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."
Please feel free to explain how politicians did not know what they were voting for.
It's not a question of whether they knew what they were voting for, but whether they were correct in interpreting who could formally decide on declaration. It seems they were probably right, but it is surely not merely a matter of who agreed it could be done by government or not, as people can be wrong, it is about what is the legal process. The government is confident it can indeed be the ones, and are probably right.
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 seem to recall that they were rivals at Oxford - I've also got the feeling that Cameron was classified above Balls despite doing much less work. I could be wrong, but I think that might be the root of it. I know there was talk when Cameron became PM that Balls was fuming at his hated rival beating him to the top job.
I find it surprising that his daughter had a GCSE on the Friday, as scheduled exams didn't start till the following Monday. But it may have been a language oral exam or something.
I don't blame him for not rating Miliband, nor do I (and nor did anyone else)! That said, I still think Ed was a much more capable politician than his brother, who is a talented administrator but has no imagination or drive and a fairly limited intellect.
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 have no idea on the practical application of the idea, but that's the proposal. Anyway, it's just rabble rousing from Sarkozy to try and get the Les Republicans nomination.
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 of positives and negatives for any system. Some seem of PR, in my view, seems to have more positives. But I shall continue to be disappointing I think.
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 have no idea on the practical application of the idea, but that's the proposal. Anyway, it's just rabble rousing from Sarkozy to try and get the Les Republicans nomination.
Pesky politicians giving the public what they want.
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.
How often did Balls visit his constituency ?
I get the sense that he thought he'd been given a safe seat and never adapted to the reality that M&O had become marginal because of electoral and demographic change.
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 have no idea on the practical application of the idea, but that's the proposal. Anyway, it's just rabble rousing from Sarkozy to try and get the Les Republicans nomination.
Pesky politicians giving the public what they want.
Indeed and if the people want the Jungle camp gone, then Sarkozy is right to offer that to them and he will need to deal with the consequences of increased migrant flow by opening an official route to the UK. But that's tomorrow's problem.
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.
That is a good point - the Remoaners do all seem to be men.
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.
Le Touquet can be terminated by either party giving two years notice.
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.
.
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.
Agreed. 25% for Labour is their new level.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
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.
How often did Balls visit his constituency ?
I get the sense that he thought he'd been given a safe seat and never adapted to the reality that M&O had become marginal because of electoral and demographic change.
It didn't help that Tom Watson diverted valuable resources away from M&O to Sheffield Hallam.
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.
How often did Balls visit his constituency ?
I get the sense that he thought he'd been given a safe seat and never adapted to the reality that M&O had become marginal because of electoral and demographic change.
He wasn't completely embedded into the constituency but he did get out and about quite a bit - at least as much as one might expect of a senior cabinet / SCab minister with national responsibilities might be expected to.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
Serious question. Would it not benefit the Liberal Democrats and UKIP considerably more if they had near zero air time in a campaign and the airwaves were dominated by Jeremy Corbyn self-destructing on an hourly basis by spouting his dogmatic cliches in the voice of Eeyore and looking generally like a total loser?
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
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.
How often did Balls visit his constituency ?
I get the sense that he thought he'd been given a safe seat and never adapted to the reality that M&O had become marginal because of electoral and demographic change.
He wasn't completely embedded into the constituency but he did get out and about quite a bit - at least as much as one might expect of a senior cabinet / SCab minister with national responsibilities might be expected to.
The story is that in 2010 he got the call from Labour HQ that he needed to get home and campaign locally, but in 2015 the call never came because Miliband's team would have liked to see him go to create an opening at No. 11 if they had won. There was almost as much bad blood between the two Eds as there was between Blair and Brown.
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.
How often did Balls visit his constituency ?
I get the sense that he thought he'd been given a safe seat and never adapted to the reality that M&O had become marginal because of electoral and demographic change.
He wasn't completely embedded into the constituency but he did get out and about quite a bit - at least as much as one might expect of a senior cabinet / SCab minister with national responsibilities might be expected to.
The odd thing is that among the PPEocrachy Ed Balls seemed more in touch than most with the ordinary voter's life.
As opposed to the 'ordinary folk' of Dartmouth Park EdM once referenced.
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.
.
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.
Agreed. 25% for Labour is their new level.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
UKIP, yes; the Greens, no. UKIP, the Lib Dems and the SNP are clearly the secondary parties across the UK, for different reasons and deserve lesser than Con/Lab but still substantial coverage.
The Greens, by contrast, are a minor party and deserve to be treated as such. Unlike the Lib Dems or UKIP, they don't contest every seat. Unlike the Lib Dems and UKIP, they won't secure several million votes. Unlike the SNP, they don't have several dozen MPs. The Greens have 1 MP and are competitive in half-a-dozen other seats at best. After boundary review, they'll be in an even worse state.
But even if the Lib Dems' coverage is a good deal less than it was in 2010, that might still be enough. After all, UKIP mopped up about 10% of the electorate between 2011-13 with virtually no media coverage.
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.
Mr. Max, I don't really see a problem with the Frogs' suggestion. We open an office and refuse asylum to everyone who asks, they then become the Frogs' problem once again.
It all seems a bit pointless and a waste of time, but if that is what the French want, well why not. The cost, to us, will be trivial.
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 have no idea on the practical application of the idea, but that's the proposal. Anyway, it's just rabble rousing from Sarkozy to try and get the Les Republicans nomination.
My reference was to the local guy (Mayor of Pas de Calais?) who is more aggressive than Sarko.
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.
How often did Balls visit his constituency ?
I get the sense that he thought he'd been given a safe seat and never adapted to the reality that M&O had become marginal because of electoral and demographic change.
He wasn't completely embedded into the constituency but he did get out and about quite a bit - at least as much as one might expect of a senior cabinet / SCab minister with national responsibilities might be expected to.
The story is that in 2010 he got the call from Labour HQ that he needed to get home and campaign locally, but in 2015 the call never came because Miliband's team would have liked to see him go to create an opening at No. 11 if they had won. There was almost as much bad blood between the two Eds as there was between Blair and Brown.
Not sure I agree. He must have been getting canvass reports direct from his local office and would have known how close it was. The amount of time he devoted to local campaigning will have been his own call to a large extent.
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.
Le Touquet can be terminated by either party giving two years notice.
Yes, and that would be entirely legitimate.
Then opening the border (in practice if not de jure) would be provocative/hostile
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.
.
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.
