On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.
Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country. Expect even the most ardent of Remainers to come and show their backing for team UK as it tries to get the best Brexit deal possible.
To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?
How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?
We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
There are no tariffs or quotas on exports (apart from weapons) to the EU from the 42 Least developed countries under the Everything But Arms deal. The Cotonou agreements take this further.
That really helps them compete against EU subsidies......
Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.
I wrote on that last week. Nothing of substance has changed since.
BUt, but, but Rasmussen shows a Trump lead and someone's said something on Twitter!
Rasmussen, IBD/TIPP and LA Times all have Trump leading. But that's not really the point. The US election scores a 99.99999 importance relative to a Witney by-election tory hold of 0.00001.
Well, i'm sticking to 538 overall view on the polls. It's a Clinton win, whatever LA Times says.
On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.
Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country. Expect even the most ardent of Remainers to come and show their backing for team UK as it tries to get the best Brexit deal possible.
To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?
How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?
We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
Well if you make sure that African economies never work, it's cheaper to hire their brightest and best to work in Dr. Fox's hospital?
Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.
I wrote on that last week. Nothing of substance has changed since.
BUt, but, but Rasmussen shows a Trump lead and someone's said something on Twitter!
Looking at 538, the range of probable outcomes does include a 13% chance of a Trump win, but a 43% chance of a Clinton landslide:
Relying on wikileaks and poisoning the well of American politics doesn't seem to be going well for Trump. Humiliating defeat has never been more deserved, and looks nailed on.
A blue Texas win would earn me a nice little payout on 8th! Go girl.
Well, i'm sticking to 538 overall view on the polls. It's a Clinton win, whatever LA Times says.
Nate is staggeringly one-sided and very frequently wildly wrong. He badly called Trump's candidacy, convincing himself and many of his acolytes that Trump could never win the nomination. Right up to the last minute he was posting tosh about how the GOP would choose an alternative.
This is no Clinton shoo-in. Doesn't mean she won't win but talk of a landslide is wild and I think Trump has a much better than 7% chance of victory: it's about 60:40 Clinton at the moment and I expect that to narrow further.
I would have thought after GE2015 and Brexit some on here would have learned their lesson. You need to listen to the mood more.
Well, i'm sticking to 538 overall view on the polls. It's a Clinton win, whatever LA Times says.
Nate is staggeringly one-sided and very frequently wildly wrong. He badly called Trump's candidacy, convincing himself and many of his acolytes that Trump could never win the nomination. Right up to the last minute he was posting tosh about how the GOP would choose an alternative.
Good morning everyone. Anecdote alert. A friend of mine was walking to work along Piccadilly on Thursday morning when David Cameron strolled past her. He seemed very comfy back in civilian life.
The "nasty women who vote" (as the t-shirts say) are turning out:
"In three crucial battlegrounds — North Carolina, Florida and Georgia — women are casting early ballots in disproportionate numbers. And in North Carolina, a must-win state for Trump with detailed early voting data available, it’s clear that Democratic women have been particularly motivated to turn out or turn ballots in."
On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position
Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?
How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?
We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
There are no tariffs or quotas on exports (apart from weapons) to the EU from
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85406 "Ironically, it takes a Green MEP and the Guardian to tell the story, leaving the eurosceptics missing a trick. The MEP is a German member of the Green Party, Ska Keller, who says, "Developing countries have a gun pointed at their chest – either they sign or their market access to the EU is restricted", appalled at the way the EU brokered a trade agreement with east Africa late last year.
In this case, she says, the gun was pointed at Kenya – more specifically, its cut flowers industry. The flower business is a lucrative one, worth more than €10bn (£7.7bn) worldwide every year, and Kenya is one of the world's largest exporters of cut stems.
So it was a crushing blow when Europe imposed tariffs on Kenya's cut flowers in October last year, potentially making their blooms significantly more expensive than those grown on European soil. '
Kenya falls outside the EBA arrangement, but the tariffs on Kenyan flowers were removed when Kenya signed up (along with other East African Countries) to a free trade agreement arrangement.
There is a case made in thie article that Africa should have no tariff barriers for its exports, but keep them for imports. However, the point is that the EU negotiated a bilateral Free Trade agreement. You may or may not like it, but it is hardly protectionist.
Interesting you should make an unfavourable comparison between the Lib Dems and Talleyrand, who was a man of no obvious principles but was very competent and had a useful moderating effect on France and Europe generally. I liked the Coalition, which it seems to me provided a much better government than what has followed under the Conservatives alone. Lib Dems can take some credit for that moderation and competence
Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.
I wrote on that last week. Nothing of substance has changed since.
BUt, but, but Rasmussen shows a Trump lead and someone's said something on Twitter!
Rasmussen, IBD/TIPP and LA Times all have Trump leading. But that's not really the point. The US election scores a 99.99999 importance relative to a Witney by-election tory hold of 0.00001.
