Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
But it's far from certain that the boundary changes are even going to go through. Even on the most favourable changes, a cut of 50 MPs will mean some Tory MPs losing their seats, and it seems a bit naive to expect anyone to vote themselves into redundancy.
and into HoL one suspects.
But the Tories are committed to reducing the powers of the HoL. Why would a Tory MP want to massively trade down their own power and influence by moving from the Commons to the Lords?
Merkel appears to have sacrificed free speech in order to save the EU-Turkey migrant deal, which was in turn a result of the migrant problem she helped create. - die dumme Kuh.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
What about Welsh Assembly elections. Come on that's the biggy, surely.
Nah, as someone once put it, the voting system in Wales means Labour will always be the largest party, even if they only get the votes of 3 men and a lamb in Wrexham
Corbyn's ideal scenario is 1. The UK votes Remain by the narrowest of margins 2. Some Tory Leave voters shift to UKIP 3. The Tories pick Osborne after Osborne manages to exclude Boris from the final ballot Even Corbyn could win then. Admittedly a combination of all 3 is unlikely
The MPs are just not going to pick Osborne as he will lose many of them their seats at the GE. This will be the factor upper most in their minds.
Depends on how much that is balanced by the powers of patronage and thoughts of who is going to win
If they don't pick Osborne he has no powers of patronage, and so isnt a threat, its the safe move if you have someone prone to making threats. It's a secret ballot so it's not like there will be any personal comeback, everyone will assure him of their support, and then vote for someone else.
It depends if Osborne has effectively rigged the election to ensure he wins regardless, perhaps by getting so many early declarations the membership are not even consulted
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
What worries me is if we end up with Osborne somehow then Labour will sense they have a chance and get their act together. By then most of the £3 "activists" will have given up and Labour would get a very easy win vs Osborne. As I have said many, many times - people really loathe him. When the economy was growing and deficit falling, they loathed him, but respected that he could get the job done. Now they just hate him.
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
That does not prevent the SNP propping up a Corbyn minority government and of course Corbyn does not have to win over many Tory voters if Tory voters start to switch to UKIP
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
7) The once mighty Merkel being turfed out on her ear.
Article 10 of the European Convention On Human Rights:
"Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
I can't easily square the prosecution of a satirist with this provision. "Necessary" implies a "pressing social need".
Corbyn's big negative is that he is not a good speaker. And he doesn't look like a smooth PR type which we now associate with PM material.
If he could speak and project himself like Cameron he would be a winner. His policies and values in general are more popular than the Tories.
Yeah, of course: being friendly with terrorists is definitely popular with the British.
If a poll were to ask "Do you think Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser or is friendly with terrorists?", what percentage do you think would answer yes? My guess is a very small minority - mainly Tory activists.
Trotting out old pictures of Corbyn alongside Gerry Adams, or video of him arguing for a trial rather than summary execution for Bin Laden will not convince people that he is a terrorist sympathiser. It might convince voters that the people who keep repeating "terrorist sympathiser" are either right-wingers with a bee in their bonnet or paid up members of the Tory election machine.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
But it's far from certain that the boundary changes are even going to go through. Even on the most favourable changes, a cut of 50 MPs will mean some Tory MPs losing their seats, and it seems a bit naive to expect anyone to vote themselves into redundancy.
and into HoL one suspects.
But the Tories are committed to reducing the powers of the HoL. Why would a Tory MP want to massively trade down their own power and influence by moving from the Commons to the Lords?
Given natural retirements, and a bit of shuffling into adjacent seats, and the fact that esp in the Tory heavy East and S East not that many seats are actually being abolished the numbers of potentially unemployed Tory MP's without a chair when the music stops will probably be fairly limited. I would be amazed if Tory high command were not having the odd lunch with good wine right now suggesting a peerage or two for the fine work done over the years, or maybe an ambassadorship of a nice Caribbean island, or head of the Forestry Commission or something else to smooth the way. If not, they're crap at their job and should be. Hell, they found a gig for (Sir? - genuinely can't remember) Danny Alexander in Beijing, to make sure he didn't have to write press releases in the Cairngorms again.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
What worries me is if we end up with Osborne somehow then Labour will sense they have a chance and get their act together. By then most of the £3 "activists" will have given up and Labour would get a very easy win vs Osborne. As I have said many, many times - people really loathe him. When the economy was growing and deficit falling, they loathed him, but respected that he could get the job done. Now they just hate him.
I know I'm far too close to the Cameroon wing of the Tory Party, but like them, I would say, Osborne has had ratings before (which Chancellor implementing austerity wouldn't?) and recovered.
But it was less than a year ago that the Tories won in part because of George Osborne as Chancellor.
Given the past few weeks Osborne has endured, his ratings aren't a surprise.
He can recover, and if Remain wins comfortably, then the EU issue is negated for a while, the economy and Osborne go on the rise.
Dave steps down in 2018, and the final two are say Osborne v Liam Fox or Owen Paterson, Osborne could still do it.
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
But it's far from certain that the boundary changes are even going to go through. Even on the most favourable changes, a cut of 50 MPs will mean some Tory MPs losing their seats, and it seems a bit naive to expect anyone to vote themselves into redundancy.
and into HoL one suspects.
But the Tories are committed to reducing the powers of the HoL. Why would a Tory MP want to massively trade down their own power and influence by moving from the Commons to the Lords?
I don't think that's a manifesto commitment is it? Wasn't it an 'aspiration' included as a carrot to the Lib Dems?
For an MP in their sixties or seventies who enjoys Westminster but is now bored by the endless constituent paperwork, events, party meetings and so on, a seat in the Lords would be a pleasant semi-retirement.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
Corbyn now has a poll lead, Labour can hardly ditch him at the moment.
Of those only 5 is certain and 1 and 6 50/50 at best, the rest unlikely this year
Article 10 of the European Convention On Human Rights:
"Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
I can't easily square the prosecution of a satirist with this provision. "Necessary" implies a "pressing social need".
Which is what my friend in the CDU said. Even if he gets convicted in Germany it will go to Strasbourg and the comedian will win, it violates basic freedom of expression laws in Europe to prosecute someone for satire. I don't know why Merkel didn't just do as he said and many people suggested to her apparently.
Article 10 of the European Convention On Human Rights:
"Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
I can't easily square the prosecution of a satirist with this provision. "Necessary" implies a "pressing social need".
Just got a message from a German friend in the CDU saying that this is the end of Merkel. He doesn't understand why she didn't hand it over to the justice department and have them say that prosecution would be in violation of EU law or something a few weeks down the line.
