How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Twat
Not easy when someone puts a mirror in front of you and you realise you don't like what you see. As I said a few weeks ago, it might be time for you to step back and have a good long look at why you are so attached to the EU. It goes way beyond economic gain in the same way Richard Nabavi previously supported our membership.
I am not going to re-run pre-vote arguments. Nor am I going to make twattish comments on the subject. You seem to prefer to do both.
My point is Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
ty.
Whichnullify.
up to another? But you seem intent upon making Brexit the cause, ignoring the wider context.
We have signalled what we think
You seem to have part of it now. I've also never said I expected everything we had as a member (although currently we are still members).
How can you thinkI'd understand that, but you are repeatedly making statements to suggest they are acting this way only due to Brexit. Which if anything is you painting the French as irrational, when they are not.
Hmm. We were members of a club within which courtesies and compromises and a pooling of common interests for the greater good (sometimes at the expense of strict self-interest) was the norm.
We then left this club and what? Situation no change? Or do you think it possible that it was, especially with an election coming up, a catalyst for action, finally because as you say none of this is new news.
Again, you seem to have missed here I did accept it will have made what they are doing more popular. I'm not saying there has been no impact, I even said I didn't expect there would be no change (so I'm surprised you again seem to think I did think that). I'm saying it has not be the overriding cause of this dispute, which is what your posts continually implied and which is simply untrue because it was a dispute that already existed. Arguing this is worse due to Brexit is a defendable position, even if some on here disagree it to be the case. Arguing it is happening solely because of Brexit, which is what you did by linking it just to our vote to leave, makes no sense.
My point is Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
ty.
Whichnullify.
up to.
We have signalled what we think
You seem to have part of it now. I've also never said
How can you thinkI'd understand that, but you are repeatedly making statements to suggest they are acting this way only due to Brexit. Which if anything is you painting the French as irrational, when they are not.
Hmm. We were members of a club within which courtesies and compromises and a pooling of common interests for the greater good (sometimes at the expense of strict self-interest) was the norm.
We then left this club and what? Situation no change? Or do you think it possible that it was, especially with an election coming up, a catalyst for action, finally because as you say none of this is new news.
Again, you seem to have missed here I did accept it will have made what they are doing more popular. I'm not saying there has been no impact, I even said I didn't expect there would be no change (so I'm surprised you again seem to think I did think that). I'm saying it has not be the overriding cause of this dispute, which is what your posts continually implied and which is simply untrue because it was a dispute that already existed. Arguing this is worse due to Brexit is a defendable position, even if some on here disagree it to be the case. Arguing it is happening solely because of Brexit, which is what you did by linking it just to our vote to leave, makes no sense.
We also haven't left yet, by the way.
I never argued it was solely due to Brexit. I said that after the vote it was understandable for other EU countries to take us at our word that treaties and agreements were in play.
My point is Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
ty.
Whichnullify.
up to.
We have signalled what we think
You seem to have part of it now. I've also never said
How can you thinkI'd understand that, but you are repeatedly making statements to suggest they are acting this way only due to Brexit. Which if anything is you painting the French as irrational, when they are not.
Hmm. We were members of a club within which courtesies and compromises and a pooling of common interests for the greater good (sometimes at the expense of strict self-interest) was the norm.
Ww news.
Again, you seem to have missed here I did accept it will have made what they are doing more popular. I'm not saying there has been no impact, I even said I didn't expect there would be no change (so I'm surprised you again seem to think I did think that). I'm saying it has not be the overriding cause of this dispute, which is what your posts continually implied and which is simply untrue because it was a dispute that already existed. Arguing this is worse due to Brexit is a defendable position, even if some on here disagree it to be the case. Arguing it is happening solely because of Brexit, which is what you did by linking it just to our vote to leave, makes no sense.
We also haven't left yet, by the way.
I never argued it was solely due to Brexit. I said that after the vote it was understandable for other EU countries to take us at our word that treaties and agreements were in play.
Catalyst more than cause.
Well, I think we've reached some sort of compromise,though I would say your earlier words belied your now conclusion. But I'm just happy agreement can be found.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Not an enemy, but a nation that isn't always allied to our interests in the same way Germany probably are.
I'm not sure Germany has ever been as allied to our interests as you suggest. The history of EU negotiations show that Germany was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Germany (and France was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of France) but Germany (and France) were never interested in being allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Britain. The attitude of Merkel to Cameron's renegotiations being an example.
Merkel thought that they did not have to give Cameron much to get him to recommend the new deal to the British voters. She judged that right. What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions.
My point is Dublin: well actually can we keep that one please.
ty.
Whichnullify.
up to.
We have signalled what we think
You seem to have part of it now. I've also never said
How can you thinkI'd understand that, but you are repeatedly making statements to suggest they are acting this way only due to Brexit. Which if anything is you painting the French as irrational, when they are not.
Hmm. We were members of a club within which courtesies and compromises and a pooling of common interests for the greater good (sometimes at the expense of strict self-interest) was the norm.
Ww news.
Again, you seem to have missed here I did accept it will have made what they are doing more popular. I'm not saying there has been no impact, I even said I didn't expect there would be no change (so I'm surprised you again seem to think I did think that). I'm saying it has not be the overriding cause of this dispute, which is what your posts continually implied and which is simply untrue because it was a dispute that already existed. Arguing this is worse due to Brexit is a defendable position, even if some on here disagree it to be the case. Arguing it is happening solely because of Brexit, which is what you did by linking it just to our vote to leave, makes no sense.
We also haven't left yet, by the way.
I never argued it was solely due to Brexit. I said that after the vote it was understandable for other EU countries to take us at our word that treaties and agreements were in play.
Catalyst more than cause.
Well, I think we've reached some sort of compromise,though I would say your earlier words belied your now conclusion. But I'm just happy agreement can be found.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Which isn't as sad as some Remainers seeing England as an enemy state.
In what way?
Different people have different views.
For some Remainers the future was multi-national organisations such as the EU and national states were obsolete or inefficient or racist or whatever.
National states were fundamentally the enemy to people with that viewpoint.
That the plans of those Remainers have now been derailed by England makes England not just an enemy to them but a hated one at that.
England is in a bad state if over 40% of the voting population that live within its borders hate it. How do we sort that out?
Who said that 40% of the voting population hates England ? It is the EU nationalists who hate England.
They are a very small but influential minority in England. Many in the Labour party, a large part of the Lib Dem activists and the europhiles in the Conservative party.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Not an enemy, but a nation that isn't always allied to our interests in the same way Germany probably are.
I'm not sure Germany has ever been as allied to our interests as you suggest. The history of EU negotiations show that Germany was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Germany (and France was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of France) but Germany (and France) were never interested in being allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Britain. The attitude of Merkel to Cameron's renegotiations being an example.
Merkel thought that they did not have to give Cameron much to get him to recommend the new deal to the British voters. She judged that right. What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions.
I don't think anyone foresaw how Cameron's ratings would nosedive during the campaign. Almost everybody, whether they favoured Leave or Remain, expected a grudging vote for Remain (say about 55/45).
'So, about Parliament having the right to control the exercise of Article 50...'
Nope, we were clearly told by Cameron on numerous occasions, that in the event of a Leave vote he would activate Article 50 , no ifs,no buts,no second referendums or parliament blocking the democratic will of the people.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
France has always been our enemy.
What happened in the Crimean War, 1914-18,and 1939-45 then?
France folded early and left us to do the business?
Being serious France and England have always been rivals, each working for its own advantage. That was true in the 14th century, true in the 18th/19th, true in 1940, true when De Gaulle was, rightly in my view, keeping us out of the common market and true now. The means by which that rivalry is expressed and conducted have changed but that is all.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Which isn't as sad as some Remainers seeing England as an enemy state.
In what way?
Different people have different views.
For some Remainers the future was multi-national organisations such as the EU and national states were obsolete or inefficient or racist or whatever.
National states were fundamentally the enemy to people with that viewpoint.
That the plans of those Remainers have now been derailed by England makes England not just an enemy to them but a hated one at that.
England is in a bad state if over 40% of the voting population that live within its borders hate it. How do we sort that out?
Who said that 40% of the voting population hates England ? It is the EU nationalists who hate England.
They are a very small but influential minority in England. Many in the Labour party, a large part of the Lib Dem activists and the europhiles in the Conservative party.
I think very few people "hate England" but I think there's a view that England would be an uncivilised place without the restraints of EU membership. And, I think there's also the idealistic view that a world without Borders would be a great thing.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Which isn't as sad as some Remainers seeing England as an enemy state.
