I think Mr Cameron wanted a deal quickly, because he didn't want a referendum mid-term. (Basking in the glow of his re-election, and with the support of the Labour Party, the SNP and the LibDems, he thought a quick 'renegotiation', followed by a referendum would be a cinch.)
If he'd had more sense (which he didn't), he would have taken three years to try and carve out a sensible Eurozone/non-Eurozone split in the EU, with the non-EZ members (like us, Denmark, Finland, and possibly one or two of the Eastern European countries) becoming effectively Associate Members.
But he didn't. And he paid the price.
It wouldn't have made any difference. He got pretty much the maximum possible; if he'd delayed, the other side would simply not have engaged until the last moment (as always happens with negotiations). The only area where I think he might have been able to get more was on benefits, but that was always a peripheral issue from our point of view. OTOH he did better than I expected on the City, and on the purely symbolic but nonetheless very important issue of the principle of 'ever closer union'.
Yet more reason to prepare the UK for the hardest of hard Brexits.
If the EU collapses, so do any rules they may have tried to impose on the UK.
I was meaning Gabriel's views were the reason to prepare, not his prediction. Brexit will happen before the collapse of the EU, in the event the latter ever happens.
I firmly believe that Nigel Farage wanted Brexit to happen as a result of the collapse of the EU rather than independently of it, and he would have been much happier on the inside trying to undermine the whole thing. The worst nightmare for him would be a successful EU which Britain is not part of.
Sky - Notting Hill Carnival: Man In Critical Condition After One Of Four Stabbings’
A man was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm. Minutes later, police were called to another stabbing on Portobello Road, taking one person to hospital. And less than an hour after that, two men were stabbed on Ladbroke Grove. They were also taken to hospital. Police said they had arrested 71 people, including two for sex offences, 50 for drugs, 13 for possession of offensive weapons and others for theft and public disorder.
Sky, Guardian, Express, LBC all reporting the story – BBC, very slow off the mark.
Isn't that a fairly normal level of carnage for the carnival?
A little up on last year wrt to stabbings and It’s only the first day of the #carnageval
Well, you have to admire the sheer chutzpah of Labour's hypocrisy:
The opposition party is also angry that the boundary changes are based on the number of people on the electoral register at the end of 2015, arguing that 2m extra people signed up in the run-up to the EU referendum this year. “Worryingly, under the Tories’ plan, not a single one of those 2 million extra people will be taken into account in the drawing up of the new constituency boundaries. This is simply wrong and runs the risk of further distorting the Boundary Review Process,” he added.
So, we should stick to the current constituencies, based on the 2000 electoral roll?
.. as well as admiring the sheer bonkersness of this argument:
Labour, however, also believes that Brexit provides further justification to row back on the policy given that all 73 of the UK’s MEPs are expected to go by the end of this parliament. “In light of this, a reduction in the number of elected members of parliament is simply wrong,” Winterton’s spokesman said.
I'm being charitable. Labour are in shock. Nothing they say makes any sense. Smith is embroiled in #29inchPenisGate, Corbyn's off making jam with Diane and all the MPs can do is bleat about things being 'unfair' every five minutes.
The guy really isn't ready for prime time is he!
Even I'm embarrassed for Labour and it's fair to say I'm not their biggest fan
How's Kansas? (Or are you really in Missouri?)
ORD flying down to MCI shortly so will be in MO not KS. Two days talking about protein demand, novel platforms for vaccine manufacturing and productivity enhancing data systems. Can't wait
Yet more reason to prepare the UK for the hardest of hard Brexits.
If the EU collapses, so do any rules they may have tried to impose on the UK.
I was meaning Gabriel's views were the reason to prepare, not his prediction. Brexit will happen before the collapse of the EU, in the event the latter ever happens.
I firmly believe that Nigel Farage wanted Brexit to happen as a result of the collapse of the EU rather than independently of it, and he would have been much happier on the inside trying to undermine the whole thing. The worst nightmare for him would be a successful EU which Britain is not part of.
On the equally important point of Plato's house-move, I would suggest that you move somewhere genteelly impoverished but with improving prospects. I'm not suggesting you move to a sink estate, but unless the sight of the odd empty shop or member of the proletariat brings on a fainting fit, it makes sense for you with a retirement income to go somewhere with less job prospects. You'll get more from your money and be wealthier than your neighbours (an essential pre-requisite for happiness apparently).
This brings to mind Wales (don't know enough about it to tell you where though), parts of Scotland, and much of the North of England. Or the quieter seaside towns - somewhere like the IOW?
I believe the IOW is described as a ghetto of inbreeding with a mass of crime, drug problems, huge unemployment ;-)
My Dad nearly bought a castle there a couple of years ago (with some friends). Needed a bit of TLC but for £1m + about £0.5m refurb you could get 1x 5 bed home, 2x 3 bed, 4x 3 bed flats, 90 acres and a beach.
I have to say I don't really have any idea what IoW is really like, as I have only ever been for Cowes Week and I am told the demographics are some what different to the natives.
Only a bit. I know the Island fairly well as I have some relatives there. Housing is much cheaper than the mainland South coast, but some towns have a rundown feel typical of much of the British seaside. There are some posh places, notably Yarmouth, Seaview and Bembridge.
Ventnor or Bonchurch would be my pick for anyone who didn't need to work. They have a delightful microclimate in a South facing bay, with lovely Victorian houses. Some are very cheap because of subsidence on the Undercliff. Enough to mean no company will do a mortgage, but not likely to fall into the sea just yet!