The LA Times polls weightings are shot. When that one black dude from Illinois starts responding again Trump will shoot up.
Rasmussen doesn't release it's demographics unless you are a platinum subscriber but recently released a poll where Hilary was leading despite Trump getting 20%+ of the black vote. If Trump gets 20%+ of the black vote it is a Trump landslide.
Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.
I wrote on that last week. Nothing of substance has changed since.
BUt, but, but Rasmussen shows a Trump lead and someone's said something on Twitter!
Looking at 538, the range of probable outcomes does include a 13% chance of a Trump win, but a 43% chance of a Clinton landslide:
Relying on wikileaks and poisoning the well of American politics doesn't seem to be going well for Trump. Humiliating defeat has never been more deserved, and looks nailed on.
A blue Texas win would earn me a nice little payout on 8th! Go girl.
This is no Clinton shoo-in. Doesn't mean she won't win but talk of a landslide is wild and I think Trump has a much better than 7% chance of victory: it's about 60:40 Clinton at the moment and I expect that to narrow further.
I would have thought after GE2015 and Brexit some on here would have learned their lesson. You need to listen to the mood more.
Third time lucky?
I'm gonna be wild: this is a Clinton landslide we are looking at.
But Fitaloss has already thought of that! She says we have to ignore the political party ratings so the SNP still in the stratosphere of 50 per cent plus does not count in her world.
All over the country at Yoon dinner tables groaning with Tunnock's tea cakes and Bell's Union Jack branded whisky.
'I hate the SNP even more now than I did last year.'
'So do I!'
'Great, that means they're increasingly unpopular!'
On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.
Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country. Expect even the most ardent of Remainers to come and show their backing for team UK as it tries to get the best Brexit deal possible.
To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
This is no Clinton shoo-in. Doesn't mean she won't win but talk of a landslide is wild and I think Trump has a much better than 7% chance of victory: it's about 60:40 Clinton at the moment and I expect that to narrow further.
I would have thought after GE2015 and Brexit some on here would have learned their lesson. You need to listen to the mood more.
This is no Clinton shoo-in. Doesn't mean she won't win but talk of a landslide is wild and I think Trump has a much better than 7% chance of victory: it's about 60:40 Clinton at the moment and I expect that to narrow further.
I would have thought after GE2015 and Brexit some on here would have learned their lesson. You need to listen to the mood more.
On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
Excellent and thought provoking article David.
To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?
How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?
We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
Well if you make sure that African economies never work, it's cheaper to hire their brightest and best to work in Dr. Fox's hospital?
Except that the EU has been pushing Free Trade agreements with African countries.
Europhobes do not seem to have noticed how things have changed. The EU has pretty low tariff barriers to anyone.
I do work in Central Africa from time to time. The economic, political and social development over the last few decades has been tremendous. Nearly all non-muslim countries in Africa have strongly growing economies, albeit from a low base.
Globalisation has led to an emerging and vibrant African middle class.
Good morning everyone. Anecdote alert. A friend of mine was walking to work along Piccadilly on Thursday morning when David Cameron strolled past her. He seemed very comfy back in civilian life.
I have a friend who lives vv close to DC.. He told me what a wonderful father he was, playing with his children etc and how he seemed to have adapted to normal life.
@foxinsoxuk, I was a passionate Remainer who got to the point of only very occasionally posting on PB in run up to the EU Referendum. I then posted on here about how gutted I was at the result, but also acknowledged that democracy had spoken and we were leaving the EU. Again like you, I agree that 'Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser'. But next year we are going to be in a very tough battle with the EU and trying very hard to get the best deal for the UK as we Brexit. But if the Libdems, SNP and some Labour MPs are seen to be siding with the EU rather than the UK in this battle, it will be electorally damaging to those parties. For the LDs to become the opposition to Tory hegemony over most of Shire and suburban Britain again, they have to at least be seen as being on the side of those voters again. Right now, they simple are not even on the same page politically.
The SNP got a bounce and did very well in the last GE after losing the Independence Referendum. But then again, that was not that surprising considering the fact that some No voters had no problem eighteen months ago voting SNP to make sure that Scotland still had a strong voice within the UK at Westminster. That the SNP have so quickly wasted this opportunity with their petty grudge and grievance politics has surprised even me, and I was pretty cynical to begin with. Willie Rennie in Scotland is now desperately trying to imitate Ruth Davidson as is Kezia Dugdale after both made a massive mistake of entertaining a more pro Independence stance last year in the wake of their parties GE defeats. A huge mistake which has cost both parties dear. But even now, they are still far more obsessed with attacking the Conservatives who are now the main opposition to the incumbent SNP Government at Holyrood. So no wonder the ever growing number of anti SNP voters are looking to the Scots Conservatives rather than the Libdems or Labour to be their voice and fight their corner against an ever increasingly unpopular SNP Government. Ignore the party polling, just watch how Sturgeon's personal ratings have fallen while Ruth Davidson's have increased right across the party spectrum.
