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.
Impossible to cross that bridge until we get to it. We would have to see who the largest party is, who their leader is and what is the content of the Queens speech. There is no obligation to support a minority government (which would require a net loss of seats by the Conservatives - meaning rejection by the electorate)
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.
Some states split their electoral college votes. I understand one Rep-held seat in Nebraska and one Dem-held seat in Maine are "in play".
Morning. Great article David, so true about the LDs. They got power, and should be shouting from the rooftops about their achievements in government. Rather, they all see 2010-15 as the embarrassing episode in their past they'd all like to forget about, while looking forward to the next attempt to come second in a by-election.
Give them some time. That period of government will be easier to sell after a few more years of the current one.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
Morning. Great article David, so true about the LDs. They got power, and should be shouting from the rooftops about their achievements in government. Rather, they all see 2010-15 as the embarrassing episode in their past they'd all like to forget about, while looking forward to the next attempt to come second in a by-election.
Give them some time. That period of government will be easier to sell after a few more years of the current one.
Good point, Mr Tokyo. The chaos and confusion that lie at the heart of the May government are not yet fully appreciated.
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.
Yes - that's a good point. Or Mike Pence. And if it's 269-269, Betfair couldn't say anyone had achieved a majority of "projected" electoral votes. Trump could keep the HoR inquorate by getting 17 state delegations to abstain, but could he get so many to join him in his tantrum?
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
As it was for Labour in Scotland, I suspect the Tories underbelly is very soft.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
Ah St Albans.
The LibDems ran the council for a number of years until recently; it has been a minority conservative administration since.
There was a good LibDem result in 2010 (with a top 10 turnout) but fell back in 2015.
The current LibDem PPC is Daisy Cooper, selected a couple of months ago in preparation for a 2017 general election.
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.
Is 16/17 heading to 90 ?
It'll probably be worse as the August numbers were dreadful. If we slide into recession next year, especially given the plans to keep fiscal policy loose, it could be well over £100bn next fiscal year.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
I agree re Guilford and Winchester, in Eastleigh the LDs dominate the council and are likely to pick up the remaining ukip seats there next time around. If they are at 14% in the polls in 2020, and the Tories are sub 40%, it's a possible.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
As it was for Labour in Scotland, I suspect the Tories underbelly is very soft.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
As it was for Labour in Scotland, I suspect the Tories underbelly is very soft.
Very possibly.
But not internationalist left wing parties.
Surely the university towns are the ones falling for Corbyn?
John Rentoul Retweeted Adam Johns @AdamJohns31 18m18 minutes ago @JohnRentoul in Plasnewydd ward (Cardiff Cent) the membership is said over 300, and Lab lost a by-election last month managing 910 votes.
Morning. Great article David, so true about the LDs. They got power, and should be shouting from the rooftops about their achievements in government. Rather, they all see 2010-15 as the embarrassing episode in their past they'd all like to forget about, while looking forward to the next attempt to come second in a by-election.
Give them some time. That period of government will be easier to sell after a few more years of the current one.
Good point, Mr Tokyo. The chaos and confusion that lie at the heart of the May government are not yet fully appreciated.
By 2020 it will be increasingly obvious that the competent part of the Coalition were the LibDems.
The bits that the Tories were in charge of (Home Office for example) will be recognised as the failures that they were.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
I agree re Guilford and Winchester, in Eastleigh the LDs dominate the council and are likely to pick up the remaining ukip seats there next time around. If they are at 14% in the polls in 2020, and the Tories are sub 40%, it's a possible.
Its possible but that's very much the line we were told in 2015 about how the LibDems were certain to win there.
At the next general election the Conservatives will have incumbency on their side and much of the UKIP support is likely to head their way in Eastleigh.
A fascinating thread on what is the point of the LDs. If they can't find a USP now, will they ever? Perhaps Farron hopes May's Tories implode.
May's Tories imploding is distinctly possible. For a time when the nation needs friends and charm, May is short of both, both domestically and externally.
A fascinating thread on what is the point of the LDs. If they can't find a USP now, will they ever? Perhaps Farron hopes May's Tories implode.
May's Tories imploding is distinctly possible. For a time when the nation needs friends and charm, May is short of both, both domestically and externally.
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.
Is 16/17 heading to 90 ?
It'll probably be worse as the August numbers were dreadful. If we slide into recession next year, especially given the plans to keep fiscal policy loose, it could be well over £100bn next fiscal year.
The 2010s were the economic cycle of pretend austerity. The 2020s will be the economic cycle of actual austerity.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
I agree re Guilford and Winchester, in Eastleigh the LDs dominate the council and are likely to pick up the remaining ukip seats there next time around. If they are at 14% in the polls in 2020, and the Tories are sub 40%, it's a possible.