The reality is that places with cheap housing are generally so because of limited employment opportunities. On the Island there is little well paid private sector work and numbers commute to the mainland. Lack of any higher education and pursuit of careers have caused all of my working age relatives to move to the mainland. It's backwardness is part of its charm and part of it's curse. Health care is poor too.
Yet more reason to prepare the UK for the hardest of hard Brexits.
If the EU collapses, so do any rules they may have tried to impose on the UK.
John_M: I don't think it will collapse and would be unhappy if it did. It's in our interests to have a thriving neighbour.
German vice-chancellor: Brexit may send EU 'down the drain'
Ergo, it's in Britain's interests to remain in the EU.
Not sure I follow your logic Mr Glenn. I believe we have mutual interests in trade, security, intelligence, research and so on. I also believe we can cooperate quite satisfactorily without being part of the political structures of the union.
The logic depends on the German VC's view being somewhat correct. To the extent that Brexit will damage the EU, it is against Britain's strategic interests.
If we accept your reasoning then perhaps that thought should have occurred to our partners when they sent Mr Cameron back with such a tiny fig leaf to cover his political privates. Based on their response, they clearly felt the risk & impact of Brexit was negligible.
Cameron went into the negotiation telling them just needed a carnation to adorn his morning suit, not a fig leaf to cover his political privates. It's his failure, more than theirs, not to have understood how this would be seen by the British public, but a poor reason to cut off our nose to spite our face.
Both sides round the table last Autumn/Winter were hopeless. Cameron saw it as an essay crisis that just needed a fig leaf to declare "victory" back home, utterly failing to see the resentment towards the EU that had built up for a variety of reasons, and the Continentals utterly failed to take the British people seriously. So nobody negotiating believed Brexit was really possible, hence we got a crap negotiation and a crap deal. Utter fools all round.
Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, and the default is now set at "out", ( despite the rather tedious clutching at straws by those Remainers still in disbelief).
If Osborne had framed it as 'Of course we'd be fine outside the EU, but our calculations show that every household would be £4,300 better off if we stay in, and we'll use that money to fund the NHS', I think Remain would have won.
'The whole idea he could succeed would be based on a massive change of opinion among the public, so if he got into office no need for a referendum to address previous concerns, as the whole premise required that people would no longer care, for some reason.'
Not sure how he could ever claim that during a GE campaign the electorate voted for his party based on a single policy only. And when he had re-negotiated our entry would be propose another referendum ?
Let's not get hung up on what the Lib Dems may or may not do. They're a spent force for the forseeable future. The last GE prediction I saw had them on 5 seats.
Assuming 650 seats, that seems unlikely. (And I speak as by far the biggest bear on the LibDems at the last general election.)
If we assume that the Holyrood elections are an accurate pointer to Scotland, the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland with a massive majority, gain Edinburgh West comfortably, and be 50/50 for North East Fife.
My guess is that they'd probably regain Twickenham and possibly another of the SW London seats (all of which were quite strong for Remain, except, ironically Carshalton which is the seat they hold). I think Cambridge would also be regained.
The potential losses would mostly now be to the Conservatives, and there are a couple they could drop. But my guess is, were an election held tomorrow, that they'd probably get 10-14 seats.
I think we'll be fighting the next election with 600 seats up for grabs. Assuming I'm wrong, 14 seats doesn't mean I'm inclined to withdraw my 'spent force' remark .
Don't forget that both Mr Smithsons tend to overestimate LibDem performance significantly.
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
'The whole idea he could succeed would be based on a massive change of opinion among the public, so if he got into office no need for a referendum to address previous concerns, as the whole premise required that people would no longer care, for some reason.'
Not sure how he could ever claim that during a GE campaign the electorate voted for his party based on a single policy only. And when he had re-negotiated our entry would be propose another referendum ?
Let's not get hung up on what the Lib Dems may or may not do. They're a spent force for the forseeable future. The last GE prediction I saw had them on 5 seats.
Assuming 650 seats, that seems unlikely. (And I speak as by far the biggest bear on the LibDems at the last general election.)
If we assume that the Holyrood elections are an accurate pointer to Scotland, the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland with a massive majority, gain Edinburgh West comfortably, and be 50/50 for North East Fife.
My guess is that they'd probably regain Twickenham and possibly another of the SW London seats (all of which were quite strong for Remain, except, ironically Carshalton which is the seat they hold). I think Cambridge would also be regained.
The potential losses would mostly now be to the Conservatives, and there are a couple they could drop. But my guess is, were an election held tomorrow, that they'd probably get 10-14 seats.
I think we'll be fighting the next election with 600 seats up for grabs. Assuming I'm wrong, 14 seats doesn't mean I'm inclined to withdraw my 'spent force' remark .
Don't forget that both Mr Smithsons tend to overestimate LibDem performance significantly.
Memory of an elephant Mr Charles, an elephant. I wandered over to Libdemvoice, and I'm pretty certain that any resurgence is a way off. Seems to be a lot of unhappiness and bitterness among the troops.
If Osborne had framed it as 'Of course we'd be fine outside the EU, but our calculations show that every household would be £4,300 better off if we stay in, and we'll use that money to fund the NHS', I think Remain would have won.
That's brilliant! Have you considered a late career switch to becoming a political adviser?
If Osborne had framed it as 'Of course we'd be fine outside the EU, but our calculations show that every household would be £4,300 better off if we stay in, and we'll use that money to fund the NHS', I think Remain would have won.
Err - that is £4300 that we would not lose - it wouldn't be £4,300 extra.
