporised. If Remain win by any margin, there will be a body of Leaver MPs who will be profoundly alienated from their leadership and looking to sabotage it at every corner.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
I'm still undecided. I've been pretty anti-Europe for many years, but that was mainly because of the hidden agenda. I don't think that anyone voting to remain can be unaware of the 'ever closer union' stuff now, so my sole historical objection is moot.
The problem in deciding is that there's no debate. I've yet to read, hear, or watch, a single thing which takes the facts and tries to balance them. I can only balance the clod-hopping ignorance of Leave with the blind-faith of Remain. If there was a third option I'd be rallying to their cause.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
So Leavers can campaign for Leave, but Remainers can't campaign for Remain.
Yes, I can see why Leavers might feel that sounds reasonable.
A nice soundbite, but not what I said.
Remainers can do what they want. But Cameron has endangered the future of the Tory party by so vehemently backing a weak deal.
I'm not entirely sure why you like to keep pointing out false inconsistencies Alastair. Listen to members (or ex-members) here to see the reaction amongst the party. Witness the huge number of non-payroll MPs who have come out for Leave. Witness the discomfort by some of those who plumped for Leave likely because of expectations of a result, and a future leadership, that now look terribly in doubt.
And, again, I was on the fence until the 'deal'. I benefit from Remain. Leave will cost me money.
I should be about as reluctant a Leaver as can be.
Thinking the £150 usually going to the local party at this time of year might be better in Vote Leave's coffers; for the good of the Tory party as much as anything....
It's pretty much exactly what you said. Your complaint is that the Prime Minister is a formidable campaigner. Therefore you want him on your side or effectively muzzled. It's noteworthy that you didn't say that you expected him to stay quiet if he had hypothetically walked away and backed Leave. But you did expect him to rise above it once he'd backed Remain.
Why on earth should the Prime Minister not be able to campaign vigorously for the deal that he evidently thinks is the right thing for Britain?
Go back and read it Alastair.
You're assuming I think it is wrong for him to campaign. I don't think anything of the kind.
I said it has created his party a tremendous headache. I note you're choosing not to dispute that, but instead suggest I said something else.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
They stayed the full term.
Except Dave isn't staying the full term. Every Tory MP knows a leadership contest is coming.
Why retain a lame duck for three more years who might very well have pissed off almost half the party?
I can't see how the GOP can choose any of the withdrawn candidates - they completely failed to win the vote after all. So that leaves the other two - but how on earth do you explain that you're going with the less popular man?
Somehow to invent a candidate anew is troubled as well. Romney? McCain? Palin?!!
I've stopped betting on this, because I have quite enough. I think I must be wrong somehow, but I've yet to see an explanation.
As I see it unless someone is able to disable Trump by finding some reason why he's ineligible, then he sort of has to be it.
In your list of options, you've left out the white knight. The only obvious candidate is Paul Ryan. I think it is a minuscule possibility, but it is the only one other than the three left on the ballots.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
I agree with the dynamic of this.
Basically, the current leadership is in awful shape no matter what the result of the referendum. If Leave win, they're politically vaporised. If Remain win by any margin, there will be a body of Leaver MPs who will be profoundly alienated from their leadership and looking to sabotage it at every corner.
I might write a thread about this.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
Many Conservatives failed to learn the lessons of the AV and SINDY referendums. The Prime Minister is fighting to win not placate LEAVE whomsoever they might be.
It really is that simple.
If his strategy is that simple than he is creating a huge headache for his party.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
So Leavers can campaign for Leave, but Remainers can't campaign for Remain.
Yes, I can see why Leavers might feel that sounds reasonable.
A nice soundbite, but not what I said.
Remainers can do what they want. But Cameron has endangered the future of the Tory party by so vehemently backing a weak deal.
I'm not entirely sure why you like to keep pointing out false inconsistencies Alastair. Listen to members (or ex-members) here to see the reaction amongst the party. Witness the huge number of non-payroll MPs who have come out for Leave. Witness the discomfort by some of those who plumped for Leave likely because of expectations of a result, and a future leadership, that now look terribly in doubt.