If Merkel goes it will be very good news for Remain. She's practically the personification of the migrant crisis. The crisis is waning anyway, but her presence was a sorry reminder of it. Out of the way, things can move on and the EU will finally look as if it's got a grip. There'd also be lots of delicious footage of tall Dave greeting her successor in Downing Street, looking cool, elegant, in control.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
What about Welsh Assembly elections. Come on that's the biggy, surely.
Nah, as someone once put it, the voting system in Wales means Labour will always be the largest party, even if they only get the votes of 3 men and a lamb in Wrexham
Lambs are under 18 and can't vote. I'd have thought that was obvious.........
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
Corbyn now has a poll lead, Labour can hardly ditch him at the moment.
Of those only 5 is certain and 1 and 6 50/50 at best, the rest unlikely this year
And? IDS had a poll lead less than a month before the Tories ditched him
"11. Believes that a principal objective should be to move towards permanently pooled multinational military units, joint defence forces and the framing of a common defence policy which should ultimately lead to a European Defence Union; demands, in this regard, the establishment of a permanent EU military headquarters to improve military crisis management capability, and ensure contingency planning and the interoperability of forces and equipment; calls on the Member States to reinforce defence cooperation collectively, bilaterally and in regional clusters; supports the adoption of a White Paper on EU Defence, based on the EU Global Strategy;"
"The referendum is destroying the Conservatives’ image with the public."
I think Mr Meeks´ first conclusion needs a gloss on it.
Caameron´s image is not being destroyed by the holding of a referendum. Nor by the fact that he is on the side of Remain.
It is being destroyed by the way he has chosen to fight it.
He has shown himself to be thoroughly unscrupulous, unprincipled and vicious.
Lib Dems knew that before. So did Labour supporters. But this side of Cameron is new to many Conservative supporters, whose cause (Leave) is being trashed by Cameron´s vindictive machine.
So an overwhelming majority of the electorate now recognise Cameron for what he really is. And that is why his carefully cultivated image is now thoroughly tarnished.
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
That does not prevent the SNP propping up a Corbyn minority government and of course Corbyn does not have to win over many Tory voters if Tory voters start to switch to UKIP
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Article 10 of the European Convention On Human Rights:
"Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
I can't easily square the prosecution of a satirist with this provision. "Necessary" implies a "pressing social need".
Which is what my friend in the CDU said. Even if he gets convicted in Germany it will go to Strasbourg and the comedian will win, it violates basic freedom of expression laws in Europe to prosecute someone for satire. I don't know why Merkel didn't just do as he said and many people suggested to her apparently.
Does it not also mean that the stupid German law in question is itself not compatible with the ECHR?
Also, it's worth bearing in mind that, by 2020, no Tory leader except Cameron will even have got MORE THAN 200 SEATS in nearly 30 years #justsaying
And no Labour leader not called Blair has got more than about 35% since 1979, and nobody born after 1859 has been a Liberal PM.
Lloyd George?
I need your advice, for Sunday's thread, I feature Sir Robert Peel quite heavily, I'm not wrong in describing him as a true One Nation Tory long before Disraeli coined the term?
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
Article 10 of the European Convention On Human Rights:
"Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
I can't easily square the prosecution of a satirist with this provision. "Necessary" implies a "pressing social need".
The qualifications to A10 render it toothless. Much rather "member states shall make no law abridging freedom of speech". An abridgement of the rights of the sovereign, rather than a qualified right bestowed by it.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
Just got a message from a German friend in the CDU saying that this is the end of Merkel. He doesn't understand why she didn't hand it over to the justice department and have them say that prosecution would be in violation of EU law or something a few weeks down the line.
If Merkel goes it will be very good news for Remain. She's practically the personification of the migrant crisis. The crisis is waning anyway, but her presence was a sorry reminder of it. Out of the way, things can move on and the EU will finally look as if it's got a grip. There'd also be lots of delicious footage of tall Dave greeting her successor in Downing Street, looking cool, elegant, in control.
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
That does not prevent the SNP propping up a Corbyn minority government and of course Corbyn does not have to win over many Tory voters if Tory voters start to switch to UKIP
I think the likelihood of Con-UKIP floating voters deciding they'd rather let Corbyn come to power rather than vote Conservative is about 0%. I know these people.
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
But it's far from certain that the boundary changes are even going to go through. Even on the most favourable changes, a cut of 50 MPs will mean some Tory MPs losing their seats, and it seems a bit naive to expect anyone to vote themselves into redundancy.
and into HoL one suspects.
But the Tories are committed to reducing the powers of the HoL. Why would a Tory MP want to massively trade down their own power and influence by moving from the Commons to the Lords?
Given natural retirements, and a bit of shuffling into adjacent seats, and the fact that esp in the Tory heavy East and S East not that many seats are actually being abolished the numbers of potentially unemployed Tory MP's without a chair when the music stops will probably be fairly limited. I would be amazed if Tory high command were not having the odd lunch with good wine right now suggesting a peerage or two for the fine work done over the years, or maybe an ambassadorship of a nice Caribbean island, or head of the Forestry Commission or something else to smooth the way. If not, they're crap at their job and should be. Hell, they found a gig for (Sir? - genuinely can't remember) Danny Alexander in Beijing, to make sure he didn't have to write press releases in the Cairngorms again.
The number of potentially unemployed Tory MPs might well be fairly limited, but there only needs to be a very limited number of Tory rebels (around 10) for the boundary changes to be thrown out.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Not necessarily, as will be the subject of a thread tomorrow.
Just got a message from a German friend in the CDU saying that this is the end of Merkel. He doesn't understand why she didn't hand it over to the justice department and have them say that prosecution would be in violation of EU law or something a few weeks down the line.
If Merkel goes it will be very good news for Remain. She's practically the personification of the migrant crisis. The crisis is waning anyway, but her presence was a sorry reminder of it. Out of the way, things can move on and the EU will finally look as if it's got a grip. There'd also be lots of delicious footage of tall Dave greeting her successor in Downing Street, looking cool, elegant, in control.
I know I'm far too close to the Cameroon wing of the Tory Party, but like them, I would say, Osborne has had ratings before (which Chancellor implementing austerity wouldn't?) and recovered.
But it was less than a year ago that the Tories won in part because of George Osborne as Chancellor.
Given the past few weeks Osborne has endured, his ratings aren't a surprise.
He can recover, and if Remain wins comfortably, then the EU issue is negated for a while, the economy and Osborne go on the rise.
Dave steps down in 2018, and the final two are say Osborne v Liam Fox or Owen Paterson, Osborne could still do it.