Agreed. 25% for Labour is their new level.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consist
UKIP, yes; the Greens, no. UKIP, the Lib Dems and the SNP are clearly the secondary parties across the UK, for different reasons and deserve lesser than Con/Lab but still substantial coverage.
The Greens, by contrast, are a minor party and deserve to be treated as such. Unlike the Lib Dems or UKIP, they don't contest every seat. Unlike the Lib Dems and UKIP, they won't secure several million votes. Unlike the SNP, they don't have several dozen MPs. The Greens have 1 MP and are competitive in half-a-dozen other seats at best. After boundary review, they'll be in an even worse state.
But even if the Lib Dems' coverage is a good deal less than it was in 2010, that might still be enough. After all, UKIP mopped up about 10% of the electorate between 2011-13 with virtually no media coverage.
The Greens won over a million votes at the last general election and beat UKIP and the LDs in the last Holyrood elections, UKIP are now clearly the third party in voteshare but in MP terms they have the same as the Greens and if Corbyn is toppled as Labour leader their voteshare may go up again
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
Serious question. Would it not benefit the Liberal Democrats and UKIP considerably more if they had near zero air time in a campaign and the airwaves were dominated by Jeremy Corbyn self-destructing on an hourly basis by spouting his dogmatic cliches in the voice of Eeyore and looking generally like a total loser?
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
I believe the question to be hypothetical because I have little expectation that Corbyn will be leading Labour in 2020. You refer to Michael Howard in 2005 , yet the Tory ratings changed very little over the course of that campaign with polls generally giving them 31 - 35%. There was certainly no LibDem bounce at all that year and the Tories managed a few net gains at their expense in addition to a much more substantial advance against Labour. As for Michael Foot in 1983, things went pear shaped about ten days before polling day - with some recovery in the final couple of days. Foot's personal standing actually improved over the campaign - the main problem was public disagreement amongst Shadow Cabinet spokesmen on policy particularly Defence. We had the spectacle of Denis Healey, Peter Shore and former PM Callaghan openly disagreeing with a key section of the manifesto!
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
However, one step forward, two steps back. It also seems to imply that any extension to the two year deadline would be agreed after the initial two years had elapsed. I may be overthinking this; English is hardly unambiguous at the best of times.
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.
How often did Balls visit his constituency ?
I get the sense that he thought he'd been given a safe seat and never adapted to the reality that M&O had become marginal because of electoral and demographic change.
He wasn't completely embedded into the constituency but he did get out and about quite a bit - at least as much as one might expect of a senior cabinet / SCab minister with national responsibilities might be expected to.
Haven't read the book, so going by remarks on here: I find it very surprising that any politician should not have carefully prepared their children for a sudden end to their career.
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.
Politics abhors a vacuum: if the Corbyn led Labour Party offers no effective opposition, then those disillusioned by the Conservative Party will find a home. Now, that may or may not include the LibDems or UKIP, but what we will not have is perpetual Conservative rule.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
Serious question. Would it not benefit the Liberal Democrats and UKIP considerably more if they had near zero air time in a campaign and the airwaves were dominated by Jeremy Corbyn self-destructing on an hourly basis by spouting his dogmatic cliches in the voice of Eeyore and looking generally like a total loser?
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
I believe the question to be hypothetical because I have little expectation that Corbyn will be leading Labour in 2020. You refer to Michael Howard in 2005 , yet the Tory ratings changed very little over the course of that campaign with polls generally giving them 31 - 35%. There was certainly no LibDem bounce at all that year and the Tories managed a few net gains at their expense in addition to a much more substantial advance against Labour. As for Michael Foot in 1983, things went pear shaped about ten days before polling day - with some recovery in the final couple of days. Foot's personal standing actually improved over the campaign - the main problem was public disagreement amongst Shadow Cabinet spokesmen on policy particularly Defence. We had the spectacle of Denis Healey, Peter Shore and former PM Callaghan openly disagreeing with a key section of the manifesto!
The LDs made the biggest advance in voteshare in 2005, the Tory voteshare rose by less than 1%, Tory seat gains were almost entirely due to Labour voters switching to the LDs
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 have no idea on the practical application of the idea, but that's the proposal. Anyway, it's just rabble rousing from Sarkozy to try and get the Les Republicans nomination.
NO! Politician proposed impossible thing in order to secure votes???
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
That might be so, but my expectation is that the EU will respond to the described approach with a heartfelt 'Fuck off'. As I said last night, all current media stories are people thinking out loud and then cloud-watching to try and discern the response.
We will not be privy to the current discussions, nor will journalists. The mists will clear by the New Year, I'm sure.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
Serious question. Would it not benefit the Liberal Democrats and UKIP considerably more if they had near zero air time in a campaign and the airwaves were dominated by Jeremy Corbyn self-destructing on an hourly basis by spouting his dogmatic cliches in the voice of Eeyore and looking generally like a total loser?
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
I believe the question to be hypothetical because I have little expectation that Corbyn will be leading Labour in 2020. You refer to Michael Howard in 2005 , yet the Tory ratings changed very little over the course of that campaign with polls generally giving them 31 - 35%. There was certainly no LibDem bounce at all that year and the Tories managed a few net gains at their expense in addition to a much more substantial advance against Labour. As for Michael Foot in 1983, things went pear shaped about ten days before polling day - with some recovery in the final couple of days. Foot's personal standing actually improved over the campaign - the main problem was public disagreement amongst Shadow Cabinet spokesmen on policy particularly Defence. We had the spectacle of Denis Healey, Peter Shore and former PM Callaghan openly disagreeing with a key section of the manifesto!
If Corbyn wins in the next couple of weeks, how do you foresee him not being there? He has shown he won't go anywhere despite having so few supporters in the PLP he can't form a shadow cabinet, but if the membership back him again, what can anybody do before 2020?
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
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?
Bah! Who'd listen to Michelin, they're French. The only thing that matters is the Google rating.
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.
Le Touquet can be terminated by either party giving two years notice.
Yes, and that would be entirely legitimate.
Then opening the border (in practice if not de jure) would be provocative/hostile
They're in France. Assuming they didn't wash up opposite the Cinquante-Cinq then they will have passed through other EU countries. I don't see France treating Greece or Italy as hostile states.
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
That might be so, but my expectation is that the EU will respond to the described approach with a heartfelt 'Fuck off'. As I said last night, all current media stories are people thinking out loud and then cloud-watching to try and discern the response.