And, again, I was on the fence until the 'deal'. I benefit from Remain. Leave will cost me money.
I should be about as reluctant a Leaver as can be.
Thinking the £150 usually going to the local party at this time of year might be better in Vote Leave's coffers; for the good of the Tory party as much as anything....
It's pretty much exactly what you said. Your complaint is that the Prime Minister is a formidable campaigner. Therefore you want him on your side or effectively muzzled. It's noteworthy that you didn't say that you expected him to stay quiet if he had hypothetically walked away and backed Leave. But you did expect him to rise above it once he'd backed Remain.
Why on earth should the Prime Minister not be able to campaign vigorously for the deal that he evidently thinks is the right thing for Britain?
Because nobody else believes he thinks the deal "is the right thing for Britain". The deal is self-evidently weak, so either he's campaigning vigorously for a weak deal believing he's actually got a strong one (seems unlikely) or he's campaigning vigorously for a deal he knows to be weak.
I have just checked estimated 2016 national vote share with 2012 results this shows Con 33 (v 33),Lab 30 (v39) and LD 16 (v 15) .Swings are therefore. Lab to Con 4.5% , Lab to LD 5% and Con to LD 0.5%.Such swings fit with the seat changes forecast.
However find it difficult to square the figures with national opinion poll shifts from 2012 to 201 Using ICM shares for the month of April for 2012 and latest Mch 2016 produces the following figures Con 36(v 39) ,Lab 36(v36() and LD 8(v 15) This gives swings of Con to Lab 1.5%,LD to Con 2% and LD to lab 3.5%. Compared to ENVS one would expect Lab to make small gains from Con and LD and Con to make small gains from LD. My forecast would be results somewhere between the two methods - Con no change, Lab -40 ,LD no change, UKIP +40. One conclusion any Labour losses will not be big enough to depose Corbyn
I'm still undecided. I've been pretty anti-Europe for many years, but that was mainly because of the hidden agenda. I don't think that anyone voting to remain can be unaware of the 'ever closer union' stuff now, so my sole historical objection is moot.
The problem in deciding is that there's no debate. I've yet to read, hear, or watch, a single thing which takes the facts and tries to balance them. I can only balance the clod-hopping ignorance of Leave with the blind-faith of Remain. If there was a third option I'd be rallying to their cause.
Watching Cameron take Questions in Birmingham on his remain propaganda,hard to believe the lying shit had any Eurosceptic... How I was taken in by this guy.
And his argument for remain was very forceful and he is the biggest danger to leave. He ..+
His argument for remain was only forceful ....
He is a formidable campaigner for remain and I do not see anyone in leave who will command the audience in the way David Cameron is likely to, particularly in the televised debates
How will he go down with a wwc audience? Answer = badly.
So far as one can tell, Cameron's standing among the public as a whole has fallen sharply in the past six weeks or so. But, what matters for the purpose of this referendum, is how far he can sway the 38% who voted Conservative, rather than the 62% who didn't. I don't think he's done as well as he might have expected. I think a sizeable number of Conservatives were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and see what he was able to negotiate. but were distinctly unimpressed by the outcome..
How much can Cameron sway the Conservative voters his way? At the start of this referendum period, I suggest he had very large support - probably 80% of Con voters. But as you say he has lost ground which seems to be linked to the more he has used media time pushing the REMAIN arguments. So should he use even more of the media time trying to win back, 1% 2% or 3% of the Conservative vote (of 38%) or give more time for REMAIN Labour to engage with Labour voters to get them to vote REMAIN? Labour start with 2/3 of their voters for REMAIN. It is the Labour REMAIN vote that has been reported as soft and the Labour REMAIN people are getting almost no media time.