So now we have a real government and three clowns doing stunts to get their faces in the papers. No-one is looking to Tories in Scotland other than a few deluded right wingers. Most people are just shocked at how nasty they are in Westminster. As you say though , just ignore public opinion and imagine Tories are popular, it works every time.
Mr. 43, you appear to have misunderstood the relatively simple point I was making.
You might credit the Lib Dems for the Coalition Government and its general approach. You cannot credit Farron, however, who stayed out of the business of actually governing.
Meanwhile, in real politics ... we have one of the most extraordinary elections in American history for the most important political job in the world and political betting can't muster a thread.
Nothing of substance has changed since.
Errr David we have had a Presidential Debate in which Trump implied the result would be challenged if his rival wins. We had Michelle Obama enter the fray and Trump responding and then we had 4 tracker polls in the last 24 hours, 3 of which have Trump in the lead. We have a MSM convinced Hillary is on for a landslide with implied probabilities of 93-99% being stated.
Sometimes British political commentators do themselves few favours with Americans. Though the same can be said the other way around, the US is just a teeny-weeny bit important in world affairs.
We've had lots of threads recebtly on the election . Can't remember if we had a thread on the 11 point polling lead Hilary had in 1 poll.
Considering the relative importance of the US Presidential election vs a by-election hold by the Tories in a safe seat we're being very parochial.
The US election is dynamite and the paucity of threads on here is feeble. I've seen virtually nothing on the incredibly important Senate and House races, nothing on Governorships and zilch on state-by-state breakdowns.
"Disappointing" to be euphemistic.
Let me just link last week's thread to save you the trouble.
Great thread, Mr Herdson. Little to add on the points you raise, though, as others have pointed out, it "leaves important questions unanswered". I mean that in the Yes Minister sense that everything leaves important questions unanswered "such as the ones you haven't asked".
For me, the only mystery about Parliamentary by-elections is why people pay any attention to them, except as betting events. As predictors of the next national election, they are pretty hopeless, and as gauges of the national mood, scarcely less so. I know we need to have something to talk about between general elections, but, really, threads on Indonesian politics or bird-watching in Nepal would seem to have about the same relevance to who enters No. 10.
That really helps them compete against EU subsidies......
Would you like to produce a list of developed countries that don't subsidise their farming industries?
I can think of one, New Zealand. But even though farmers there don't recieve direct grants from the government, they still get subsidised loans, and are exempt from certain taxes.
On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.
Like the grudge and grievance ridden SNP Government in Holyrood right now, I suspect that the Libdems will end up getting badly stung by putting the EU before the UK. In the early part of next year, the Government will finally trigger article 50 and give formal notice that the UK is leaving the EU. And the Libdems are in danger of finding themselves aligned with another anti Westminster party, the SNP and even some Labour MPs on the wrong side of the argument when the UK squares up to the EU at the negotiating table to get the best deal for the country. Expect even the most ardent of Remainers to come and show their backing for team UK as it tries to get the best Brexit deal possible.
To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?
How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?
We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
Well if you make sure that African economies never work, it's cheaper to hire their brightest and best to work in Dr. Fox's hospital?
I don't think a trickle of doctors leaving Africa for Europe, Australasia and the US is the reason why Africa doesn't work.
I think the fact that Africa doesn't work is why the doctors leave.
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
This is no Clinton shoo-in. Doesn't mean she won't win but talk of a landslide is wild and I think Trump has a much better than 7% chance of victory: it's about 60:40 Clinton at the moment and I expect that to narrow further.
I would have thought after GE2015 and Brexit some on here would have learned their lesson. You need to listen to the mood more.
Third time lucky?
Which swing states will take Trump to 270 ?
Alpha Centauri
National polling provides the mood music to the race - very tight, competitive, favouring one candidate, landslide, etc. However it is the states electoral votes that are the key and the polling there (and now early voting trends) that give the best insight to the contest.
Presently Trump's route to 270 has vanished. He's struggling to keep NC and AZ with UT wobbling. Only OH and IA provide a little comfort but the other swing states are all trending Clinton with VA,PA, and NH moving into the horizon.
Just as with the Lib Dem fightback, we shouldn't believe tales of the SNP decline until we see clear and consistent evidence for it. So long as the great majority of the 45%, at least, remain steadfast and refuse to move their votes (save, perhaps, for a little bit of leakage to the Greens in the Holyrood list section,) then there is no particular reason to suppose that the SNP won't remain dominant indefinitely, or at least until independence is won.
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Call for May to go, rule out a coalition and call for a national government to see us through the crisis.
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Call for May to go, rule out a coalition and call for a national government to see us through the crisis.