We will not be privy to the current discussions, nor will journalists. The mists will clear by the New Year, I'm sure.
Wrong, an EU minister was quoted in the Sunday Times yesterday that if limited free movement was allowed we would get limited single market access. Clearly May will not get full single market access as she will demand some controls on free movement but single market access for some key sectors like the City is almost a certainty, however if any free movement at all is allowed, even with controls that would fall short of the hard BREXIT UKIP want
It will not be a Norway style EEA deal but a Swiss style sector by sector deal
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.
.
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.
Agreed. 25% for Labour is their new level.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
UKIP, yes; the Greens, no. UKIP, the Lib Dems and the SNP are clearly the secondary parties across the UK, for different reasons and deserve lesser than Con/Lab but still substantial coverage.
The Greens, by contrast, are a minor party and deserve to be treated as such. Unlike the Lib Dems or UKIP, they don't contest every seat. Unlike the Lib Dems and UKIP, they won't secure several million votes. Unlike the SNP, they don't have several dozen MPs. The Greens have 1 MP and are competitive in half-a-dozen other seats at best. After boundary review, they'll be in an even worse state.
But even if the Lib Dems' coverage is a good deal less than it was in 2010, that might still be enough. After all, UKIP mopped up about 10% of the electorate between 2011-13 with virtually no media coverage.
I really don't believe Labour will have much to fear from the LibDems. They will simply have to say ' You can't trust the LibDems not to put the Tories in' , and that will be enough to scare off the vast majority of left of centre voters. It is often forgotten that many former Labour voters shifted to the LibDems having perceived them to be to the left of Labour. Such people will still feel betrayed - and indeed, many are now back in the Labour camp as Corbyn supporters!
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.
Le Touquet can be terminated by either party giving two years notice.
Yes, and that would be entirely legitimate.
Then opening the border (in practice if not de jure) would be provocative/hostile
They're in France. Assuming they didn't wash up opposite the Cinquante-Cinq then they will have passed through other EU countries. I don't see France treating Greece or Italy as hostile states.
Isn't that entirely the issue. The European border is only as strong as the weakest link. That the French haven't taken up the issue with the Italians is their problem.
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
Oh, Mr. Hyfud, please don't tell me you believe in the speculation of newspaper journalists and especially those writing in August.
My view would be that UKIP is and will fade because its job has been done, we are leaving the EU. What sort of settlement we end up with is a matter for HMG it was never part of UKIP's programme or appeal. Now, it maybe that UKIP can reinvent itself as a socially conservative alternative to the Labour party, a party on the lines of Earnest Bevin's thinking, but I rather doubt it has the will or capability to do so.
So UKIP will I think fade into history, its job done. The Lib Dems I also think are and will fade but for rather different reasons.
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
Well don't shoot the messenger - take it up with Nate.
Nate is generally reasonably accurate but he is no crystal ball, he got the last US mid-terms wrong and EU ref wrong and forecast the last general election result in the UK would be a hung parliament with the Tories largest party
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
Serious question. Would it not benefit the Liberal Democrats and UKIP considerably more if they had near zero air time in a campaign and the airwaves were dominated by Jeremy Corbyn self-destructing on an hourly basis by spouting his dogmatic cliches in the voice of Eeyore and looking generally like a total loser?
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
I believe the question to be hypothetical because I have little expectation that Corbyn will be leading Labour in 2020. You refer to Michael Howard in 2005 , yet the Tory ratings changed very little over the course of that campaign with polls generally giving them 31 - 35%. There was certainly no LibDem bounce at all that year and the Tories managed a few net gains at their expense in addition to a much more substantial advance against Labour. As for Michael Foot in 1983, things went pear shaped about ten days before polling day - with some recovery in the final couple of days. Foot's personal standing actually improved over the campaign - the main problem was public disagreement amongst Shadow Cabinet spokesmen on policy particularly Defence. We had the spectacle of Denis Healey, Peter Shore and former PM Callaghan openly disagreeing with a key section of the manifesto!
The LDs made the biggest advance in voteshare in 2005, the Tory voteshare rose by less than 1%, Tory seat gains were almost entirely due to Labour voters switching to the LDs
Indeed but that had already happened prior to the election campaign - largely as a result of the Iraq war. In 2005 there was nothing like the sudden surge in support the Alliance enjoyed in the second half of the 1983 campaign.
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
Well don't shoot the messenger - take it up with Nate.
Nate is generally reasonably accurate but he is no crystal ball, he got the last mid-terms wrong and EU ref wrong
Despite making his name with politics, from the interviews I have heard that was a) never his primary interest and b) not what pays the big buck these days...its the sports stuff...and c) his day to day involvement in the number crunching is limited.
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
That might be so, but my expectation is that the EU will respond to the described approach with a heartfelt 'Fuck off'. As I said last night, all current media stories are people thinking out loud and then cloud-watching to try and discern the response.
We will not be privy to the current discussions, nor will journalists. The mists will clear by the New Year, I'm sure.
Wrong, an EU minister was quoted in the Sunday Times yesterday that if limited free movement was allowed we would get limited single market access. Clearly May will not get full single market access as she will demand some controls on free movement but single market access for some key sectors like the City is almost a certainty, however if any free movement at all is allowed, even with controls that would fall short of the hard BREXIT UKIP want
It will not be a Norway style EEA deal but a Swiss style sector by sector deal
Why does a trade deal require free movement of people? It's an EU nonsense.
Movement for UK citizens matched to equivalent freedoms for EU citizens in the UK makes sense.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
Serious question. Would it not benefit the Liberal Democrats and UKIP considerably more if they had near zero air time in a campaign and the airwaves were dominated by Jeremy Corbyn self-destructing on an hourly basis by spouting his dogmatic cliches in the voice of Eeyore and looking generally like a total loser?
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
I believe the question to be hypothetical because I have little expectation that Corbyn will be leading Labour in 2020. You refer to Michael Howard in 2005 , yet the Tory ratings changed very little over the course of that campaign with polls generally giving them 31 - 35%. There was certainly no LibDem bounce at all that year and the Tories managed a few net gains at their expense in addition to a much more substantial advance against Labour. As for Michael Foot in 1983, things went pear shaped about ten days before polling day - with some recovery in the final couple of days. Foot's personal standing actually improved over the campaign - the main problem was public disagreement amongst Shadow Cabinet spokesmen on policy particularly Defence. We had the spectacle of Denis Healey, Peter Shore and former PM Callaghan openly disagreeing with a key section of the manifesto!
