"Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.
Senior British and EU sources have confirmed that despite strong initial resistance from French president François Hollande in talks with prime minister Theresa May last week, the idea of an emergency brake on the free movement of people that would go far further than the one David Cameron negotiated before the Brexit referendum is being examined.
If such an agreement were struck, and a strict time limit imposed, diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states, while allowing the UK full trade access to the European market.
While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce."
Note that their concern is the deleritous effect on the EU economy of UK leaving the Single Market.
In seven years time, we will have ourselves set up outside the EU, have bilateral trade deals in place and can then decide from a much stronger position what to do i.e. press for renewal of the 7 years movement restrictions, lesser payments, none of the above if no longer an issue or leave single market depending on how things are at the time.
If Cameron had got that in February (by telling the EU he was giving them one month to come to their senses of he'd be campaigning for LEAVE) we would probably never have Brexited.
I got the impression that Blair and Cameron were very weak negotiators. They were far to gentlemany when what is needed in negotiations with such people is a whiff of prepared to resort to east end thuggery if they don't get their own way (even if inflicts as much self harm as harm on the opposition) about them.
Thatcher had that, May appears to.
You just need to channel your inner Frenchie. Start burning tractor tires on the negotiating table.
But the Lib Dems were crap at the negotiations. They gave up everythig and got nothing.
Compared to the Scottish Lib Dems who did brilliantly at the Holyrood negotiations with Labour it is bizarre.
Incorrect.
One of the reasons the Coalition lasted the full term, and didn't fall within months as many predicted, was that both sides largely got what they wanted within the talks, that were hard headed but amicable and focused on policy and not competing personalities.
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.
Did you expect LibDem cabinet ministers to cycle to Whitehall and ride tandem with their security detail or perhaps float into central London on a wave of public adulation?
I think the point he's making is that the Lib Dems stayed onside because of the perks of being in government. I'm sure Clegg, Laws and Alexander got pretty much what they wanted but they weren't representative of their voters or members.
Miss Plato, saw a bit of Sky last night. Isn't it due to Jezbollah's underlings entering an MP's office without her knowledge or permission?
Corbyn's office is saying Seema had resigned so it wasn't her office anymore and they'd every right to enter.
Never forget that it was Labour that had a Ministers office searched and the minister arrested. Also they dragged a pensioner out of a conference and arrested under the terrorism act simply because that pensioner said Jack Straw *was barking.
The Labour Party have plenty of form in this area.
* amazing how quick the Iraq enquiry became a footnote in history and "fish and chip" paper
That's the point -- the last-minute registration drive showed the government was aware it had previously deliberately disenfranchised groups suspected of voting Labour.
Individual registration makes far more sense than head of household. If you are old enough and responsible enough to vote, you should be able to ensure you are registered yourself. Having someone else do it for you is sheer laziness.
Whether or not that is true, the motivation clearly was to disenfranchise Labour-leaning voters, and to do in time for the boundary changes. Unwanted side-effects were to pitch Britain out of the EU and Cameron and Osborne out of office.
No doesn't wash.
Labour have had a distinct advantage for years . The Tories had to be how many % ahead in the polls to get even on seat numbers with Labour.?
If you can't be arsed to get out of bed and register then you don't deserve the vote.
If Cameron had got that in February (by telling the EU he was giving them one month to come to their senses of he'd be campaigning for LEAVE) we would probably never have Brexited.
For my part, the EU was always a decent idea in theory but in reality its execution was unpalatable, and the fundamental truth was it was incapable of change, incapable of sufficient flexibility, to make it more palatable, because the attitude of the EU bureaucrats and the hard core of EU leaders, did not really believe it needed to be flexible, they did not believe there needed to be any change. Whatever their occasional pronouncements on the subject, their actions showed they did not think it needed change, so it would not.
It is in some ways a shame that it might be able to become something that would have been more palatable to UK voters, only because the UK has left (or rather has indicated it is leaving - a technical point since on both sides politically it cannot be prevented, but technically we're still in).
Good morning all.
Everything was set fair after Lisbon. It was the Great Crash that's done for it. The EU was fine when it was pretty much a pure customs union, and would have been fine if full EMU had been accomplished under benign economic conditions.
There's no appetite for another treaty. Germany has been shown what a future recession would look like (direct fiscal transfers from German taxpayers to PIG et al) and don't fancy it. Meanwhile Italy, deprived of its standard 'let's devalue the lira' approach to financial management has been on the cross since 1999.
Pre-2015 I'd have argued that only the A8 were really happy with the EU, but the migration crisis has even spoiled that. They're in revolt against the idea of migrant quotas.
Probably the most ludicrous piece I have ever read on this site.
Of course if Cameron did not have an overall majority he could have blamed the failure to hold a referendum on the lack of it. However the much greater mistake is not in eliminating the Lib Dems but from having the ridiculous cave in to his party nutters of a referendum in the first place. The idea of keeping the Lib Dems as some sort of political pets is hardly realistic.
However, the article reaches absurdity in the suggestion that Nick Clegg's negotiating skills could have won a better pre referendum deal. Yes, these were the skills so evidently on display when he destroyed his own party with the cave in on tuition fees and much else besides!!!
The loss of the referendum could be traced to a previous Labour P.M., if the first expert on this programme is right:
I think the point he's making is that the Lib Dems stayed onside because of the perks of being in government. I'm sure Clegg, Laws and Alexander got pretty much what they wanted but they weren't representative of their voters or members.
It's such a ludicrous assumption, it's barely worthy of comment. It's the sort of patronizing drivel that got Labour into difficulty at the start of their spectacularly awful Coalition talks with the LibDems.
The LibDem members overwhelmingly endorsed the Coalition deal and LibDems voters are such a diverse grouping I doubt even an agreement with Mother Theresa would have garnered majority support.
Mr. W, cheers for the Grimond answer [was out, hence the slow reply].
Mr. W (2), one votes for the Morris Dancer Party. There wouldn't be any delays crossing the Channel if we'd implemented our sensible foreign policy of invading France.
Mr. Pulpstar, my reading time is strictly limited now, so I'm afraid I must pass.
Wow, that McDonnell interview was amazing. On so many levels. Most important, he gave a pathway for saving Labour from the hard left.
Can you summarise ?
I am working on a short article about it that I hope to persuade Mike to publish, but it has everything to do with the fact that - for the first time - McDonnell said that he and Corbyn will stand down if labour loses the next general election.
I don't think any government would have got away with adding to the referendum franchise EU citizens resident in Britain. What they could and should have done is remove Commonwealth citizens. Australians, Canadians and Indians mostly voted Leave. There was a clear case for not allowing foreigners a say on British foreign policy. (I would make an exception for the Irish, given the long-standing close relationship between the two countries.)