Interesting you should make an unfavourable comparison between the Lib Dems and Talleyrand, who was a man of no obvious principles but was very competent and had a useful moderating effect on France and Europe generally. I liked the Coalition, which it seems to me provided a much better government than what has followed under the Conservatives alone. Lib Dems can take some credit for that moderation and competence
Yes, sadly I had to drop Napoleon's description of him and his ability to rat more often than Churchill, for reasons of space and off-topicness.
FWIW, I largely thought the coalition did a decent job and it's reinforced in my mind the opinion that at least some part of parliament should be elected by PR - probably a reformed upper House. But that doesn't have any effect on where the Lib Dems go now, under current circumstances and FPTP.
On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.
Like the grudge and
To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?
How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?
We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
Well if you make sure that African economies never work, it's cheaper to hire their brightest and best to work in Dr. Fox's hospital?
I don't think a trickle of doctors leaving Africa for Europe, Australasia and the US is the reason why Africa doesn't work.
I think the fact that Africa doesn't work is why the doctors leave.
I think that Africa is doing better than many on here believe. Free Trade will help it further.
A long way to go, but the prospect of China and India buying up our country 30 years ago looked implausible too.
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Call for May to go, rule out a coalition and call for a national government to see us through the crisis.
Minority government until it collapses. Probably with new leadership contests in both Lab and Con first.
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Call for May to go, rule out a coalition and call for a national government to see us through the crisis.
Minority government until it collapses. Probably with new leadership contests in both Lab and Con first.
Would be interesting/ challenging for LDs if Labour were the largest party.
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Call for May to go, rule out a coalition and call for a national government to see us through the crisis.
Minority government until it collapses. Probably with new leadership contests in both Lab and Con first.
Would be interesting/ challenging for LDs if Labour were the largest party.
On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.
Like the grudge and
To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?
How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?
We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
Well if you make sure that African economies never work, it's cheaper to hire their brightest and best to work in Dr. Fox's hospital?
I don't think a trickle of doctors leaving Africa for Europe, Australasia and the US is the reason why Africa doesn't work.
I think the fact that Africa doesn't work is why the doctors leave.
I think that Africa is doing better than many on here believe. Free Trade will help it further.
A long way to go, but the prospect of China and India buying up our country 30 years ago looked implausible too.
Mobile internet will/has allow them to skip a century of landlines.
Good morning. Some good advice from Mr Herdson leads this thread, not only for L/Dems but also for the smaller parties now in their winters of discontent.
On topic, I don't get it. What's David Herdson actually advocating?
Campaign on policies, continually. It might take longer and it might not be as effective in the short term but it builds a more resiliant base. And as a side-effect, it will make it less likely that they'd make mistakes like tuition fees. If you're more bought in to policy then you're less likely to misread the extent to which your voters backed you becase of any given one.
Excellent and thought provoking article David. It would be mistake for the Libdems to think that their very pro European position in by-elections like Whitney will resonate and bring them the kind of short term electoral success that the SNP enjoyed last year after losing the Independence Referendum in Scotland which now remains very strongly within the UK.
Like the grudge and
To be seen to be siding with the EU over the UK's best interests could prove a very costly electoral mistake for the Libdems, SNP and those Labour MPs trying to pick an argument with the current Government.
Being internationalist in orientation, and open to europe is not going to be a vote loser.
For brevity I presume you are eliding 'Europe' into 'the European Union'?
How does an 'interationalist' ally themselves with the protectionist monstrosity that is the EU's Common Agricultural racket Policy?
We've been trying to reform it since before we joined - but its Third world impoverishing tariffs are very much in place - how 'internationalist' is that?
Well if you make sure that African economies never work, it's cheaper to hire their brightest and best to work in Dr. Fox's hospital?
I don't think a trickle of doctors leaving Africa for Europe, Australasia and the US is the reason why Africa doesn't work.
I think the fact that Africa doesn't work is why the doctors leave.
I think that Africa is doing better than many on here believe. Free Trade will help it further.
A long way to go, but the prospect of China and India buying up our country 30 years ago looked implausible too.
Mobile internet will/has allow them to skip a century of landlines.
There are more people banking on phones in Kenya than there are in the UK.
Just as with the Lib Dem fightback, we shouldn't believe tales of the SNP decline until we see clear and consistent evidence for it. So long as the great majority of the 45%, at least, remain steadfast and refuse to move their votes (save, perhaps, for a little bit of leakage to the Greens in the Holyrood list section,) then there is no particular reason to suppose that the SNP won't remain dominant indefinitely, or at least until independence is won.
As someone pointed out on here a couple of days ago, it's not that the SNP are so marvellous (though they've managed to avoid spectacular incompetency, not a universal political achievement), but that there's not really a very attractive alternative at the moment. Of course the 'no where else for voters to go' philosophy has it's limits, as SLab have found out.
amongst the other well-founded criticisms of this article - im afraid to say I think Mr Herdson is my least favourite writer here - does anyone remember his certainty the Corbyn era was over ? Sorry you got some wrong info mate ! - Id like to point out that the premise that the Tories are 'popular' is based on untested polling and hasn't been borne out in any actual electoral results so far - in which they've pretty much universally done badly by comparison.