In what way?
Different people have different views.
For some Remainers the future was multi-national organisations such as the EU and national states were obsolete or inefficient or racist or whatever.
National states were fundamentally the enemy to people with that viewpoint.
That the plans of those Remainers have now been derailed by England makes England not just an enemy to them but a hated one at that.
England is in a bad state if over 40% of the voting population that live within its borders hate it. How do we sort that out?
Who said that 40% of the voting population hates England ?
It is the EU nationalists who hate England.
Riiight - and presumably an EU nationalist is someone you get to define.
So yet again you know I'm right but don't want to admit it.
You can create your own definition of EU nationalist if you want.
But you're well aware that they exist.
Yes, I do think there are literally a handful of people in this country that view the EU as a nation/country. I think there are many more people who see France as an enemy.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Which isn't as sad as some Remainers seeing England as an enemy state.
In what way?
Different people have different views.
For some Remainers the future was multi-national organisations such as the EU and national states were obsolete or inefficient or racist or whatever.
National states were fundamentally the enemy to people with that viewpoint.
That the plans of those Remainers have now been derailed by England makes England not just an enemy to them but a hated one at that.
England is in a bad state if over 40% of the voting population that live within its borders hate it. How do we sort that out?
Who said that 40% of the voting population hates England ? It is the EU nationalists who hate England.
They are a very small but influential minority in England. Many in the Labour party, a large part of the Lib Dem activists and the europhiles in the Conservative party.
People who actually believe in the European 'Project' or are just anti-British are maybe 20% of the voting population. Others who voted Remain did so because of lies about the economy peddled by Remain. I wish those voters had helped to deliver a crushing rather than narrow victory for Leave, but I don't think they hate England or indeed Britain.
Personally I would abolish the House of Lords, it is a ridiculous anachronism. Rather than use its chamber as a bingo hall (tempting as that is) I would have an English only Parliament sitting there 2 or 3 days a week with the existing English MPs debating and legislating on England only matters.
I agree that the quid pro quo for this should be the beefing up of the Committee stages of bills allowing the Committees to hear relevant evidence and to take expert advice on the proposals.
Cheers Jock,
Your northern input is inciteful. [sp?] Nice to know that you'se folks need to tell us how to run England; all the whilst your parish-council attempt to bleed us dry with debt....
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Not an enemy, but a nation that isn't always allied to our interests in the same way Germany probably are.
I'm not sure Germany has ever been as allied to our interests as you suggest. The history of EU negotiations show that Germany was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Germany (and France was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of France) but Germany (and France) were never interested in being allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Britain. The attitude of Merkel to Cameron's renegotiations being an example.
Merkel thought that they did not have to give Cameron much to get him to recommend the new deal to the British voters. She judged that right. What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions.
I don't think anyone foresaw how Cameron's ratings would nosedive during the campaign. Almost everybody, whether they favoured Leave or Remain, expected a grudging vote for Remain (say about 55/45).
Ahem - I always expected Leave to win and I am very bitter that the PB prediction table has not been published. I think I would be very close to the top.
But it's not just a British issue. There is a real shortage of centre-left politicians worldwide who have a persuasive agenda in the face of globalisation and other factors.
Is this less about the individual politicians and more about a crisis in social democracy (as opposed to pure-blood socialism)? Voters seem to have lost faith it as a vehicle for delivering a steady improvement in lives.
Yes, exactly.
Replying to Southam: I'm not really trying to find a winnable seat or any kind of seat.
Replying to Sean F on leftish attitudes to England - yes, a very fair ssummary, as always.
Can't see how Labour NEC/ PLP can complain about political gerrymandering in respect of boundary changes TBF
It's as gerrymandered as the last set of boundaries.
The bigger question is why we continue with a voting system that gives big majorities to parties receiving a minority of the vote. If the referendum taught us anything it was that there are millions of voters in this country who feel completely ignored. As long as we have FPTP that will continue.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
France has always been our enemy.
What happened in the Crimean War, 1914-18,and 1939-45 then?
France folded early and left us to do the business?
Being serious France and England have always been rivals, each working for its own advantage. That was true in the 14th century, true in the 18th/19th, true in 1940, true when De Gaulle was, rightly in my view, keeping us out of the common market and true now. The means by which that rivalry is expressed and conducted have changed but that is all.
As a nation state in the modern sense England (& conquered Wales) was very early. As I understand France could have failed to unite ..... Burgundy could have remained separate, as could traditional Catalonia ..... and neither Germany nor Italy were anything more than regions with a more or less common language covering several different “nations” until the mid to late 19th C. As a schoolboy stamp-collector I recall having a wide selection of German language stamps from all sorts of stamp-issuing countries.Indeed, I think Bavaria was independent, except in time of way until 1918.
But it's not just a British issue. There is a real shortage of centre-left politicians worldwide who have a persuasive agenda in the face of globalisation and other factors.
Is this less about the individual politicians and more about a crisis in social democracy (as opposed to pure-blood socialism)? Voters seem to have lost faith it as a vehicle for delivering a steady improvement in lives.
Yes, exactly.
Replying to Southam: I'm not really trying to find a winnable seat or any kind of seat.
Replying to Sean F on leftish attitudes to England - yes, a very fair ssummary, as always.
Voters have lost faith, full stop.
I was joking about your search for a seat.
Speak for yourself about England, though. People on the left - such as me - do not see it in the way that you do.
Can't see how Labour NEC/ PLP can complain about political gerrymandering in respect of boundary changes TBF
It's as gerrymandered as the last set of boundaries.
The bigger question is why we continue with a voting system that gives big majorities to parties receiving a minority of the vote. If the referendum taught us anything it was that there are millions of voters in this country who feel completely ignored. As long as we have FPTP that will continue.
Because we don't get deadlock.
PS we have always had FPTP and general elections used to be much higher in percentage terms, so it is probably a social adjustment rather than a political one.
"What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions."
I think Cameron has been, so far, the most arrogant PM in modern times. His examination mind whereby he could loaf about but still produce the goods at the last minute, his almost effortless rise to the top of his party, winning the premiership in 2010 by stitching up a deal with the Lib Dems, being constantly told he was more popular than his party. All things that together, no doubt with other more personal successes, led him to believe he could "sell" any old rubbish to the British People.
In the end though it turned out that what his detractors had been saying for years was actually true. He was an arrogant toff who did not understand the English people. Was it the greeks who coined the term hubris precedes nemesis (or words to that effect)?
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
Can't see how Labour NEC/ PLP can complain about political gerrymandering in respect of boundary changes TBF
It's as gerrymandered as the last set of boundaries.
The bigger question is why we continue with a voting system that gives big majorities to parties receiving a minority of the vote. If the referendum taught us anything it was that there are millions of voters in this country who feel completely ignored. As long as we have FPTP that will continue.
Because we don't get deadlock.
PS we have always had FPTP and general elections used to be much higher in percentage terms, so it is probably a social adjustment rather than a political one.
FPTP works by and large in systems where two parties dominate. That is no longer the case in the UK. Look at Scotland. The SNP got 50% of the vote last year, but have around 90% of the MPs. That is just outrageous - something which the SNP, to its credit, acknowledges (and exploits ruthlessly).
In the end though it turned out that what his detractors had been saying for years was actually true. He was an arrogant toff who did not understand the English people. Was it the greeks who coined the term hubris precedes nemesis (or words to that effect)?
Careful -- you'll have TSE and Morris Dancer kicking off about ancient history again.
But it's not just a British issue. There is a real shortage of centre-left politicians worldwide who have a persuasive agenda in the face of globalisation and other factors.
Is this less about the individual politicians and more about a crisis in social democracy (as opposed to pure-blood socialism)? Voters seem to have lost faith it as a vehicle for delivering a steady improvement in lives.
Yes, exactly.
Replying to Southam: I'm not really trying to find a winnable seat or any kind of seat.
Replying to Sean F on leftish attitudes to England - yes, a very fair ssummary, as always.
I think the problem for social democracy is that it depends on strong economic growth. With high growth, you can redistribute wealth and power from the better off, while still allowing them do better in absolute terms.
In an environment of low economic growth, gains for one group must mean losses for another.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Not an enemy, but a nation that isn't always allied to our interests in the same way Germany probably are.
I'm not sure Germany has ever been as allied to our interests as you suggest. The history of EU negotiations show that Germany was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Germany (and France was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of France) but Germany (and France) were never interested in being allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Britain. The attitude of Merkel to Cameron's renegotiations being an example.