If Corbyn wins in the next couple of weeks, how do you foresee him not being there? He has shown he won't go anywhere despite having so few supporters in the PLP he can't form a shadow cabinet, but if the membership back him again, what can anybody do before 2020?
I would expect Corbyn to be challenged again next year with a much better prospect of success.
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
Oh, Mr. Hyfud, please don't tell me you believe in the speculation of newspaper journalists and especially those writing in August.
My view would be that UKIP is and will fade because its job has been done, we are leaving the EU. What sort of settlement we end up with is a matter for HMG it was never part of UKIP's programme or appeal. Now, it maybe that UKIP can reinvent itself as a socially conservative alternative to the Labour party, a party on the lines of Earnest Bevin's thinking, but I rather doubt it has the will or capability to do so.
So UKIP will I think fade into history, its job done. The Lib Dems I also think are and will fade but for rather different reasons.
It is not speculation it is based on the paper Hammond is presenting to Cabinet this week. UKIP's appeal was always based on immigration really, if the EU had just been about widget making regulations it would never have got the votes it did, nor would Leave and if we fall short of hard BREXIT and a complete end to free movement inevitably that gives UKIP a platform to appeal to the 25% or so of the electorate who want hard BREXIT
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
Serious question. Would it not benefit the Liberal Democrats and UKIP considerably more if they had near zero air time in a campaign and the airwaves were dominated by Jeremy Corbyn self-destructing on an hourly basis by spouting his dogmatic cliches in the voice of Eeyore and looking generally like a total loser?
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
I believe the question to be hypothetical because I have little expectation that Corbyn will be leading Labour in 2020. You refer to Michael Howard in 2005 , yet the Tory ratings changed very little over the course of that campaign with polls generally giving them 31 - 35%. There was certainly no LibDem bounce at all that year and the Tories managed a few net gains at their expense in addition to a much more substantial advance against Labour. As for Michael Foot in 1983, things went pear shaped about ten days before polling day - with some recovery in the final couple of days. Foot's personal standing actually improved over the campaign - the main problem was public disagreement amongst Shadow Cabinet spokesmen on policy particularly Defence. We had the spectacle of Denis Healey, Peter Shore and former PM Callaghan openly disagreeing with a key section of the manifesto!
The LDs made the biggest advance in voteshare in 2005, the Tory voteshare rose by less than 1%, Tory seat gains were almost entirely due to Labour voters switching to the LDs
Indeed but that had already happened prior to the election campaign - largely as a result of the Iraq war. In 2005 there was nothing like the sudden surge in support the Alliance enjoyed in the second half of the 1983 campaign.
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
Well don't shoot the messenger - take it up with Nate.
Nate is generally reasonably accurate but he is no crystal ball, he got the last US mid-terms wrong and EU ref wrong and forecast the last general election result in the UK would be a hung parliament with the Tories largest party
Everyone forecast the last election would be a hung Parliament with the tories largest party - until 10.00pm on election night. And at 10.30pm on June 23rd everyone (90% at least) got the EUref wrong.
IMHO pollsters haven't yet twigged on the change in demographics voting these days.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
Serious question. Would it not benefit the Liberal Democrats and UKIP considerably more if they had near zero air time in a campaign and the airwaves were dominated by Jeremy Corbyn self-destructing on an hourly basis by spouting his dogmatic cliches in the voice of Eeyore and looking generally like a total loser?
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
I believe the question to be hypothetical because I have little expectation that Corbyn will be leading Labour in 2020. You refer to Michael Howard in 2005 , yet the Tory ratings changed very little over the course of that campaign with polls generally giving them 31 - 35%. There was certainly no LibDem bounce at all that year and the Tories managed a few net gains at their expense in addition to a much more substantial advance against Labour. As for Michael Foot in 1983, things went pear shaped about ten days before polling day - with some recovery in the final couple of days. Foot's personal standing actually improved over the campaign - the main problem was public disagreement amongst Shadow Cabinet spokesmen on policy particularly Defence. We had the spectacle of Denis Healey, Peter Shore and former PM Callaghan openly disagreeing with a key section of the manifesto!
If Corbyn wins in the next couple of weeks, how do you foresee him not being there? He has shown he won't go anywhere despite having so few supporters in the PLP he can't form a shadow cabinet, but if the membership back him again, what can anybody do before 2020?
I would expect Corbyn to be challenged again next year with a much better prospect of success.
By whom? The fact it is Owen Smith this time around says a lot about the lack of talent in the Labour Party. They have about as much talent as the Rio Olympic organizing committee.
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 of positives and negatives for any system. Some seem of PR, in my view, seems to have more positives. But I shall continue to be disappointing I think.
Kle, don't do yourself down. You're never disappointing.
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
Well don't shoot the messenger - take it up with Nate.
Nate is generally reasonably accurate but he is no crystal ball, he got the last mid-terms wrong and EU ref wrong
Despite making his name with politics, from the interviews I have heard that was a) never his primary interest and b) not what pays the big buck these days...its the sports stuff...and c) his day to day involvement in the number crunching is limited.
Indeed and most of it relies on polling stats which is little help if most of the polls are wrong, especially in a close race
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
That might be so, but my expectation is that the EU will respond to the described approach with a heartfelt 'Fuck off'. As I said last night, all current media stories are people thinking out loud and then cloud-watching to try and discern the response.
We will not be privy to the current discussions, nor will journalists. The mists will clear by the New Year, I'm sure.
Wrong, an EU minister was quoted in the Sunday Times yesterday that if limited free movement was allowed we would get limited single market access. Clearly May will not get full single market access as she will demand some controls on free movement but single market access for some key sectors like the City is almost a certainty, however if any free movement at all is allowed, even with controls that would fall short of the hard BREXIT UKIP want
It will not be a Norway style EEA deal but a Swiss style sector by sector deal
Why does a trade deal require free movement of people? It's an EU nonsense.
Movement for UK citizens matched to equivalent freedoms for EU citizens in the UK makes sense.
That would be part of the package but any access to the single market and free movement of goods and capital also requires some free movement of labour and people
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.
.
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.
Agreed. 25% for Labour is their new level.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consist
UKIP, yes; the Greens, no. UKIP, the Lib Dems and the SNP are clearly the secondary parties across the UK, for different reasons and deserve lesser than Con/Lab but still substantial coverage.