On the equally important point of Plato's house-move, I would suggest that you move somewhere genteelly impoverished but with improving prospects. I'm not suggesting you move to a sink estate, but unless the sight of the odd empty shop or member of the proletariat brings on a fainting fit, it makes sense for you with a retirement income to go somewhere with less job prospects. You'll get more from your money and be wealthier than your neighbours (an essential pre-requisite for happiness apparently).
This brings to mind Wales (don't know enough about it to tell you where though), parts of Scotland, and much of the North of England. Or the quieter seaside towns - somewhere like the IOW?
I believe the IOW is described as a ghetto of inbreeding with a mass of crime, drug problems, huge unemployment ;-)
My Dad nearly bought a castle there a couple of years ago (with some friends). Needed a bit of TLC but for £1m + about £0.5m refurb you could get 1x 5 bed home, 2x 3 bed, 4x 3 bed flats, 90 acres and a beach.
I have to say I don't really have any idea what IoW is really like, as I have only ever been for Cowes Week and I am told the demographics are some what different to the natives.
Only a bit. I know the Island fairly well as I have some relatives there. Housing is much cheaper than the mainland South coast, but some towns have a rundown feel typical of much of the British seaside. There are some posh places, notably Yarmouth, Seaview and Bembridge.
Ventnor or Bonchurch would be my pick for anyone who didn't need to work. They have a delightful microclimate in a South facing bay, with lovely Victorian houses. Some are very cheap because of subsidence on the Undercliff. Enough to mean no company will do a mortgage, but not likely to fall into the sea just yet!
The reality is that places with cheap housing are generally so because of limited employment opportunities. On the Island there is little well paid private sector work and numbers commute to the mainland. Lack of any higher education and pursuit of careers have caused all of my working age relatives to move to the mainland. It's backwardness is part of its charm and part of it's curse. Health care is poor too.
Ventnor is idyllic. Even has Mediterranean style lizards. Nice Botanic gardens too.
'The whole idea he could succeed would be based on a massive change of opinion among the public, so if he got into office no need for a referendum to address previous concerns, as the whole premise required that people would no longer care, for some reason.'
Not sure how he could ever claim that during a GE campaign the electorate voted for his party based on a single policy only. And when he had re-negotiated our entry would be propose another referendum ?
Let's not get hung up on what the Lib Dems may or may not do. They're a spent force for the forseeable future. The last GE prediction I saw had them on 5 seats.
Assuming 650 seats, that seems unlikely. (And I speak as by far the biggest bear on the LibDems at the last general election.)
If we assume that the Holyrood elections are an accurate pointer to Scotland, the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland with a massive majority, gain Edinburgh West comfortably, and be 50/50 for North East Fife.
My guess is that they'd probably regain Twickenham and possibly another of the SW London seats (all of which were quite strong for Remain, except, ironically Carshalton which is the seat they hold). I think Cambridge would also be regained.
The potential losses would mostly now be to the Conservatives, and there are a couple they could drop. But my guess is, were an election held tomorrow, that they'd probably get 10-14 seats.
I think we'll be fighting the next election with 600 seats up for grabs. Assuming I'm wrong, 14 seats doesn't mean I'm inclined to withdraw my 'spent force' remark .
Don't forget that both Mr Smithsons tend to overestimate LibDem performance significantly.
Don't forget that both Mr Smithsons tend to overestimate LibDem performance significantly.
Smithson Jnr was extremely bearish on the LibDems in 2015, more so than almost anyone else commenting here. Admittedly, he still overestimated their performance....
If Osborne had framed it as 'Of course we'd be fine outside the EU, but our calculations show that every household would be £4,300 better off if we stay in, and we'll use that money to fund the NHS', I think Remain would have won.
Err - that is £4300 that we would not lose - it wouldn't be £4,300 extra.
Shh. Don't spoil my retroactive pitch for political immortality. In the convoluted logic used in the EUref, it would be an increase over the WTO baseline.
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
If Osborne had framed it as 'Of course we'd be fine outside the EU, but our calculations show that every household would be £4,300 better off if we stay in, and we'll use that money to fund the NHS', I think Remain would have won.
That's brilliant! Have you considered a late career switch to becoming a political adviser?
Always open to offers Richard. Who knows, I may yet be plucked from obscurity by some illustrious lurker .
PS If you were being sarcastic, please don't tell me, it's been a rough day .
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
Yes probably so,hence my "hopefully". But they wouldn't budge an inch ( centimetre?) on freedom of movement and it seems clear that's the single biggest ( if far from only ) issue that swung the vote, so a parting of the ways it is. That's the will of the people. It wasn't about the money.
Don't forget that both Mr Smithsons tend to overestimate LibDem performance significantly.
Smithson Jnr was extremely bearish on the LibDems in 2015, more so than almost anyone else commenting here. Admittedly, he still overestimated their performance....
Somehow my wry comment isn't improved by being written out longhand...
Yes probably so,hence my "hopefully". But they wouldn't budge an inch ( centimetre?) on freedom of movement and it seems clear that's the single biggest ( if far from only ) issue that swung the vote, so a parting of the ways it is. That's the will of the people. It wasn't about the money.
Possibly, though, it wasn't about the money because people didn't believe the money arguments, or didn't believe they would personally be affected.
Anyway, yes, a parting of the ways it is. There's no going back, and the priority now is to make a success of it.
Yes probably so,hence my "hopefully". But they wouldn't budge an inch ( centimetre?) on freedom of movement and it seems clear that's the single biggest ( if far from only ) issue that swung the vote, so a parting of the ways it is. That's the will of the people. It wasn't about the money.
Possibly, though, it wasn't about the money because people didn't believe the money arguments, or didn't believe they would personally be affected.
Anyway, yes, a parting of the ways it is. There's no going back, and the priority now is to make a success of it.