Wow, that McDonnell interview was amazing. On so many levels. Most important, he gave a pathway for saving Labour from the hard left.
Can you summarise ?
I am working on a short article about it that I hope to persuade Mike to publish, but it has everything to do with the fact that - for the first time - McDonnell said that he and Corbyn will stand down if labour loses the next general election.
That has always been my expectation (And betting position). I'm surprised that others have not thought it so.
Wow, that McDonnell interview was amazing. On so many levels. Most important, he gave a pathway for saving Labour from the hard left.
Can you summarise ?
I am working on a short article about it that I hope to persuade Mike to publish, but it has everything to do with the fact that - for the first time - McDonnell said that he and Corbyn will stand down if labour loses the next general election.
My worry for you is that McDonnell wouldn't have made that commitment if he wasn't certain that his faction could take over Labour root and branch before 2020. If they've changed the NEC, the leadership system and so forth, the personalities don't matter. Momentum will have won.
Wow, that McDonnell interview was amazing. On so many levels. Most important, he gave a pathway for saving Labour from the hard left.
Can you summarise ?
I am working on a short article about it that I hope to persuade Mike to publish, but it has everything to do with the fact that - for the first time - McDonnell said that he and Corbyn will stand down if labour loses the next general election.
My worry for you SO is that McDonnell wouldn't have made that commitment if he wasn't certain that his faction could take over Labour root and branch before 2020. If they've changed the NEC, the leadership system and so forth, the personalities don't matter. Momentum will have won.
I'm not so certain. Ann Lucas was appointed to the NEC and she is very anti-Corbyn. I'm not so sure that the Corbynites are so organised to arrange it.
Wow, that McDonnell interview was amazing. On so many levels. Most important, he gave a pathway for saving Labour from the hard left.
Can you summarise ?
I am working on a short article about it that I hope to persuade Mike to publish, but it has everything to do with the fact that - for the first time - McDonnell said that he and Corbyn will stand down if labour loses the next general election.
That has always been my expectation (And betting position). I'm surprised that others have not thought it so.
He's never said it before. Now he has. That's a big development.
Wow, that McDonnell interview was amazing. On so many levels. Most important, he gave a pathway for saving Labour from the hard left.
Can you summarise ?
I am working on a short article about it that I hope to persuade Mike to publish, but it has everything to do with the fact that - for the first time - McDonnell said that he and Corbyn will stand down if labour loses the next general election.
My worry for you SO is that McDonnell wouldn't have made that commitment if he wasn't certain that his faction could take over Labour root and branch before 2020. If they've changed the NEC, the leadership system and so forth, the personalities don't matter. Momentum will have won.
McDonnell is a allegedly a liar of the first order, as Hodges is documenting, day by day, week by week. The latest incident involves entering a (rival) MP's office without permission.
Corbyn and McDonnell will not stand down even if Labour lost 100 seats unless there is an apparatchik lined up who is guaranteed the win to replace them.
The implied probability of a Trump win at Betfair is 30%. Five Thirty-Eight make it 42% (polls) or 40% (polls and other data) and 44% if there were an election today.
Convicted fraudster Conrad Black, former chairman of Hollinger and the Torygraph, writes in the Spectator that "The brilliant Donald Trump deserves to win", and predicts how his preferred outcome will come about:
"Trump will carpet-bomb the country in September and October with a billion dollars of reminders of Benghazi (she slept while her ambassador was murdered), the televised apology to the world’s Muslims, the FBI director’s non-indictment indictment; the malodorous conflicts of the Clinton Foundation entwined with the Clinton State Department."
That's the point -- the last-minute registration drive showed the government was aware it had previously deliberately disenfranchised groups suspected of voting Labour.
Individual registration makes far more sense than head of household. If you are old enough and responsible enough to vote, you should be able to ensure you are registered yourself. Having someone else do it for you is sheer laziness.
Whether or not that is true, the motivation clearly was to disenfranchise Labour-leaning voters, and to do in time for the boundary changes. Unwanted side-effects were to pitch Britain out of the EU and Cameron and Osborne out of office.
No doesn't wash.
Labour have had a distinct advantage for years . The Tories had to be how many % ahead in the polls to get even on seat numbers with Labour.?
If you can't be arsed to get out of bed and register then you don't deserve the vote.
The perceived bias towards Labour was almost entirely due to differential turnout under FPTP with single-member constituencies. As such, it was not a real bias except for PR enthusiasts. I'm surprised TSE has not done a thread header on it. It is not remotely comparable with cynically disenfranchising those who might vote for the wrong side.
Many, many Lib Dem voters thought they were voting for a party that would prioritise voting reform as a key component on any deal.
Not a referendum on a suggestion for a miserable little compromise. (Caveat, I actually like AV).
Well, AV was in the Labour Party manifesto, so it ought ot have gone through without too much difficulty, despite Cameron and the Tories throwing everything in their armoury against it.
The problem is that the leaders of the Labour Party are more interested in playing silly games than in getting improvements to the way we work things in this country. Mr Corbyn`s faint-hearted support for the EU shows that he is still playing the same silly games as Milliband.
The problem is that the Labour Party does not really believe in change and progress.
The implied probability of a Trump win at Betfair is 30%. Five Thirty-Eight make it 42% (polls) or 40% (polls and other data) and 44% if there were an election today.
Convicted fraudster Conrad Black, former chairman of Hollinger and the Torygraph, writes in the Spectator that "The brilliant Donald Trump deserves to win", and predicts how his preferred outcome will come about:
"Trump will carpet-bomb the country in September and October with a billion dollars of reminders of Benghazi (she slept while her ambassador was murdered), the televised apology to the world’s Muslims, the FBI director’s non-indictment indictment; the malodorous conflicts of the Clinton Foundation entwined with the Clinton State Department."
It is quite possibly true. There is almost nothing that binds Trump to the mainstream Republican Party apart from their contempt for Hillary Clinton. It is their only common ground.
That's the point -- the last-minute registration drive showed the government was aware it had previously deliberately disenfranchised groups suspected of voting Labour.
Individual registration makes far more sense than head of household. If you are old enough and responsible enough to vote, you should be able to ensure you are registered yourself. Having someone else do it for you is sheer laziness.
Whether or not that is true, the motivation clearly was to disenfranchise Labour-leaning voters, and to do in time for the boundary changes. Unwanted side-effects were to pitch Britain out of the EU and Cameron and Osborne out of office.
No doesn't wash.
Labour have had a distinct advantage for years . The Tories had to be how many % ahead in the polls to get even on seat numbers with Labour.?
If you can't be arsed to get out of bed and register then you don't deserve the vote.