I don't think the Corbyn era will ever begin.
Polls may be wrong, but they're aren't *that* wrong. Even if the Conservatives are overstated, they're still far ahead of Labour.
Republicans will surely be relieved by the Senate numbers.
Indeed so. Rubio enjoys some insulation with latino voters. However some polls have shown the race tighter and Obama's recent visit explicitly linking him to Trump will damage Rubio. The polls over the next week will be fascinating.
I think the Lib Dems can remain very competitive in university cities, and wealthy districts that strongly supported Remain, and that's where they should focus.
amongst the other well-founded criticisms of this article - im afraid to say I think Mr Herdson is my least favourite writer here - does anyone remember his certainty the Corbyn era was over ? Sorry you got some wrong info mate ! - Id like to point out that the premise that the Tories are 'popular' is based on untested polling and hasn't been borne out in any actual electoral results so far - in which they've pretty much universally done badly by comparison.
Nope, I don't remember that one. But then I've probably written about 400 articles for PB; I can't get them all right. Remind me.
Turns out it was the piece I wrote while the mass shadow cabinet resignations were ongoing and the PLP's VoNC was scheduled for the following Tuesday. I don't think it was unreasonable to expect the imminent end of his leadership then; no other leader would have tried to survive. But yes, I got that one wrong.
So, for that matter, did Corbyn. The longer he's stayed, the worse it's become for Labour.
I agree. Witney is all very well - but it's a tactical advance. Keep going like this and they might be back in government in something like 2525.
What they need to do is position themselves as able to partner (whether through formal coalition or some less formal arragement) with either the Tories or Labour, and the pitch to the electorate is as a moderating influence on either.
There's never been a better time. For many centrists, the Tories are vulnerable on Brexit especially. There's an opportunity for the LDs to major on this with an explicit view to seek compromise from the Tories in a future coalition or other arrangement.
On the left, Labour look extreme on both the economy and national defence. Although a Labour government currently looks unlikely, there will still be votes for an LD party seeking to temper Labour's less appealing policies.
With a national strategy of "don't let the bastards get away with it, we can be a sane and honest broker with either", and focusing on key policies which expose Tory and Lbour weakness, they could get back into the 20s in terms of seats. As it is, I tend to agree with predictions that recovery will be limited to one or two only.
Except that's largely the ground on which they fought the 2015 election. Which gave them their greatest loss in a lifetime.
Interesting that it is now 90 years since the Conservatives gained a Liberal/Lib Dem seat in a parliamentary by election ( Combined English Universities 1926 )
Interesting that it is now 90 years since the Conservatives gained a Liberal/Lib Dem seat in a parliamentary by election ( Combined English Universities 1926 )
Not really surprising, since there have been very few Liberal defences while they were in government. Eastleigh was the only one during the coalition government.
I think the Lib Dems can remain very competitive in university cities, and wealthy districts that strongly supported Remain, and that's where they should focus.
The idea of a seat made up entirely of students and academics voting Conservative is an odd one nowadays!
EDIT: meant to quote Marksenior. Can't easily correct on mobile.
Republicans will surely be relieved by the Senate numbers.
Indeed so. Rubio enjoys some insulation with latino voters. However some polls have shown the race tighter and Obama's recent visit explicitly linking him to Trump will damage Rubio. The polls over the next week will be fascinating.
As I said yesterday the national Democratic organisation have pulled resources from contesting Rubio's seat.
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Call for May to go, rule out a coalition and call for a national government to see us through the crisis.
Minority government until it collapses. Probably with new leadership contests in both Lab and Con first.
But *which* minority government? Either by positive action or by default, as the crucial swing vote, the Lib Dems in that situation would be picking one major party over the other and couldn't escape that fact; either "you kept the Tories in" or "you put Corbyn in".
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Call for May to go, rule out a coalition and call for a national government to see us through the crisis.
Minority government until it collapses. Probably with new leadership contests in both Lab and Con first.
But *which* minority government? Either by positive action or by default, as the crucial swing vote, the Lib Dems in that situation would be picking one major party over the other and couldn't escape that fact; either "you kept the Tories in" or "you put Corbyn in".
Neither. Let the largest party attempt to form a government.
I agree. Witney is all very well - but it's a tactical advance. Keep going like this and they might be back in government in something like 2525.
What they need to do is position themselves as able to partner (whether through formal coalition or some less formal arragement) with either the Tories or Labour, and the pitch to the electorate is as a moderating influence on either.