Yes, he could still become leader, but he would go on to lose to whoever Labour puts up against him once they realise Osborne is a much easier target than Dave.
Osborne recovered last time because the BoE bailed him out with massive monetary stimulus and record low interest rates combined with the top of the economic cycle. No such bailout will be forthcoming or even possible this time. If the economy crashes he will own it as the man in charge of the it for the last 6 years. For Osborne, there just isn't time to recover, not if he stays on as chancellor. If he took a sideways move to the FCO then he might recover enough by 2018.
On the economy specifically, we are 7 years into the current boom cycle, the data is all overwhelmingly negative and we have a 7% current account deficit while unsecured debt is rising at a record pace. Osborne was the man in charge and oversaw the lack of fundamental supply side reforms. I don't see any path back for Osborne that relies on the economy, it won't come to his aid, mainly because he didn't make the necessary reforms after 13 years of sclerotic Labour government.
I'm a supporter of Cameron and consider myself to be pretty liberal, but I could never vote for Osborne, he represents everything that our party needs to get away from.
Corbyn's ratings remain poor. The ratings of prominent Conservatives have fallen sharply, but that always happens, once the honeymoon period of a government is over.
Labour are - at best - level pegging with the Conservatives, which is not good news for an Opposition at this stage.
Labour look as though they'll be going backwards in Scotland and Wales in May, and probably heading for a net loss of council seats. Winning the Mayoralty doesn't make up for that.
Unless the Conservatives completely implode, normal swingback will see them home in 2020.
If Labour replace Corbyn before 2020 with someone you can't describe as a terrorist sympathiser (yes I'm thinking of Dan Jarvis) then the Tories are screwed
Corbyn is a no-hoper as PM but I suspect he knows that, I feel certain he will voluntarily stand down a couple of years before the GE to let a more electable standard bearer take over. I think the certainty with which the Tories think they will be able to pick any leader they like because anyone would beat Corbyn in 2020 could be a major misjudgement.
If the Tories ditch Cameron for a right wing Brexiter and then Labour switch to someone like Dan Jarvis we would be looking at an entirely different GE outcome.
Article 10 of the European Convention On Human Rights:
"Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
I can't easily square the prosecution of a satirist with this provision. "Necessary" implies a "pressing social need".
Well, is he any good? There are a number of so called alternative comedians....
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
That does not prevent the SNP propping up a Corbyn minority government and of course Corbyn does not have to win over many Tory voters if Tory voters start to switch to UKIP
Still got to lose a hell of a lot of seats....
Not impossible. Just difficult.
Labour is on 34% the Tories 31% with yougov this week, that is a swing of 5% to Labour since the election. That would see Labour pick up 48 seats from the Tories, and almost neck and neck with the Tories on MPs overall and would comfortably give Corbyn enough to be able to form a government with the backing of 56 SNP MPs
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
But it's far from certain that the boundary changes are even going to go through. Even on the most favourable changes, a cut of 50 MPs will mean some Tory MPs losing their seats, and it seems a bit naive to expect anyone to vote themselves into redundancy.
and into HoL one suspects.
But the Tories are committed to reducing the powers of the HoL. Why would a Tory MP want to massively trade down their own power and influence by moving from the Commons to the Lords?
I don't think that's a manifesto commitment is it? Wasn't it an 'aspiration' included as a carrot to the Lib Dems?
For an MP in their sixties or seventies who enjoys Westminster but is now bored by the endless constituent paperwork, events, party meetings and so on, a seat in the Lords would be a pleasant semi-retirement.
They said as recently as a few months ago, after the tax credits fiasco, that they were planning to severely curb the Lords' ability to affect legislation.
And the thing is that there are actually surprisingly few Tory MPs in their sixties and seventies, because such a high proportion of them were only elected for the first time in either 2010 or 2015. Unless they were planning to retire anyway, I can't for the life of me see why they would volunteer to get much less pay and much less influence on policy.
On topic, no, Labour under Corbyn will be unelectable as long as the Conservatives have someone even vaguely credible - not least because they will already be PM. Gove or Osborne would beat Corbyn despite their personal ratings because they are PM material and he isn't.
That doesn't mean the Conservatives should indulge in five years of infighting - the electorate does have limits to its tolerance - but being in the middle of one of those periods of infighting right now is not a representative place for the whole of the parliament.
The position is somewhat different to the Cameron-Miliband one in two important ways. First, Corbyn has a much larger base of enthusiasts than Ed did (despite the Milifans). who are pretty impervious to the "Corbyn spoke at a Sinn Fein meeting in 1984" stuff. That gives him a floor of say 28-30%, which in weeks where he's doing well floats up to the mid-30s. The Tory belief that they can just press is "soft on terrorism" button and the support will collapse is mistaken.
Second, it's simply wrong to think that being a PM is always an asset. Governments have a finite lifespan and there are limits to how far they can outlive it. Labour would have won in 1997 under Corbyn, simply because people were utterly fed up with the Conservatives - just as Labour would have lost in 2015 under a a superb leader, because the electorate felt that the party was exhausted and out of ideas.
The combination of the two means that if the Tories choose a leader who turns out badly, they're likely to lose in 2020. If they decide they can be self-indulgent because they're siure to win, more power to their elbow.
On Germany, I posted the position on the last thread based on the press this morning (I'm still in Berlin) - the general view in the German press and letters seems to be that the satire was arguably crude and unfunny but that the satirist shouldn't be prosecuted (82% of a poll this morning). Also, the prosecution does require Merkel consent, though it also requires a specific complaint, which hasn't arisen in recent memory (not sure if it ever has, in fact). However, it's up to the judge to decide whether it should in fact happen, and a common view here is that in the end it will be left to the parallel private libel suit to resolve.
I don't get the impression that it's causing a firestorm in the general public - Twitter is even less representative here than it is in the UK - it's seen as an unpleasant bit of realpolitik in the context of avoiding a new flood of migrants.
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
But it's far from certain that the boundary changes are even going to go through. Even on the most favourable changes, a cut of 50 MPs will mean some Tory MPs losing their seats, and it seems a bit naive to expect anyone to vote themselves into redundancy.
and into HoL one suspects.
But the Tories are committed to reducing the powers of the HoL. Why would a Tory MP want to massively trade down their own power and influence by moving from the Commons to the Lords?
Given natural retirements, and a bit of shuffling into adjacent seats, and the fact that esp in the Tory heavy East and S East not that many seats are actually being abolished the numbers of potentially unemployed Tory MP's without a chair when the music stops will probably be fairly limited. I would be amazed if Tory high command were not having the odd lunch with good wine right now suggesting a peerage or two for the fine work done over the years, or maybe an ambassadorship of a nice Caribbean island, or head of the Forestry Commission or something else to smooth the way. If not, they're crap at their job and should be. Hell, they found a gig for (Sir? - genuinely can't remember) Danny Alexander in Beijing, to make sure he didn't have to write press releases in the Cairngorms again.