The perceived bias towards Labour was almost entirely due to differential turnout under FPTP with single-member constituencies. As such, it was not a real bias except for PR enthusiasts. I'm surprised TSE has not done a thread header on it. It is not remotely comparable with cynically disenfranchising those who might vote for the wrong side.
It may have been cynical as regards party politics in GEs, but as an excuse for losing Brexit vote, it doesn't wash. Thanks to the level of interest and importance of the vote, there was huge sign-up to vote in the weeks leading to the event, indeed the server crashes requiring an extra day or activity. I can't believe there were many who were remotely interested in voting who did not get around to it.
Head of household signup is clearly anachronistic. What is this the 19th century? (don't answer that Boris...)
But the Lib Dems were crap at the negotiations. They gave up everythig and got nothing.
Compared to the Scottish Lib Dems who did brilliantly at the Holyrood negotiations with Labour it is bizarre.
Incorrect.
One of the reasons the Coalition lasted the full term, and didn't fall within months as many predicted, was that both sides largely got what they wanted within the talks, that were hard headed but amicable and focused on policy and not competing personalities.
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.
I've never understood that accusation. It seems totally devoid of logic. Most of the Lib Dems bigger beasts would have been successful enough in either the Tories or Labour (dependant on personal tendencies) that if they'd been so driven by personal ambition... they'd already have been in one of the other parties.
Far simpler to work your way up the standard ladder than spend years and years in the Lib Dems hoping for a very very rare hung Parliament.
I think the point he's making is that the Lib Dems stayed onside because of the perks of being in government. I'm sure Clegg, Laws and Alexander got pretty much what they wanted but they weren't representative of their voters or members.
It's such a ludicrous assumption, it's barely worthy of comment. It's the sort of patronizing drivel that got Labour into difficulty at the start of their spectacularly awful Coalition talks with the LibDems.
The LibDem members overwhelmingly endorsed the Coalition deal
For all the vitriol Clegg receives as leading them into and through it, that is an important point. I don't recall the exact course of events, but I'm sure I recollect that they had to get endorsement from their party to go into the deal, and while ditching Clegg 6-12 months before the GE would have allowed a paper thin assertion of distinction from the Coalition, all those who backed it have a share in what then happened. But I imagine that will be forgotten in the short to medium term. While the end result was catastrophic for the LDs, I do still think Clegg and the coalitionistas will be treated less harshly by history.
Mr. W (2), one votes for the Morris Dancer Party. There wouldn't be any delays crossing the Channel if we'd implemented our sensible foreign policy of invading France.
An invasion led by the 1st Battalion of the Royal Wiffle Stick Fusiliers?
I think the point he's making is that the Lib Dems stayed onside because of the perks of being in government. I'm sure Clegg, Laws and Alexander got pretty much what they wanted but they weren't representative of their voters or members.
It's such a ludicrous assumption, it's barely worthy of comment. It's the sort of patronizing drivel that got Labour into difficulty at the start of their spectacularly awful Coalition talks with the LibDems.
The LibDem members overwhelmingly endorsed the Coalition deal and LibDems voters are such a diverse grouping I doubt even an agreement with Mother Theresa would have garnered majority support.
As pointed out about Labour's current problems the membership does not equal the party voters.
An interesting piece by Mr Eagles, for which many thanks, but it does contain a lot of assumptions and a fair dollop of wishful thinking.
From the LD side, the only way Coalition 2.0 could have happened was if Coalition 1.0 had been shown to be an electoral success for the Party. Had we come out of 2015 with 50+ seats, I think Clegg could have sold the idea of a second Coalition to a sceptical Party .
The 2010 concept was one term in the national interest but it coincided with the convergence of the Orange Bookers and the Liberal Conservatives who could quite happily work together across a whole range of issues. The problem was that philosophical convergence was brief and didn't stand the test of collaboration in Government in some areas.
The reality of Coalition was LDs were forced to vote through Conservative measures they instinctively opposed while Conservatives were forced to vote through LD measures they instinctively opposed and seethed in Cabinet (Mrs May being one example it seems). The problem was there had been no pre-planning and the post-election deal was predicated on enormous pressure from the civil service, the Bank of England and others all demanding we had a Government.
Had the Conservative and Lib Dem negotiating teams had a fortnight to conclude a programme for Government, it would have been even better but there is this absurd nonsense we have to have a Prime Minister at all times even at the cost of democracy (as we've just seen) means we confront the old adage that decisions taken in haste offer plenty of time for repentance.
As for the EU Referendum, the commitment from Cameron was only for a vote in the event of a Conservative majority. A second Coalition without a Conservative majority would have meant that pledge falling so no referendum at all or at least unless and until a Treaty change.
The real irony of May's PMQ debut was that she had to invoke Thatcher.
Does she not have a personality of her own ? Why can't she be the first May ?
Give it time I guess. People were going to look for the allusions to Thatcher anyway, she's still vilified and idolised to ridiculous proportions by the members of the left and right, it'll take time for May to stamp herself on to the role.
And given the sort of hyperbolistic approval we've seen of her from some quarters, that it is clear she is x or y or brilliant at x or y, which she has not had the chance to prove or disprove yet, I guess it was worth it to have a good start to the honeymoon period.
The implied probability of a Trump win at Betfair is 30%. Five Thirty-Eight make it 42% (polls) or 40% (polls and other data) and 44% if there were an election today.
Convicted fraudster Conrad Black, former chairman of Hollinger and the Torygraph, writes in the Spectator that "The brilliant Donald Trump deserves to win", and predicts how his preferred outcome will come about:
"Trump will carpet-bomb the country in September and October with a billion dollars of reminders of Benghazi (she slept while her ambassador was murdered), the televised apology to the world’s Muslims, the FBI director’s non-indictment indictment; the malodorous conflicts of the Clinton Foundation entwined with the Clinton State Department."
It is quite possibly true. There is almost nothing that binds Trump to the mainstream Republican Party apart from their contempt for Hillary Clinton. It is their only common ground.
My head says Clinton will win, based on all the usual demographic arguments, key states needed etc etc.
And yet, I am stuck with a gut feeling that Trump will win. It's partly the acceptance speech the other day. In some respects it was the worst by any contender I can remember. Long and shouty and just a ragtagle of nonsense. But brilliant in the way he manipulated fear of crime and so on, and promised completely policy free and impossible solutions. From day one "all this crime will end", sort of thing.
The clincher is the slogan, "I'm with You", in contrast to Clinton's "I'm with her".
One thing is for sure, as Andrew Neil said the other day, this is going to be the foulest, dirtiest campaign in living memory.
I was a massive fan of the coalition, Cameron and Clegg deserve huge credit for keeping the coalition stable and lasting the one term. Clegg putting the country's interest ahead of his own party was the right thing to do and I think history will judge him well on that front.