Quite so. I'd just add some might've believed the money arguments but still didn't care.
Don't forget that both Mr Smithsons tend to overestimate LibDem performance significantly.
Smithson Jnr was extremely bearish on the LibDems in 2015, more so than almost anyone else commenting here. Admittedly, he still overestimated their performance....
Somehow my wry comment isn't improved by being written out longhand...
If Osborne had framed it as 'Of course we'd be fine outside the EU, but our calculations show that every household would be £4,300 better off if we stay in, and we'll use that money to fund the NHS', I think Remain would have won.
Yeah, remain went way way way overboard on the negatives. Probably turned a lot of voters off. For instance, I don't seem to remember hearing much at all about EU cooperarion in the sciences, which was a big plus in my book.
Always open to offers Richard. Who knows, I may yet be plucked from obscurity by some illustrious lurker .
PS If you were being sarcastic, please don't tell me, it's been a rough day .
No, it was a serious comment. You are quite right that the argument should have been presented as a positive of Remain rather than a negative of Leave.
On the equally important point of Plato's house-move, I would suggest that you move somewhere genteelly impoverished but with improving prospects. I'm not suggesting you move to a sink estate, but unless the sight of the odd empty shop or member of the proletariat brings on a fainting fit, it makes sense for you with a retirement income to go somewhere with less job prospects. You'll get more from your money and be wealthier than your neighbours (an essential pre-requisite for happiness apparently).
This brings to mind Wales (don't know enough about it to tell you where though), parts of Scotland, and much of the North of England. Or the quieter seaside towns - somewhere like the IOW?
I believe the IOW is described as a ghetto of inbreeding with a mass of crime, drug problems, huge unemployment ;-)
My Dad nearly bought a castle there a couple of years ago (with some friends). Needed a bit of TLC but for £1m + about £0.5m refurb you could get 1x 5 bed home, 2x 3 bed, 4x 3 bed flats, 90 acres and a beach.
I have to say I don't really have any idea what IoW is really like, as I have only ever been for Cowes Week and I am told the demographics are some what different to the natives.
Only a bit. I know the Island fairly well as I have some relatives there. Housing is much cheaper than the mainland South coast, but some towns have a rundown feel typical of much of the British seaside. There are some posh places, notably Yarmouth, Seaview and Bembridge.
Ventnor or Bonchurch would be my pick for anyone who didn't need to work. They have a delightful microclimate in a South facing bay, with lovely Victorian houses. Some are very cheap because of subsidence on the Undercliff. Enough to mean no company will do a mortgage, but not likely to fall into the sea just yet!
The reality is that places with cheap housing are generally so because of limited employment opportunities. On the Island there is little well paid private sector work and numbers commute to the mainland. Lack of any higher education and pursuit of careers have caused all of my working age relatives to move to the mainland. It's backwardness is part of its charm and part of it's curse. Health care is poor too.
Ventnor is idyllic. Even has Mediterranean style lizards. Nice Botanic gardens too.
It is my favourite spot on the Island. Bonchurch Down and the Undercliff shelter it well and are both good for scenic walks. The Royal Ventnor Hotel is still good (despite their best chef setting up his own place in St Helens), and the Spyglass Inn too. I will be there again shortly...
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
In other words, the Switzerland option. Presumably there would be some modified free movement as part of that: so, no right to stay without a job, no benefits, some other restrictions.
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
Quite a wish list, but why would the EU agree it?
An EU minister today in the ST said the UK could get limited access to the single market for limited free movement ie exactly what May and Hammond propose
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
In other words, the Switzerland option. Presumably there would be some modified free movement as part of that: so, no right to stay without a job, no benefits, some other restrictions.
Yes, most likely it will be a Swiss style deal rather than a Norway style deal
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
In other words, the Switzerland option. Presumably there would be some modified free movement as part of that: so, no right to stay without a job, no benefits, some other restrictions.
Yes, most likely it will be a Swiss style deal rather than a Norway style deal
Switzerland has the highest percentage of immigrants of any developed country other than Australia.
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
sounds like nonsense, the sector-by-sector stuff.
It is the only way to get some access to the single market while also putting some limits on free movement
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
In other words, the Switzerland option. Presumably there would be some modified free movement as part of that: so, no right to stay without a job, no benefits, some other restrictions.
Yes, most likely it will be a Swiss style deal rather than a Norway style deal
Switzerland has the highest percentage of immigrants of any developed country other than Australia.
I'm currently having breakfast in Sydney. The restaurant's customers are at least 50% Asian. It feels more like Singapore than the UK.
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
In other words, the Switzerland option. Presumably there would be some modified free movement as part of that: so, no right to stay without a job, no benefits, some other restrictions.
Yes, most likely it will be a Swiss style deal rather than a Norway style deal
Switzerland has the highest percentage of immigrants of any developed country other than Australia.
Many tax dodging but Switzerland has recently voted by referendum to curb free movement so will be a key UK ally on this
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
In other words, the Switzerland option. Presumably there would be some modified free movement as part of that: so, no right to stay without a job, no benefits, some other restrictions.
Yes, most likely it will be a Swiss style deal rather than a Norway style deal
Switzerland has the highest percentage of immigrants of any developed country other than Australia.
All these articles are essentially all sides thinking out loud. Time to stock up on salt, pinches for the use of.
Very true. And quite a lot of what is said is posturing to enable everyone to declare victory at the end of the day
Yes, we had a glorious democratic spasm, now it will be dull workaday politics and fudge-packed negotiations, then the aliens will land and none of it will have mattered at all.
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
In other words, the Switzerland option. Presumably there would be some modified free movement as part of that: so, no right to stay without a job, no benefits, some other restrictions.