Merkel thought that they did not have to give Cameron much to get him to recommend the new deal to the British voters. She judged that right. What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions.
I don't think anyone foresaw how Cameron's ratings would nosedive during the campaign. Almost everybody, whether they favoured Leave or Remain, expected a grudging vote for Remain (say about 55/45).
Ahem - I always expected Leave to win and I am very bitter that the PB prediction table has not been published. I think I would be very close to the top.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
France has always been our enemy.
What happened in the Crimean War, 1914-18,and 1939-45 then?
France folded early and left us to do the business?
Being serious France and England have always been rivals, each working for its own advantage. That was true in the 14th century, true in the 18th/19th, true in 1940, true when De Gaulle was, rightly in my view, keeping us out of the common market and true now. The means by which that rivalry is expressed and conducted have changed but that is all.
As a nation state in the modern sense England (& conquered Wales) was very early. As I understand France could have failed to unite ..... Burgundy could have remained separate, as could traditional Catalonia ..... and neither Germany nor Italy were anything more than regions with a more or less common language covering several different “nations” until the mid to late 19th C. As a schoolboy stamp-collector I recall having a wide selection of German language stamps from all sorts of stamp-issuing countries.Indeed, I think Bavaria was independent, except in time of way until 1918.
All fair points, Mr. Cole. When I did my history degree I wrote a paper as to why England at the time of Henry V could already be held to be a Nation State. As you say the other current states in Europe did not achieve that until much later, Germany and Italy not coming about until the 1870s.
I hope you held on to your stamp collection, I think it might be rather valuable now.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Not an enemy, but a nation that isn't always allied to our interests in the same way Germany probably are.
I'm not sure Germany has ever been as allied to our interests as you suggest. The history of EU negotiations show that Germany was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Germany (and France was always willing to be allied to Britain when it was in the interests of France) but Germany (and France) were never interested in being allied to Britain when it was in the interests of Britain. The attitude of Merkel to Cameron's renegotiations being an example.
Merkel thought that they did not have to give Cameron much to get him to recommend the new deal to the British voters. She judged that right. What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions.
I don't think anyone foresaw how Cameron's ratings would nosedive during the campaign. Almost everybody, whether they favoured Leave or Remain, expected a grudging vote for Remain (say about 55/45).
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
France has always been our enemy.
What happened in the Crimean War, 1914-18,and 1939-45 then?
France folded early and left us to do the business?
Being serious France and England have always been rivals, each working for its own advantage. That was true in the 14th century, true in the 18th/19th, true in 1940, true when De Gaulle was, rightly in my view, keeping us out of the common market and true now. The means by which that rivalry is expressed and conducted have changed but that is all.
As a nation state in the modern sense England (& conquered Wales) was very early. As I understand France could have failed to unite ..... Burgundy could have remained separate, as could traditional Catalonia ..... and neither Germany nor Italy were anything more than regions with a more or less common language covering several different “nations” until the mid to late 19th C. As a schoolboy stamp-collector I recall having a wide selection of German language stamps from all sorts of stamp-issuing countries.Indeed, I think Bavaria was independent, except in time of way until 1918.
All fair points, Mr. Cole. When I did my history degree I wrote a paper as to why England at the time of Henry V could already be held to be a Nation State. As you say the other current states in Europe did not achieve that until much later, Germany and Italy not coming about until the 1870s.
I hope you held on to your stamp collection, I think it might be rather valuable now.
Thank you Mr L. Nice for a scientist who dropped history at 15 to have his understanding confirmed by someone who knows. Sadly I didn’t hold on to my stamp collection. A few years ago I gave to someone who said they’d value it and they gave me a pittance for it.
Can't see how Labour NEC/ PLP can complain about political gerrymandering in respect of boundary changes TBF
It's as gerrymandered as the last set of boundaries.
The bigger question is why we continue with a voting system that gives big majorities to parties receiving a minority of the vote. If the referendum taught us anything it was that there are millions of voters in this country who feel completely ignored. As long as we have FPTP that will continue.
Because we don't get deadlock.
PS we have always had FPTP and general elections used to be much higher in percentage terms, so it is probably a social adjustment rather than a political one.
FPTP works by and large in systems where two parties dominate. That is no longer the case in the UK. Look at Scotland. The SNP got 50% of the vote last year, but have around 90% of the MPs. That is just outrageous - something which the SNP, to its credit, acknowledges (and exploits ruthlessly).
Given a binary choice, FPTP can deliver big majorities on small leads in votes (eg the US Electoral college, or the EU referendum, if you break the vote down by local authority area). That's a feature, not a bug of the system.
With multiple choices though, it starts delivering capricious results.
Quite enjoyed reading the excerpts from Balls' book in the Times this morning. The story about the stammer and writing to the kids was genuinely moving. A few things came out however:
He really doesn't like David Cameron. Its quite personal. No hint of the same with Osborne.
He doesn't like or rate Ed Miliband either. Not a hint of the teamwork necessary to present a credible face. As shadow Chancellor he seems a peripheral figure in the campaign. Weird given economic competence was widely perceived to be their biggest weakness.
Labour's polling/campaign genuinely sucked. He had no idea that the Tories were heading for a majority and he admits that it did not cross his mind that his seat was at risk.
Being a politician sucks. The description of the distress caused to his children by his defeat was quite painful. His daughter's first GCSE was on the Friday morning. Who wants to do this to themselves?
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
Which is why the Tory whips need to start work the minute the proposals are published. They need to have a list of those wishing to retire, those who could be 'pursuaded' to resign with a gong or a seat on the red benches, any redundant MEPs that might want seats etc etc.
With a couple of years to sort it out and a heavy three line whip on the vote, it will go through.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
Not as sad as some Leavers seeing France as an enemy state.
Which isn't as sad as some Remainers seeing England as an enemy state.
In what way?
Different people have different views.
For some Remainers the future was multi-national organisations such as the EU and national states were obsolete or inefficient or racist or whatever.
National states were fundamentally the enemy to people with that viewpoint.
That the plans of those Remainers have now been derailed by England makes England not just an enemy to them but a hated one at that.
England is in a bad state if over 40% of the voting population that live within its borders hate it. How do we sort that out?
Who said that 40% of the voting population hates England ?
It is the EU nationalists who hate England.
Riiight - and presumably an EU nationalist is someone you get to define.
So yet again you know I'm right but don't want to admit it.
You can create your own definition of EU nationalist if you want.
But you're well aware that they exist.
Yes, I do think there are literally a handful of people in this country that view the EU as a nation/country. I think there are many more people who see France as an enemy.
Certainly there are more people who see France as the enemy - there's plenty of history there and continually reinforced by all the Trafalgar Squares and Waterloo stations around the country.
But there's way more than a handful, although still a small minority, who are EU nationalists. And its a small minority which have disproportionally more influence in politics, business and the media.
Perhaps a defining characteristic of such people might be a continuous support for Britain to join the Euro.
Further afield EU nationalism is the fundamental policy of the EU itself through the concept of ever closer union.
People unwilling to accept the referendum result, again a small but influential minority, are supporters of EU nationalism whether they realise it or not.
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
Tory rebels to block a constitutional change that removes a decade old Labour advantage. Do me a flavour.
Can't see how Labour NEC/ PLP can complain about political gerrymandering in respect of boundary changes TBF
It's as gerrymandered as the last set of boundaries.
The bigger question is why we continue with a voting system that gives big majorities to parties receiving a minority of the vote. If the referendum taught us anything it was that there are millions of voters in this country who feel completely ignored. As long as we have FPTP that will continue.
Because we don't get deadlock.
PS we have always had FPTP and general elections used to be much higher in percentage terms, so it is probably a social adjustment rather than a political one.
FPTP works by and large in systems where two parties dominate. That is no longer the case in the UK. Look at Scotland. The SNP got 50% of the vote last year, but have around 90% of the MPs. That is just outrageous - something which the SNP, to its credit, acknowledges (and exploits ruthlessly).
Given a binary choice, FPTP can deliver big majorities on small leads in votes (eg the US Electoral college, or the EU referendum, if you break the vote down by local authority area). That's a feature, not a bug of the system.
With multiple choices though, it starts delivering capricious results.
I quite like FPTP because it generally leads to stable governments who can be held to account on their manifestos.
Most proportional systems seem designed to produce endless coalitions, whereby manifesto commitments get thrown in the bin and the policy platform of a government is written by the politicians *after* the election.
"What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions."