If there had been an option on the ballot box in 2015 to continue the coalition for another 5 years I would have voted for it.
So many hostages to fortune in that interview. One being that the defenceless widow worried about her salary being taken away from her that John McDonnell talked about is Karie Murphy, a noted Labour bruiser who was at the centre of the Falkirk selection row. She is also Len McCluskey's girlfriend.
I think the point he's making is that the Lib Dems stayed onside because of the perks of being in government. I'm sure Clegg, Laws and Alexander got pretty much what they wanted but they weren't representative of their voters or members.
It's such a ludicrous assumption, it's barely worthy of comment. It's the sort of patronizing drivel that got Labour into difficulty at the start of their spectacularly awful Coalition talks with the LibDems.
The LibDem members overwhelmingly endorsed the Coalition deal and LibDems voters are such a diverse grouping I doubt even an agreement with Mother Theresa would have garnered majority support.
On a long term basis the coalition allowed Lib Dem senior figures to get experience. While many of them are no longer in parliament several of them are young enough to come back. The Lib Dems got squashed when austerity was the key battleground. There was no middle ground left. They now have a word to own which is "Remain". There are 48% of the voter base who have no-one voicing their concerns in England. It is still too early to say but council by-election results are no longer going backwards. I think the Lib Dems should be aiming to get back to 15% by Xmas and be the third party of the UK again.
The first major challenge on Brexit is starting at Dover. When Switzerland voted to control free movement of people 2 years ago the French slowed down the border and quickly the Swiss gave in. Anyone who thinks that long queues at Dover are a short term problem don't know the French. This will be a recurring theme over the next few months and there is almost nothing the Tories can do. The more they shout at the French the worse it will get. This does not just affect tourism it will slow down the economy as well.
Miss Plato, saw a bit of Sky last night. Isn't it due to Jezbollah's underlings entering an MP's office without her knowledge or permission?
Corbyn's office is saying Seema had resigned so it wasn't her office anymore and they'd every right to enter.
Never forget that it was Labour that had a Ministers office searched and the minister arrested. Also they dragged a pensioner out of a conference and arrested under the terrorism act simply because that pensioner said Jack Straw *was barking.
The Labour Party have plenty of form in this area.
* amazing how quick the Iraq enquiry became a footnote in history and "fish and chip" paper
They also lie through their teeth Remember that window in Angela Eagle’s Labour party office in Wallasey, that was supposed to have been broken? Remember the insinuation that this had been done by wicked Corbynites? Well, I asked Merseyside Police, and they told me that the window wasn’t that of Mrs Eagle’s office, which wasn’t broken. It was the window of a stairwell and hallway, in an office building which Wallasey Labour Party shares with several others. Bear this in mind when reading coverage of this contest.
I think the point he's making is that the Lib Dems stayed onside because of the perks of being in government. I'm sure Clegg, Laws and Alexander got pretty much what they wanted but they weren't representative of their voters or members.
It's such a ludicrous assumption, it's barely worthy of comment. It's the sort of patronizing drivel that got Labour into difficulty at the start of their spectacularly awful Coalition talks with the LibDems.
The LibDem members overwhelmingly endorsed the Coalition deal and LibDems voters are such a diverse grouping I doubt even an agreement with Mother Theresa would have garnered majority support.
On a long term basis the coalition allowed Lib Dem senior figures to get experience. While many of them are no longer in parliament several of them are young enough to come back. The Lib Dems got squashed when austerity was the key battleground. There was no middle ground left. They now have a word to own which is "Remain". There are 48% of the voter base who have no-one voicing their concerns in England. It is still too early to say but council by-election results are no longer going backwards. I think the Lib Dems should be aiming to get back to 15% by Xmas and be the third party of the UK again.
The first major challenge on Brexit is starting at Dover. When Switzerland voted to control free movement of people 2 years ago the French slowed down the border and quickly the Swiss gave in. Anyone who thinks that long queues at Dover are a short term problem don't know the French. This will be a recurring theme over the next few months and there is almost nothing the Tories can do. The more they shout at the French the worse it will get. This does not just affect tourism it will slow down the economy as well.
Yes but the UK will now be alongside Switzerland and the French also have Le Pen looming on the horizon and she also wants to control free movement, even Juppe said a deal may be possible
For all the vitriol Clegg receives as leading them into and through it, that is an important point. I don't recall the exact course of events, but I'm sure I recollect that they had to get endorsement from their party to go into the deal, and while ditching Clegg 6-12 months before the GE would have allowed a paper thin assertion of distinction from the Coalition, all those who backed it have a share in what then happened. But I imagine that will be forgotten in the short to medium term. While the end result was catastrophic for the LDs, I do still think Clegg and the coalitionistas will be treated less harshly by history.
The LibDems did right by the nation in 2010 but the nation punished them for it.
Of course the voters are not obliged to do gratitude or even remorse afterwards. It is harsh reminder of the nature of democracy.
For all the vitriol Clegg receives as leading them into and through it, that is an important point. I don't recall the exact course of events, but I'm sure I recollect that they had to get endorsement from their party to go into the deal, and while ditching Clegg 6-12 months before the GE would have allowed a paper thin assertion of distinction from the Coalition, all those who backed it have a share in what then happened. But I imagine that will be forgotten in the short to medium term. While the end result was catastrophic for the LDs, I do still think Clegg and the coalitionistas will be treated less harshly by history.
The LibDems did right by the nation in 2010 but the nation punished them for it.
Of course the voters are not obliged to do gratitude or even remorse afterwards. It is harsh reminder of the nature of democracy.
Ditching their principles for ministerial perks is hardly doing right by the nation. It was pure self interest. I see Clegg unbelievably gets £115K extra expenses a year that is normally reserved foe ex PM's. Still wallowing in teh trough and rarely appears at his day job as too busy making wads doing speeches, yet trousering over £250K from public trough.
My head says Clinton will win, based on all the usual demographic arguments, key states needed etc etc.
And yet, I am stuck with a gut feeling that Trump will win.
I would go further. My gut tells me that the demographic assumptions will turn out to be very wide of the mark. The Democrats face the Scottish Labour problem of having taken certain groups so much for granted that when someone shows up who actually challenges whether they deserve those votes, their response is weak and complacent.
Another assumption is that immigrant voters will be turned off by a nationalistic campaign. Brexit has certainly disproved that one.
The implied probability of a Trump win at Betfair is 30%. Five Thirty-Eight make it 42% (polls) or 40% (polls and other data) and 44% if there were an election today.