There's never been a better time. For many centrists, the Tories are vulnerable on Brexit especially. There's an opportunity for the LDs to major on this with an explicit view to seek compromise from the Tories in a future coalition or other arrangement.
On the left, Labour look extreme on both the economy and national defence. Although a Labour government currently looks unlikely, there will still be votes for an LD party seeking to temper Labour's less appealing policies.
With a national strategy of "don't let the bastards get away with it, we can be a sane and honest broker with either", and focusing on key policies which expose Tory and Lbour weakness, they could get back into the 20s in terms of seats. As it is, I tend to agree with predictions that recovery will be limited to one or two only.
Except that's largely the ground on which they fought the 2015 election. Which gave them their greatest loss in a lifetime.
2015 was very unusual circumstances; an unwinding of voters who were not really liberal democrats followers or supporters, but had been using them as a protest (admittedly amongst other factors).
As I've said passim, the Lib Dems behaved very responsibly in government, and the election result was undeserved. But that's politics.
UKIP may go through a similar process unless they can find a USP to replace Brexit.
The Lib Dems *can* recover. But they need to try to recover by attracting people to their values; not by just picking up temporary protest votes.
I think the Lib Dems can remain very competitive in university cities, and wealthy districts that strongly supported Remain, and that's where they should focus.
The FDP strategy.
It gets them a dozen MPs.
May's targeting of working class votes makes it more difficult for the LibDems to recover in those remote, rural areas they have traditionally done well in.
Interesting that it is now 90 years since the Conservatives gained a Liberal/Lib Dem seat in a parliamentary by election ( Combined English Universities 1926 )
Very true. We'll just have to console ourselves with the 12 general election victories since.
I think the Lib Dems can remain very competitive in university cities, and wealthy districts that strongly supported Remain, and that's where they should focus.
The idea of a seat made up entirely of students and academics voting Conservative is an odd one nowadays!
EDIT: meant to quote Marksenior. Can't easily correct on mobile.
A ward that's made up of university workers and students would most probably be a Labour/Green marginal, today.
Missing Iowa or Nevada on that list would give him 269, and he'd win by getting a majority of states in the HoR even if McMullin won Utah. In effect, Trump needs 269; Clinton needs 270.
Interesting that it is now 90 years since the Conservatives gained a Liberal/Lib Dem seat in a parliamentary by election ( Combined English Universities 1926 )
Not really surprising, since there have been very few Liberal defences while they were in government. Eastleigh was the only one during the coalition government.
I am not sure that a by-election in a multi-member STV seat counts, either.
Missing Iowa or Nevada on that list would give him 269, and he'd win by getting a majority of states in the HoR even if McMullin won Utah. In effect, Trump needs 269; Clinton needs 270.
The chance of Trump losing Iowa (Or Nevada) whilst winning one of Colorado, WIsconsin, Pennslyvania, Minnesota must be utterly tiny.
Just as with the Lib Dem fightback, we shouldn't believe tales of the SNP decline until we see clear and consistent evidence for it. So long as the great majority of the 45%, at least, remain steadfast and refuse to move their votes (save, perhaps, for a little bit of leakage to the Greens in the Holyrood list section,) then there is no particular reason to suppose that the SNP won't remain dominant indefinitely, or at least until independence is won.
I think the point was that there is no decline, at best their support is climbing slower. It is a Tory fantasy often projected on here by people who are either blind or stupid. The honeymoon is only in its early days.
I agree. Witney is all very well - but it's a tactical advance. Keep going like this and they might be back in government in something like 2525.
What they need to do is position themselves as able to partner (whether through formal coalition or some less formal arragement) with either the Tories or Labour, and the pitch to the electorate is as a moderating influence on either.
There's never been a better time. For many centrists, the Tories are vulnerable on Brexit especially. There's an opportunity for the LDs to major on this with an explicit view to seek compromise from the Tories in a future coalition or other arrangement.
On the left, Labour look extreme on both the economy and national defence. Although a Labour government currently looks unlikely, there will still be votes for an LD party seeking to temper Labour's less appealing policies.
With a national strategy of "don't let the bastards get away with it, we can be a sane and honest broker with either", and focusing on key policies which expose Tory and Lbour weakness, they could get back into the 20s in terms of seats. As it is, I tend to agree with predictions that recovery will be limited to one or two only.
Except that's largely the ground on which they fought the 2015 election. Which gave them their greatest loss in a lifetime.
In 2015, they paid for the mistakes of 2010 - and indeed, a mistaken strategy that dated all the way back to the mid-90s.
I think the Lib Dems can remain very competitive in university cities, and wealthy districts that strongly supported Remain, and that's where they should focus.
The idea of a seat made up entirely of students and academics voting Conservative is an odd one nowadays!
EDIT: meant to quote Marksenior. Can't easily correct on mobile.
A ward that's made up of university workers and students would most probably be a Labour/Green marginal, today.
Does Respect still exist? It would be in with a shout too.