I think Cameron has been, so far, the most arrogant PM in modern times. His examination mind whereby he could loaf about but still produce the goods at the last minute, his almost effortless rise to the top of his party, winning the premiership in 2010 by stitching up a deal with the Lib Dems, being constantly told he was more popular than his party. All things that together, no doubt with other more personal successes, led him to believe he could "sell" any old rubbish to the British People.
In the end though it turned out that what his detractors had been saying for years was actually true. He was an arrogant toff who did not understand the English people. Was it the greeks who coined the term hubris precedes nemesis (or words to that effect)?
Cameron certainly had some talent but he was also an extremely and continually lucky person.
Now there's nothing wrong with being lucky, it might well be the best attribute to have and most of us here were lucky enough to be born into nice middle class backgrounds in the western world.
But Cameron misjudged his luck for a level of intrinsic talent which he didn't have.
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
In fairness only a small part of that discrepancy arises from the size of constituencies. The lower turnout in safe Labour seats, the broader (unproductive) sweep of Tory support and, until 2015, the differential effect of the Lib Dems taking what were more naturally Tory seats all played bigger parts.
Can't see how Labour NEC/ PLP can complain about political gerrymandering in respect of boundary changes TBF
It's as gerrymandered as the last set of boundaries.
The bigger question is why we continue with a voting system that gives big majorities to parties receiving a minority of the vote. If the referendum taught us anything it was that there are millions of voters in this country who feel completely ignored. As long as we have FPTP that will continue.
Because we don't get deadlock.
PS we have always had FPTP and general elections used to be much higher in percentage terms, so it is probably a social adjustment rather than a political one.
FPTP works by and large in systems where two parties dominate. That is no longer the case in the UK. Look at Scotland. The SNP got 50% of the vote last year, but have around 90% of the MPs. That is just outrageous - something which the SNP, to its credit, acknowledges (and exploits ruthlessly).
Given a binary choice, FPTP can deliver big majorities on small leads in votes (eg the US Electoral college, or the EU referendum, if you break the vote down by local authority area). That's a feature, not a bug of the system.
With multiple choices though, it starts delivering capricious results.
It is a valid point you should consider before changing from FPTP. Do you want a majority government most of the time or a coalition?
Over history there are very few 5 year majority (in terms of seats) administrations that have done us irrevocable harm.
In theory they can implement unpopular but essential decisions more easily than a coalition, although Labour, Coalition and so far Tory have all failed on London airport.
"What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions."
I think Cameron has been, so far, the most arrogant PM in modern times. His examination mind whereby he could loaf about but still produce the goods at the last minute, his almost effortless rise to the top of his party, winning the premiership in 2010 by stitching up a deal with the Lib Dems, being constantly told he was more popular than his party. All things that together, no doubt with other more personal successes, led him to believe he could "sell" any old rubbish to the British People.
In the end though it turned out that what his detractors had been saying for years was actually true. He was an arrogant toff who did not understand the English people. Was it the greeks who coined the term hubris precedes nemesis (or words to that effect)?
Cameron certainly had some talent but he was also an extremely and continually lucky person.
Now there's nothing wrong with being lucky, it might well be the best attribute to have and most of us here were lucky enough to be born into nice middle class backgrounds in the western world.
But Cameron misjudged his luck for a level of intrinsic talent which he didn't have.
The weak renegotiation dealt a fatal blow to his chances of winning the Referendum.
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
It's true there'll probably be a lot of hot air from some Tory MPs but in the end I think only about 5 of them will actually vote against it which won't be enough.
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
Which is why the Tory whips need to start work the minute the proposals are published. They need to have a list of those wishing to retire, those who could be 'pursuaded' to resign with a gong or a seat on the red benches, any redundant MEPs that might want seats etc etc.
With a couple of years to sort it out and a heavy three line whip on the vote, it will go through.
There was a three line whip in the last Parliament but several Tories voted against whilst others abstained. Expect a few Tory rebels from Wales! Moroeover if IDS and HardBrexit MPs are unhappy they will find an excuse to scupper this , I suspect.
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
It's true there'll probably be a lot of hot air from some Tory MPs but in the end I think only about 5 of them will actually vote against it which won't be enough.
But a further 5 - 10 might well abstain. Moreover by election losses in the interim may also have reduced the Tory majority to single figures!
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
When you're riding high, the system benefits you more than you deserve. When you're doing badly, it punishes you more than you deserve.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
"What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions."
I think Cameron has been, so far, the most arrogant PM in modern times. His examination mind whereby he could loaf about but still produce the goods at the last minute, his almost effortless rise to the top of his party, winning the premiership in 2010 by stitching up a deal with the Lib Dems, being constantly told he was more popular than his party. All things that together, no doubt with other more personal successes, led him to believe he could "sell" any old rubbish to the British People.
In the end though it turned out that what his detractors had been saying for years was actually true. He was an arrogant toff who did not understand the English people. Was it the greeks who coined the term hubris precedes nemesis (or words to that effect)?
Cameron certainly had some talent but he was also an extremely and continually lucky person.
Now there's nothing wrong with being lucky, it might well be the best attribute to have and most of us here were lucky enough to be born into nice middle class backgrounds in the western world.
But Cameron misjudged his luck for a level of intrinsic talent which he didn't have.
The weak renegotiation dealt a fatal blow to his chances of winning the Referendum.
I don't think that the renegotiation by itself was fatal but Cameron's whole strategy with 'back of the queue', 'Little Englanders', punishment budgets and threats of wars was.
It not only was counter productive but trashed Cameron's reputation.
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
It's true there'll probably be a lot of hot air from some Tory MPs but in the end I think only about 5 of them will actually vote against it which won't be enough.
But a further 5 - 10 might well abstain. Moreover by election losses in the interim may also have reduced the Tory majority to single figures!
But it's unlikely the entire opposition will vote against. A few of them won't bother. Some Nothern Ireland MPs for example.
I quite like FPTP because it generally leads to stable governments who can be held to account on their manifestos.
Most proportional systems seem designed to produce endless coalitions, whereby manifesto commitments get thrown in the bin and the policy platform of a government is written by the politicians *after* the election.
Eh, manifesto commitments get abandoned all the time by FPTP majority governments anyway. The good thing about PR is it lowers barriers to entry/exit, keeping established parties on their toes and allowing new ones to translate support into votes and seats, rather than people grudgingly picking the least worst of two stale parties because the one they actually like 'doesn't have a chance'.
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
When you're riding high, the system benefits you more than you deserve. When you're doing badly, it punishes you more than you deserve.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
I am sure Corbynism will reverse this...I mean older middle England just absolutely love him...
"What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions."
I think Cameron has been, so far, the most arrogant PM in modern times. His examination mind whereby he could loaf about but still produce the goods at the last minute, his almost effortless rise to the top of his party, winning the premiership in 2010 by stitching up a deal with the Lib Dems, being constantly told he was more popular than his party. All things that together, no doubt with other more personal successes, led him to believe he could "sell" any old rubbish to the British People.
In the end though it turned out that what his detractors had been saying for years was actually true. He was an arrogant toff who did not understand the English people. Was it the greeks who coined the term hubris precedes nemesis (or words to that effect)?
Cameron certainly had some talent but he was also an extremely and continually lucky person.
Now there's nothing wrong with being lucky, it might well be the best attribute to have and most of us here were lucky enough to be born into nice middle class backgrounds in the western world.
But Cameron misjudged his luck for a level of intrinsic talent which he didn't have.
The weak renegotiation dealt a fatal blow to his chances of winning the Referendum.
I don't think that the renegotiation by itself was fatal but Cameron's whole strategy with 'back of the queue', 'Little Englanders', punishment budgets and threats of wars was.
It not only was counter productive but trashed Cameron's reputation.
Agreed. Although the pathetic renegotiation started it all. That's why threats were used, and the new deal slipped into the background.
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
It's true there'll probably be a lot of hot air from some Tory MPs but in the end I think only about 5 of them will actually vote against it which won't be enough.
But a further 5 - 10 might well abstain. Moreover by election losses in the interim may also have reduced the Tory majority to single figures!
But it's unlikely the entire opposition will vote against. A few of them won't bother. Some Nothern Ireland MPs for example.
I doubt that - no sign of that in the last Parliament.
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
When you're riding high, the system benefits you more than you deserve. When you're doing badly, it punishes you more than you deserve.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
I am sure Corbynism will reverse this...I mean older middle England just absolutely love him...
I think that if an election were held now, Labour would lose about 25 seats to the Tories, and possibly Heywood & Middleton and Hartlepool to UKIP. They might pick up Brighton Kemptown and Croydon Central in return.