Convicted fraudster Conrad Black, former chairman of Hollinger and the Torygraph, writes in the Spectator that "The brilliant Donald Trump deserves to win", and predicts how his preferred outcome will come about:
"Trump will carpet-bomb the country in September and October with a billion dollars of reminders of Benghazi (she slept while her ambassador was murdered), the televised apology to the world’s Muslims, the FBI director’s non-indictment indictment; the malodorous conflicts of the Clinton Foundation entwined with the Clinton State Department."
It is quite possibly true. There is almost nothing that binds Trump to the mainstream Republican Party apart from their contempt for Hillary Clinton. It is their only common ground.
My head says Clinton will win, based on all the usual demographic arguments, key states needed etc etc.
And yet, I am stuck with a gut feeling that Trump will win. It's partly the acceptance speech the other day. In some respects it was the worst by any contender I can remember. Long and shouty and just a ragtagle of nonsense. But brilliant in the way he manipulated fear of crime and so on, and promised completely policy free and impossible solutions. From day one "all this crime will end", sort of thing.
The clincher is the slogan, "I'm with You", in contrast to Clinton's "I'm with her".
One thing is for sure, as Andrew Neil said the other day, this is going to be the foulest, dirtiest campaign in living memory.
Our popcorn will be running until November.
The battle line is clear, the Dems are going to run a 'morning in America' campaign to counter Trump's 'project terror'. Then they will go strong with the material they've held back on (Trump has already used his, he just has no self control). So, Trump as a fraudster, a serial bankrupt, an actual crook and a traitor to his country (as a Putin stooge beholden to Russian money). Watching this is going to be delicious. Clinton is not a good candidate but the US in a holding pattern for four years is their only credible option really.
Ditching their principles for ministerial perks is hardly doing right by the nation. It was pure self interest. I see Clegg unbelievably gets £115K extra expenses a year that is normally reserved foe ex PM's. Still wallowing in teh trough and rarely appears at his day job as too busy making wads doing speeches, yet trousering over £250K from public trough.
I hadn't realized the SNP at Holyrood and Westminster had disavowed all perks, expenses and turnips ?!?
My head says Clinton will win, based on all the usual demographic arguments, key states needed etc etc.
And yet, I am stuck with a gut feeling that Trump will win.
I would go further. My gut tells me that the demographic assumptions will turn out to be very wide of the mark. The Democrats face the Scottish Labour problem of having taken certain groups so much for granted that when someone shows up who actually challenges whether they deserve those votes, their response is weak and complacent.
Another assumption is that immigrant voters will be turned off by a nationalistic campaign. Brexit has certainly disproved that one.
The media have been very lazy when they try to force a Trump-shaped peg into a Brexit-shaped hole. They're similar only in that sometimes you can win with a very broad coalition of voters who otherwise have nothing in common with each other.
The motivations for a Leave vote could have been anything from 'deporting all the darkies', principled opposition to the democratic deficit, Libertarianism, dislike of Roma big issue sellers, free trade fanaticism, worry about kids in a mixed-language school and so on.
I do agree that Clinton needs to be very careful not to assume that any of her traditional constituents are still behind her. She's like Remain in that she's offering herself as the least worst option. That's hardly going to get the vote out.
For all the vitriol Clegg receives as leading them into and through it, that is an important point. I don't recall the exact course of events, but I'm sure I recollect that they had to get endorsement from their party to go into the deal, and while ditching Clegg 6-12 months before the GE would have allowed a paper thin assertion of distinction from the Coalition, all those who backed it have a share in what then happened. But I imagine that will be forgotten in the short to medium term. While the end result was catastrophic for the LDs, I do still think Clegg and the coalitionistas will be treated less harshly by history.
The LibDems did right by the nation in 2010 but the nation punished them for it.
Of course the voters are not obliged to do gratitude or even remorse afterwards. It is harsh reminder of the nature of democracy.
I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010 but LD in 2015, the complete opposite of the national swing. However I am now back in the Tory fold.
I do agree that Clinton needs to be very careful not to assume that any of her traditional constituents are still behind her. She's like Remain in that she's offering herself as the least worst option. That's hardly going to get the vote out.
Luckily the Democrats will have the benefit of Kezia Dugdale's advice on how to learn from the Remain campaign...
Democrats supported a Democrat over an Independent? Well that's a surprise. Sanders is no Cruz in any case. The real revelation will tie Trump to the Russian hackers supported by the Russian government.
Trump has clearly got a convention bounce and some Sanders' voters will vote for Stein rather than Clinton but then some Jeb Bush and Kasich voters will vote for Johnson not Trump. We need to see the position next weekend after the Democratic convention to really see where the ground lies
My head says Clinton will win, based on all the usual demographic arguments, key states needed etc etc.
And yet, I am stuck with a gut feeling that Trump will win.
I would go further. My gut tells me that the demographic assumptions will turn out to be very wide of the mark. The Democrats face the Scottish Labour problem of having taken certain groups so much for granted that when someone shows up who actually challenges whether they deserve those votes, their response is weak and complacent.
Another assumption is that immigrant voters will be turned off by a nationalistic campaign. Brexit has certainly disproved that one.
The media have been very lazy when they try to force a Trump-shaped peg into a Brexit-shaped hole. They're similar only in that sometimes you can win with a very broad coalition of voters who otherwise have nothing in common with each other.
The motivations for a Leave vote could have been anything from 'deporting all the darkies', principled opposition to the democratic deficit, Libertarianism, dislike of Roma big issue sellers, free trade fanaticism, worry about kids in a mixed-language school and so on.
I do agree that Clinton needs to be very careful not to assume that any of her traditional constituents are still behind her. She's like Remain in that she's offering herself as the least worst option. That's hardly going to get the vote out.
One of the DNCLeaks was an internal poll showing how poorly women viewed her. Given she's the Ovaries For The Oval Office candidate - it was rather amusing. Personally speaking, I consider her a political lizard of the worst kind.
I do agree that Clinton needs to be very careful not to assume that any of her traditional constituents are still behind her. She's like Remain in that she's offering herself as the least worst option. That's hardly going to get the vote out.
Luckily the Democrats will have the benefit of Kezia Dugdale's advice on how to learn from the Remain campaign...
I do agree that Clinton needs to be very careful not to assume that any of her traditional constituents are still behind her. She's like Remain in that she's offering herself as the least worst option. That's hardly going to get the vote out.
Luckily the Democrats will have the benefit of Kezia Dugdale's advice on how to learn from the Remain campaign...
I'm so tired after yesterday's shenanigans that my sarcasm meter might be playing up. She has clearly learned very little from EUref. About 43% of ABC1's voted Leave. It's not all about the poor white trash.