Yes, most likely it will be a Swiss style deal rather than a Norway style deal
Switzerland has the highest percentage of immigrants of any developed country other than Australia.
I'm currently having breakfast in Sydney. The restaurant's customers are at least 50% Asian. It feels more like Singapore than the UK.
Darwin is very Asian too.
Chinese Australians actually go back a long way. Many came as "coolie" labour in the mines in the nineteenth century. Most are more recent of course, as Australia has had for the last couple of decades a per capita immigration rate twice that of the UK.
'The whole idea he could succeed would be based on a massive change of opinion among the public, so if he got into office no need for a referendum to address previous concerns, as the whole premise required that people would no longer care, for some reason.'
Not sure how he could ever claim that during a GE campaign the electorate voted for his party based on a single policy only. And when he had re-negotiated our entry would be propose another referendum ?
Let's not get hung up on what the Lib Dems may or may not do. They're a spent force for the forseeable future. The last GE prediction I saw had them on 5 seats.
Assuming 650 seats, that seems unlikely. (And I speak as by far the biggest bear on the LibDems at the last general election.)
If we assume that the Holyrood elections are an accurate pointer to Scotland, the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland with a massive majority, gain Edinburgh West comfortably, and be 50/50 for North East Fife.
My guess is that they'd probably regain Twickenham and possibly another of the SW London seats (all of which were quite strong for Remain, except, ironically Carshalton which is the seat they hold). I think Cambridge would also be regained.
The potential losses would mostly now be to the Conservatives, and there are a couple they could drop. But my guess is, were an election held tomorrow, that they'd probably get 10-14 seats.
In Cambridge Labour would enjoy the benefit of first term incumbency . I would expect Labour to hold - given that Labour has won the seat several times since 1966.
'The whole idea he could succeed would be based on a massive change of opinion among the public, so if he got into office no need for a referendum to address previous concerns, as the whole premise required that people would no longer care, for some reason.'
Not sure how he could ever claim that during a GE campaign the electorate voted for his party based on a single policy only. And when he had re-negotiated our entry would be propose another referendum ?
Let's not get hung up on what the Lib Dems may or may not do. They're a spent force for the forseeable future. The last GE prediction I saw had them on 5 seats.
Assuming 650 seats, that seems unlikely. (And I speak as by far the biggest bear on the LibDems at the last general election.)
If we assume that the Holyrood elections are an accurate pointer to Scotland, the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland with a massive majority, gain Edinburgh West comfortably, and be 50/50 for North East Fife.
My guess is that they'd probably regain Twickenham and possibly another of the SW London seats (all of which were quite strong for Remain, except, ironically Carshalton which is the seat they hold). I think Cambridge would also be regained.
The potential losses would mostly now be to the Conservatives, and there are a couple they could drop. But my guess is, were an election held tomorrow, that they'd probably get 10-14 seats.
In Cambridge Labour would enjoy the benefit of first term incumbency . I would expect Labour to hold - given that Labour has won the seat several times since 1966.
A small wager? 25 quid says the LibDems win Cambridge at the next GE.
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
In other words, the Switzerland option. Presumably there would be some modified free movement as part of that: so, no right to stay without a job, no benefits, some other restrictions.
Yes, most likely it will be a Swiss style deal rather than a Norway style deal
Switzerland has the highest percentage of immigrants of any developed country other than Australia.
Many tax dodging but Switzerland has recently voted by referendum to curb free movement so will be a key UK ally on this
Most are of former Yougoslav, Italian, Portuguese, Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish origin. A different sort of economic migrant to tax exiles.
How much contribution to the EU budget do you think reasonable to get access to the single market?
'The whole idea he could succeed would be based on a massive change of opinion among the public, so if he got into office no need for a referendum to address previous concerns, as the whole premise required that people would no longer care, for some reason.'
Not sure how he could ever claim that during a GE campaign the electorate voted for his party based on a single policy only. And when he had re-negotiated our entry would be propose another referendum ?
Let's not get hung up on what the Lib Dems may or may not do. They're a spent force for the forseeable future. The last GE prediction I saw had them on 5 seats.
Assuming 650 seats, that seems unlikely. (And I speak as by far the biggest bear on the LibDems at the last general election.)
If we assume that the Holyrood elections are an accurate pointer to Scotland, the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland with a massive majority, gain Edinburgh West comfortably, and be 50/50 for North East Fife.
My guess is that they'd probably regain Twickenham and possibly another of the SW London seats (all of which were quite strong for Remain, except, ironically Carshalton which is the seat they hold). I think Cambridge would also be regained.
The potential losses would mostly now be to the Conservatives, and there are a couple they could drop. But my guess is, were an election held tomorrow, that they'd probably get 10-14 seats.
In Cambridge Labour would enjoy the benefit of first term incumbency . I would expect Labour to hold - given that Labour has won the seat several times since 1966.
A small wager? 25 quid says the LibDems win Cambridge at the next GE.
Am not into betting at all , but I see no sign from local election results that Labour has lost any ground to the LibDems here. It will not be difficult for Labour to remind voters here of how the LibDems behaved re- Tuition fees and helped facilitate a Tory - led Government. If Huppert's personal vote was insufficient to elect him in 2015 it is much less likely to be enough in 2020 - given that Labour managed to win the seat from third place.
1. Nationwide, Labour will be down in terms of vote share at the next GE, and the LDs will be up.
2. Cambridge was one of the most pro-Remain parts of the country, coming in at 75:25 or thereabouts.
3. Huppert will be standing again, and I think he'll pick up at least as much personal vote as the Labour MP.
Much to early to assume that Labour will be down in terms of vote share. If Corbyn has been ousted by 2020 I can see Labour at 33/34%. I also am far from convinced that the EU will be a salient issue by 2020 - however much bloggers might be obsessed by it!