The number of potentially unemployed Tory MPs might well be fairly limited, but there only needs to be a very limited number of Tory rebels (around 10) for the boundary changes to be thrown out.
So they need to find about ten jobs tops as "Baron Deepwoodsman", or "HM Ambassador to Antigua" or as "Deputy Chair of a UN agency with a penthouse flat overlooking lake Geneva and only 30mins from Verbier - your wife's a keen skier I believe" or whatever. It shouldn't be hard if they put their minds to it.
What worries me about this new hold Erdogan has over Merkel is where it ends. More money? Entry into Schengen? EU membership?
A few weeks ago I didn't think it was possible for Turkey to enter the EU, but if they really do have the Germans in their pocket as this suggests it does change the picture a fair bit.
Just got a message from a German friend in the CDU saying that this is the end of Merkel. He doesn't understand why she didn't hand it over to the justice department and have them say that prosecution would be in violation of EU law or something a few weeks down the line.
If Merkel goes it will be very good news for Remain. She's practically the personification of the migrant crisis. The crisis is waning anyway, but her presence was a sorry reminder of it. Out of the way, things can move on and the EU will finally look as if it's got a grip. There'd also be lots of delicious footage of tall Dave greeting her successor in Downing Street, looking cool, elegant, in control.
Just got a message from a German friend in the CDU saying that this is the end of Merkel. He doesn't understand why she didn't hand it over to the justice department and have them say that prosecution would be in violation of EU law or something a few weeks down the line.
If Merkel goes it will be very good news for Remain. She's practically the personification of the migrant crisis. The crisis is waning anyway, but her presence was a sorry reminder of it. Out of the way, things can move on and the EU will finally look as if it's got a grip. There'd also be lots of delicious footage of tall Dave greeting her successor in Downing Street, looking cool, elegant, in control.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
Labour were polling around 42% with Yougov in April 2011. They've a very long way to go to be a contender in an election.
The difference between now and then is EU ref which is already beginning to see Tory voters shifting to UKIP and of course Cameron was leading the Tories at that time and in 2015, he is still leading the Tories now, he will not be at the next election
Also, it's worth bearing in mind that, by 2020, no Tory leader except Cameron will even have got MORE THAN 200 SEATS in nearly 30 years #justsaying
And no Labour leader not called Blair has got more than about 35% since 1979, and nobody born after 1859 has been a Liberal PM.
Lloyd George?
I need your advice, for Sunday's thread, I feature Sir Robert Peel quite heavily, I'm not wrong in describing him as a true One Nation Tory long before Disraeli coined the term?
It's not a period I'm all that familiar with although I do have Hurd's biography of Peel waiting to be read. I think describing Peel as a proto-One Nation Tory is a pretty fair assessment though. I'm not sure I'd agree with the use of "long before" in your comment though. Disraeli wrote "Sybil, or The Two Nations" in 1845, when Peel was PM and the debate over the Corn Laws was raging. But Peel's record of social legislation and his willingness to adapt to the new reality after 1832 (the Tamworth Manifesto and all that), do mark him out as a forerunner of Disraeli in that sense.
I rather suspect that Peel's heart was in those beliefs though whereas Disraeli trimmed his policies to the exigencies of electoral popularity.
... Labour would have won in 1997 under Corbyn, simply because people were utterly fed up with the Conservatives - just as Labour would have lost in 2015 under a a superb leader, because the electorate felt that the party was exhausted and out of ideas. ...
I think you've misread your history there. I don't think there would have been a snowflake's chance in hell of Labour winning in 1997 under Corbyn, or anyone else from the extreme left. The reason Labour won in 1997 and not in 1992 has little to do with voters being more fed up with the Conservatives in 1997; they were already fed up by 1992, and the poll tax was still fresh in their minds. What changed was Labour becoming electable, and that wasn't chance, or even just Blair personally - it was the whole party deciding to turn its back on Corbyn-like politics, and working extremely hard to address voters' concerns about Labour.
Equally, I think Labour were not doomed in 2015, although it was always going to be a tough gig. Choosing Ed Miliband showed they were not serious, and voters took the hint.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Not necessarily, as will be the subject of a thread tomorrow.
Unless Trump's delegates defect en masse to Cruz, which is not going to happen, then that is the only alternative
Just got a message from a German friend in the CDU saying that this is the end of Merkel. He doesn't understand why she didn't hand it over to the justice department and have them say that prosecution would be in violation of EU law or something a few weeks down the line.
If Merkel goes it will be very good news for Remain. She's practically the personification of the migrant crisis. The crisis is waning anyway, but her presence was a sorry reminder of it. Out of the way, things can move on and the EU will finally look as if it's got a grip. There'd also be lots of delicious footage of tall Dave greeting her successor in Downing Street, looking cool, elegant, in control.
What worries me about this new hold Erdogan has over Merkel is where it ends. More money? Entry into Schengen? EU membership?
A few weeks ago I didn't think it was possible for Turkey to enter the EU, but if they really do have the Germans in their pocket as this suggests it does change the picture a fair bit.
That's pure hyperbole. This decision will be worse for Erdogan in the end than if she had blocked the case from proceeding.
Also, it's worth bearing in mind that, by 2020, no Tory leader except Cameron will even have got MORE THAN 200 SEATS in nearly 30 years #justsaying
And no Labour leader not called Blair has got more than about 35% since 1979, and nobody born after 1859 has been a Liberal PM.
Lloyd George?
I need your advice, for Sunday's thread, I feature Sir Robert Peel quite heavily, I'm not wrong in describing him as a true One Nation Tory long before Disraeli coined the term?
It's not a period I'm all that familiar with although I do have Hurd's biography of Peel waiting to be read. I think describing Peel as a proto-One Nation Tory is a pretty fair assessment though. I'm not sure I'd agree with the use of "long before" in your comment though. Disraeli wrote "Sybil, or The Two Nations" in 1845, when Peel was PM and the debate over the Corn Laws was raging. But Peel's record of social legislation and his willingness to adapt to the new reality after 1832 (the Tamworth Manifesto and all that), do mark him out as a forerunner of Disraeli in that sense.
I rather suspect that Peel's heart was in those beliefs though whereas Disraeli trimmed his policies to the exigencies of electoral popularity.