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
It's true there'll probably be a lot of hot air from some Tory MPs but in the end I think only about 5 of them will actually vote against it which won't be enough.
But a further 5 - 10 might well abstain. Moreover by election losses in the interim may also have reduced the Tory majority to single figures!
But it's unlikely the entire opposition will vote against. A few of them won't bother. Some Nothern Ireland MPs for example.
I doubt that - no sign of that in the last Parliament.
You could see some Corbynista MPs missing the vote, as it is an easy way in to reselections in the LabourParty.
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
When you're riding high, the system benefits you more than you deserve. When you're doing badly, it punishes you more than you deserve.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
I am sure Corbynism will reverse this...I mean older middle England just absolutely love him...
I think that if an election were held now, Labour would lose about 25 seats to the Tories, and possibly Heywood & Middleton and Hartlepool to UKIP. They might pick up Brighton Kemptown and Croydon Central in return.
Polls showing a Tory lead of 11% imply a 2.2% swing from Lab to Con which would cost Labour 15 seats. Most of those seats,however, were Labour gains in 2015 so that the new MPs could reasonably expect an incumbency bonus . That could well limit Labour losses to single figures. Heywood & Middleton has already shown significant by election unwind , and should now be safe for Labour.
I quite like FPTP because it generally leads to stable governments who can be held to account on their manifestos.
Most proportional systems seem designed to produce endless coalitions, whereby manifesto commitments get thrown in the bin and the policy platform of a government is written by the politicians *after* the election.
Eh, manifesto commitments get abandoned all the time by FPTP majority governments anyway. The good thing about PR is it lowers barriers to entry/exit, keeping established parties on their toes and allowing new ones to translate support into votes and seats, rather than people grudgingly picking the least worst of two stale parties because the one they actually like 'doesn't have a chance'.
It's a balance. Both systems have all sorts of merits and drawbacks. Focusing on the system is to some extent missing the point - a government needs half the MPs to work so whether that's done by coalitions forming before an election in large parties as usually under FPTP, or whether the coalitions form afterwards, as usually under PR, what matters is that the public are engaged to a reasonably wide level of participation (so that parties reflect that section of the electorate's thoughts and values), and that there is on the one hand enough tolerance within the system that it doesn't lead to continual breakdown, but on the other, not so much that the parties form a self-supporting club.
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
When you're riding high, the system benefits you more than you deserve. When you're doing badly, it punishes you more than you deserve.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
I am sure Corbynism will reverse this...I mean older middle England just absolutely love him...
I think that if an election were held now, Labour would lose about 25 seats to the Tories, and possibly Heywood & Middleton and Hartlepool to UKIP. They might pick up Brighton Kemptown and Croydon Central in return.
Polls showing a Tory lead of 11% imply a 2.2% swing from Lab to Con which would cost Labour 15 seats. Most of those seats,however, were Labour gains in 2015 so that the new MPs could reasonably expect an incumbency bonus . That could well limit Labour losses to single figures. Heywood & Middleton has already shown significant by election unwind , and should now be safe for Labour.
Except polls take no account of a five week election campaign in which Labour under Corbyn will be absolutely slaughtered in terms of leadership, fitness to govern, policy chaos etc etc.
They'll struggle to get above mid-20s frankly, if not worse.
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
When you're riding high, the system benefits you more than you deserve. When you're doing badly, it punishes you more than you deserve.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
I am sure Corbynism will reverse this...I mean older middle England just absolutely love him...
I think that if an election were held now, Labour would lose about 25 seats to the Tories, and possibly Heywood & Middleton and Hartlepool to UKIP. They might pick up Brighton Kemptown and Croydon Central in return.
Polls showing a Tory lead of 11% imply a 2.2% swing from Lab to Con which would cost Labour 15 seats. Most of those seats,however, were Labour gains in 2015 so that the new MPs could reasonably expect an incumbency bonus . That could well limit Labour losses to single figures. Heywood & Middleton has already shown significant by election unwind , and should now be safe for Labour.
Except polls take no account of a five week election campaign in which Labour under Corbyn will be absolutely slaughtered in terms of leadership, fitness to govern, policy chaos etc etc.
They'll struggle to get above mid-20s frankly, if not worse.
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
When you're riding high, the system benefits you more than you deserve. When you're doing badly, it punishes you more than you deserve.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
I am sure Corbynism will reverse this...I mean older middle England just absolutely love him...
I think that if an election were held now, Labour would lose about 25 seats to the Tories, and possibly Heywood & Middleton and Hartlepool to UKIP. They might pick up Brighton Kemptown and Croydon Central in return.
Polls showing a Tory lead of 11% imply a 2.2% swing from Lab to Con which would cost Labour 15 seats. Most of those seats,however, were Labour gains in 2015 so that the new MPs could reasonably expect an incumbency bonus . That could well limit Labour losses to single figures. Heywood & Middleton has already shown significant by election unwind , and should now be safe for Labour.
Incumbency bonus in some seats would be offset by seats further up the list being lost. Corbyn goes down best in places that are already solid for Labour. I think seats like Newcastle under Lyme, Stoke South, NE Derbyshire, Dewsbury, Bridgend, Walsall North, Darlington, would fall, were an election held now.
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
When you're riding high, the system benefits you more than you deserve. When you're doing badly, it punishes you more than you deserve.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
I am sure Corbynism will reverse this...I mean older middle England just absolutely love him...
I think that if an election were held now, Labour would lose about 25 seats to the Tories, and possibly Heywood & Middleton and Hartlepool to UKIP. They might pick up Brighton Kemptown and Croydon Central in return.
Polls showing a Tory lead of 11% imply a 2.2% swing from Lab to Con which would cost Labour 15 seats. Most of those seats,however, were Labour gains in 2015 so that the new MPs could reasonably expect an incumbency bonus . That could well limit Labour losses to single figures. Heywood & Middleton has already shown significant by election unwind , and should now be safe for Labour.
Except polls take no account of a five week election campaign in which Labour under Corbyn will be absolutely slaughtered in terms of leadership, fitness to govern, policy chaos etc etc.
They'll struggle to get above mid-20s frankly, if not worse.
Yes. Not least because UKIP and Farron will - as secondary parties always do if they have any sense - be targetting the weaker of the two big parties, and both have a message to sell to parts of Labour's coalition. At the moment, the Lib Dems aren't getting a look in, partly because the media's shut them out and partly because there's still hostility from many Labour-inclined due to the Coalition. However, come 2020, the Coalition will be quite a while ago and more importantly, Farron will sound very different to Clegg.
In fact, Farron can play it both ways as long as he's lucky: he can try to win over Labour voters in much the same way as the SNP have in Scotland: by being a more effective opposition to the Tories than Labour.
Politicians voted in favour of the EU referendum bill knowing that they would have to implement the result of the referendum. There are countless comments such as the below:
Philip Hammond: "But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver."
The thread is all based on the assumption that the boundary changes will be approved. In reality, that is far from certain - there are likely to be Tory rebels who might be sufficiently numerous to block the proposals being implemented.
It's true there'll probably be a lot of hot air from some Tory MPs but in the end I think only about 5 of them will actually vote against it which won't be enough.
But a further 5 - 10 might well abstain. Moreover by election losses in the interim may also have reduced the Tory majority to single figures!
But it's unlikely the entire opposition will vote against. A few of them won't bother. Some Nothern Ireland MPs for example.
I doubt that - no sign of that in the last Parliament.
When was the last time the entire opposition voted the same way without any abstentions?
"What she got wrong was that she also thought that Cameron could sell us anything. It was Cameron and Osborne that gave her those conclusions."
I think Cameron has been, so far, the most arrogant PM in modern times. His examination mind whereby he could loaf about but still produce the goods at the last minute, his almost effortless rise to the top of his party, winning the premiership in 2010 by stitching up a deal with the Lib Dems, being constantly told he was more popular than his party. All things that together, no doubt with other more personal successes, led him to believe he could "sell" any old rubbish to the British People.
In the end though it turned out that what his detractors had been saying for years was actually true. He was an arrogant toff who did not understand the English people. Was it the greeks who coined the term hubris precedes nemesis (or words to that effect)?
Cameron certainly had some talent but he was also an extremely and continually lucky person.
Now there's nothing wrong with being lucky, it might well be the best attribute to have and most of us here were lucky enough to be born into nice middle class backgrounds in the western world.
But Cameron misjudged his luck for a level of intrinsic talent which he didn't have.