There is one possible danger for Labour in filling the airwaves arguing for the EU. That is they do risk reinforcing the message in their core wwc support that they are pro EU and pro immigration. The type of penalty of associating with a view unpopular in large parts of the wwc, immigration. Just as SLAB hurt them selves by their strong backing of the union. Another example is that Clegg tried to shore up the LD vote in the 2014 EU elections by taking on UKIP and sending the message to voters considering the LDs that the LDs are a very europhile party. Previous surveys prior to 2010 had often found that LD voters were almost split 50/50 between pro and anti the EU. Clegg's stance would not have helped shore up the vote. The anti-EU LD2010 voters probably took notice and decided they did not want to vote for them anymore.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
So Leavers can campaign for Leave, but Remainers can't campaign for Remain.
Yes, I can see why Leavers might feel that sounds reasonable.
A nice soundbite, but not what I said.
Remainers can do what they want. But Cameron has endangered the future of the Tory party by so vehemently backing a weak deal.
I'm not entirely sure why you like to keep pointing out false inconsistencies Alastair. Listen to members (or ex-members) here to see the reaction amongst the party. Witness the huge number of non-payroll MPs who have come out for Leave. Witness the discomfort by some of those who plumped for Leave likely because of expectations of a result, and a future leadership, that now look terribly in doubt.
And, again, I was on the fence until the 'deal'. I benefit from Remain. Leave will cost me money.
I should be about as reluctant a Leaver as can be.
Thinking the £150 usually going to the local party at this time of year might be better in Vote Leave's coffers; for the good of the Tory party as much as anything....
It's pretty much exactly what you said. Your complaint is that the Prime Minister is a formidable campaigner. Therefore you want him on your side or effectively muzzled. It's noteworthy that you didn't say that you expected him to stay quiet if he had hypothetically walked away and backed Leave. But you did expect him to rise above it once he'd backed Remain.
Why on earth should the Prime Minister not be able to campaign vigorously for the deal that he evidently thinks is the right thing for Britain?
Go back and read it Alastair.
You're assuming I think it is wrong for him to campaign. I don't think anything of the kind.
I said it has created his party a tremendous headache. I note you're choosing not to dispute that, but instead suggest I said something else.
He's a leader. He's supposed to lead. If Leavers are too immature to deal with that, you should be turning your ire on them, not him.
I've said it before, and will likely say it again.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
So Leavers can campaign for Leave, but Remainers can't campaign for Remain.
Yes, I can see why Leavers might feel that sounds reasonable.
A nice soundbite, but not what I said.
Remainers can do what they want. But Cameron has endangered the future of the Tory party by so vehemently backing a weak deal.
I'm not entirely sure why you like to keep pointing out false inconsistencies Alastair. Listen to members (or ex-members) here to see the reaction amongst the party. Witness the huge number of non-payroll MPs who have come out for Leave. Witness the discomfort by some of those who plumped for Leave likely because of expectations of a result, and a future leadership, that now look terribly in doubt.
And, again, I was on the fence until the 'deal'. I benefit from Remain. Leave will cost me money.
I should be about as reluctant a Leaver as can be.
Thinking the £150 usually going to the local party at this time of year might be better in Vote Leave's coffers; for the good of the Tory party as much as anything....
It's pretty much exactly what you said. Your complaint is that the Prime Minister is a formidable campaigner. Therefore you want him on your side or effectively muzzled. It's noteworthy that you didn't say that you expected him to stay quiet if he had hypothetically walked away and backed Leave. But you did expect him to rise above it once he'd backed Remain.
Why on earth should the Prime Minister not be able to campaign vigorously for the deal that he evidently thinks is the right thing for Britain?
Because he said the EU needed to be reformed and he wanted to stay in a reformed EU, but he's failed to reform it. By now so strongly backing Remain, he's given the lie to his behaviour before the renegotiation.
I can't see how the GOP can choose any of the withdrawn candidates - they completely failed to win the vote after all. So that leaves the other two - but how on earth do you explain that you're going with the less popular man?
Somehow to invent a candidate anew is troubled as well. Romney? McCain? Palin?!!
I've stopped betting on this, because I have quite enough. I think I must be wrong somehow, but I've yet to see an explanation.