I can't see Labour replacing Corbyn by anyone other than McDonnell though before the next election so May should still win the next election and get a majority, especially after the boundary changes and even if the LDs do see something of a recovery. May's victory over Leadsom should see the most right-wing Eurosceptics sticking with UKIP rather than voting Tory
I think the point he's making is that the Lib Dems stayed onside because of the perks of being in government. I'm sure Clegg, Laws and Alexander got pretty much what they wanted but they weren't representative of their voters or members.
It's such a ludicrous assumption, it's barely worthy of comment. It's the sort of patronizing drivel that got Labour into difficulty at the start of their spectacularly awful Coalition talks with the LibDems.
The LibDem members overwhelmingly endorsed the Coalition deal and LibDems voters are such a diverse grouping I doubt even an agreement with Mother Theresa would have garnered majority support.
On a long term basis the coalition allowed Lib Dem senior figures to get experience. While many of them are no longer in parliament several of them are young enough to come back. The Lib Dems got squashed when austerity was the key battleground. There was no middle ground left. They now have a word to own which is "Remain". There are 48% of the voter base who have no-one voicing their concerns in England. It is still too early to say but council by-election results are no longer going backwards. I think the Lib Dems should be aiming to get back to 15% by Xmas and be the third party of the UK again.
The first major challenge on Brexit is starting at Dover. When Switzerland voted to control free movement of people 2 years ago the French slowed down the border and quickly the Swiss gave in. Anyone who thinks that long queues at Dover are a short term problem don't know the French. This will be a recurring theme over the next few months and there is almost nothing the Tories can do. The more they shout at the French the worse it will get. This does not just affect tourism it will slow down the economy as well.
Yes but the UK will now be alongside Switzerland and the French also have Le Pen looming on the horizon and she also wants to control free movement, even Juppe said a deal may be possible
Yes but what is the deal we will offer? Are we allowing French people to come and go as they want into the UK and live and work here. In Switzerland there are restrictions on work but not movement or living. The problem is that this means drug dealers have no restrictions but labour markets are very tight and wages through the roof.
I think the point he's making is that the Lib Dems stayed onside because of the perks of being in government. I'm sure Clegg, Laws and Alexander got pretty much what they wanted but they weren't representative of their voters or members.
It's such a ludicrous assumption, it's barely worthy of comment. It's the sort of patronizing drivel that got Labour into difficulty at the start of their spectacularly awful Coalition talks with the LibDems.
The LibDem members overwhelmingly endorsed the Coalition deal and LibDems voters are such a diverse grouping I doubt even an agreement with Mother Theresa would have garnered majority support.
On a long term basis the coalition allowed Lib Dem senior figures to get experience. While many of them are no longer in parliament several of them are young enough to come back. The Lib Dems got squashed when austerity was the key battleground. There was no middle ground left. They now have a word to own which is "Remain". There are 48% of the voter base who have no-one voicing their concerns in England. It is still too early to say but council by-election results are no longer going backwards. I think the Lib Dems should be aiming to get back to 15% by Xmas and be the third party of the UK again.
The first major challenge on Brexit is starting at Dover. When Switzerland voted to control free movement of people 2 years ago the French slowed down the border and quickly the Swiss gave in. Anyone who thinks that long queues at Dover are a short term problem don't know the French. This will be a recurring theme over the next few months and there is almost nothing the Tories can do. The more they shout at the French the worse it will get. This does not just affect tourism it will slow down the economy as well.
Yes but the UK will now be alongside Switzerland and the French also have Le Pen looming on the horizon and she also wants to control free movement, even Juppe said a deal may be possible
Yes but what is the deal we will offer? Are we allowing French people to come and go as they want into the UK and live and work here. In Switzerland there are restrictions on work but not movement or living. The problem is that this means drug dealers have no restrictions but labour markets are very tight and wages through the roof.
There will be some free movement with controls for some single market access
Probably the most ludicrous piece I have ever read on this site.
Of course if Cameron did not have an overall majority he could have blamed the failure to hold a referendum on the lack of it. However the much greater mistake is not in eliminating the Lib Dems but from having the ridiculous cave in to his party nutters of a referendum in the first place. The idea of keeping the Lib Dems as some sort of political pets is hardly realistic.
However, the article reaches absurdity in the suggestion that Nick Clegg's negotiating skills could have won a better pre referendum deal. Yes, these were the skills so evidently on display when he destroyed his own party with the cave in on tuition fees and much else besides!!!
Well said the article is pure sycophantry of the highest order.
My head says Clinton will win, based on all the usual demographic arguments, key states needed etc etc.
And yet, I am stuck with a gut feeling that Trump will win.
I would go further. My gut tells me that the demographic assumptions will turn out to be very wide of the mark. The Democrats face the Scottish Labour problem of having taken certain groups so much for granted that when someone shows up who actually challenges whether they deserve those votes, their response is weak and complacent.
Another assumption is that immigrant voters will be turned off by a nationalistic campaign. Brexit has certainly disproved that one.
Trump's backing for the police in the present climate will keep most of the black vote behind Clinton and the Hispanic vote is threatened by Trump in a way East Europeans in the UK were threatened by Leave but East Europeans had no vote
I can't see Labour replacing Corbyn by anyone other than McDonnell though before the next election so May should still win the next election and get a majority, especially after the boundary changes and even if the LDs do see something of a recovery. May's victory over Leadsom should see the most right-wing Eurosceptics sticking with UKIP rather than voting Tory
I've seen McD's straight to camera nonsense this morning just now, if he is next in line then May has more to worry about Boris making a gaffe then Labour landing a blow.
I can't see Labour replacing Corbyn by anyone other than McDonnell though before the next election so May should still win the next election and get a majority, especially after the boundary changes and even if the LDs do see something of a recovery. May's victory over Leadsom should see the most right-wing Eurosceptics sticking with UKIP rather than voting Tory
I've seen McD's straight to camera nonsense this morning just now, if he is next in line then May has more to worry about Boris making a gaffe then Labour landing a blow.
I can't see Labour replacing Corbyn by anyone other than McDonnell though before the next election so May should still win the next election and get a majority, especially after the boundary changes and even if the LDs do see something of a recovery. May's victory over Leadsom should see the most right-wing Eurosceptics sticking with UKIP rather than voting Tory
I've seen McD's straight to camera nonsense this morning just now, if he is next in line then May has more to worry about Boris making a gaffe then Labour landing a blow.
Most people can see through that sort of schtick, surely?
I can't see Labour replacing Corbyn by anyone other than McDonnell though before the next election so May should still win the next election and get a majority, especially after the boundary changes and even if the LDs do see something of a recovery. May's victory over Leadsom should see the most right-wing Eurosceptics sticking with UKIP rather than voting Tory
I've seen McD's straight to camera nonsense this morning just now, if he is next in line then May has more to worry about Boris making a gaffe then Labour landing a blow.