Personally I would abolish the House of Lords, it is a ridiculous anachronism. Rather than use its chamber as a bingo hall (tempting as that is) I would have an English only Parliament sitting there 2 or 3 days a week with the existing English MPs debating and legislating on England only matters.
I agree that the quid pro quo for this should be the beefing up of the Committee stages of bills allowing the Committees to hear relevant evidence and to take expert advice on the proposals.
Cheers Jock,
Your northern input is inciteful. [sp?] Nice to know that you'se folks need to tell us how to run England; all the whilst your parish-council attempt to bleed us dry with debt....
:midges-and-tumbleweed:
Usual moronic Little Englander input ........... Yawn, you clowns don't even have a Parliament you are so feeble
Quite enjoyed reading the excerpts from Balls' book in the Times this morning. The story about the stammer and writing to the kids was genuinely moving. A few things came out however:
He really doesn't like David Cameron. Its quite personal. No hint of the same with Osborne.
He doesn't like or rate Ed Miliband either. Not a hint of the teamwork necessary to present a credible face. As shadow Chancellor he seems a peripheral figure in the campaign. Weird given economic competence was widely perceived to be their biggest weakness.
Labour's polling/campaign genuinely sucked. He had no idea that the Tories were heading for a majority and he admits that it did not cross his mind that his seat was at risk.
Being a politician sucks. The description of the distress caused to his children by his defeat was quite painful. His daughter's first GCSE was on the Friday morning. Who wants to do this to themselves?
David, hard to feel sorry for him, he will be rolling in it , and gold plated pensions. Millionaires are able to look after themselves.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.
Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...
Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.
Tell that to the poor sods last week who took 4 HOURS to get from Victoria to Horsham last week, because of a signal failure at Balham. The NR employee I was talking to was telling me people were very very angry, especially as its on the curse.d Southern Rail line
Luckily, Eurostar is (usually) run more competently.
.. they have been recently striking too... about god knows what,...
I saw the RMT are planning to ballot for strike action because of decision to remove buffet cars from new GWR (?) trains to replace them with heated trolleys.
There's no job angle (all the buffet staff have been guaranteed other jobs on the network) and no safety angle.
I thought there were limitations on what counted as a legitimate basis for a strike? If not, perhaps there should be - with an independent arbitrator to determine when the unions are playing silly buggers and when they have reasonable grounds to ballot.
Yes. Not least because UKIP and Farron will - as secondary parties always do if they have any sense - be targetting the weaker of the two big parties, and both have a message to sell to parts of Labour's coalition. At the moment, the Lib Dems aren't getting a look in, partly because the media's shut them out and partly because there's still hostility from many Labour-inclined due to the Coalition. However, come 2020, the Coalition will be quite a while ago and more importantly, Farron will sound very different to Clegg.
In fact, Farron can play it both ways as long as he's lucky: he can try to win over Labour voters in much the same way as the SNP have in Scotland: by being a more effective opposition to the Tories than Labour.
Mr Herdson, there is much in what you say but I detect one tiny but fatal flaw in your line of argument. Ukip and the Lib Dems are sinking, for different reasons, into irrelevance.
There is still a long way to go, of course, but I see no reason to suppose that either party will bounce back into contention anywhere, certainly not by 2020.
How sad is it that the Remoaners are now cheering on the French.
The base point of Remaitors that the UK is a weak little island that has to be nice to the nearby countries or they will bully us and make us very poor is rather sad.
A picture I saw someone had uploaded to Facebook on the 24th of June summed up their anti-British view rather nicely. On one end of a table, a selection of wines, pastries, cheese, grapes, biscuits etc. On the other a tin of baked beans.
May be you should ask them how many Michelin three star restaurants there are in Paris and London respectively?
Certainly there are more people who see France as the enemy - there's plenty of history there and continually reinforced by all the Trafalgar Squares and Waterloo stations around the country.
But there's way more than a handful, although still a small minority, who are EU nationalists. And its a small minority which have disproportionally more influence in politics, business and the media.
Perhaps a defining characteristic of such people might be a continuous support for Britain to join the Euro.
Further afield EU nationalism is the fundamental policy of the EU itself through the concept of ever closer union.
People unwilling to accept the referendum result, again a small but influential minority, are supporters of EU nationalism whether they realise it or not.
I would describe most of the supporters of EU nationalism as misguided and misled.
I would describe the "small minority, who are EU nationalists. And its a small minority which have disproportionally more influence in politics, business and the media." as a fifth column which is doing everything it can to subvert the state and incorporate it as a province of another republic called the EU. As HM queen will not be the head of state they are undoutably agitating, conspiring and attempting to depose the Queen.
However vulgar it might be seen as to say so, under UK law that is an offence beginning with T.
Whether the Treason laws which are still rather medieval are still fit for purpose or should be reformed is another matter, but the law is as it is with the government prefering to sweep it under the carpet and if necessary take over private prosecutions and then drop them in the public interest rather than reform it.
We have signalled what we think of the EU members and their treaties. It is perfectly rational to expect that there will be a response given we will soon not be a member of the club.
Or did you expect them to beg us to stay and accord us the same courtesies and concessions we had when we were a member?
We didn't signal anything about what we think of EU members or their treaties.
We simply decided, by popular vote, that we didn't want to be part of the EU anymore and hence have started the process to exit.
Of course the French could terminate the bilateral treaty on where the border checks are if they want to. (I don't think they could kick us out of the Dublin Treaty - they would need to replace it with a new one, signed by all the other parties, before tearing it up).
Of course deliberately taking steps to move the Jungle to British soil would be a provocative and hostile act towards a friendly neighbour and hence unlikely to happen.
Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?
From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.
Non story.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.
Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...
Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.
Tell that to the poor sods last week who took 4 HOURS to get from Victoria to Horsham last week, because of a signal failure at Balham. The NR employee I was talking to was telling me people were very very angry, especially as its on the curse.d Southern Rail line
Luckily, Eurostar is (usually) run more competently.
.. they have been recently striking too... about god knows what,...
I saw the RMT are planning to ballot for strike action because of decision to remove buffet cars from new GWR (?) trains to replace them with heated trolleys.
There's no job angle (all the buffet staff have been guaranteed other jobs on the network) and no safety angle.
I thought there were limitations on what counted as a legitimate basis for a strike? If not, perhaps there should be - with an independent arbitrator to determine when the unions are playing silly buggers and when they have reasonable grounds to ballot.
They need buffet cars, so that there will be less seats on the train, so that if Corbyn needs one he cannot find one, so he can publicly complain about the lack of seats, so he will gather support, so that Corbyn will become PM, and RMT will benefit from that.
NB these are NOT votes for the Presidential Election, but suggests that more people may be willing to vote - whether that means that white non-college voters are going to come out is anyone's guess.
It is quite often that way these days, Mr JS. On the other hand we are currently importing more of our electricity from Holland (3.76%) than we are getting from our wind farms (2.05%). We also seem to be exporting electricity to France, and, it being a Bank Holiday, demand is unusually low for this time of day.
We have signalled what we think of the EU members and their treaties. It is perfectly rational to expect that there will be a response given we will soon not be a member of the club.
Or did you expect them to beg us to stay and accord us the same courtesies and concessions we had when we were a member?
We didn't signal anything about what we think of EU members or their treaties.
We simply decided, by popular vote, that we didn't want to be part of the EU anymore and hence have started the process to exit.
Of course the French could terminate the bilateral treaty on where the border checks are if they want to. (I don't think they could kick us out of the Dublin Treaty - they would need to replace it with a new one, signed by all the other parties, before tearing it up).
Of course deliberately taking steps to move the Jungle to British soil would be a provocative and hostile act towards a friendly neighbour and hence unlikely to happen.
The suggestion isn't to move the Jungle camp to Kent, it is to close it and open an official Sangate style asylum centre from which migrants could apply for asylum in the UK (or other countries I imagine). Only the bitter types are hoping that the Jungle camp moves to the UK.
Yes. Not least because UKIP and Farron will - as secondary parties always do if they have any sense - be targetting the weaker of the two big parties, and both have a message to sell to parts of Labour's coalition. At the moment, the Lib Dems aren't getting a look in, partly because the media's shut them out and partly because there's still hostility from many Labour-inclined due to the Coalition. However, come 2020, the Coalition will be quite a while ago and more importantly, Farron will sound very different to Clegg.
In fact, Farron can play it both ways as long as he's lucky: he can try to win over Labour voters in much the same way as the SNP have in Scotland: by being a more effective opposition to the Tories than Labour.