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
That does not prevent the SNP propping up a Corbyn minority government and of course Corbyn does not have to win over many Tory voters if Tory voters start to switch to UKIP
I think the likelihood of Con-UKIP floating voters deciding they'd rather let Corbyn come to power rather than vote Conservative is about 0%. I know these people.
Well it only takes a small minority, 10% of 2015 Tories have switched to UKIP in the latest yougov and that would be all Corbyn needs.
My recommendation: don't even bother to think about, let alone bet on, the Con/Lab battle (except in the London Mayor contest) until after the referendum dust has settled. We are in a political dust-storm at the moment.
Well the Osborne comparison is irrelevant as he won't be PM/Tory leader going into the election so you're left with Corbyn/Johnson and Corbyn/AN Other match-ups which it's hard to see Jezza winning to be honest
My recommendation: don't even bother to think about, let alone bet on, the Con/Lab battle (except in the London Mayor contest) until after the referendum dust has settled. We are in a political dust-storm at the moment.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Not necessarily, as will be the subject of a thread tomorrow.
Unless Trump's delegates defect en masse to Cruz, which is not going to happen, then that is the only alternative
Also, it's worth bearing in mind that, by 2020, no Tory leader except Cameron will even have got MORE THAN 200 SEATS in nearly 30 years #justsaying
And no Labour leader not called Blair has got more than about 35% since 1979, and nobody born after 1859 has been a Liberal PM.
Lloyd George?
I need your advice, for Sunday's thread, I feature Sir Robert Peel quite heavily, I'm not wrong in describing him as a true One Nation Tory long before Disraeli coined the term?
It's not a period I'm all that familiar with although I do have Hurd's biography of Peel waiting to be read. I think describing Peel as a proto-One Nation Tory is a pretty fair assessment though. I'm not sure I'd agree with the use of "long before" in your comment though. Disraeli wrote "Sybil, or The Two Nations" in 1845, when Peel was PM and the debate over the Corn Laws was raging. But Peel's record of social legislation and his willingness to adapt to the new reality after 1832 (the Tamworth Manifesto and all that), do mark him out as a forerunner of Disraeli in that sense.
I rather suspect that Peel's heart was in those beliefs though whereas Disraeli trimmed his policies to the exigencies of electoral popularity.
Corbyn's ratings remain poor. The ratings of prominent Conservatives have fallen sharply, but that always happens, once the honeymoon period of a government is over.
Labour are - at best - level pegging with the Conservatives, which is not good news for an Opposition at this stage.
Labour look as though they'll be going backwards in Scotland and Wales in May, and probably heading for a net loss of council seats. Winning the Mayoralty doesn't make up for that.
Unless the Conservatives completely implode, normal swingback will see them home in 2020.
This is pretty much spot on, you'd have to say, although there is always a chance that complete implosion could happen over Europe if the Referendum is wafer-tight one way or the other
Also, it's worth bearing in mind that, by 2020, no Tory leader except Cameron will even have got MORE THAN 200 SEATS in nearly 30 years #justsaying
And no Labour leader not called Blair has got more than about 35% since 1979, and nobody born after 1859 has been a Liberal PM.
Lloyd George?
I need your advice, for Sunday's thread, I feature Sir Robert Peel quite heavily, I'm not wrong in describing him as a true One Nation Tory long before Disraeli coined the term?
It's not a period I'm all that familiar with although I do have Hurd's biography of Peel waiting to be read. I think describing Peel as a proto-One Nation Tory is a pretty fair assessment though. I'm not sure I'd agree with the use of "long before" in your comment though. Disraeli wrote "Sybil, or The Two Nations" in 1845, when Peel was PM and the debate over the Corn Laws was raging. But Peel's record of social legislation and his willingness to adapt to the new reality after 1832 (the Tamworth Manifesto and all that), do mark him out as a forerunner of Disraeli in that sense.
I rather suspect that Peel's heart was in those beliefs though whereas Disraeli trimmed his policies to the exigencies of electoral popularity.
Thanks, I'll amend accordingly.
I don't know when Dizzy came up with the One Nation term. My guess would be that it's in Sybil but could be a little either way, either leading into it or coming out of it. As I say, it's not an era I'm all that up on. (I'm currently reading through Tom Holland's 'Dynasty' - very good)
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Not necessarily, as will be the subject of a thread tomorrow.
Unless Trump's delegates defect en masse to Cruz, which is not going to happen, then that is the only alternative
Er, that's exactly what might happen.
Says who? Outside of maybe Georgia and a few southern states I cannot see that happening.
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
That does not prevent the SNP propping up a Corbyn minority government and of course Corbyn does not have to win over many Tory voters if Tory voters start to switch to UKIP
I think the likelihood of Con-UKIP floating voters deciding they'd rather let Corbyn come to power rather than vote Conservative is about 0%. I know these people.
Well it only takes a small minority, 10% of 2015 Tories have switched to UKIP in the latest yougov and that would be all Corbyn needs.
I don't know where you get the idea from that UKIP voters want to hand the election to Corbyn.
Germans on Twitter are claiming that in previous cases, Germany has refused to apply this law. Yet for Erdogan, Frau Merkel has made an exception.
I don't know if that is true, but if it is, then this is explosive. Even if it isn't true, the optics are hideous for her. I agree with MaxPB downthread that she is surely in the endstage of her career. Too many howling errors and bizarre misjudgements. She's lost it, as Thatcher did.
According to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung this morning, this is the first time (in recent history) there has been an official complaint from a foreign head of state.
But would Erdogan have bothered complaining - and risked all this embarrassment - if he hadn't got secret agreement from Merkel that the case would, at least, be heard?
There must be a strong suspicion of this. It's all part of the refugee *deal*.
I think it has to be heard if he complains, and Mrs Merkel has nothing to do with it. But I'm not an expert.
Surely Erdogan is going to end up the victim of the Streisland Syndrome? Far, far more people will now see the video than if he'd shut up.
I don't think he cares about that. He wants to be able to show who's boss. And he has. And instead of Germany telling him politely to stuff it they've paid the Danegeld. How much more will they have to pay? That price is not going to be just money. It will be the incremental loss of precious freedoms, including the freedom to satirise those in power, whether at home or abroad, or anyone who is prepared to bully the satirist.
Merkel has said her government will repeal the law by 2018 so this shouldn't be seen as the thin end of the wedge, but simply an attempt to play a straight bat. I agree that Erdogan will end up a victim of Streisand Syndrome over the whole affair.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
What about Welsh Assembly elections. Come on that's the biggy, surely.
London Mayoral election and Tooting by-election too.
Sadiq will be the most powerful elected Labour politician in the land.