Most people can see through that sort of schtick, surely?
Or can they?
Everyone is talking about McDonnell. No such thing as bad...etc.
I can't see Labour replacing Corbyn by anyone other than McDonnell though before the next election so May should still win the next election and get a majority, especially after the boundary changes and even if the LDs do see something of a recovery. May's victory over Leadsom should see the most right-wing Eurosceptics sticking with UKIP rather than voting Tory
I've seen McD's straight to camera nonsense this morning just now, if he is next in line then May has more to worry about Boris making a gaffe then Labour landing a blow.
Most people can see through that sort of schtick, surely?
Or can they?
I've been saying for months that McDonnell is dangerous, not useless.
He's picked up all the Sinn Fein tricks. And looks/sounds like a retired Met police officer.
That's the point -- the last-minute registration drive showed the government was aware it had previously deliberately disenfranchised groups suspected of voting Labour.
Individual registration makes far more sense than head of household. If you are old enough and responsible enough to vote, you should be able to ensure you are registered yourself. Having someone else do it for you is sheer laziness.
Whether or not that is true, the motivation clearly was to disenfranchise Labour-leaning voters, and to do in time for the boundary changes. Unwanted side-effects were to pitch Britain out of the EU and Cameron and Osborne out of office.
No doesn't wash.
Labour have had a distinct advantage for years . The Tories had to be how many % ahead in the polls to get even on seat numbers with Labour.?
If you can't be arsed to get out of bed and register then you don't deserve the vote.
I'm against compulsory voting but in favour of compulsory registration.
Compulsory voting means that people who don't give a damn will vote for the person at the top of the alphabetical list, or totally at random. Their vote has the same weight as someone who diligently researches the issues and reaches a considered view. That can't be right.
But compulsory registration has all sorts of benefits. It would make gerrymandering more difficult, increase the number of people voting, expose illegals. Something for everybody.
Wow, that McDonnell interview was amazing. On so many levels. Most important, he gave a pathway for saving Labour from the hard left.
Can you summarise ?
I am working on a short article about it that I hope to persuade Mike to publish, but it has everything to do with the fact that - for the first time - McDonnell said that he and Corbyn will stand down if labour loses the next general election.
As a music obsessive, Ian Rankin has peppered his bestselling Rebus novels with references to some of his favourite tracks. Now he is to take things to the next level by launching his own music festival to celebrate his famous literary creation’s 30th anniversary.
Top Scottish bands including Mogwai and Belle and Sebastian — who have all featured in the books — are tipped to appear. The line-up, which has yet to be settled, would play in the curmudgeonly detective’s home city of Edinburgh.
Can not see Brexit light pleasing the right of the conservative party. It is like offering an alcoholic at a party a bottle of becks blue.
Indeed. Someone has to be upset with whatever Brexit we get, and I'd rather it was them to be honest, but if I were them I'd fight tooth and nail, with confidence of success as well.
Wow, that McDonnell interview was amazing. On so many levels. Most important, he gave a pathway for saving Labour from the hard left.
Can you summarise ?
I am working on a short article about it that I hope to persuade Mike to publish, but it has everything to do with the fact that - for the first time - McDonnell said that he and Corbyn will stand down if labour loses the next general election.
And you believe him.
And by then, the takeover will be complete. It's either a totally empty distraction gesture, or a sign they'll have already won their own war. I don't see it as reassuring at all for moderates.
I can't see Labour replacing Corbyn by anyone other than McDonnell though before the next election so May should still win the next election and get a majority, especially after the boundary changes and even if the LDs do see something of a recovery. May's victory over Leadsom should see the most right-wing Eurosceptics sticking with UKIP rather than voting Tory
I've seen McD's straight to camera nonsense this morning just now, if he is next in line then May has more to worry about Boris making a gaffe then Labour landing a blow.
Most people can see through that sort of schtick, surely?
Or can they?
It works against the PLP as they lack the big personalities to counter, but would an old bruiser like David Davis or even someone like Justine Greening get pushed around by such rhetoric? Nope. But then he doesn't care about his opponents, just his enemies.
The Lib Dems didn't even need to keep their pledge. Their pledge was to abolish tuition fees, the Tories sought to triple them and the Lib Dems let that happen. Had the Lib Dems stood firm on a compromise of "abolishing fees isn't possible, but we won't raise them any further" then I think they would have easily got away with that.
It was the fact they did the exact opposite of their pledge that got such furore. Had they just taken masterly inactivity and done nothing with fees they'd have had a free pass on that.
Probably so.
Strategically the worst mistake was the failure of the LibDems to explore the Cameron/Osborne offer of a "2015 Coupon Election".
A myriad of specultion to be had, although it's safe to say that Peter Bone would have self combusted at the prospect.
I suspect that quite a few LibDem MPs would not have been open to that - Pugh-Sanders - Kennedy - possibly Cable.
Wow, that McDonnell interview was amazing. On so many levels. Most important, he gave a pathway for saving Labour from the hard left.
Can you summarise ?
I am working on a short article about it that I hope to persuade Mike to publish, but it has everything to do with the fact that - for the first time - McDonnell said that he and Corbyn will stand down if labour loses the next general election.
Do you believe him?
Seems to me to be a classic divide and rule technique - persuading some of the activists that they don't need to split the party but just keep their heads down and it will all go away
Comments
The Labour Party have plenty of form in this area.
* amazing how quick the Iraq enquiry became a footnote in history and "fish and chip" paper
"Help - I Gained 20st On PB Popcorn And My Pussy Has Gone Missing !!!"
Labour have had a distinct advantage for years . The Tories had to be how many % ahead in the polls to get even on seat numbers with Labour.?
If you can't be arsed to get out of bed and register then you don't deserve the vote.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07l6fnp/britains-eu-referendum-vote-seminar
The LibDem members overwhelmingly endorsed the Coalition deal and LibDems voters are such a diverse grouping I doubt even an agreement with Mother Theresa would have garnered majority support.
Mr. W (2), one votes for the Morris Dancer Party. There wouldn't be any delays crossing the Channel if we'd implemented our sensible foreign policy of invading France.
Mr. Pulpstar, my reading time is strictly limited now, so I'm afraid I must pass.
WATCH: McDonnell Looks Down the Camera https://t.co/61kNlr4CYe
Corbyn and McDonnell will not stand down even if Labour lost 100 seats unless there is an apparatchik lined up who is guaranteed the win to replace them.
He must have had that planned as a technique.