Its possible but that's very much the line we were told in 2015 about how the LibDems were certain to win there.
At the next general election the Conservatives will have incumbency on their side and much of the UKIP support is likely to head their way in Eastleigh.
I'm doing nothing other than applying UNS. LibDems from 8 to 14% nationally means adding 6% per constituency. Conservatives from 37 to 39% nationally means adding 2%. Now the Tories should get the advantage of first term incumbency, but if we're in a recession, the LDs might get the benefit of the doubt. If someone offered me 3-1 on Eastleigh in 2020, I'd take it.
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.
Impossible to cross that bridge until we get to it. We would have to see who the largest party is, who their leader is and what is the content of the Queens speech. There is no obligation to support a minority government (which would require a net loss of seats by the Conservatives - meaning rejection by the electorate)
No, absolutely. But there would be an obligation to back one, t'other or neither, because those are the only options. That much is true by definition in any result where they're the swing vote. And the more MPs they have, the more likely that scenario.
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.
Impossible to cross that bridge until we get to it. We would have to see who the largest party is, who their leader is and what is the content of the Queens speech. There is no obligation to support a minority government (which would require a net loss of seats by the Conservatives - meaning rejection by the electorate)
No, absolutely. But there would be an obligation to back one, t'other or neither, because those are the only options. That much is true by definition in any result where they're the swing vote. And the more MPs they have, the more likely that scenario.
I don't think there is an obligation to choose one or another.
I gather Trump is making his big policy speech in Gettysberg.
Plato, you are a voice in the wilderness. Frankly though I wonder why you bother to post on a site that is rapidly becoming a poundshop Lib Dem Voice.
However not everyone agrees it is all over.
"All of the tracking polls keep holding at Trump being ahead,” he continued. “And then all of these other polls that are one-off polls, or whatever … I don’t know how they’re doing some of these university polls. You just put the name of some university and apparently it becomes credible, whether they know what they’re doing, or not.
Caddell was pointing out the discrepancy between the different types of polls. “But in any event, polling is all over the place…. Something isn’t adding up,” said Caddell.
“Something is going to happen here, I just sense it,” he concluded. Either “Hillary will glide into the White House, or we’re headed for one of the greatest shocks in American politics. I think it’s a very close call. I think the shock potential is enormous.”"
I'm hoping that the odds on Trump will go a bit further out than 5-1 between now and Nov 8th. In this regard the pro Hillary media narrative is my friend.
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.
Is 16/17 heading to 90 ?
It'll probably be worse as the August numbers were dreadful. If we slide into recession next year, especially given the plans to keep fiscal policy loose, it could be well over £100bn next fiscal year.
The 2010s were the economic cycle of pretend austerity. The 2020s will be the economic cycle of actual austerity.
USA on verge of a recession according to Telegraph's AEP (yes, I know, the gloom-meister).
John Rentoul Retweeted Adam Johns @AdamJohns31 18m18 minutes ago @JohnRentoul in Plasnewydd ward (Cardiff Cent) the membership is said over 300, and Lab lost a by-election last month managing 910 votes.
It's student/hipster central/with pretty high immigration - just for background.
- there are other things LibDems need to be doing, but throwing everything at the by-election was nevertheless sensible (imagine the coverage if they had stayed in fourth place?);
- you can't read across from a 'mountain-to-climb' seat to others the LibDems won previously or where they have a stronger track record. As DH says in the header, Witney is complicated by Labour's track record there, which is absent in most LD target seats. Both Witney and local results suggest LibDems could win if the right by-elections comes along;
- the LDs have a distinctive position on Brexit which will pay dividends if it starts to go bad. If Brexit is seen as a success then the Tories rule for a generation anyway and all the opposition parties are stuffed. My take is that bad Brexit looks much more likely right now; the question is short-term bumpy ride v lasting economic damage?
- Witney will be good for morale ('mojo is still there') but otherwise not really significant. Of more significance are signs this week that LibDems may slowly be regaining their position as the UK's third party. This will be far more important in terms of perception and media treatment during a GE than one good by-election.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
As an aside, Dr Foxinsox makes an excellent point below.
In 2015, pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem in 2010. Less than 10% of YouGov panel members remembered voting that way. The numbers for the phone pollsters were not so extreme, but neither Ipsos not ICM could find more than a low teens number of people who remembered voting for the LibDems in 2010.
People, basically, were embarassed to admit they voted LibDem in 2010 and misremembered (or even lied).
The consequence of this was that the pollsters 'upweighted' these people who remembered voting LibDem. The weighted LD vote share was almost inevitably higher than the raw one. (Spiral of silence adjustments added even more to the published LD numbers.) This struggle to find people who remembered voting LD in 2010 was one of the reasons I was uber bearish on their chances.