The Greens, by contrast, are a minor party and deserve to be treated as such. Unlike the Lib Dems or UKIP, they don't contest every seat. Unlike the Lib Dems and UKIP, they won't secure several million votes. Unlike the SNP, they don't have several dozen MPs. The Greens have 1 MP and are competitive in half-a-dozen other seats at best. After boundary review, they'll be in an even worse state.
But even if the Lib Dems' coverage is a good deal less than it was in 2010, that might still be enough. After all, UKIP mopped up about 10% of the electorate between 2011-13 with virtually no media coverage.
The Greens won over a million votes at the last general election and beat UKIP and the LDs in the last Holyrood elections, UKIP are now clearly the third party in voteshare but in MP terms they have the same as the Greens and if Corbyn is toppled as Labour leader their voteshare may go up again
While it's anecdote, didn't the SNP encourage it's own supporters to vote Green in the list vote to try and minimise the share of unionist parties at Holyrood?
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consistently circa 33% by the end of the year. As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
Serious question. Would it not benefit the Liberal Democrats and UKIP considerably more if they had near zero air time in a campaign and the airwaves were dominated by Jeremy Corbyn self-destructing on an hourly basis by spouting his dogmatic cliches in the voice of Eeyore and looking generally like a total loser?
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
I believe the question to be hypothetical because I have little expectation that Corbyn will be leading Labour in 2020. You refer to Michael Howard in 2005 , yet the Tory ratings changed very little over the course of that campaign with polls generally giving them 31 - 35%. There was certainly no LibDem bounce at all that year and the Tories managed a few net gains at their expense in addition to a much more substantial advance against Labour. As for Michael Foot in 1983, things went pear s!
If Corbyn wins in the next couple of weeks, how do you foresee him not being there? He has shown he won't go anywhere despite having so few supporters in the PLP he can't form a shadow cabinet, but if the membership back him again, what can anybody do before 2020?
I would expect Corbyn to be challenged again next year with a much better prospect of success.
By whom? The fact it is Owen Smith this time around says a lot about the lack of talent in the Labour Party. They have about as much talent as the Rio Olympic organizing committee.
Beating Corbyn is not about talent, it is about finding someone who has been on the frontbench who is leftwing enough to win over the present membership without quite being a full Corbynista which is why they ended up with Smith
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
Well don't shoot the messenger - take it up with Nate.
Nate is generally reasonably accurate but he is no crystal ball, he got the last US mid-terms wrong and EU ref wrong and forecast the last general election result in the UK would be a hung parliament with the Tories largest party
Everyone forecast the last election would be a hung Parliament with the tories largest party - until 10.00pm on election night. And at 10.30pm on June 23rd everyone (90% at least) got the EUref wrong.
IMHO pollsters haven't yet twigged on the change in demographics voting these days.
His model is good - but GIGO.
What do U mean by change in demographics voting? America has been split on demographics for a long time.
Or do you mean identity politics voting/values voting where there is a uni educated split?
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.
Le Touquet can be terminated by either party giving two years notice.
Yes, and that would be entirely legitimate.
Then opening the border (in practice if not de jure) would be provocative/hostile
They're in France. Assuming they didn't wash up opposite the Cinquante-Cinq then they will have passed through other EU countries. I don't see France treating Greece or Italy as hostile states.
Isn't that entirely the issue. The European border is only as strong as the weakest link. That the French haven't taken up the issue with the Italians is their problem.
Of course. But for one reason or another the French (presidential candidates) have decided to pass on the baton to us. Is that because of the election, or because they have always wanted to, or because we have said fuck you to the EU?
Who knows, but to say that those have been relevant factors has brought out some frothing Brexiter responses including yours about somehow hating England and loving France and being insulting in general.
Fair enough; people can draw their own conclusions about it.
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.
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
Well don't shoot the messenger - take it up with Nate.
Nate is generally reasonably accurate but he is no crystal ball, he got the last US mid-terms wrong and EU ref wrong and forecast the last general election result in the UK would be a hung parliament with the Tories largest party
Everyone forecast the last election would be a hung Parliament with the tories largest party - until 10.00pm on election night. And at 10.30pm on June 23rd everyone (90% at least) got the EUref wrong.
IMHO pollsters haven't yet twigged on the change in demographics voting these days.
His model is good - but GIGO.
Indeed, if white working class turnout is up on 2012 that will also skew the model and in Trump's favour
Very good polls for Trump there, tied with Clinton in Ohio and only 3% behind in Pennsylvania
538 suggests Emerson slightly (1.3%) biased towards Republicans. They have the LA times running poll, but that is over a week so won't react violently to any news. (Shows a tie, which 538 interpret as Clinton+3)
Well don't shoot the messenger - take it up with Nate.
Nate is generally reasonably accurate but he is no crystal ball, he got the last US mid-terms wrong and EU ref wrong and forecast the last general election result in the UK would be a hung parliament with the Tories largest party
Everyone forecast the last election would be a hung Parliament with the tories largest party - until 10.00pm on election night. And at 10.30pm on June 23rd everyone (90% at least) got the EUref wrong.
IMHO pollsters haven't yet twigged on the change in demographics voting these days.
His model is good - but GIGO.
What do U mean by change in demographics voting? America has been split on demographics for a long time.
Or do you mean identity politics voting/values voting where there is a uni educated split?
There just seems to a an anti-establishment/ right wing bias of about 3% in the polls.
If Corbyn wins in the next couple of weeks, how do you foresee him not being there? He has shown he won't go anywhere despite having so few supporters in the PLP he can't form a shadow cabinet, but if the membership back him again, what can anybody do before 2020?
I remember being a candidate in 1983 - at one point I wanted to send a message to the NEC urging them to agree on ANY policy on disarmament, on the basis that the worst possible policy couldn't be worser than total confusion.
But I don't think there will be a third challenge to Corbyn before 2020. If he wins again (except possibly if it's by a tiny margin), the membership will just be fed up with being asked the same question every year, and that really would trigger people looking at deselection. MPs will mostly just keep their heads down, cooperate sufficiently to avoid being seen as saboteurs, and after an expected defeat for the party in 2020 will go for a new leadership election then, with a decent chance for a substantial new candidate winning.
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
Which means that the success (or otherwise) of UKIP in 2020 will depend on:
1. The nature of the deal agreed between the UK and the EU. (Which may well end up being hard Brexit, whatever Mrs May wants.)
2. Their ability to develop a platform and a local campaigning base above and beyond the issue of the EU. If they can become a genuinely socially conservative force with policies designed to help the poorest, that may well catapult them into a serious position.
