Nevertheless he would have still had a substantial personal vote.
I don't think we can read too much into local election results - Eastleigh is a LD fiefdom.
I disagree with you on very few things, Mr Casino, but I think you're wrong here.
If Dr Cable had such a significant personal vote, why did he do so much worse than any of the other LibDem incumbents in SW London?
If Dr Cable had such a significant personal vote, why did he underperform his party's local election results so much?
If we assume that every local election votes translates into 0.8 general election votes (proportionally), you get a pretty good approximation of LibDem support.
Dr Cable got 0.58. Let us see what 2018 local election results look like. But if the LibDems gain votes in the Twickenham wards of Richmond council, and we assume something like 0.75 for the constituency, then it's very hard to see anything other than a LibDem gain in 2020. (Assuming the government goes ahead with Heathrow expansion.)
Fair enough, we shall see. But I remain respectfully sceptical!
If you're ever accused of a crime, you'll be glad you have rights protected by the courts, like the right to a lawyer. Which AFAIK you'll still have, because Britain isn't leaving the ECHR???
It isnt - yet, but it is leaving the ECJ and repealing the human rights act - which means the ECHR will be toothless - as it is in Russia and Belarus, both of which are signed up to the ECHR.
Are you saying in a situation like this Britain wouldn't pay the costs the court instructed them to pay?
History is written by the successors. Twas always thus. When you are deposed rather than handing over, the new regime will blacken you to make themselves look better.
Nero was quite possibly was a good emperor and no more violent than most, but he was the last of his dynasty.
Thing is blair's legacy is 10x as disastrous but this kind of thing doesn't seem to happen to him (momentum notwithstanding)?
Because the May regime defines itself against Cameron not Blair
At the risk of being sexist (not that I'm bothered), one of the side effects of the BBC and most other media outlets bringing in more female interviewers/commentators is the irritating need to talk about emotions all the time.
The 'Tell us how you feel about this' question instead of 'What did you see?' Even the males are turning into big girls' blouses. If there's a comet heading towards us and likely to wipe out part of Earth in the next two days, I don't want an in-depth study of how it will affect someone's family relationships. I want to know how to avoid it.
I don't watch Breakfast Time or all those other Emotion-fests. And I'm not interested in someone plugging a book/record/film. But when it comes to news reports all about a person picked at random and their feelings, I switch off now.
I don't want a group hug to feel better, I 'd prefer to know what's going on.
At the risk of being sexist (not that I'm bothered), one of the side effects of the BBC and most other media outlets bringing in more female interviewers/commentators is the irritating need to talk about emotions all the time.
The 'Tell us how you feel about this' question instead of 'What did you see?' Even the males are turning into big girls' blouses. If there's a comet heading towards us and likely to wipe out part of Earth in the next two days, I don't want an in-depth study of how it will affect someone's family relationships. I want to know how to avoid it.
I don't watch Breakfast Time or all those other Emotion-fests. And I'm not interested in someone plugging a book/record/film. But when it comes to news reports all about a person picked at random and their feelings, I switch off now.
I don't want a group hug to feel better, I 'd prefer to know what's going on.
Bah! It never happened in the 1960s.
Oh, and the Archers isn't real.
Why does R5 need to allocate a Scottish commentator for any football match involving a Scottish team (eg Celtic - Barca last night)? Malcolm? Any thoughts?
oh and as for Dave and Libya. There was definitely a case of Iraq-itis.
But much of the wording I've seen of the report suffers from 20:20 hindsight-itis. "Failure to work out which of Ghadaffi's rhetoric was genuine..." doesn't seem wholly fair.
I'm willing to give the govt a pass on Libya. There was an escalating civil war, clearly about to be a massacre if no-one had intervened.
If those targets are correct Labour would need a repeat of 1997 to get the slimmest of majorities.
Interesting that a few seats like Chingford and Woodford Green, Beckenham, Cities of London and Westminster and Kenilworth (as part of a joint seat with Leamington) are on the bottom half of that new list of the 100 top Labour targets post boundary changes. They did not even elect a Labour MP even in 1997 and 2001
History is written by the successors. Twas always thus. When you are deposed rather than handing over, the new regime will blacken you to make themselves look better.
Nero was quite possibly was a good emperor and no more violent than most, but he was the last of his dynasty.
Thing is blair's legacy is 10x as disastrous but this kind of thing doesn't seem to happen to him (momentum notwithstanding)?
Because the May regime defines itself against Cameron not Blair
did she vote against it then?
I'm no particular cameron fan, but this seems vindictive
At the risk of being sexist (not that I'm bothered), one of the side effects of the BBC and most other media outlets bringing in more female interviewers/commentators is the irritating need to talk about emotions all the time.
The 'Tell us how you feel about this' question instead of 'What did you see?' Even the males are turning into big girls' blouses. If there's a comet heading towards us and likely to wipe out part of Earth in the next two days, I don't want an in-depth study of how it will affect someone's family relationships. I want to know how to avoid it.