Now, 15 or 16 months on from the General Election, one would expect the pollsters to find around 8% of people who claim to have voted LD last time around. You don't. You find around 10% (or even slightly more) who claim to have voted for them last year. The result is that the LibDem vote share is weighted down rather than up. The actual raw number of respondents saying they'll vote LibDem is markedly higher now than it was before GE2020.
Now this isn't a big effect. The LDs are getting c. 10% of raw responses now, against 7% ahead of the GE. If it is a recovery, it's a tiny one. But it's another small datapoint that I believe points to the LDs getting 10 to 14% (and 10 to 14 seats) in 2020.
John Rentoul Retweeted Adam Johns @AdamJohns31 18m18 minutes ago @JohnRentoul in Plasnewydd ward (Cardiff Cent) the membership is said over 300, and Lab lost a by-election last month managing 910 votes.
It's student/hipster central/with pretty high immigration - just for background.
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.
Impossible to cross that bridge until we get to it. We would have to see who the largest party is, who their leader is and what is the content of the Queens speech. There is no obligation to support a minority government (which would require a net loss of seats by the Conservatives - meaning rejection by the electorate)
No, absolutely. But there would be an obligation to back one, t'other or neither, because those are the only options. That much is true by definition in any result where they're the swing vote. And the more MPs they have, the more likely that scenario.
I don't think there is an obligation to choose one or another.
It happens as soon as there is a Confidence vote, if negotiations haven't teased the position out before. At that point, 'back' and 'sack' are the only options. They would know the intentions of all the other major players and hence, the effect of their action (so an abstain would be a 'soft back/sack' but would keep the govt in office / drive them from it all the same).
- there are other things LibDems need to be doing, but throwing everything at the by-election was nevertheless sensible (imagine the coverage if they had stayed in fourth place?);
- you can't read across from a 'mountain-to-climb' seat to others the LibDems won previously or where they have a stronger track record. As DH says in the header, Witney is complicated by Labour's track record there, which is absent in most LD target seats. Both Witney and local results suggest LibDems could win if the right by-elections comes along;
- the LDs have a distinctive position on Brexit which will pay dividends if it starts to go bad. If Brexit is seen as a success then the Tories rule for a generation anyway and all the opposition parties are stuffed. My take is that bad Brexit looks much more likely right now; the question is short-term bumpy ride v lasting economic damage?
- Witney will be good for morale ('mojo is still there') but otherwise not really significant. Of more significance are signs this week that LibDems may slowly be regaining their position as the UK's third party. This will be far more important in terms of perception and media treatment during a GE than one good by-election.
A Richmond-upon-Thames by-election would be fascinating.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
No, it's not hilarious. It's bad for everyone, as is Brexit. The Walloon rejection of CETA and our rejection of the EU have the same motivations.
In 2015, pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem in 2010. Less than 10% of YouGov panel members remembered voting that way. The numbers for the phone pollsters were not so extreme, but neither Ipsos not ICM could find more than a low teens number of people who remembered voting for the LibDems in 2010. People, basically, were embarassed to admit they voted LibDem in 2010 and misremembered (or even lied).
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.
Is 16/17 heading to 90 ?
It'll probably be worse as the August numbers were dreadful. If we slide into recession next year, especially given the plans to keep fiscal policy loose, it could be well over £100bn next fiscal year.
The 2010s were the economic cycle of pretend austerity. The 2020s will be the economic cycle of actual austerity.
USA on verge of a recession according to Telegraph's AEP (yes, I know, the gloom-meister).
That will probably drag us down too.
Well it looks extremely likely that we're in for four or eight years of Hillary Rotten Clinton - a.k.a. broken model business as usual. A recession is overdue already. It seems almost a certainty that the world will suffer a significant downturn. No doubt many here are queueing up to blame the whole thing on Brexit.
In 2015, pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem in 2010. Less than 10% of YouGov panel members remembered voting that way. The numbers for the phone pollsters were not so extreme, but neither Ipsos not ICM could find more than a low teens number of people who remembered voting for the LibDems in 2010. People, basically, were embarassed to admit they voted LibDem in 2010 and misremembered (or even lied).
Lib Dems as a one night stand party?
You feel dirty the next morning, but it seemed a good idea after a few drinks?
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
Very true and what about all the trade deals that either were not done, or were delayed or were compromised against our UK interests, because they were negotiated by the dysfunctional EU?
I gather Trump is making his big policy speech in Gettysberg.
Plato, you are a voice in the wilderness. Frankly though I wonder why you bother to post on a site that is rapidly becoming a poundshop Lib Dem Voice.