England going well in the first test, anything over 200 is going to be very very hard for the Banglas to chase down.
Pulpster , I got thrown out yesterday as we were conversing. I am happy to have a small wager as per yesterday , just for fun. You on for £20 and I get 6/5 SNP, you get evens the LD's.
Missing Iowa or Nevada on that list would give him 269, and he'd win by getting a majority of states in the HoR even if McMullin won Utah. In effect, Trump needs 269; Clinton needs 270.
The chance of Trump losing Iowa (Or Nevada) whilst winning one of Colorado, WIsconsin, Pennslyvania, Minnesota must be utterly tiny.
If he loses Iowa or Nevada, Colorado would only give him 268, assuming he wins Utah. A lot can happen in 17 days.
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Call for May to go, rule out a coalition and call for a national government to see us through the crisis.
Minority government until it collapses. Probably with new leadership contests in both Lab and Con first.
But *which* minority government? Either by positive action or by default, as the crucial swing vote, the Lib Dems in that situation would be picking one major party over the other and couldn't escape that fact; either "you kept the Tories in" or "you put Corbyn in".
Neither. Let the largest party attempt to form a government.
Then that would be implicitly backing them. There'll be a vote on the Queen's Speech (or an explicit vote of confidence before then) and they'd have to decide what to do. Either way their decision would be critical in determining who entered (or stayed in) No 10 - and would be seen as such.
PB Tory advice for other parties is always...interesting.
It's pretty clear the LDs are for an internationalist, pro evidencebased policy, social democratic society.
Some on here seem to genuinely think the country needs three Eurosceptic anti immigration pro capitalist parties.
Question: suppose Brexit doesn't go too well and in 2020 the result is something like
Con 278 Lab 227 SNP 45 LD 30 DUP 11 SF 4 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support; 2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views; 3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Call for May to go, rule out a coalition and call for a national government to see us through the crisis.
Such crisis to be to be resolved how, by another Referendum? Or by just going straight to rejoining the EU?
I think the Lib Dems can remain very competitive in university cities, and wealthy districts that strongly supported Remain, and that's where they should focus.
The FDP strategy.
It gets them a dozen MPs.
May's targeting of working class votes makes it more difficult for the LibDems to recover in those remote, rural areas they have traditionally done well in.
It's a start. Cambridge, Bath, Richmond (if Zac Goldsmith stands down), Twickenham, Cardiff Central, Edinburgh West, Guildford, SW Surrey, Eastleigh, St. Albans, Winchester, Kingston and Surbiton, could be viable prospects for them.
Missing Iowa or Nevada on that list would give him 269, and he'd win by getting a majority of states in the HoR even if McMullin won Utah. In effect, Trump needs 269; Clinton needs 270.
If you were an EC elector and it was that close, wouldn't you be tempted to write 'Paul Ryan' or 'Mitt Romney'? You wouldn't necessarily have to even be a Republican if it were officially 269-269 with the GOP dominating state House delegations.
I have always thought, since they are created that they are ultimately pointless. If you are a socialist you might like winning elections, but you are still a socialist if you lose them. Likewise for Greens and UKIPers. The Tories don't talk about them much, but even they have a set of beliefs. There are things that they wouldn't do because they don't believe in them even though they might be expedient. As far as I can see the Lib Dems have no such core set of beliefs and values. Without them, the just become a handy repository of protest votes. That is a public service of sorts, but hardly something that would get me fired up.
To (over?) simplify: Polarity is British politics middle name.
Because we persist with a polarising electoral system that gives practically no representation to anyone but Conservatives or Labour.
All over Europe new parties have emerged in response to changing political circumstances and get their voices heard by electing MPs under PR. What are the chances of that happening under FPTP?
We are stuck with a binary choice in a world of multiple possibilities. The only thing that will have changed 50 years from now is that we'll be tugging our forelocks to Kate Middleton instead of the current incumbent. (Although some would say the Daily Mail is already there!)
Texas is (long term) heading that way too methinks.
Hillary is only a couple of percent behind in the old Confederacy. There has been little state polling of many of these states, but I am far from convinced that Trump will be popular there. In these states he won fewer than half of the primary votes, while further North and on the Coasts he won much bigger shares
Comments
'I've seen virtually nothing on the incredibly important Senate and House races, nothing on Governorships and zilch on state-by-state breakdowns.'
"Disappointing," to be euphemistic.
Be careful of your source.
"BILL!!! What the hell have you been doing again?"
I would have thought after GE2015 and Brexit some on here would have learned their lesson. You need to listen to the mood more.
Third time lucky?