As I see it unless someone is able to disable Trump by finding some reason why he's ineligible, then he sort of has to be it.
In your list of options, you've left out the white knight. The only obvious candidate is Paul Ryan. I think it is a minuscule possibility, but it is the only one other than the three left on the ballots.
Sorry yes. Ryan is the clear leader in the 'candidate anew' field. His 'count me out' stuff probably suggests he'd not be averse too.
If it gets that far though anyone's possible. Were you born in the US at all MTimT?
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
They stayed the full term.
Except Dave isn't staying the full term. Every Tory MP knows a leadership contest is coming.
Why retain a lame duck for three more years who might very well have pissed off almost half the party?
I wasn't aware that the PM had determined not to stay full term. Cameron with the full powers of his office will go when he is good and ready. We don't do lame duck PM's within our constitution.
Barack Obama has said the Panama Papers are a reminder that "tax avoidance is a big global problem".
"A lot of it's legal, but that's exactly the problem. It's not that they're breaking the laws it's that the laws are so poorly designed that they allow people if they've got enough lawyers and enough accountants to wiggle out of responsibilities that ordinary citizens are having to abide by," he said from the White House.
So Barry when you going to do something about Delaware?
Mr. Eagles, ahem. The local elections aren't a referendum on Cameron. The relative performance of Corbyn et al. also rather matters.
I can assure you the Cameron haters on here and at UKIPHome would be saying topple Cameron if we were to lose seats next month because of his actions over the EU referendum
Maggie gained council seats as late as 1989. Didn't stop her leadership still going on a neverending slide after that.
Dave is at the peak of his powers, Maggie was on the wane at that time, had Willie Whitelaw not fallen ill, she would not have been toppled in 1990.
I don't actually agree with that. Dave was at the peak of his powers in the 4 months after GE2015.
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
Just imagine if he wins the referendum 60% to 40%, another election/referendum he has won.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. The margin of victory doesn't help him here, if anything it'll increase the resentment.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
They stayed the full term.
Except Dave isn't staying the full term. Every Tory MP knows a leadership contest is coming.
Why retain a lame duck for three more years who might very well have pissed off almost half the party?
I wasn't aware that the PM had determined not to stay full term. Cameron with the full powers of his office will go when he is good and ready. We don't do lame duck PM's within our constitution.
I can't see how the GOP can choose any of the withdrawn candidates - they completely failed to win the vote after all. So that leaves the other two - but how on earth do you explain that you're going with the less popular man?
Somehow to invent a candidate anew is troubled as well. Romney? McCain? Palin?!!
I've stopped betting on this, because I have quite enough. I think I must be wrong somehow, but I've yet to see an explanation.
As I see it unless someone is able to disable Trump by finding some reason why he's ineligible, then he sort of has to be it.
In your list of options, you've left out the white knight. The only obvious candidate is Paul Ryan. I think it is a minuscule possibility, but it is the only one other than the three left on the ballots.
Sorry yes. Ryan is the clear leader in the 'candidate anew' field. His 'count me out' stuff probably suggests he'd not be averse too.
If it gets that far though anyone's possible. Were you born in the US at all MTimT?
Nope. Permanent resident these last 19 years, now in MD, but born in Plymouth (Devon, not one of the 47 in the USA) out of Cornish stock. As one interviewer prior to joining the FCO noted - 'snuck across the border'.
Comments
One question...Cameron said he owns 1 house. What about the one iin Oxfordshire?
or even "will not benefit".
I can see why Cameron wants to retire early.
The Betfair market is bonkers at times!
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/
Clinton 43 .. Trump 46
Clinton 40 .. Cruz 51
Clinton 37 .. Kasich 52
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/MS316Poll.pdf
Ivan VI (1741)
Peter III (1762)
Paul I (1801)
Alexander II (1881)
Nicholas II (1918)
Until a couple of weeks ago I would have pretty much agreed with the forecast in the thread but I believe now that Labour will do a little better than the forecast number of losses and the Conservatives and UKIP a little worse . Public sentiment has turned against the government over the budget and Port Talbot though not ( yet ) to the extent that they will vote for anyone to show their displeasure .