However not everyone agrees it is all over.
"All of the tracking polls keep holding at Trump being ahead,” he continued. “And then all of these other polls that are one-off polls, or whatever … I don’t know how they’re doing some of these university polls. You just put the name of some university and apparently it becomes credible, whether they know what they’re doing, or not.
Caddell was pointing out the discrepancy between the different types of polls. “But in any event, polling is all over the place…. Something isn’t adding up,” said Caddell.
“Something is going to happen here, I just sense it,” he concluded. Either “Hillary will glide into the White House, or we’re headed for one of the greatest shocks in American politics. I think it’s a very close call. I think the shock potential is enormous.”"
I'm hoping that the odds on Trump will go a bit further out than 5-1 between now and Nov 8th. In this regard the pro Hillary media narrative is my friend.
More Pickett's charge towards Cemetery Ridge one suspects.
As an aside the Gettysburg battlefield "museum" ( us the whole site) is absolutely fascinating. Even Mrs Owl was dead impressed. The Americans do do this sort of thing well (Williamsburg Virginia is another great out first "museum" too).
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.
Is 16/17 heading to 90 ?
It'll probably be worse as the August numbers were dreadful. If we slide into recession next year, especially given the plans to keep fiscal policy loose, it could be well over £100bn next fiscal year.
The 2010s were the economic cycle of pretend austerity. The 2020s will be the economic cycle of actual austerity.
USA on verge of a recession according to Telegraph's AEP (yes, I know, the gloom-meister).
That will probably drag us down too.
If you start listening to AEP, you will lose staggering amounts of money...
Mr. Bedfordshire, got to say I found Laura Kuenssberg[sp] report on that to be bloody awful.
She said May was pleading (she wasn't) then suggested May had no right to expect to have a say in the EU as we're leaving, despite the EU being presumably content to take billions from us in membership fees.
The Canada deal highlights the ridiculousness of having Wallonia able to veto a deal for us. Once we're out of the customs union we'll be able to negotiate in the British national interest rather than in the EU interest (whereby a deal benefiting Germany, Sweden, Slovenia and Greece but harming us would be seen as a positive thing).
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.
Is 16/17 heading to 90 ?
It'll probably be worse as the August numbers were dreadful. If we slide into recession next year, especially given the plans to keep fiscal policy loose, it could be well over £100bn next fiscal year.
The 2010s were the economic cycle of pretend austerity. The 2020s will be the economic cycle of actual austerity.
USA on verge of a recession according to Telegraph's AEP (yes, I know, the gloom-meister).
That will probably drag us down too.
Well it looks extremely likely that we're in for four or eight years of Hillary Rotten Clinton - a.k.a. broken model business as usual. A recession is overdue already. It seems almost a certainty that the world will suffer a significant downturn. No doubt many here are queueing up to blame the whole thing on Brexit.
The problem for UK is we are due for a recession anyway if you think about business cycles. But we live in strange times.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
With the minor problem that the deal we need more than any other, to safeguard our economic future, is with the EU.
As the EU-hostile Daily Mail says, it is a "sign of how difficult Brexit negotiations will be" and the "failure raises questions about how easy it will be for Britain post-Brexit"
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.
Is 16/17 heading to 90 ?
It'll probably be worse as the August numbers were dreadful. If we slide into recession next year, especially given the plans to keep fiscal policy loose, it could be well over £100bn next fiscal year.
The 2010s were the economic cycle of pretend austerity. The 2020s will be the economic cycle of actual austerity.
USA on verge of a recession according to Telegraph's AEP (yes, I know, the gloom-meister).
That will probably drag us down too.
If you start listening to AEP, you will lose staggering amounts of money...
As an aside, Dr Foxinsox makes an excellent point below.
In 2015, pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem in 2010. Less than 10% of YouGov panel members remembered voting that way. The numbers for the phone pollsters were not so extreme, but neither Ipsos not ICM could find more than a low teens number of people who remembered voting for the LibDems in 2010.
People, basically, were embarassed to admit they voted LibDem in 2010 and misremembered (or even lied).
The consequence of this was that the pollsters 'upweighted' these people who remembered voting LibDem. The weighted LD vote share was almost inevitably higher than the raw one. (Spiral of silence adjustments added even more to the published LD numbers.) This struggle to find people who remembered voting LD in 2010 was one of the reasons I was uber bearish on their chances.
Now, 15 or 16 months on from the General Election, one would expect the pollsters to find around 8% of people who claim to have voted LD last time around. You don't. You find around 10% (or even slightly more) who claim to have voted for them last year. The result is that the LibDem vote share is weighted down rather than up. The actual raw number of respondents saying they'll vote LibDem is markedly higher now than it was before GE2020.