"In three crucial battlegrounds — North Carolina, Florida and Georgia — women are casting early ballots in disproportionate numbers. And in North Carolina, a must-win state for Trump with detailed early voting data available, it’s clear that Democratic women have been particularly motivated to turn out or turn ballots in."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/early-voting-women-battleground-states-230176
There is a case made in thie article that Africa should have no tariff barriers for its exports, but keep them for imports. However, the point is that the EU negotiated a bilateral Free Trade agreement. You may or may not like it, but it is hardly protectionist.
Rasmussen doesn't release it's demographics unless you are a platinum subscriber but recently released a poll where Hilary was leading despite Trump getting 20%+ of the black vote. If Trump gets 20%+ of the black vote it is a Trump landslide.
'I hate the SNP even more now than I did last year.'
'So do I!'
'Great, that means they're increasingly unpopular!'
Europhobes do not seem to have noticed how things have changed. The EU has pretty low tariff barriers to anyone.
I do work in Central Africa from time to time. The economic, political and social development over the last few decades has been tremendous. Nearly all non-muslim countries in Africa have strongly growing economies, albeit from a low base.
Globalisation has led to an emerging and vibrant African middle class.
You might credit the Lib Dems for the Coalition Government and its general approach. You cannot credit Farron, however, who stayed out of the business of actually governing.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/15/trumpgate-could-gift-the-democrats-the-jackpot/
For me, the only mystery about Parliamentary by-elections is why people pay any attention to them, except as betting events. As predictors of the next national election, they are pretty hopeless, and as gauges of the national mood, scarcely less so. I know we need to have something to talk about between general elections, but, really, threads on Indonesian politics or bird-watching in Nepal would seem to have about the same relevance to who enters No. 10.
I can think of one, New Zealand. But even though farmers there don't recieve direct grants from the government, they still get subsidised loans, and are exempt from certain taxes.
I think the fact that Africa doesn't work is why the doctors leave.
Con 278
Lab 227
SNP 45
LD 30
DUP 11
SF 4
Plaid 3
SDLP 1
Grn 1
Does Farron:
1. Back May, despite the ideological differences and despite her loss of support;
2. Back Corbyn, despite him clearly not being up to the job and holding dangerous views;
3. Back neither and force a new election on the country?
Presently Trump's route to 270 has vanished. He's struggling to keep NC and AZ with UT wobbling. Only OH and IA provide a little comfort but the other swing states are all trending Clinton with VA,PA, and NH moving into the horizon.
FWIW, I largely thought the coalition did a decent job and it's reinforced in my mind the opinion that at least some part of parliament should be elected by PR - probably a reformed upper House. But that doesn't have any effect on where the Lib Dems go now, under current circumstances and FPTP.
A long way to go, but the prospect of China and India buying up our country 30 years ago looked implausible too.
Ohio
North Carolina
Nevada
Florida
Wisconsin
Is now Trump's (tough) route.
Polls may be wrong, but they're aren't *that* wrong. Even if the Conservatives are overstated, they're still far ahead of Labour.
The 'next' state after Wisconsin is Minnesota - which is surely far harder though.
So, for that matter, did Corbyn. The longer he's stayed, the worse it's become for Labour.
Which gave them their greatest loss in a lifetime.
Predicted Borrowing
2010/11 £149bn
2011/12 £116bn
2012/13 £89bn
2013/14 £60bn
2014/15 £37bn
2015/16 £20bn
2016/17 surplus
Total £471bn
Actual Borrowing
2010/11 £137bn
2011/12 £115bn
2012/13 £123bn
2013/14 £104bn
2014/15 £96bn
2015/16 £76bn
2016/17 £45bn (6 months)
Total £696bn
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf
Giving a current overall over-borrowing of £225bn.
Is it any wonder that the UK has had a current account deficit of almost £300bn during the last three years.
EDIT: meant to quote Marksenior. Can't easily correct on mobile.
As I've said passim, the Lib Dems behaved very responsibly in government, and the election result was undeserved. But that's politics.
UKIP may go through a similar process unless they can find a USP to replace Brexit.
The Lib Dems *can* recover. But they need to try to recover by attracting people to their values; not by just picking up temporary protest votes.
It gets them a dozen MPs.
May's targeting of working class votes makes it more difficult for the LibDems to recover in those remote, rural areas they have traditionally done well in.
Texas is (long term) heading that way too methinks.
But that might be affected if Hammond changes financial strategy in his Autumn statement.
Hammond has always been fairly tight with the pursestrings, I think it will be an austerity budget, perhaps even punishment budget postponed.
Most likely some extra dosh for the NHS before bankrupcy strikes an acute Trust or two.
"Trump Towers, Main Street, Gettysburg....."
All over Europe new parties have emerged in response to changing political circumstances and get their voices heard by electing MPs under PR. What are the chances of that happening under FPTP?
We are stuck with a binary choice in a world of multiple possibilities. The only thing that will have changed 50 years from now is that we'll be tugging our forelocks to Kate Middleton instead of the current incumbent. (Although some would say the Daily Mail is already there!)
yeah that'll save him