I don't watch Breakfast Time or all those other Emotion-fests. And I'm not interested in someone plugging a book/record/film. But when it comes to news reports all about a person picked at random and their feelings, I switch off now.
I don't want a group hug to feel better, I 'd prefer to know what's going on.
Bah! It never happened in the 1960s.
Oh, and the Archers isn't real.
I quite agree. Sky is usually pretty sensible and then with a couple of the female presenters and regular guests they go all yummy mummy angst and hand wringing.
Exactly: the grammar school system of the 1950 to 1975 period didn't work. But that doesn't mean there aren't things we can take from it.
grammar schools would be just fine if there was a proper commitment to making excellent schools (technical, specialist or whatever) for the not-so academic kids. You wouldn't need any selection, because everyone would self segregate into a suitable school. No parent (or few at any rate) really wants their kids suffering an unsuitable education. But there's no evidence the govt has any kind of such plans. they only seem to care about grammar schools.
ECHR being incorporated into UK law so the UK lower courts had to apply it. I thought it used to be that after the SC there was a right of appeal to Strasbourg but our courts could ignore it if they wished.
oh and as for Dave and Libya. There was definitely a case of Iraq-itis.
But much of the wording I've seen of the report suffers from 20:20 hindsight-itis. "Failure to work out which of Ghadaffi's rhetoric was genuine..." doesn't seem wholly fair.
Every MP is an expert in retrospective judgement, it appears. It's a shame it's so often lacking at the time it's actually exercised.
History is written by the successors. Twas always thus. When you are deposed rather than handing over, the new regime will blacken you to make themselves look better.
Nero was quite possibly was a good emperor and no more violent than most, but he was the last of his dynasty.
Thing is blair's legacy is 10x as disastrous but this kind of thing doesn't seem to happen to him (momentum notwithstanding)?
Blair will go down in history for Iraq (which, for the Left, was his greatest crime) but for the Right a lot of the insidious effects of his policies go all the way back to 1997: his asymmetric devolution settlement, the 1998 Human Rights Act, the changes in immigration law including scrapping primary purpose in 1998 (long predating the eastward expansion of the EU in 2004) the enthusiastic and unquestioning signatures to European treaty after treaty, promoting further integration, the vindictive approach to rural affairs, including the Hunting Act, failing to properly fund the armed forces, and increasing obsession with identity politics, including the Reglious Hatred and Equality Act, and the encouragement of chipping away at respect for British institutions - in pursuit of Cool Britannia - which the BBC very enthusiastically and quickly picked up on.
It is for this reason that so many people, particularly in England, were looking forward to the return of a Conservative Government and so disappointed when Modernisers seemed to pay them nothing more than lip service, incorrectly, in my view, concluding that Blair was on the right side of history and that ditching pledges were necessary because they were an electoral millstone.
That's how Cameron ended up with the Heir to Blair moniker ringing true.
If you're ever accused of a crime, you'll be glad you have rights protected by the courts, like the right to a lawyer. Which AFAIK you'll still have, because Britain isn't leaving the ECHR???
It isnt - yet, but it is leaving the ECJ and repealing the human rights act - which means the ECHR will be toothless - as it is in Russia and Belarus, both of which are signed up to the ECHR.
We are not leaving the ECHR. This means that whatever new bill of rights we come up with will incorporate its terms. Hence in UK law, generally, ECHR terms will apply which the courts will be subservient to, and unable to overturn, as with any UK law.
However, the ECtHR only has advisory capacity over UK courts. Hence on an individual basis, the UK Supreme Court has the right to ignore its judgements.
That's a big assumption - IIRC it wasn't the case until Blair made it so.
Which bit?
That we would have to listen to the ECHR. If we repeal the HRA we don't.
Comments
The 'Tell us how you feel about this' question instead of 'What did you see?' Even the males are turning into big girls' blouses. If there's a comet heading towards us and likely to wipe out part of Earth in the next two days, I don't want an in-depth study of how it will affect someone's family relationships. I want to know how to avoid it.
I don't watch Breakfast Time or all those other Emotion-fests. And I'm not interested in someone plugging a book/record/film. But when it comes to news reports all about a person picked at random and their feelings, I switch off now.
I don't want a group hug to feel better, I 'd prefer to know what's going on.
Bah! It never happened in the 1960s.
Oh, and the Archers isn't real.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/14/theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-pmqs-hinkley-point-live/
http://xkcd.com/1732/
I'm no particular cameron fan, but this seems vindictive
Urgh
NEW THREAD
It is for this reason that so many people, particularly in England, were looking forward to the return of a Conservative Government and so disappointed when Modernisers seemed to pay them nothing more than lip service, incorrectly, in my view, concluding that Blair was on the right side of history and that ditching pledges were necessary because they were an electoral millstone.
That's how Cameron ended up with the Heir to Blair moniker ringing true.