1. Nationwide, Labour will be down in terms of vote share at the next GE, and the LDs will be up.
2. Cambridge was one of the most pro-Remain parts of the country, coming in at 75:25 or thereabouts.
3. Huppert will be standing again, and I think he'll pick up at least as much personal vote as the Labour MP.
Much to early to assume that Labour will be down in terms of vote share. If Corbyn has been ousted by 2020 I can see Labour at 33/34%. I also am far from convinced that the EU will be a salient issue by 2020 - however much bloggers might be obsessed by it!
I see Labour on about 23% rather than 33% next election. The damage done over the last 18 months will take a lot of repairing, and keeping Jezza is going to make it a lot worse.
1. Nationwide, Labour will be down in terms of vote share at the next GE, and the LDs will be up.
2. Cambridge was one of the most pro-Remain parts of the country, coming in at 75:25 or thereabouts.
3. Huppert will be standing again, and I think he'll pick up at least as much personal vote as the Labour MP.
Much to early to assume that Labour will be down in terms of vote share. If Corbyn has been ousted by 2020 I can see Labour at 33/34%. I also am far from convinced that the EU will be a salient issue by 2020 - however much bloggers might be obsessed by it!
It will be a salient issue for those who wanted Hard Brexit if we do not get it and for those who wanted to stay in the Single Market if we leave it
...Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, ....
Dream on. The fundamentals are identical, except that the other side now have no incentive to consider our aspirations, and the mood is less friendly. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that the outcome will be more favourable to us - why should it be? We need to make our way elsewhere in the world, and therefore be prepared to write off at least some of the advantages of the Single Market. In particular, financial passporting looks a goner.
I think that's probably right; we can't keep passporting, without making too many concessions elsewhere. It's one of the reasons I'm so negative on prime London property.
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
'Theresa May's plan for Britain post-Brexit would retain access to the single market and curb migration. She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50. Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. ' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
In other words, the Switzerland option. Presumably there would be some modified free movement as part of that: so, no right to stay without a job, no benefits, some other restrictions.
Yes, most likely it will be a Swiss style deal rather than a Norway style deal
Switzerland has the highest percentage of immigrants of any developed country other than Australia.
Many tax dodging but Switzerland has recently voted by referendum to curb free movement so will be a key UK ally on this
Most are of former Yougoslav, Italian, Portuguese, Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish origin. A different sort of economic migrant to tax exiles.
How much contribution to the EU budget do you think reasonable to get access to the single market?
We will obviously not get full access as we will not agree full free movement but any contribution necessary to get access to the sectors we need access to eg in financial services is fine by me
I think the LDs will have a good chance of winning back seats they narrowly lost last time where the proportion of graduates is higher than average. Those with a lower than average proportion of graduates will probably be much more difficult.
1. Nationwide, Labour will be down in terms of vote share at the next GE, and the LDs will be up.
2. Cambridge was one of the most pro-Remain parts of the country, coming in at 75:25 or thereabouts.
3. Huppert will be standing again, and I think he'll pick up at least as much personal vote as the Labour MP.
Much to early to assume that Labour will be down in terms of vote share. If Corbyn has been ousted by 2020 I can see Labour at 33/34%. I also am far from convinced that the EU will be a salient issue by 2020 - however much bloggers might be obsessed by it!
I see Labour on about 23% rather than 33% next election. The damage done over the last 18 months will take a lot of repairing, and keeping Jezza is going to make it a lot worse.
Wishful thinking I strongly suspect! After many months of internicine warfare we have just seen how quickly the Tories have turned themselves around. I would expect something similar to happen to Labour if Corbyn is eventually removed - even if it takes until 2018 to achieve that. Even with Corbyn at the helm Labour is polling circa 29/30% at the peak of May's honeymoon.
How many more times will Smith remind people how much worse he is than Corbyn ? The guy making penis jokes is supposedly the "serious" candidate for the Labour leadership, and then people wonder why Corbyn is leader.
I think the LDs will have a good chance of winning back seats they narrowly lost last time where the proportion of graduates is higher than average. Those with a lower than average proportion of graduates will probably be much more difficult.
I think that's a fair bet. Those places probably correlate quite well with Remain areas as well.
(So, no regaining of Redcar, but a good chance in Cambridge and Twickenham.)
How many more times will Smith remind people how much worse he is than Corbyn ? The guy making penis jokes is supposedly the "serious" candidate for the Labour leadership, and then people wonder why Corbyn is leader.
Didn't do Trump any harm...people stopped talking about his tiny hands ;-)
How many more times will Smith remind people how much worse he is than Corbyn ? The guy making penis jokes is supposedly the "serious" candidate for the Labour leadership, and then people wonder why Corbyn is leader.
Didn't do Trump any harm...people stopped talking about his tiny hands ;-)
The genitalia of the Presidential contender exercised a continuing fascination. A series of imaginary genitalia were constructed using (a) the mouth parts of Jacqueline Kennedy, (b) a Cadillac, (c) the assembly kid prepuce of President Johnson…In 89% of cases, the constructed genitalia generated a high incidence of self-induced orgasm. Tests indicate the masturbatory nature of the Presidential contender’s posture. Dolls consisting of plastic models of Reagan’s alternate genitalia were found to have a disturbing effect on deprived children.
Studies were conducted on the marked fascination exercised by the Presidential contender’s hairstyle. 65% of male subjects made positive connections between the hairstyle and their own pubic hair. A series of optimum hairstyles were constructed.