Now this isn't a big effect. The LDs are getting c. 10% of raw responses now, against 7% ahead of the GE. If it is a recovery, it's a tiny one. But it's another small datapoint that I believe points to the LDs getting 10 to 14% (and 10 to 14 seats) in 2020.
This false memory effect if it was universal should surely imply the opposite of a spiral of silence adjustment?
In 2015, pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem in 2010. Less than 10% of YouGov panel members remembered voting that way. The numbers for the phone pollsters were not so extreme, but neither Ipsos not ICM could find more than a low teens number of people who remembered voting for the LibDems in 2010. People, basically, were embarassed to admit they voted LibDem in 2010 and misremembered (or even lied).
Lib Dems as a one night stand party?
You feel dirty the next morning, but it seemed a good idea after a few drinks?
You forgot what you did a year later when someone (pollster) asks you.
David Herdson is exactly right about the Lib Dems.
They can win individual seats on local issues and playing a tactical game.
But to be a substantial national party people need to know - what they stand for - how they are distinctive from other parties and - what their priorities are when trade offs have to be made eg between an unsustainable deficit and spending on social issues.
It is not good enough to say you are in favour of fairness, equality and attributes that any party could claim. Lib Dems need to say what they are in favour of that other parties are against eg on drug policy.
There is of course not so much room between the Conservatives with economic liberalism and and Labour with social liberalism.
Gladstone established the Liberals economic liberalism. Wikipedia states "Gladstonian liberalism consisted of limited government expenditure and low taxation whilst making sure government had balanced budgets and the classical liberal stress on self-help and freedom of choice. Gladstonian liberalism also emphasised free trade, little government intervention in the economy and equality of opportunity through institutional reform."
"However in the early twentieth-century the Liberal Party began to move away from Gladstonian liberalism and instead developed new policies based on social liberalism (or what Gladstone called "constructionism"). The Liberal government of 1906-1914 is noted for its social reforms and these included old age pensions and National Insurance. Taxation and public expenditure was also increased and New Liberal ideas led to David Lloyd George's People's Budget of 1909-10".
I rather like the Gladstonian philosophy. Can the Lib Dems find a balance between Gladstone and Lloyd George that people can see represents a cohesive third way?
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
With the minor problem that the deal we need more than any other, to safeguard our economic future, is with the EU.
As the EU-hostile Daily Mail says, it is a "sign of how difficult Brexit negotiations will be" and the "failure raises questions about how easy it will be for Britain post-Brexit"
Difference is, we have to do a deal upon leaving the EU. There was no such imperative for the EU with Canada.
As an aside, Dr Foxinsox makes an excellent point below.
In 2015, pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem in 2010. Less than 10% of YouGov panel members remembered voting that way. The numbers for the phone pollsters were not so extreme, but neither Ipsos not ICM could find more than a low teens number of people who remembered voting for the LibDems in 2010.
People, basically, were embarassed to admit they voted LibDem in 2010 and misremembered (or even lied).
The consequence of this was that the pollsters 'upweighted' these people who remembered voting LibDem. The weighted LD vote share was almost inevitably higher than the raw one. (Spiral of silence adjustments added even more to the published LD numbers.) This struggle to find people who remembered voting LD in 2010 was one of the reasons I was uber bearish on their chances.
Now, 15 or 16 months on from the General Election, one would expect the pollsters to find around 8% of people who claim to have voted LD last time around. You don't. You find around 10% (or even slightly more) who claim to have voted for them last year. The result is that the LibDem vote share is weighted down rather than up. The actual raw number of respondents saying they'll vote LibDem is markedly higher now than it was before GE2020.
Now this isn't a big effect. The LDs are getting c. 10% of raw responses now, against 7% ahead of the GE. If it is a recovery, it's a tiny one. But it's another small datapoint that I believe points to the LDs getting 10 to 14% (and 10 to 14 seats) in 2020.
And against this background it is worth remembering that the typical pre-coalition experience for the Liberals/Alliance/LDs was to bump along in the low teens between elections and then climb towards 20% once the General Election came along, fuelled by more media exposure and people looking at Con v Lab as potential governments, and then choosing NOTO.
If fox and rcs are right and the LDs are already north of 10%, then we are almost back to normal territory rather than the "still flat on its back" position that 7-8% suggests.
The risk for 2020 is that the third party slot will be muddied, certainly by the SNP. But outside Scotland, the Greens have lost out badly to Corbyn and UKIP is self-destructing, so the LibDems may well regain their mantle as principal challenger to the two-party system. And my guess is that there may well no shortage of NOTOs from Con v Lab in 2020.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
I think the remark along the lines of "if you can't do a deal with a country like Canada, who can you do a deal with, and you'll be irrelevant" ( I paraphrase), was a zinger and coming from someone like Justin Trudeau double ouch.