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
Oh, Mr. Hyfud, please don't tell me you believe in the speculation of newspaper journalists and especially those writing in August.
My view would be that UKIP is and will fade because its job has been done, we are leaving the EU. What sort of settlement we end up with is a matter for HMG it was never part of UKIP's programme or appeal. Now, it maybe that UKIP can reinvent itself as a socially conservative alternative to the Labour party, a party on the lines of Earnest Bevin's thinking, but I rather doubt it has the will or capability to do so.
So UKIP will I think fade into history, its job done. The Lib Dems I also think are and will fade but for rather different reasons.
It is not speculation it is based on the paper Hammond is presenting to Cabinet this week. UKIP's appeal was always based on immigration really, if the EU had just been about widget making regulations it would never have got the votes it did, nor would Leave and if we fall short of hard BREXIT and a complete end to free movement inevitably that gives UKIP a platform to appeal to the 25% or so of the electorate who want hard BREXIT
If UKIP become a regular force at elections due to a soft brexit, with ~25% of the vote, I think we would see some sort of equivalent 25% bloc with the Lib Dems as well if it goes the other way on a hard brexit, especially if they stick to their "we are the 48%" strategy.
So one or the other is likely to thrive, but not both of them (unless Labour completely implode).
If Corbyn wins in the next couple of weeks, how do you foresee him not being there? He has shown he won't go anywhere despite having so few supporters in the PLP he can't form a shadow cabinet, but if the membership back him again, what can anybody do before 2020?
I remember being a candidate in 1983 - at one point I wanted to send a message to the NEC urging them to agree on ANY policy on disarmament, on the basis that the worst possible policy couldn't be worser than total confusion.
But I don't think there will be a third challenge to Corbyn before 2020. If he wins again (except possibly if it's by a tiny margin), the membership will just be fed up with being asked the same question every year, and that really would trigger people looking at deselection. MPs will mostly just keep their heads down, cooperate sufficiently to avoid being seen as saboteurs, and after an expected defeat for the party in 2020 will go for a new leadership election then, with a decent chance for a substantial new candidate winning.
That is what I would have thought. If he wins 60/40, it would be a farce to ask again next year, and the year after, and the year after that...Especially as there isn't anybody else a) willing to step up and b) who would win over the membership.
Why does a trade deal require free movement of people? It's an EU nonsense.
Movement for UK citizens matched to equivalent freedoms for EU citizens in the UK makes sense.
I think the logic is that if you allow goods, services and capital to flow freely without allowing labour to flow freely you distort economies to the benefit of some and the detriment of others.
If you have a monetary union, with free trade in goods and services and free flows of capital, I think free flow of labour is as logical a consequence as the need for fiscal and hence political union, with fiscal transfers between regions (a la UK or USA).
However, while I see the logic, I just don't want the UK to be part of that on a European scale as I don't see that the infrastructure of government at that level is up to the task.
Indeed but that had already happened prior to the election campaign - largely as a result of the Iraq war. In 2005 there was nothing like the sudden surge in support the Alliance enjoyed in the second half of the 1983 campaign.
The LibDems/Alliance increased their poll share during the following campaigns:
1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2010.
But not in 2015.
I think a small (2-3%) bump is likely, and it's possible it's more like 3-5%. If the LibDems start the campaign on 8%, that would suggest they will end up on 10-11%. If they start on 10%, they might end up close to 14%.
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.
.
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.
Agreed. 25% for Labour is their new level.
Polls are now giving Labour 29/30% - indeed Mori puts them at an unilikely 34% - even after several months of civil war and a honeymoon for Theresa May. Both of those factors are likely to weaken as we move well into Autumn , and I would expect to see Labour back to polling consist
UKIP, yes; the Greens, no. UKIP, the Lib Dems and the SNP are clearly the secondary parties across the UK, for different reasons and deserve lesser than Con/Lab but still substantial coverage.
The Greens, by contrast, are a minor party and deserve to be treated as such. Unlike the Lib Dems or UKIP, they do.
The Greens won over a million votes at the last general election and beat UKIP and the LDs in the last Holyrood elections, UKIP are now clearly the third party in voteshare but in MP terms they have the same as the Greens and if Corbyn is toppled as Labour leader their voteshare may go up again
While it's anecdote, didn't the SNP encourage it's own supporters to vote Green in the list vote to try and minimise the share of unionist parties at Holyrood?
Some nats may have done, the SNP leadership pushed SNP on both votes to try and keep their majority
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
Which means that the success (or otherwise) of UKIP in 2020 will depend on:
1. The nature of the deal agreed between the UK and the EU. (Which may well end up being hard Brexit, whatever Mrs May wants.)
2. Their ability to develop a platform and a local campaigning base above and beyond the issue of the EU. If they can become a genuinely socially conservative force with policies designed to help the poorest, that may well catapult them into a serious position.
3. Who they elect as leader.
1 Agreed though hard BREXIT requires absolutely no single market access and absolutely no free movement at all which is not impossible but the least likely outcome of the negotiations given the position of the PM and Chancellor
2. That may help a little in Labour working class areas but if we do not get hard BREXIT UKIP could get 15-20% of the vote doing next to nothing at all
3. Again if we do not get hard BREXIT I foresee a Farage return by the next general election
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.
Given the papers confirmed yesterday we will not get hard BREXIT and May will aim for a single market deal sector by sector with some migration controls UKIP will inevitably campaign on a hard BREXIT, anti free movement and anti single market platform in 2020
Oh, Mr. Hyfud, please don't tell me you believe in the speculation of newspaper journalists and especially those writing in August.
My view would be that UKIP is and will fade because its job has been done, we are leaving the EU. What sort of settlement we end up with is a matter for HMG it was never part of UKIP's programme or appeal. Now, it maybe that UKIP can reinvent itself as a socially conservative alternative to the Labour party, a party on the lines of Earnest Bevin's thinking, but I rather doubt it has the will or capability to do so.
So UKIP will I think fade into history, its job done. The Lib Dems I also think are and will fade but for rather different reasons.
It is not speculation it is based on the paper Hammond is presenting to Cabinet this week. UKIP's appeal was always based on immigration really, if the EU had just been about widget making regulations it would never have got the votes it did, nor would Leave and if we fall short of hard BREXIT and a complete end to free movement inevitably that gives UKIP a platform to appeal to the 25% or so of the electorate who want hard BREXIT
If UKIP become a regular force at elections due to a soft brexit, with ~25% of the vote, I think we would see some sort of equivalent 25% bloc with the Lib Dems as well if it goes the other way on a hard brexit, especially if they stick to their "we are the 48%" strategy.