Well the Osborne comparison is irrelevant as he won't be PM/Tory leader going into the election so you're left with Corbyn/Johnson and Corbyn/AN Other match-ups which it's hard to see Jezza winning to be honest
It is worth noting how Boris beat Ken, who is as near to Corbyn in politics as we have ever had in a Labour party leader. It would certainly stand him in good stead with the members. But I just can't see the Labour Party keeping Corbyn in place until 2020. He is Labour's rope-a-dope candidate...keep them on the ropes until unleashing, er, somebody who can land some punches on the Tories, that person being, er, um.....I'll get back to you later on that.
Well the Osborne comparison is irrelevant as he won't be PM/Tory leader going into the election so you're left with Corbyn/Johnson and Corbyn/AN Other match-ups which it's hard to see Jezza winning to be honest
Johnson may not get through to the final 2, you cannot definitively say Osborne will not be next Tory leader and the likes of Gove poll as poorly as Osborne
Well the Osborne comparison is irrelevant as he won't be PM/Tory leader going into the election so you're left with Corbyn/Johnson and Corbyn/AN Other match-ups which it's hard to see Jezza winning to be honest
It is worth noting how Boris beat Ken, who is as near to Corbyn in politics as we have ever had in a Labour party leader. It would certainly stand him in good stead with the members. But I just can't see the Labour Party keeping Corbyn in place until 2020. He is Labour's rope-a-dope candidate...keep them on the ropes until unleashing, er, somebody who can land some punches on the Tories, that person being, er, um.....I'll get back to you later on that.
Corbyn has a 3 point lead over the Tories in the latest poll and leads Osborne as preferred PM, that is hardly a bad result given his low initial expectations
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Not necessarily, as will be the subject of a thread tomorrow.
Unless Trump's delegates defect en masse to Cruz, which is not going to happen, then that is the only alternative
Er, that's exactly what might happen.
Says who? Outside of maybe Georgia and a few southern states I cannot see that happening.
Trump's campaign is proving itself to be appalling at delegate selection. If no-one wins on the first vote then once delegates become unbound in the second and subsequent rounds, they'll be able to vote according to their true preferences rather than how they're required to vote as per the state primary / caucus.
Also, it's worth bearing in mind that, by 2020, no Tory leader except Cameron will even have got MORE THAN 200 SEATS in nearly 30 years #justsaying
And no Labour leader not called Blair has got more than about 35% since 1979, and nobody born after 1859 has been a Liberal PM.
Lloyd George?
I need your advice, for Sunday's thread, I feature Sir Robert Peel quite heavily, I'm not wrong in describing him as a true One Nation Tory long before Disraeli coined the term?
It's not a period I'm all that familiar with although I do have Hurd's biography of Peel waiting to be read. I think describing Peel as a proto-One Nation Tory is a pretty fair assessment though. I'm not sure I'd agree with the use of "long before" in your comment though. Disraeli wrote "Sybil, or The Two Nations" in 1845, when Peel was PM and the debate over the Corn Laws was raging. But Peel's record of social legislation and his willingness to adapt to the new reality after 1832 (the Tamworth Manifesto and all that), do mark him out as a forerunner of Disraeli in that sense.
I rather suspect that Peel's heart was in those beliefs though whereas Disraeli trimmed his policies to the exigencies of electoral popularity.
That's rather a big difference, isn't it?
In terms of motivation, yes. In terms of practical effect, not so much.
Regardless of whether Corbyn is electoral kryptonite, the Conservatives shouldn't be complacent. If they are and lose to Corbyn, the country's screwed. If they are and scrape a victory against Captain Communist, then, in 2025 when Labour presumably stops its impressive run of progressively more atrocious leaders, they could face a 1997 style wipeout.
Today's smug arrogance is the foundation of tomorrow's political cemetery. It's only a few months ago Osborne was ringing up backbenchers asking them if they were supporting Leave or if they'd like to have a career.
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
What about Welsh Assembly elections. Come on that's the biggy, surely.
London Mayoral election and Tooting by-election too.
Sadiq will be the most powerful elected Labour politician in the land.
And extremely handily placed to succeed Corbyn....if there is early pressure. Whether the Tooting by-election gets called would be key to seeing what is going on behind the scenes in the Labour Party after the May results (all assuming of course that Zac loses).
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
That does not prevent the SNP propping up a Corbyn minority government and of course Corbyn does not have to win over many Tory voters if Tory voters start to switch to UKIP
I think the likelihood of Con-UKIP floating voters deciding they'd rather let Corbyn come to power rather than vote Conservative is about 0%. I know these people.
Well it only takes a small minority, 10% of 2015 Tories have switched to UKIP in the latest yougov and that would be all Corbyn needs.
I don't know where you get the idea from that UKIP voters want to hand the election to Corbyn.
They don't, presumably they want to vote for UKIP and if, as looks likely, EU ref is a narrow Remain they will be even more determined to do so, just the consequence of their actions under FPTP is a Corbyn government is more likely. Under PR or AV UKIP voters would hold the balance of power at the moment
Boundary changes mean Labour need bigger swing than Blair got to even get a minimum majority and that ain't going to happen
Tories are split at the moment but have 4 years to pull back together
Tories reason to be is to win elections, hence will pick a leader who will win ie if Ossie looks bad, no chance of winning
Tories want Corbyn in position until 2020 so are holding off attacking him until 2018/19
Tories will have so much dirt on Corbyn, McDonnell to use from 2018/9 onwards that they can destroy them easily
World getting a scarier place. Party strongest on security will win, and that will never be a Labour party run by a pacifist
Labour controlled by Momentum will have loony policies by the bucket load and bonkers extreme lefty candidates
That pretty much sums it up. But what on earth are we going to debate after EURef?
Electoral reform.
I hope you have a (few) thread on the merits of AV vs STV vs PR vs FPTP saved up!
2016 could be the most exciting year in the history of PB we could see
1) Brexit 2) Cameron forced out as PM/Tory leader/A Tory leadership election 3) Labour ditching Corbyn 4) The SNP trying to schedule a second indy referendum because of 1) 5) The US Presidential race 6) A brokered Republican convention
"The US Presidential race"
Shortish odds on that one.
I should have said the fun of a threeway Presidential race, when the GOP candidate with the most delegates is denied the nomination, and runs as a third party candidate.
To be denied the nomination Cruz, Rubio and Kasich will have to combine their delegates to behind 1 candidate, even if he falls short that is unlikely and Trump will likely do a deal with Kasich
Not necessarily, as will be the subject of a thread tomorrow.