Short term it doesn't bode well for us in trade terms, I fear, as if the Transylvanian regional assembly farmers' party, or some such other obscure Ruritanian outfit we've never heard of can ( a la Walonia) put the mockers on things, then it doesn't bode well getting a deal by 2019, frankly. Not great but let's admit it. Longer term it really points out the issue: Europe is going to be Austria Hungary of the 21st century. A web of competing cross national messy slow compromise that gradually gums up its whole works till the rest of the world starts laughing at it and picking it off.
Better out now than later.
Might make a few Canadians see why so many millions of us said "enough".
As an aside, Dr Foxinsox makes an excellent point below.
In 2015, pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem in 2010. Less than 10% of YouGov panel members remembered voting that way. The numbers for the phone pollsters were not so extreme, but neither Ipsos not ICM could find more than a low teens number of people who remembered voting for the LibDems in 2010.
People, basically, were embarassed to admit they voted LibDem in 2010 and misremembered (or even lied).
The consequence of this was that the pollsters 'upweighted' these people who remembered voting LibDem. The weighted LD vote share was almost inevitably higher than the raw one. (Spiral of silence adjustments added even more to the published LD numbers.) This struggle to find people who remembered voting LD in 2010 was one of the reasons I was uber bearish on their chances.
Now, 15 or 16 months on from the General Election, one would expect the pollsters to find around 8% of people who claim to have voted LD last time around. You don't. You find around 10% (or even slightly more) who claim to have voted for them last year. The result is that the LibDem vote share is weighted down rather than up. The actual raw number of respondents saying they'll vote LibDem is markedly higher now than it was before GE2020.
Now this isn't a big effect. The LDs are getting c. 10% of raw responses now, against 7% ahead of the GE. If it is a recovery, it's a tiny one. But it's another small datapoint that I believe points to the LDs getting 10 to 14% (and 10 to 14 seats) in 2020.
And against this background it is worth remembering that the typical pre-coalition experience for the Liberals/Alliance/LDs was to bump along in the low teens between elections and then climb towards 20% once the General Election came along, fuelled by more media exposure and people looking at Con v Lab and choosing NOTO.
If fox and rcs are right and the LDs are already north of 10%, then we are almost back to normal territory rather than the "still flat on its back" position that 7-8% suggests.
The risk for 2020 is that the third party slot will be muddied, certainly by the SNP. But outside Scotland, the Greens have lost out badly to Corbyn and UKIP is self-destructing, so the LibDems may well regain their mantle as principal challenger to the two-party system. And my guess is that there may well no shortage of NOTOs from Con v Lab in 2020.
I would be very surprised if the LDs were to get close to 20% in 2020. But could they reach the level they did under Paddy in 1992? Sure, it's possible.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
With the minor problem that the deal we need more than any other, to safeguard our economic future, is with the EU.
As the EU-hostile Daily Mail says, it is a "sign of how difficult Brexit negotiations will be" and the "failure raises questions about how easy it will be for Britain post-Brexit"
Difference is, we have to do a deal upon leaving the EU. There was no such imperative for the EU with Canada.
Not really. Falling out on WTO trade terms isn't an impossible outcome. Or, "doing a deal" may just mean taking or leaving whatever is the EU's final offer.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
Your comment confused me. So I went deep into the heart of "the pro eu UK media" - the BBC website - clicked on their main headline article and read this;
"For the UK post-Brexit, it suggests two contrasting implications:
Negotiating a trade agreement that gives British exporters barrier free access to the EU's single market could be a huge challenge. For sure, there will be some important differences. For the EU, Britain is a more important export market than Canada, so some EU states will have a good deal to lose from failing to agree. But securing the agreement of all of them is unlikely to be straightforward
On the other hand, negotiating an agreement with other countries outside the EU should become easier. To put it bluntly, the British government will not need to care what the Walloon parliament, for example, thinks"
Which seems (to me) like very well balanced analysis for a mainstream audience. The second paragraph is very similar to what you wrote yourself in fact.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
I think the remark along the lines of "if you can't do a deal with a country like Canada, who can you do a deal with, and you'll be irrelevant" ( I paraphrase), was a zinger and coming from someone like Justin Trudeau double ouch.
Short term it doesn't bode well for us in trade terms, I fear, as if the Transylvanian regional assembly farmers' party, or some such other obscure Ruritanian outfit we've never heard of can ( a la Walonia) put the mockers on things, then it doesn't bode well getting a deal by 2019, frankly. Not great but let's admit it. Longer term it really points out the issue: Europe is going to be Austria Hungary of the 21st century. A web of competing cross national messy slow compromise that gradually gums up its whole works till the rest of the world starts laughing at it and picking it off.