So one or the other is likely to thrive, but not both of them (unless Labour completely implode).
If we do get hard BREXIT then I agree UKIP will wither on the vine and the LDs could swiftly get back to around 25% of the vote from angry Remainers, however while we will get BREXIT I think softish BREXIT more likely than hard BREXIT so the most likely beneficiaries will be UKIP
I've plumped for 'curate's egg' as my current summary. Consumers are going to carry on consuming. The sugar rush from the cheap pound will mean a great tourist season. It's business investment and FDI that will indicate whether we're going to have issues.
I see from that link that Mr Weiner have been up to his old tricks again..
I am sure Mrs Clinton will be able to provide support and advice to Abedin. After all she has considerable experience of tolerating an unfaithful husband.
If Abedin had any self respect she would divorce Weiner.
If Corbyn wins in the next couple of weeks, how do you foresee him not being there? He has shown he won't go anywhere despite having so few supporters in the PLP he can't form a shadow cabinet, but if the membership back him again, what can anybody do before 2020?
I remember being a candidate in 1983 - at one point I wanted to send a message to the NEC urging them to agree on ANY policy on disarmament, on the basis that the worst possible policy couldn't be worser than total confusion.
But I don't think there will be a third challenge to Corbyn before 2020. If he wins again (except possibly if it's by a tiny margin), the membership will just be fed up with being asked the same question every year, and that really would trigger people looking at deselection. MPs will mostly just keep their heads down, cooperate sufficiently to avoid being seen as saboteurs, and after an expected defeat for the party in 2020 will go for a new leadership election then, with a decent chance for a substantial new candidate winning.
That is what I would have thought. If he wins 60/40, it would be a farce to ask again next year, and the year after, and the year after that...Especially as there isn't anybody else a) willing to step up and b) who would win over the membership.
If Corbyn wins by a margin of approx 55/45 I believe there would be quite an appetite to challenge him again next year particularly if Labour continues to lag in the polls and has faced electoral setbacks at by elections and the 2017 local elections.By mid 2017 we will be in midterm and the next general election will no longer seem so distant. Moreover, by that time Corbyn will have had almost two years to prove himself , and if he is obviously failing the membership will be increasingly attracted by the prospect of a leadership change. It needs to be recalled that in 2015 Corbyn managed over 59% in the first Ballot of a four cornered contest , and that as a result there was no need to redistribute the preferences of the other candidates. Had that happened, however, he would probably have defeated Andy Burnham by at least 63/37 and Yvette Cooper by at least 67/33. If Owen Smith runs him as close as 55/45 it wil,therefore, represent a significant swing against him from last year.
Indeed but that had already happened prior to the election campaign - largely as a result of the Iraq war. In 2005 there was nothing like the sudden surge in support the Alliance enjoyed in the second half of the 1983 campaign.
The LibDems/Alliance increased their poll share during the following campaigns:
1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2010.
But not in 2015.
I think a small (2-3%) bump is likely, and it's possible it's more like 3-5%. If the LibDems start the campaign on 8%, that would suggest they will end up on 10-11%. If they start on 10%, they might end up close to 14%.
In the past the LibDems have been the natural repository of the 'pissed off' vote. They now face significant competition on that front from UKIP and the Greens.
If Corbyn wins in the next couple of weeks, how do you foresee him not being there? He has shown he won't go anywhere despite having so few supporters in the PLP he can't form a shadow cabinet, but if the membership back him again, what can anybody do before 2020?
I remember being a candidate in 1983 - at one point I wanted to send a message to the NEC urging them to agree on ANY policy on disarmament, on the basis that the worst possible policy couldn't be worser than total confusion.
But I don't think there will be a third challenge to Corbyn before 2020. If he wins again (except possibly if it's by a tiny margin), the membership will just be fed up with being asked the same question every year, and that really would trigger people looking at deselection. MPs will mostly just keep their heads down, cooperate sufficiently to avoid being seen as saboteurs, and after an expected defeat for the party in 2020 will go for a new leadership election then, with a decent chance for a substantial new candidate winning.
You mean you have lost confidence in the man you used to champion?
If Corbyn wins in the next couple of weeks, how do you foresee him not being there? He has shown he won't go anywhere despite having so few supporters in the PLP he can't form a shadow cabinet, but if the membership back him again, what can anybody do before 2020?
I remember being a candidate in 1983 - at one point I wanted to send a message to the NEC urging them to agree on ANY policy on disarmament, on the basis that the worst possible policy couldn't be worser than total confusion.
Butleadership election then, with a decent chance for a substantial new candidate winning.
That is what I would have thought. If he wins 60/40, it would be a farce to ask again next year, and the year after, and the year after that...Especially as there isn't anybody else a) willing to step up and b) who would win over the membership.
If Corbyn wins by a margin of approx 55/45 I believe there would be quite an appetite to challenge him again next year particularly if Labour continues to lag in the polls and has faced electoral setbacks at by elections and the 2017 local elections.By mid 2017 we will be in midterm and the next general election will no longer seem so distant. Moreover, by that time Corbyn will have had almost two years to prove himself , and if he is obviously failing the membership will be increasingly attracted by the prospect of a leadership change. It needs to be recalled that in 2015 Corbyn managed over 59% in the first Ballot of a four cornered contest , and that as a result there was no need to redistribute the preferences of the other candidates. Had that happened, however, he would probably have defeated Andy Burnham by at least 63/37 and Yvette Cooper by at least 67/33. If Owen Smith runs him as close as 55/45 it wil,therefore, represent a significant swing against him from last year.
The key thing is that this election is setting parameters by which Corbyn can be judged. He is also setting himself up for big problems around Trident and NATO. Then there are the PR disasters, such as Traingate and saying that he does not consider himself wealthy despite earning so much. Members are pissed off with the PLP and this will see Corbyn home. But they know that a lot of what the PLP has said is true. If Corbyn does not deliver - and he can't - then he will be gone soon enough, whatever his winning margin in September.
"A spot inspection of civil service offices by Dubai's ruler resulted in embarrassing footage of Sheikh Mohammed standing awkwardly by empty desks which should have been occupied by high-ranking officials."