Mr Herdson, there is much in what you say but I detect one tiny but fatal flaw in your line of argument. Ukip and the Lib Dems are sinking, for different reasons, into irrelevance.
There is still a long way to go, of course, but I see no reason to suppose that either party will bounce back into contention anywhere, certainly not by 2020.
*Someone* has to bounce back into contention on the left-of-centre. Political physics simply won't allow a vacuum to remain there for so long. There are too many potential voters.
We have signalled what we think of the EU members and their treaties. It is perfectly rational to expect that there will be a response given we will soon not be a member of the club.
Or did you expect them to beg us to stay and accord us the same courtesies and concessions we had when we were a member?
We didn't signal anything about what we think of EU members or their treaties.
We simply decided, by popular vote, that we didn't want to be part of the EU anymore and hence have started the process to exit.
Of course the French could terminate the bilateral treaty on where the border checks are if they want to. (I don't think they could kick us out of the Dublin Treaty - they would need to replace it with a new one, signed by all the other parties, before tearing it up).
Of course deliberately taking steps to move the Jungle to British soil would be a provocative and hostile act towards a friendly neighbour and hence unlikely to happen.
The suggestion isn't to move the Jungle camp to Kent, it is to close it and open an official Sangate style asylum centre from which migrants could apply for asylum in the UK (or other countries I imagine). Only the bitter types are hoping that the Jungle camp moves to the UK.
But how could they apply for asylum in the UK, when they are perfectly safe in France?
I very infrequently look at the PETRA links to see the horrendous and hideous way we treat animals. I don't like it, I don't like seeing the imagery of animal experimentation etc... but its important for me to know what going on.
In the same vain I look at the comments at pbCOM, just to see how narrow minded, bigoted, witless, and downright nasty a sizeable group of my fellow Brits are. With a very notable exception, you are all men.
It is quite often that way these days, Mr JS. On the other hand we are currently importing more of our electricity from Holland (3.76%) than we are getting from our wind farms (2.05%). We also seem to be exporting electricity to France, and, it being a Bank Holiday, demand is unusually low for this time of day.
Complex stuff this national grid business.
Whats fascinating is that a click onto Gridwatch France shows you we are using less than half as much electricity as France are with a near identical population.
I very infrequently look at the PETRA links to see the horrendous and hideous way we treat animals. I don't like it, I don't like seeing the imagery of animal experimentation etc... but its important for me to know what going on.
In the same vain I look at the comments at pbCOM, just to see how narrow minded, bigoted, witless, and downright nasty a sizeable group of my fellow Brits are. With a very notable exception, you are all men.
I very infrequently look at the PETRA links to see the horrendous and hideous way we treat animals. I don't like it, I don't like seeing the imagery of animal experimentation etc... but its important for me to know what going on.
In the same vain I look at the comments at pbCOM, just to see how narrow minded, bigoted, witless, and downright nasty a sizeable group of my fellow Brits are. With a very notable exception, you are all men.
I very infrequently look at the PETRA links to see the horrendous and hideous way we treat animals. I don't like it, I don't like seeing the imagery of animal experimentation etc... but its important for me to know what going on.
In the same vain I look at the comments at pbCOM, just to see how narrow minded, bigoted, witless, and downright nasty a sizeable group of my fellow Brits are. With a very notable exception, you are all men.
Quite enjoyed reading the excerpts from Balls' book in the Times this morning. The story about the stammer and writing to the kids was genuinely moving. A few things came out however:
He really doesn't like David Cameron. Its quite personal. No hint of the same with Osborne.
He doesn't like or rate Ed Miliband either. Not a hint of the teamwork necessary to present a credible face. As shadow Chancellor he seems a peripheral figure in the campaign. Weird given economic competence was widely perceived to be their biggest weakness.
Labour's polling/campaign genuinely sucked. He had no idea that the Tories were heading for a majority and he admits that it did not cross his mind that his seat was at risk.
Being a politician sucks. The description of the distress caused to his children by his defeat was quite painful. His daughter's first GCSE was on the Friday morning. Who wants to do this to themselves?
I have to question his veracity on that. Balls is not stupid, either intellectually or politically. The Conservatives lost M&O by 1,101 votes in 2010 and had been working hard in the seat since at least 2012. On top of which, UKIP had put in some very strong performances in the local elections, gaining seats from Labour.
I can fully accept that he expected to win it, as did the bookies did for that matter. But the idea that his seat wasn't at risk is complete nonsense. Indeed, the amount of effort that his campaign put in on the ground is testament to how closely fought they knew it was.
It is quite often that way these days, Mr JS. On the other hand we are currently importing more of our electricity from Holland (3.76%) than we are getting from our wind farms (2.05%). We also seem to be exporting electricity to France, and, it being a Bank Holiday, demand is unusually low for this time of day.
Complex stuff this national grid business.
Whats fascinating is that a click onto Gridwatch France shows you we are using less than half as much electricity as France are with a near identical population.
A lot of air con on in the south of France, at a guess.
Quite enjoyed reading the excerpts from Balls' book in the Times this morning. The story about the stammer and writing to the kids was genuinely moving. A few things came out however:
He really doesn't like David Cameron. Its quite personal. No hint of the same with Osborne.
He doesn't like or rate Ed Miliband either. Not a hint of the teamwork necessary to present a credible face. As shadow Chancellor he seems a peripheral figure in the campaign. Weird given economic competence was widely perceived to be their biggest weakness.
Labour's polling/campaign genuinely sucked. He had no idea that the Tories were heading for a majority and he admits that it did not cross his mind that his seat was at risk.
Being a politician sucks. The description of the distress caused to his children by his defeat was quite painful. His daughter's first GCSE was on the Friday morning. Who wants to do this to themselves?
I have to question his veracity on that. Balls is not stupid, either intellectually or politically. The Conservatives lost M&O by 1,101 votes in 2010 and had been working hard in the seat since at least 2012. On top of which, UKIP had put in some very strong performances in the local elections, gaining seats from Labour.
I can fully accept that he expected to win it, as did the bookies did for that matter. But the idea that his seat wasn't at risk is complete nonsense. Indeed, the amount of effort that his campaign put in on the ground is testament to how closely fought they knew it was.
Indeed. That sounds like willful blindness at best, or playing up the shock for pathos value the next. I've no doubt it was rough and perhaps unexpected, but juicing up the emotiveness of the language to 'did not cross his mind' it was at risk sounds a bit much.
I very infrequently look at the PETRA links to see the horrendous and hideous way we treat animals. I don't like it, I don't like seeing the imagery of animal experimentation etc... but its important for me to know what going on.
In the same vain I look at the comments at pbCOM, just to see how narrow minded, bigoted, witless, and downright nasty a sizeable group of my fellow Brits are.
My personal goal is to perhaps be a Leaver you would not be embarrased to know. A high bar, I know.
The boundary changes are a no brainer. Led by an independent body, and in the wake of the following highly skewed outcomes
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con 2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.</p>
2010 was actually - Lab 29.7% Con 37.0% - Con 7.3% lead.
And last year the Labour vote share actually went up, but the Tories got a majority. So clearly other factors are at play - it's not got much to do with the actual size of the constituencies.
When you're riding high, the system benefits you more than you deserve. When you're doing badly, it punishes you more than you deserve.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
I am sure Corbynism will reverse this...I mean older middle England just absolutely love him...
I think that if an election were held now, Labour would lose about 25 seats to the Tories, and possibly Heywood & Middleton and Hartlepool to UKIP. They might pick up Brighton Kemptown and Croydon Central in return.
Polls showing a Tory lead of 11% imply a 2.2% swing from Lab to Con which would cost Labour 15 seats. Most of those seats,however, were Labour gains in 2015 so that the new MPs could reasonably expect an incumbency bonus . That could well limit Labour losses to single figures. Heywood & Middleton has already shown significant by election unwind , and should now be safe for Labour.
Incumbency bonus in some seats would be offset by seats further up the list being lost. Corbyn goes down best in places that are already solid for Labour. I think seats like Newcastle under Lyme, Stoke South, NE Derbyshire, Dewsbury, Bridgend, Walsall North, Darlington, would fall, were an election held now.
Very unlikely with the exception of Newcastle under Lyme. Barrow in Furness would also be at risk. Labour held Bridgend comfortably at the Welsh Assembly elections last May.
It is quite often that way these days, Mr JS. On the other hand we are currently importing more of our electricity from Holland (3.76%) than we are getting from our wind farms (2.05%). We also seem to be exporting electricity to France, and, it being a Bank Holiday, demand is unusually low for this time of day.
Complex stuff this national grid business.