Better out now than later.
Might make a few Canadians see why so many millions of us said "enough".
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
Your comment confused me. So I went deep into the heart of "the pro eu UK media" - the BBC website - clicked on their main headline article and read this;
"For the UK post-Brexit, it suggests two contrasting implications:
Negotiating a trade agreement that gives British exporters barrier free access to the EU's single market could be a huge challenge. For sure, there will be some important differences. For the EU, Britain is a more important export market than Canada, so some EU states will have a good deal to lose from failing to agree. But securing the agreement of all of them is unlikely to be straightforward
On the other hand, negotiating an agreement with other countries outside the EU should become easier. To put it bluntly, the British government will not need to care what the Walloon parliament, for example, thinks"
Which seems like very well balanced analysis. The second paragraph is very similar to what you wrote yourself in fact.
Most EU trade deals only require QMV. It is only a subset of them, such as the one with Canada and which include visa provisions, that require unanimity.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
Your comment confused me. So I went deep into the heart of "the pro eu UK media" - the BBC website - clicked on their main headline article and read this;
"For the UK post-Brexit, it suggests two contrasting implications:
Negotiating a trade agreement that gives British exporters barrier free access to the EU's single market could be a huge challenge. For sure, there will be some important differences. For the EU, Britain is a more important export market than Canada, so some EU states will have a good deal to lose from failing to agree. But securing the agreement of all of them is unlikely to be straightforward
On the other hand, negotiating an agreement with other countries outside the EU should become easier. To put it bluntly, the British government will not need to care what the Walloon parliament, for example, thinks"
Which seems like very well balanced analysis. The second paragraph is very similar to what you wrote yourself in fact.
Exactly. Not like we have to worry about olive farmers in Crete for example.
Mr. Pong, sometimes there can be a vast yawning chasm between individual BBC articles (Mark Urban wrote a good one on the demographics of the migrant flows) and the broadcasts.
"Those who fail to learn from history will be condemned to repeat it."
Someone once said to me how they had often thought they had learnt a lesson from the past, then found they made the same mistake again in the same situation.
It was not quite like 1993 though, because unlike at Newbury and Christchurch the Labour vote did not collapse or disappear! That should worry the LibDems in terms of trying to regain seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Assumming similar presidential turnout of around of 130,000,000 votes then that means at 5,000,000 people already voted that's 3.8% of the votes already cast.
It was not quite like 1993 though, because unlike at Newbury and Christchurch the Labour vote did not collapse or disappear! That should worry the LibDems in terms of trying to regain seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
I think that's absolutely right. The LDs need to take votes of labour
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
I think the remark along the lines of "if you can't do a deal with a country like Canada, who can you do a deal with, and you'll be irrelevant" ( I paraphrase), was a zinger and coming from someone like Justin Trudeau double ouch.
Short term it doesn't bode well for us in trade terms, I fear, as if the Transylvanian regional assembly farmers' party, or some such other obscure Ruritanian outfit we've never heard of can ( a la Walonia) put the mockers on things, then it doesn't bode well getting a deal by 2019, frankly. Not great but let's admit it. Longer term it really points out the issue: Europe is going to be Austria Hungary of the 21st century. A web of competing cross national messy slow compromise that gradually gums up its whole works till the rest of the world starts laughing at it and picking it off.
Better out now than later.
Might make a few Canadians see why so many millions of us said "enough".
Article 50 negotiations are QMV.
Ok. Thanks. Doesn't it have to be approved by the Parliament though?
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
I think the remark along the lines of "if you can't do a deal with a country like Canada, who can you do a deal with, and you'll be irrelevant" ( I paraphrase), was a zinger and coming from someone like Justin Trudeau double ouch.
Short term it doesn't bode well for us in trade terms, I fear, as if the Transylvanian regional assembly farmers' party, or some such other obscure Ruritanian outfit we've never heard of can ( a la Walonia) put the mockers on things, then it doesn't bode well getting a deal by 2019, frankly. Not great but let's admit it. Longer term it really points out the issue: Europe is going to be Austria Hungary of the 21st century. A web of competing cross national messy slow compromise that gradually gums up its whole works till the rest of the world starts laughing at it and picking it off.
Better out now than later.
Might make a few Canadians see why so many millions of us said "enough".
Article 50 negotiations are QMV.
Ok. Thanks. Doesn't it have to be approved by the Parliament though?