Re UKIP it is quite possible that UKIP will actually end up net losing seats . They.are defending relatively few but they have to defend 12 in Rotherham because there are allout elections there and though they will do better than in 2012 they may lose 5 or 6 of their seats . They won 0 in 2012 , 10 in 2014 and only 2 in 2015 .
One other questionable point is how gains/losses will be treated in councils with all out elections on new boundaries .
Take for example Winchester currently Con 33 LD 22 Lab 2 councillors . A reasonable forecast for the new council which has 12 fewer councillors is Con 25 LD 20 . Con -8 Lab and LD -2 each . However Labour would not have had any councillors with the new boundaries anyway as the one ward they have is dismembered and split between other wards . Have Labour lost 2 councillors or not ? How will the official gains and losses be calculated on a council such as this ?
A man, a PM, a jam: Panama!
"It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_of_Russia.PNG
He had 10% of the whole Icelandic population on the streets calling for his head. No one can survive that level of political protest.
Isn't it traditional to put them in either the wife's or mother's maiden name to throw investigating journos off the scent?
Since February he has started to look weaker and is possibly now more politically vulnerable than anytime since 2007.
He'll send Osborne to the Foreign Office, Gove as Chancellor and a general reconciliation reshuffle.
I prefer: know your subject, carefully research the client's problem, listen and offer a well-considered solution.
Hopefully you don't make a fool of yourself but it never ceases to amaze me how just one misplaced or carelessly chosen word can derail an entire presentation to a client, despite everything else having merit.
The new head of world football has been caught up in the sport’s corruption scandal because of documents that have been revealed by the Panama Papers leak.
Files seen by the Guardian will raise questions about the role Fifa’s president, Gianni Infantino, played in deals that were concluded when he was director of legal services at Uefa, European football’s governing body.
According to records, Uefa concluded offshore deals with one of the indicted figures at the heart of an alleged “World Cup of fraud” despite previously insisting it had no dealings with any of them.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/05/panama-papers-pull-fifa-uefa-chief-gianni-infantino-corruption-scandal
Hammond or May as Chancellor works, though.
if he wins he'll breathe a huge sigh of relief and he and George will go back to closing down businesses as usual.
He said Dave had given us a referendum, he proposed a question, let the electoral commission change it, let cabinet ministers and MPs campaign against him.
Whatever the outcome, he will thankful for the PM for giving the country the option to Leave the EU, and it was up to him [Bone] and the Leavers to win it.
Osborne will go full caporegime and be dishing out punishment kneecappings to anyone that ever dared to doubt him.
It's business, nothing personal etc.
It's the manner in which he campaigns that's key. Look at how the LDs acted after their crushing AV defeat.
The Conservative leadership simply cannot go around duffing up everyone they hate after the referendum result. Numbers are far too tight.
I've always considered the 'awkward squad' and 'bastards' to be labels applied by patronising careerist politicians who are shown up by true patriots.
Basically, the current leadership is in awful shape no matter what the result of the referendum. If Leave win, they're politically vaporised. If Remain win by any margin, there will be a body of Leaver MPs who will be profoundly alienated from their leadership and looking to sabotage it at every corner.
I might write a thread about this.
If Vote Leave becomes the official leave campaign, then it will be a more of a calmer, rational debate, as it will be Dave v Gove kinda situations, where there will be mutual respect.
If Arron Banks lot get it, then Dave will be campaigning very differently, as the Banks strategy is going to be talk about immigration and put Farage front and centre, and make it about Cameron.
The world needs a snopes type source for current affairs to counter the guff that fills most newspapers and sites
Osborne made a calculation he could take Conservative support for granted off the back of the GE2015 and use the election of Corbyn to dress to the Left.
He was wrong.
I think Osborne/Cameron have missed the Lib Dems. It is interesting to consider how different things now might be if they effectively considered themselves in coalition with their own party, and ran a "Quad" equivalent too.