Whats fascinating is that a click onto Gridwatch France shows you we are using less than half as much electricity as France are with a near identical population.
Comments
We also haven't left yet, by the way.
It is the EU nationalists who hate England.
Catalyst more than cause.
'So, about Parliament having the right to control the exercise of Article 50...'
Nope, we were clearly told by Cameron on numerous occasions, that in the event of a Leave vote he would activate Article 50 , no ifs,no buts,no second referendums or parliament blocking the democratic will of the people.
Being serious France and England have always been rivals, each working for its own advantage. That was true in the 14th century, true in the 18th/19th, true in 1940, true when De Gaulle was, rightly in my view, keeping us out of the common market and true now. The means by which that rivalry is expressed and conducted have changed but that is all.
You can create your own definition of EU nationalist if you want.
But you're well aware that they exist.
Your northern input is inciteful. [sp?] Nice to know that you'se folks need to tell us how to run England; all the whilst your parish-council attempt to bleed us dry with debt....
:midges-and-tumbleweed:
Yes, exactly.
Replying to Southam: I'm not really trying to find a winnable seat or any kind of seat.
Replying to Sean F on leftish attitudes to England - yes, a very fair ssummary, as always.
The bigger question is why we continue with a voting system that gives big majorities to parties receiving a minority of the vote. If the referendum taught us anything it was that there are millions of voters in this country who feel completely ignored. As long as we have FPTP that will continue.
It might sound petty but can we disqualify Comrade Branson's cucumber entry? https://t.co/3B1f1jrhm3
As a schoolboy stamp-collector I recall having a wide selection of German language stamps from all sorts of stamp-issuing countries.Indeed, I think Bavaria was independent, except in time of way until 1918.
Replying to Southam: I'm not really trying to find a winnable seat or any kind of seat.
Replying to Sean F on leftish attitudes to England - yes, a very fair ssummary, as always.
Voters have lost faith, full stop.
I was joking about your search for a seat.
Speak for yourself about England, though. People on the left - such as me - do not see it in the way that you do.
PS we have always had FPTP and general elections used to be much higher in percentage terms, so it is probably a social adjustment rather than a political one.
I think Cameron has been, so far, the most arrogant PM in modern times. His examination mind whereby he could loaf about but still produce the goods at the last minute, his almost effortless rise to the top of his party, winning the premiership in 2010 by stitching up a deal with the Lib Dems, being constantly told he was more popular than his party. All things that together, no doubt with other more personal successes, led him to believe he could "sell" any old rubbish to the British People.
In the end though it turned out that what his detractors had been saying for years was actually true. He was an arrogant toff who did not understand the English people. Was it the greeks who coined the term hubris precedes nemesis (or words to that effect)?
Replying to Southam: I'm not really trying to find a winnable seat or any kind of seat.
Replying to Sean F on leftish attitudes to England - yes, a very fair ssummary, as always.
I think the problem for social democracy is that it depends on strong economic growth. With high growth, you can redistribute wealth and power from the better off, while still allowing them do better in absolute terms.
In an environment of low economic growth, gains for one group must mean losses for another.
I hope you held on to your stamp collection, I think it might be rather valuable now.
Sadly I didn’t hold on to my stamp collection. A few years ago I gave to someone who said they’d value it and they gave me a pittance for it.
With multiple choices though, it starts delivering capricious results.
2005: Lab 36% Con 33% - 3% lead, and Lab won >160 seats more than Con
2010: Lab 31% Con 36% - 5% lead, but Con won <60 more than Lab
Same # of voters per constituency is unarguable.
He really doesn't like David Cameron. Its quite personal. No hint of the same with Osborne.
He doesn't like or rate Ed Miliband either. Not a hint of the teamwork necessary to present a credible face. As shadow Chancellor he seems a peripheral figure in the campaign. Weird given economic competence was widely perceived to be their biggest weakness.
Labour's polling/campaign genuinely sucked. He had no idea that the Tories were heading for a majority and he admits that it did not cross his mind that his seat was at risk.
Being a politician sucks. The description of the distress caused to his children by his defeat was quite painful. His daughter's first GCSE was on the Friday morning. Who wants to do this to themselves?
With a couple of years to sort it out and a heavy three line whip on the vote, it will go through.
But there's way more than a handful, although still a small minority, who are EU nationalists. And its a small minority which have disproportionally more influence in politics, business and the media.
Perhaps a defining characteristic of such people might be a continuous support for Britain to join the Euro.
Further afield EU nationalism is the fundamental policy of the EU itself through the concept of ever closer union.
People unwilling to accept the referendum result, again a small but influential minority, are supporters of EU nationalism whether they realise it or not.
If you wanted to be fair, why not the same number of constituents?
Most proportional systems seem designed to produce endless coalitions, whereby manifesto commitments get thrown in the bin and the policy platform of a government is written by the politicians *after* the election.
Now there's nothing wrong with being lucky, it might well be the best attribute to have and most of us here were lucky enough to be born into nice middle class backgrounds in the western world.
But Cameron misjudged his luck for a level of intrinsic talent which he didn't have.
Over history there are very few 5 year majority (in terms of seats) administrations that have done us irrevocable harm.
In theory they can implement unpopular but essential decisions more easily than a coalition, although Labour, Coalition and so far Tory have all failed on London airport.
The Tories gained votes exactly where it mattered, in 2015, and shed them where it didn't matter. For Labour, the reverse was true.
It not only was counter productive but trashed Cameron's reputation.
Agreed. Although the pathetic renegotiation started it all. That's why threats were used, and the new deal slipped into the background.
They'll struggle to get above mid-20s frankly, if not worse.
In fact, Farron can play it both ways as long as he's lucky: he can try to win over Labour voters in much the same way as the SNP have in Scotland: by being a more effective opposition to the Tories than Labour.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
Politicians voted in favour of the EU referendum bill knowing that they would have to implement the result of the referendum. There are countless comments such as the below:
Philip Hammond:
"But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150609/debtext/150609-0001.htm#15060939000001
Please feel free to explain how politicians did not know what they were voting for.
There's no job angle (all the buffet staff have been guaranteed other jobs on the network) and no safety angle.
I thought there were limitations on what counted as a legitimate basis for a strike? If not, perhaps there should be - with an independent arbitrator to determine when the unions are playing silly buggers and when they have reasonable grounds to ballot.
Energy produced by coal is currently zero according to this:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
There is still a long way to go, of course, but I see no reason to suppose that either party will bounce back into contention anywhere, certainly not by 2020.
I would describe the "small minority, who are EU nationalists. And its a small minority which have disproportionally more influence in politics, business and the media." as a fifth column which is doing everything it can to subvert the state and incorporate it as a province of another republic called the EU. As HM queen will not be the head of state they are undoutably agitating, conspiring and attempting to depose the Queen.
However vulgar it might be seen as to say so, under UK law that is an offence beginning with T.
Whether the Treason laws which are still rather medieval are still fit for purpose or should be reformed is another matter, but the law is as it is with the government prefering to sweep it under the carpet and if necessary take over private prosecutions and then drop them in the public interest rather than reform it.
We simply decided, by popular vote, that we didn't want to be part of the EU anymore and hence have started the process to exit.
Of course the French could terminate the bilateral treaty on where the border checks are if they want to. (I don't think they could kick us out of the Dublin Treaty - they would need to replace it with a new one, signed by all the other parties, before tearing it up).
Of course deliberately taking steps to move the Jungle to British soil would be a provocative and hostile act towards a friendly neighbour and hence unlikely to happen.
They need buffet cars, so that there will be less seats on the train, so that if Corbyn needs one he cannot find one, so he can publicly complain about the lack of seats, so he will gather support, so that Corbyn will become PM, and RMT will benefit from that.
Obvious, really.
http://www.flchamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Memo_Low-Propensity-Voters-Likely-to-Create-Big-Surprises-on-Primary-Election-Night_082516.pdf
NB these are NOT votes for the Presidential Election, but suggests that more people may be willing to vote - whether that means that white non-college voters are going to come out is anyone's guess.
Complex stuff this national grid business.
But how could they apply for asylum in the UK, when they are perfectly safe in France?
In the same vain I look at the comments at pbCOM, just to see how narrow minded, bigoted, witless, and downright nasty a sizeable group of my fellow Brits are. With a very notable exception, you are all men.
I can fully accept that he expected to win it, as did the bookies did for that matter. But the idea that his seat wasn't at risk is complete nonsense. Indeed, the amount of effort that his campaign put in on the ground is testament to how closely fought they knew it was.