Unless Trump's delegates defect en masse to Cruz, which is not going to happen, then that is the only alternative
Er, that's exactly what might happen.
"might" happen ?
"Will happen" if the vote goes past the second round.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
Regardless of whether Corbyn is electoral kryptonite, the Conservatives shouldn't be complacent. If they are and lose to Corbyn, the country's screwed. If they are and scrape a victory against Captain Communist, then, in 2025 when Labour presumably stops its impressive run of progressively more atrocious leaders, they could face a 1997 style wipeout.
Today's smug arrogance is the foundation of tomorrow's political cemetery. It's only a few months ago Osborne was ringing up backbenchers asking them if they were supporting Leave or if they'd like to have a career.
@Sean_F At the same time in April 2011, the Conservatives were polling 36% or so. Labour may be in a worse position than 2011 but so are the Conservatives. Everyone is noticing that Labour has deteriorated but for some reason no one is noticing that the Conservatives have deteriorated badly too, even though the evidence is right in front of us.
As I've kept saying, if Labour beat the Tories in the national voteshare in the local elections (which, before I'm accused of being cocky, I still don't think is at all certain), then there will have been a swing to Labour as compared to this point in the last electoral cycle; the Tories beat Labour by 1% in 2011.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
An Opposition really needs to consistently manage leads of 10% or so in NEV to be a contender in the general election.
Well the Osborne comparison is irrelevant as he won't be PM/Tory leader going into the election so you're left with Corbyn/Johnson and Corbyn/AN Other match-ups which it's hard to see Jezza winning to be honest
Johnson may not get through to the final 2, you cannot definitively say Osborne will not be next Tory leader and the likes of Gove poll as poorly as Osborne
Theresa. She is the safety first option with fewest negatives.
As an aside, I find it hard to see any serious moral difference between Putin and Erdogan. Both are thuggish autocrats, both are prickly and ruthless, both of them bomb cities and kill enemies, both repress free speech.
About the only difference is that Putin has at least taken on the evil ISIS, whereas Erdogan encourages them, so Putin is a better friend to us than the Turk.
If you ignore is ventures into Ukraine and Georgia.
I will agree that Putin seems to be the only world leader willing to recognise Islamist terrorism for what it is and that it needs to be eradicated.
Well the Osborne comparison is irrelevant as he won't be PM/Tory leader going into the election so you're left with Corbyn/Johnson and Corbyn/AN Other match-ups which it's hard to see Jezza winning to be honest
Johnson may not get through to the final 2, you cannot definitively say Osborne will not be next Tory leader and the likes of Gove poll as poorly as Osborne
Theresa. She is the safety first option with fewest negatives.
Not sure she is going to be forgiven for coining the term "The Nasty Party"
Surely the Tory confidence arises principally because they are now 98 seats ahead of Labour with a boundary change to come which should enhance that lead to maybe 110.
Switches of 100 seats in 1 election are rare. DC almost managed it in 2010 and Blair did in 97. But unless Corbyn is suddenly going to morph into T Blair or the SNP suddenly fold their tents it is hard to see anyone other than the Tories as the largest party after the next election, probably by a large enough margin to make another government really difficult to put together.
The fact that Corbyn is crap is really just a bonus.
That does not prevent the SNP propping up a Corbyn minority government and of course Corbyn does not have to win over many Tory voters if Tory voters start to switch to UKIP
I think the likelihood of Con-UKIP floating voters deciding they'd rather let Corbyn come to power rather than vote Conservative is about 0%. I know these people.
Well it only takes a small minority, 10% of 2015 Tories have switched to UKIP in the latest yougov and that would be all Corbyn needs.
I don't know where you get the idea from that UKIP voters want to hand the election to Corbyn.
They don't, presumably they want to vote for UKIP and if, as looks likely, EU ref is a narrow Remain they will be even more determined to do so, just the consequence of their actions under FPTP is a Corbyn government is more likely. Under PR or AV UKIP voters would hold the balance of power at the moment
Under PR, UKIP MPs would hold the balance of power. I've not seen enough polling on AV re the 2015 result but I think it's highly unlikely that UKIP would be in anything like the same sort of position with that and it's not impossible that the Conservatives might have a bigger majority.
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
Welcome to the forum Jason. Actually it's not a fool's errand, though you'll want to have more than one year's worth of Local Election data to go off.
In the end Miliband slightly outperformed the preidcted 8.5% loss from this and only suffered a 5.7% defeat.
Nethertheless the intercept of (0,8%) on the x axis demonstrates that oppositions need to be winning local elections very well indeed to have a good shot at Government.
Comments
"Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
I can't easily square the prosecution of a satirist with this provision. "Necessary" implies a "pressing social need".
Trotting out old pictures of Corbyn alongside Gerry Adams, or video of him arguing for a trial rather than summary execution for Bin Laden will not convince people that he is a terrorist sympathiser. It might convince voters that the people who keep repeating "terrorist sympathiser" are either right-wingers with a bee in their bonnet or paid up members of the Tory election machine.
Shortish odds on that one.
But it was less than a year ago that the Tories won in part because of George Osborne as Chancellor.
Given the past few weeks Osborne has endured, his ratings aren't a surprise.
He can recover, and if Remain wins comfortably, then the EU issue is negated for a while, the economy and Osborne go on the rise.
Dave steps down in 2018, and the final two are say Osborne v Liam Fox or Owen Paterson, Osborne could still do it.
For an MP in their sixties or seventies who enjoys Westminster but is now bored by the endless constituent paperwork, events, party meetings and so on, a seat in the Lords would be a pleasant semi-retirement.
Of those only 5 is certain and 1 and 6 50/50 at best, the rest unlikely this year
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/21ca2f78-025a-11e6-99cb-83242733f755.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz45nm3NugT
I'll let you click on the link to find out who is giving that advice.
From the minutes (http://goo.gl/djmNyJ) of yesterday's EU Parliament meeting
"11. Believes that a principal objective should be to move towards permanently pooled multinational military units, joint defence forces and the framing of a common defence policy which should ultimately lead to a European Defence Union; demands, in this regard, the establishment of a permanent EU military headquarters to improve military crisis management capability, and ensure contingency planning and the interoperability of forces and equipment; calls on the Member States to reinforce defence cooperation collectively, bilaterally and in regional clusters; supports the adoption of a White Paper on EU Defence, based on the EU Global Strategy;"
I think Mr Meeks´ first conclusion needs a gloss on it.
Caameron´s image is not being destroyed by the holding of a referendum. Nor by the fact that he is on the side of Remain.
It is being destroyed by the way he has chosen to fight it.