1. Nationwide, Labour will be down in terms of vote share at the next GE, and the LDs will be up.
2. Cambridge was one of the most pro-Remain parts of the country, coming in at 75:25 or thereabouts.
3. Huppert will be standing again, and I think he'll pick up at least as much personal vote as the Labour MP.
Much to early to assume that Labour will be down in terms of vote share. If Corbyn has been ousted by 2020 I can see Labour at 33/34%. I also am far from convinced that the EU will be a salient issue by 2020 - however much bloggers might be obsessed by it!
I see Labour on about 23% rather than 33% next election. The damage done over the last 18 months will take a lot of repairing, and keeping Jezza is going to make it a lot worse.
Wishful thinking I strongly suspect! After many months of internicine warfare we have just seen how quickly the Tories have turned themselves around. I would expect something similar to happen to Labour if Corbyn is eventually removed - even if it takes until 2018 to achieve that. Even with Corbyn at the helm Labour is polling circa 29/30% at the peak of May's honeymoon.
On the contrary, I would like a strong showing by Labour in 2020. They are not going to get it under Jezza, though I think it unlikely that even he could get it below 20%.
I think the LDs will have a good chance of winning back seats they narrowly lost last time where the proportion of graduates is higher than average. Those with a lower than average proportion of graduates will probably be much more difficult.
I think that's a fair bet. Those places probably correlate quite well with Remain areas as well.
(So, no regaining of Redcar, but a good chance in Cambridge and Twickenham.)
I doubt that they will gain either. Without Vince Cable's personal vote I would expect Twickenham to return to the safe Tory seat it was pre-1997.
I think the LDs will have a good chance of winning back seats they narrowly lost last time where the proportion of graduates is higher than average. Those with a lower than average proportion of graduates will probably be much more difficult.
I think that's a fair bet. Those places probably correlate quite well with Remain areas as well.
(So, no regaining of Redcar, but a good chance in Cambridge and Twickenham.)
I doubt that they will gain either. Without Vince Cable's personal vote I would expect Twickenham to return to the safe Tory seat it was pre-1997.
Vince Cable had a negative personal vote in 2015; he performed massively worse than the LDs did in the neighbouring seats.
Maybe I'm missing something, but a 25 year 1-2% graduate tax isn't actually that different from a student loan repayment.
It all smoke and mirrors, so he can say he is getting rid of student fees and probably a bit of hammer the rich. When Ed Miliband proposed basically the same, Martin Lewis exposed it fairly quickly for what it was.
Remember how bad the media were at explaining the new fee structure, continually screaming £9k a year, £9k a year...rather than you no longer need to find the money upfront and most of you will never pay that money back.
It also breaks a link between universities, quality of teaching and cost of course, that has to come in at some point in the near future. It isn't sustainable to have some universities spending £15k a year per student on a course and another spending £3k a year per year on a different course and getting the same money in.
I think the LDs will have a good chance of winning back seats they narrowly lost last time where the proportion of graduates is higher than average. Those with a lower than average proportion of graduates will probably be much more difficult.
I think that's a fair bet. Those places probably correlate quite well with Remain areas as well.
(So, no regaining of Redcar, but a good chance in Cambridge and Twickenham.)
I doubt that they will gain either. Without Vince Cable's personal vote I would expect Twickenham to return to the safe Tory seat it was pre-1997.
Vince Cable had a negative personal vote in 2015; he performed massively worse than the LDs did in the neighbouring seats.
His vote was still massively higher than at any pre -1997 election!
I think the LDs will have a good chance of winning back seats they narrowly lost last time where the proportion of graduates is higher than average. Those with a lower than average proportion of graduates will probably be much more difficult.
I think that's a fair bet. Those places probably correlate quite well with Remain areas as well.
(So, no regaining of Redcar, but a good chance in Cambridge and Twickenham.)
I doubt that they will gain either. Without Vince Cable's personal vote I would expect Twickenham to return to the safe Tory seat it was pre-1997.
Vince Cable had a negative personal vote in 2015; he performed massively worse than the LDs did in the neighbouring seats.
His vote was still massively higher than at any pre -1997 election!
I'm not sure that proves a Vince Cable personal vote. That entire region of South West London had quite a few LibDem seats: Carshalton, Sutton & Cheam, Twickenham, Kingston and (once upon a time) Richmond. And Vince performed the least well of all of them in 2015.
Twickenham is also the area where the LDs have by far the highest council presence. If they comfortably retain the seats that make up the constituency in 2018, then I suspect (assuming the LDs are on 10-12% nationally in 2020), then they'll regain the seat.
All my forecasts are based on the LDs increasing their vote share from 8% to 10-12%! If they don't do that, then obviously they'll do a lot worse.
I think the LDs will have a good chance of winning back seats they narrowly lost last time where the proportion of graduates is higher than average. Those with a lower than average proportion of graduates will probably be much more difficult.
I think that's a fair bet. Those places probably correlate quite well with Remain areas as well.
(So, no regaining of Redcar, but a good chance in Cambridge and Twickenham.)
I doubt that they will gain either. Without Vince Cable's personal vote I would expect Twickenham to return to the safe Tory seat it was pre-1997.
Vince Cable had a negative personal vote in 2015; he performed massively worse than the LDs did in the neighbouring seats.
His vote was still massively higher than at any pre -1997 election!
Was that a personal vote, or to do with the Lib Dems generally doing better in the intervening period?
I think the LDs will have a good chance of winning back seats they narrowly lost last time where the proportion of graduates is higher than average. Those with a lower than average proportion of graduates will probably be much more difficult.