Convicted fraudster Conrad Black, former chairman of Hollinger and the Torygraph, writes in the Spectator that "The brilliant Donald Trump deserves to win", and predicts how his preferred outcome will come about:
"Trump will carpet-bomb the country in September and October with a billion dollars of reminders of Benghazi (she slept while her ambassador was murdered), the televised apology to the world’s Muslims, the FBI director’s non-indictment indictment; the malodorous conflicts of the Clinton Foundation entwined with the Clinton State Department."
The problem is that the leaders of the Labour Party are more interested in playing silly games than in getting improvements to the way we work things in this country. Mr Corbyn`s faint-hearted support for the EU shows that he is still playing the same silly games as Milliband.
The problem is that the Labour Party does not really believe in change and progress.
The popcorn thing is intensely irritating but that is quite funny.
If you can spike the even more annoying colour me... waycist... and simples... I'll be a happy man!
Head of household signup is clearly anachronistic. What is this the 19th century? (don't answer that Boris...)
Far simpler to work your way up the standard ladder than spend years and years in the Lib Dems hoping for a very very rare hung Parliament.
An interesting piece by Mr Eagles, for which many thanks, but it does contain a lot of assumptions and a fair dollop of wishful thinking.
From the LD side, the only way Coalition 2.0 could have happened was if Coalition 1.0 had been shown to be an electoral success for the Party. Had we come out of 2015 with 50+ seats, I think Clegg could have sold the idea of a second Coalition to a sceptical Party .
The 2010 concept was one term in the national interest but it coincided with the convergence of the Orange Bookers and the Liberal Conservatives who could quite happily work together across a whole range of issues. The problem was that philosophical convergence was brief and didn't stand the test of collaboration in Government in some areas.
The reality of Coalition was LDs were forced to vote through Conservative measures they instinctively opposed while Conservatives were forced to vote through LD measures they instinctively opposed and seethed in Cabinet (Mrs May being one example it seems). The problem was there had been no pre-planning and the post-election deal was predicated on enormous pressure from the civil service, the Bank of England and others all demanding we had a Government.
Had the Conservative and Lib Dem negotiating teams had a fortnight to conclude a programme for Government, it would have been even better but there is this absurd nonsense we have to have a Prime Minister at all times even at the cost of democracy (as we've just seen) means we confront the old adage that decisions taken in haste offer plenty of time for repentance.
As for the EU Referendum, the commitment from Cameron was only for a vote in the event of a Conservative majority. A second Coalition without a Conservative majority would have meant that pledge falling so no referendum at all or at least unless and until a Treaty change.
And given the sort of hyperbolistic approval we've seen of her from some quarters, that it is clear she is x or y or brilliant at x or y, which she has not had the chance to prove or disprove yet, I guess it was worth it to have a good start to the honeymoon period.
And yet, I am stuck with a gut feeling that Trump will win. It's partly the acceptance speech the other day. In some respects it was the worst by any contender I can remember. Long and shouty and just a ragtagle of nonsense. But brilliant in the way he manipulated fear of crime and so on, and promised completely policy free and impossible solutions. From day one "all this crime will end", sort of thing.
The clincher is the slogan, "I'm with You", in contrast to Clinton's "I'm with her".
One thing is for sure, as Andrew Neil said the other day, this is going to be the foulest, dirtiest campaign in living memory.
Our popcorn will be running until November.
If there had been an option on the ballot box in 2015 to continue the coalition for another 5 years I would have voted for it.
The first major challenge on Brexit is starting at Dover. When Switzerland voted to control free movement of people 2 years ago the French slowed down the border and quickly the Swiss gave in. Anyone who thinks that long queues at Dover are a short term problem don't know the French. This will be a recurring theme over the next few months and there is almost nothing the Tories can do. The more they shout at the French the worse it will get. This does not just affect tourism it will slow down the economy as well.
Remember that window in Angela Eagle’s Labour party office in Wallasey, that was supposed to have been broken? Remember the insinuation that this had been done by wicked Corbynites? Well, I asked Merseyside Police, and they told me that the window wasn’t that of Mrs Eagle’s office, which wasn’t broken. It was the window of a stairwell and hallway, in an office building which Wallasey Labour Party shares with several others. Bear this in mind when reading coverage of this contest.
Of course the voters are not obliged to do gratitude or even remorse afterwards. It is harsh reminder of the nature of democracy.
Another assumption is that immigrant voters will be turned off by a nationalistic campaign. Brexit has certainly disproved that one.
I'm not sure, I always thought he was more of a social liberal, than a Tory. Or what The Blessed Margaret might have termed a "wet"?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/756962332228612096
Who knew ?
The motivations for a Leave vote could have been anything from 'deporting all the darkies', principled opposition to the democratic deficit, Libertarianism, dislike of Roma big issue sellers, free trade fanaticism, worry about kids in a mixed-language school and so on.
I do agree that Clinton needs to be very careful not to assume that any of her traditional constituents are still behind her. She's like Remain in that she's offering herself as the least worst option. That's hardly going to get the vote out.
It keeps getting deleted from the Trending list just as the allegations about Cruz did. It's just annoying even more people.
Facebook seem to be playing silly buggers too. Have they never heard of the Streisand Effect?
There's some great fun in them - I've only been sent a few, but they're ouchtastic. Especially for the reporter who sent his copy to DNC for approval.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/kezia-dugdale-brexit-topple-donald-trump-scottish-labour-leader-americans-a7152901.html
Or can they?
He's picked up all the Sinn Fein tricks. And looks/sounds like a retired Met police officer.
It is like offering an alcoholic at a party a bottle of becks blue.
Compulsory voting means that people who don't give a damn will vote for the person at the top of the alphabetical list, or totally at random. Their vote has the same weight as someone who diligently researches the issues and reaches a considered view. That can't be right.
But compulsory registration has all sorts of benefits. It would make gerrymandering more difficult, increase the number of people voting, expose illegals. Something for everybody.
As a music obsessive, Ian Rankin has peppered his bestselling Rebus novels with references to some of his favourite tracks. Now he is to take things to the next level by launching his own music festival to celebrate his famous literary creation’s 30th anniversary.
Top Scottish bands including Mogwai and Belle and Sebastian — who have all featured in the books — are tipped to appear. The line-up, which has yet to be settled, would play in the curmudgeonly detective’s home city of Edinburgh.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/rankin-fans-to-rock-out-for-rebus-ct32t9gts
They thought they had all the cards... but 7 2 really is a crap hand
Marcher Lord
"The FA governing body receives £30million to £40million of public funding" https://t.co/N4tINoM01o
Munich mall attack: Calls in Germany for tighter gun laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36877388
But then he doesn't care about his opponents, just his enemies.
Seems to me to be a classic divide and rule technique - persuading some of the activists that they don't need to split the party but just keep their heads down and it will all go away