He has shown himself to be thoroughly unscrupulous, unprincipled and vicious.
Lib Dems knew that before. So did Labour supporters. But this side of Cameron is new to many Conservative supporters, whose cause (Leave) is being trashed by Cameron´s vindictive machine.
So an overwhelming majority of the electorate now recognise Cameron for what he really is. And that is why his carefully cultivated image is now thoroughly tarnished.
Not impossible. Just difficult.
Edited for typo.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/think+the+sun+shines+out+arse
Optimus poll of NY by CD. Have Trump picking up 86 Delegates once undecideds (14%) are taken out (I added 6 points to Trump).
Trump 49, Kasich 23, Cruz 14, 14 undecided.
Of course Optimus had mixed record in WI, with Trump ahead and winning 4 CDs, but this is a closed primary and more in line with all the other polls.
You're such an asset for Leave.
Osborne recovered last time because the BoE bailed him out with massive monetary stimulus and record low interest rates combined with the top of the economic cycle. No such bailout will be forthcoming or even possible this time. If the economy crashes he will own it as the man in charge of the it for the last 6 years. For Osborne, there just isn't time to recover, not if he stays on as chancellor. If he took a sideways move to the FCO then he might recover enough by 2018.
On the economy specifically, we are 7 years into the current boom cycle, the data is all overwhelmingly negative and we have a 7% current account deficit while unsecured debt is rising at a record pace. Osborne was the man in charge and oversaw the lack of fundamental supply side reforms. I don't see any path back for Osborne that relies on the economy, it won't come to his aid, mainly because he didn't make the necessary reforms after 13 years of sclerotic Labour government.
I'm a supporter of Cameron and consider myself to be pretty liberal, but I could never vote for Osborne, he represents everything that our party needs to get away from.
80 to 90 delegates I think is the range of bad night to good night.
Labour are - at best - level pegging with the Conservatives, which is not good news for an Opposition at this stage.
Labour look as though they'll be going backwards in Scotland and Wales in May, and probably heading for a net loss of council seats. Winning the Mayoralty doesn't make up for that.
Unless the Conservatives completely implode, normal swingback will see them home in 2020.
If the Tories ditch Cameron for a right wing Brexiter and then Labour switch to someone like Dan Jarvis we would be looking at an entirely different GE outcome.
And the thing is that there are actually surprisingly few Tory MPs in their sixties and seventies, because such a high proportion of them were only elected for the first time in either 2010 or 2015. Unless they were planning to retire anyway, I can't for the life of me see why they would volunteer to get much less pay and much less influence on policy.
Second, it's simply wrong to think that being a PM is always an asset. Governments have a finite lifespan and there are limits to how far they can outlive it. Labour would have won in 1997 under Corbyn, simply because people were utterly fed up with the Conservatives - just as Labour would have lost in 2015 under a a superb leader, because the electorate felt that the party was exhausted and out of ideas.
The combination of the two means that if the Tories choose a leader who turns out badly, they're likely to lose in 2020. If they decide they can be self-indulgent because they're siure to win, more power to their elbow.
On Germany, I posted the position on the last thread based on the press this morning (I'm still in Berlin) - the general view in the German press and letters seems to be that the satire was arguably crude and unfunny but that the satirist shouldn't be prosecuted (82% of a poll this morning). Also, the prosecution does require Merkel consent, though it also requires a specific complaint, which hasn't arisen in recent memory (not sure if it ever has, in fact). However, it's up to the judge to decide whether it should in fact happen, and a common view here is that in the end it will be left to the parallel private libel suit to resolve.
I don't get the impression that it's causing a firestorm in the general public - Twitter is even less representative here than it is in the UK - it's seen as an unpleasant bit of realpolitik in the context of avoiding a new flood of migrants.
A few weeks ago I didn't think it was possible for Turkey to enter the EU, but if they really do have the Germans in their pocket as this suggests it does change the picture a fair bit.
I rather suspect that Peel's heart was in those beliefs though whereas Disraeli trimmed his policies to the exigencies of electoral popularity.
Equally, I think Labour were not doomed in 2015, although it was always going to be a tough gig. Choosing Ed Miliband showed they were not serious, and voters took the hint.
And if there has been a swing to Labour in 2016 compared to 2011, then it follows to expect a swing to Labour in 2020 compared to 2015.
Why?
McCain 42 .. Fitzpatrick 42
Perhaps a pointer to the GOP struggle in the state for POTUS.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/RMP_AZ_Senate_April_2016.pdf
Sadiq will be the most powerful elected Labour politician in the land.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3541596/Councillor-tries-ban-Union-Jack-bunting-celebrate-Queen-s-birthday-case-tourists-mistake-flag-National-Front.html
Regardless of whether Corbyn is electoral kryptonite, the Conservatives shouldn't be complacent. If they are and lose to Corbyn, the country's screwed. If they are and scrape a victory against Captain Communist, then, in 2025 when Labour presumably stops its impressive run of progressively more atrocious leaders, they could face a 1997 style wipeout.
Today's smug arrogance is the foundation of tomorrow's political cemetery. It's only a few months ago Osborne was ringing up backbenchers asking them if they were supporting Leave or if they'd like to have a career.
More importantly, my pre-qualifying piece for China is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/china-pre-qualifying-2016.html
"Will happen" if the vote goes past the second round.
I think it's a fool's errand extrapolating local election results into a general election scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where opposition parties have done well in local elections and then been mauled at the ensuing general election. Didn't it happen to Hague, and also Miliband? People are not choosing a national government or a PM in council elections, they are voting for a party and local issues (I doubt even the leader of the party has much influence in their vote either).
People always project what they wish to be, or what they wish to happen, onto opinion polls, which are snapshots of the public mood, and should never be treated as predictors. That is the road to despair (ask Mr Miliband for confirmation).
'Well it only takes a small minority, 10% of 2015 Tories have switched to UKIP in the latest yougov and that would be all Corbyn needs.'
How many times did we hear that before the GE last year ,Ed was a shoo-in based on Tories switching to UKIP ?
I will agree that Putin seems to be the only world leader willing to recognise Islamist terrorism for what it is and that it needs to be eradicated.
May 15: 46% (actual vote 51%)
Apr 16: 48%
Actually it's not a fool's errand, though you'll want to have more than one year's worth of Local Election data to go off.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/
In the end Miliband slightly outperformed the preidcted 8.5% loss from this and only suffered a 5.7% defeat.
Nethertheless the intercept of (0,8%) on the x axis demonstrates that oppositions need to be winning local elections very well indeed to have a good shot at Government.
Lowish number of data points, decent r^2 though.
As good an indicator as any