I think that's a fair bet. Those places probably correlate quite well with Remain areas as well.
(So, no regaining of Redcar, but a good chance in Cambridge and Twickenham.)
I doubt that they will gain either. Without Vince Cable's personal vote I would expect Twickenham to return to the safe Tory seat it was pre-1997.
Vince Cable had a negative personal vote in 2015; he performed massively worse than the LDs did in the neighbouring seats.
His vote was still massively higher than at any pre -1997 election!
Uncle Vince had only himself to blame for losing his Twickenham seat. Whilst the good burghers of this essentially middle class town had previously been prepared to give this elderly man the benefit of the doubt over his Tory rival, despite the Blues being more the natural home for many such voters, what they couldn't stomach was his constantly slagging off the party with which the Lib Dems were supposed to be in coalition and in whose cabinet he served, albeit unsuccessfully, incessantly making it very clear that he would very much prefer to be in partnership instead with Labour, reflecting his own natural political instincts .... That was all too much for the Twickenham voters to bear and they let him know in no uncertain manner by turfing him out.
We will obviously not get full access as we will not agree full free movement but any contribution necessary to get access to the sectors we need access to eg in financial services is fine by me
Why should we contribute a penny for access to the Single Market? Why shouldn't the EU pay for access to our markets? Do any other countries or groups of countries extort tribute for access to their markets in this way? I know the EU treat EFTA countries like this, but surely we should be less of a pushover?
We will obviously not get full access as we will not agree full free movement but any contribution necessary to get access to the sectors we need access to eg in financial services is fine by me
Why should we contribute a penny for access to the Single Market? Why shouldn't the EU pay for access to our markets? Do any other countries or groups of countries extort tribute for access to their markets in this way? I know the EU treat EFTA countries like this, but surely we should be less of a pushover?
Every other country which has access to the Single Market has to pay a contribution and there is no reason we should be exempt, other EU countries contributions would include access to our own market.
Comments
Ventnor or Bonchurch would be my pick for anyone who didn't need to work. They have a delightful microclimate in a South facing bay, with lovely Victorian houses. Some are very cheap because of subsidence on the Undercliff. Enough to mean no company will do a mortgage, but not likely to fall into the sea just yet!
The reality is that places with cheap housing are generally so because of limited employment opportunities. On the Island there is little well paid private sector work and numbers commute to the mainland. Lack of any higher education and pursuit of careers have caused all of my working age relatives to move to the mainland. It's backwardness is part of its charm and part of it's curse. Health care is poor too.
Now, hopefully, we will have the talks we should have had last year except everyone now knows the British voters are serious, and the default is now set at "out", ( despite the rather tedious clutching at straws by those Remainers still in disbelief).
(There might also be an element of wishful thinking. There's a house in Hampstead my wife has her eye on...)
PS If you were being sarcastic, please don't tell me, it's been a rough day
Anyway, yes, a parting of the ways it is. There's no going back, and the priority now is to make a success of it.
She is considering the proposals ahead of a crunch meeting with her cabinet on Wednesday to discuss Britain's options before beginning the formal EU exit - known as Article 50.
Chancellor Philip Hammond will put forward the plans, which include renaming part of the single market but on a 'sector-by-sector' basis. '
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762396/PM-s-vision-post-Brexit-Britain-retains-access-single-market.html
Chinese Australians actually go back a long way. Many came as "coolie" labour in the mines in the nineteenth century. Most are more recent of course, as Australia has had for the last couple of decades a per capita immigration rate twice that of the UK.
1. Nationwide, Labour will be down in terms of vote share at the next GE, and the LDs will be up.
2. Cambridge was one of the most pro-Remain parts of the country, coming in at 75:25 or thereabouts.
3. Huppert will be standing again, and I think he'll pick up at least as much personal vote as the Labour MP.
How much contribution to the EU budget do you think reasonable to get access to the single market?
I think you might enjoy this - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/kelli_ward_wants_you_to_know_john_mccain_is_about_to_die.html
I also am far from convinced that the EU will be a salient issue by 2020 - however much bloggers might be obsessed by it!
I find the rumour mongering and smwars about opponents one of the least pleasant aspects of Republican politics.
Owen Smith making a gaffe about his personal size:
https://twitter.com/AlexGabriel/status/770047663966478337
How many more times will Smith remind people how much worse he is than Corbyn ?
The guy making penis jokes is supposedly the "serious" candidate for the Labour leadership, and then people wonder why Corbyn is leader.
(So, no regaining of Redcar, but a good chance in Cambridge and Twickenham.)
Studies were conducted on the marked fascination exercised by the Presidential contender’s hairstyle. 65% of male subjects made positive connections between the hairstyle and their own pubic hair. A series of optimum hairstyles were constructed.
Maybe I'm missing something, but a 25 year 1-2% graduate tax isn't actually that different from a student loan repayment.
Remember how bad the media were at explaining the new fee structure, continually screaming £9k a year, £9k a year...rather than you no longer need to find the money upfront and most of you will never pay that money back.
It also breaks a link between universities, quality of teaching and cost of course, that has to come in at some point in the near future. It isn't sustainable to have some universities spending £15k a year per student on a course and another spending £3k a year per year on a different course and getting the same money in.
Twickenham is also the area where the LDs have by far the highest council presence. If they comfortably retain the seats that make up the constituency in 2018, then I suspect (assuming the LDs are on 10-12% nationally in 2020), then they'll regain the seat.
All my forecasts are based on the LDs increasing their vote share from 8% to 10-12%! If they don't do that, then obviously they'll do a lot worse.