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37212179
I find it surprising that his daughter had a GCSE on the Friday, as scheduled exams didn't start till the following Monday. But it may have been a language oral exam or something.
I don't blame him for not rating Miliband, nor do I (and nor did anyone else)! That said, I still think Ed was a much more capable politician than his brother, who is a talented administrator but has no imagination or drive and a fairly limited intellect.
I'm working a half day today and ran into some young Carnival goers. Bottles of Jack Daniels at midday.....
MI - Clinton 45 .. Trump 40
PA - Clinton 46 .. Trump 43
OH - Clinton 43 .. Trump 43
https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling
I get the sense that he thought he'd been given a safe seat and never adapted to the reality that M&O had become marginal because of electoral and demographic change.
As for Farron and the LibDems, their disastrous performance in 2015 in terms of both seats and vote share will have implications for them in 2020 in terms of the time allocated to them in an election campaign by the broadcasting authorities. Coverage for them next time in news programmes etc is more likely to be on a par with UKIP and the Greens - rather than Tories /Labour.
It can happen - if polls are to be believed(!) both Michael Howard and Michael Foot lost about one fifth of their votes to the SDP/LDs during the election campaigns themselves. And compared to Corbyn, they were popular and credible leaders.
As opposed to the 'ordinary folk' of Dartmouth Park EdM once referenced.
The Greens, by contrast, are a minor party and deserve to be treated as such. Unlike the Lib Dems or UKIP, they don't contest every seat. Unlike the Lib Dems and UKIP, they won't secure several million votes. Unlike the SNP, they don't have several dozen MPs. The Greens have 1 MP and are competitive in half-a-dozen other seats at best. After boundary review, they'll be in an even worse state.
But even if the Lib Dems' coverage is a good deal less than it was in 2010, that might still be enough. After all, UKIP mopped up about 10% of the electorate between 2011-13 with virtually no media coverage.
It all seems a bit pointless and a waste of time, but if that is what the French want, well why not. The cost, to us, will be trivial.
Looking back on it I should have, but at the time I deemed it best not to intervene in any way!
Then opening the border (in practice if not de jure) would be provocative/hostile
You refer to Michael Howard in 2005 , yet the Tory ratings changed very little over the course of that campaign with polls generally giving them 31 - 35%. There was certainly no LibDem bounce at all that year and the Tories managed a few net gains at their expense in addition to a much more substantial advance against Labour.
As for Michael Foot in 1983, things went pear shaped about ten days before polling day - with some recovery in the final couple of days. Foot's personal standing actually improved over the campaign - the main problem was public disagreement amongst Shadow Cabinet spokesmen on policy particularly Defence. We had the spectacle of Denis Healey, Peter Shore and former PM Callaghan openly disagreeing with a key section of the manifesto!
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf
However, one step forward, two steps back. It also seems to imply that any extension to the two year deadline would be agreed after the initial two years had elapsed. I may be overthinking this; English is hardly unambiguous at the best of times.
(edited to add: good afternoon, everyone.)
Impossible.
We will not be privy to the current discussions, nor will journalists. The mists will clear by the New Year, I'm sure.
https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/769875140196888577
It will not be a Norway style EEA deal but a Swiss style sector by sector deal
My view would be that UKIP is and will fade because its job has been done, we are leaving the EU. What sort of settlement we end up with is a matter for HMG it was never part of UKIP's programme or appeal. Now, it maybe that UKIP can reinvent itself as a socially conservative alternative to the Labour party, a party on the lines of Earnest Bevin's thinking, but I rather doubt it has the will or capability to do so.
So UKIP will I think fade into history, its job done. The Lib Dems I also think are and will fade but for rather different reasons.
Why does a trade deal require free movement of people? It's an EU nonsense.
Movement for UK citizens matched to equivalent freedoms for EU citizens in the UK makes sense.
IMHO pollsters haven't yet twigged on the change in demographics voting these days.
His model is good - but GIGO.
Or do you mean identity politics voting/values voting where there is a uni educated split?
Who knows, but to say that those have been relevant factors has brought out some frothing Brexiter responses including yours about somehow hating England and loving France and being insulting in general.
Fair enough; people can draw their own conclusions about it.
But I don't think there will be a third challenge to Corbyn before 2020. If he wins again (except possibly if it's by a tiny margin), the membership will just be fed up with being asked the same question every year, and that really would trigger people looking at deselection. MPs will mostly just keep their heads down, cooperate sufficiently to avoid being seen as saboteurs, and after an expected defeat for the party in 2020 will go for a new leadership election then, with a decent chance for a substantial new candidate winning.
1. The nature of the deal agreed between the UK and the EU. (Which may well end up being hard Brexit, whatever Mrs May wants.)
2. Their ability to develop a platform and a local campaigning base above and beyond the issue of the EU. If they can become a genuinely socially conservative force with policies designed to help the poorest, that may well catapult them into a serious position.
3. Who they elect as leader.
So one or the other is likely to thrive, but not both of them (unless Labour completely implode).
http://nypost.com/2016/08/28/brexit-is-actually-boosting-the-uk-economy/
If you have a monetary union, with free trade in goods and services and free flows of capital, I think free flow of labour is as logical a consequence as the need for fiscal and hence political union, with fiscal transfers between regions (a la UK or USA).
However, while I see the logic, I just don't want the UK to be part of that on a European scale as I don't see that the infrastructure of government at that level is up to the task.
1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2010.
But not in 2015.
I think a small (2-3%) bump is likely, and it's possible it's more like 3-5%. If the LibDems start the campaign on 8%, that would suggest they will end up on 10-11%. If they start on 10%, they might end up close to 14%.
2. That may help a little in Labour working class areas but if we do not get hard BREXIT UKIP could get 15-20% of the vote doing next to nothing at all
3. Again if we do not get hard BREXIT I foresee a Farage return by the next general election
If Abedin had any self respect she would divorce Weiner.
It needs to be recalled that in 2015 Corbyn managed over 59% in the first Ballot of a four cornered contest , and that as a result there was no need to redistribute the preferences of the other candidates. Had that happened, however, he would probably have defeated Andy Burnham by at least 63/37 and Yvette Cooper by at least 67/33. If Owen Smith runs him as close as 55/45 it wil,therefore, represent a significant swing against him from last year.
"Anthony Weiner sexted busty brunette while his son was in bed with him"
http://nypost.com/2016/08/28/anthony-weiner-sexted-busty-brunette-while-his-son-was-in-bed-with-him/
NEW THREAD
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-37213464