As much as I have admired, associated with and campaigned for DC, he has created a tremendous headache for his party by not walking away from the 'deal' in February and backing Leave or, accepting it gracefully and emulating May and rising above it.
Oh, and I have still not renewed my membership.
I liked this article;
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/05/reports_of_trumps_demise_are_premature_130186.html
I can't see how the GOP can choose any of the withdrawn candidates - they completely failed to win the vote after all. So that leaves the other two - but how on earth do you explain that you're going with the less popular man?
Somehow to invent a candidate anew is troubled as well. Romney? McCain? Palin?!!
I've stopped betting on this, because I have quite enough. I think I must be wrong somehow, but I've yet to see an explanation.
As I see it unless someone is able to disable Trump by finding some reason why he's ineligible, then he sort of has to be it.
Yes, I can see why Leavers might feel that sounds reasonable.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/sigma-have-nobody-to-love-eu#.muEeY53JP
Remainers can do what they want. But Cameron has endangered the future of the Tory party by so vehemently backing a weak deal.
I'm not entirely sure why you like to keep pointing out false inconsistencies Alastair. Listen to members (or ex-members) here to see the reaction amongst the party. Witness the huge number of non-payroll MPs who have come out for Leave. Witness the discomfort displayed by some of those who plumped for Leave likely because of expectations of a result, and a future leadership, that now look terribly in doubt.
And, again, I was on the fence until the 'deal'. I benefit from Remain. Leave will cost me money.
I should be about as reluctant a Leaver as can be, yet I'm thinking that the £150 usually going to the local party at this time of year might be better in Vote Leave's coffers; for the good of the Tory party as much as anything....
Why on earth should the Prime Minister not be able to campaign vigorously for the deal that he evidently thinks is the right thing for Britain?
It really is that simple.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/35960340
The problem in deciding is that there's no debate. I've yet to read, hear, or watch, a single thing which takes the facts and tries to balance them. I can only balance the clod-hopping ignorance of Leave with the blind-faith of Remain. If there was a third option I'd be rallying to their cause.
You're assuming I think it is wrong for him to campaign. I don't think anything of the kind.
I said it has created his party a tremendous headache. I note you're choosing not to dispute that, but instead suggest I said something else.
Why retain a lame duck for three more years who might very well have pissed off almost half the party?
Because the majority of it do not agree with him.
Either way it doesn't look good.
Lab to Con 4.5% , Lab to LD 5% and Con to LD 0.5%.Such swings fit with the seat changes forecast.
However find it difficult to square the figures with national opinion poll shifts from 2012 to 201
Using ICM shares for the month of April for 2012 and latest Mch 2016 produces the following figures
Con 36(v 39) ,Lab 36(v36() and LD 8(v 15)
This gives swings of Con to Lab 1.5%,LD to Con 2% and LD to lab 3.5%.
Compared to ENVS one would expect Lab to make small gains from Con and LD and Con to make small gains from LD.
My forecast would be results somewhere between the two methods - Con no change, Lab -40 ,LD no change, UKIP +40.
One conclusion any Labour losses will not be big enough to depose Corbyn
There is one possible danger for Labour in filling the airwaves arguing for the EU. That is they do risk reinforcing the message in their core wwc support that they are pro EU and pro immigration. The type of penalty of associating with a view unpopular in large parts of the wwc, immigration. Just as SLAB hurt them selves by their strong backing of the union. Another example is that Clegg tried to shore up the LD vote in the 2014 EU elections by taking on UKIP and sending the message to voters considering the LDs that the LDs are a very europhile party. Previous surveys prior to 2010 had often found that LD voters were almost split 50/50 between pro and anti the EU. Clegg's stance would not have helped shore up the vote. The anti-EU LD2010 voters probably took notice and decided they did not want to vote for them anymore.
If it gets that far though anyone's possible. Were you born in the US at all MTimT?
Gordon Brown - October 2007 to May 2010
????