Yes but that's a straight yes/no majority vote. No Walloon veto there.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
Maybe not SW Surrey. I hadn't realised how sharply the Lib Dem vote had fallen. But, I was thinking of seats that were either held by the Lib Dems, or where they had big votes, in recent times, and which have lots of wealthy Remain voters, who wouldn't vote Labour, but who might vote Lib Dem.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
With the minor problem that the deal we need more than any other, to safeguard our economic future, is with the EU.
As the EU-hostile Daily Mail says, it is a "sign of how difficult Brexit negotiations will be" and the "failure raises questions about how easy it will be for Britain post-Brexit"
The editor of the Mail on Sunday is pro remain and pro EU and anything in Mailonline from Saturday morning onwards is liable to have a pro eu snidey slant on it. This seems to be about editorial rivalry between Dacre and others as much as anything else.
What is noticable is the amount of comments feom Canadians there and on other news sources along the lines of "we get why you voted for Brexit" now.
Lets face it, if the EU can't do a trade deal with a country including Quebec, which the French regard as a virtual province of France, because of a small group of Frenchmen in a part of Belgium that the French regard as a virtual province of France (both only not being in France because of Britain forcing France to cede them), the EU are long term Fubar'ed.
Roger is right....the minor parties are defined by their leader; and the very middling Farron is not going to raise them that far. It's a shame....with a Clegg, Kennedy or Steel they could have started to return to being a key player. I genuinely see the LD's as a force for good.
There is a good 45% of the electorate that I would see as within their target group- the 15% who are genuine floaters open to protest parties, the 15% lean Tory floaters (who wouldn't consider Labour) and the 15% lean Labour floaters who wouldn't countenance Tory (i.e. people like me).
Nick Palmer posted the other day that Corbyn appeals to 25% of the electorate. I would strongly disagree...the Labour brand probably has an electoral floor of circa 25%; the Tories a little higher, 30% or so. Corbyn probably does bring a few percentage of the ideological left, but more than offset than the numbers he repulses.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
I think the remark along the lines of "if you can't do a deal with a country like Canada, who can you do a deal with, and you'll be irrelevant" ( I paraphrase), was a zinger and coming from someone like Justin Trudeau double ouch.
Short term it doesn't bode well for us in trade terms, I fear, as if the Transylvanian regional assembly farmers' party, or some such other obscure Ruritanian outfit we've never heard of can ( a la Walonia) put the mockers on things, then it doesn't bode well getting a deal by 2019, frankly. Not great but let's admit it. Longer term it really points out the issue: Europe is going to be Austria Hungary of the 21st century. A web of competing cross national messy slow compromise that gradually gums up its whole works till the rest of the world starts laughing at it and picking it off.
Better out now than later.
Might make a few Canadians see why so many millions of us said "enough".
Article 50 negotiations are QMV.
Ok. Thanks. Doesn't it have to be approved by the Parliament though?
Yes but that's a straight yes/no majority vote. No Walloon veto there.
Well not unless they drive their tractors the ten miles or so into Brussels and block the car park ;-)
"Those who fail to learn from history will be condemned to repeat it."
Someone once said to me how they had often thought they had learnt a lesson from the past, then found they made the same mistake again in the same situation.
Changing one's nature is very very hard.
I like David Herdson's historical references...he often uses them which adds to his posts.
An interesting article from David Herdson : thanks.
It is, however, predicated on one assumption: the Lib Dems want to become large enough to form part of a Coalition Government again..
I see no evidence of such wishes, nor - and here I agree with the article - any evidence of the leadership needed to do so. Rather the reverse.. Harking for a return to the EU past is an impossible dream in my view..
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
St albans is full of sanctimonious twits who think they have a right to a seat on a peak hour train and honk 'move down inside please' at every opportunity' while thinking it clever to own a vastly overpriced house, not realising that if they moved to Bedford they could get a much bigger house cheaply and always get a seat even though the journey isnt much longer or expensive.
There are of course some good sorts too like our own Verulamium of course.
Fortunately there wasnt an election there yesterday as most of the inhabitants are currently in London still trying to get home after the train service collapsed.
It was not quite like 1993 though, because unlike at Newbury and Christchurch the Labour vote did not collapse or disappear! That should worry the LibDems in terms of trying to regain seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
I think that's absolutely right. The LDs need to take votes of labour
The current fault lines are no longer left or right they are liberal and conservative (small c).
May gets this which is why UKIP are finished, alas Farron dosent.
As an aside, Dr Foxinsox makes an excellent point below.
In 2015, pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem in 2010. Less than 10% of YouGov panel members remembered voting that way. The numbers for the phone pollsters were not so extreme, but neither Ipsos not ICM could find more than a low teens number of people who remembered voting for the LibDems in 2010.
People, basically, were embarassed to admit they voted LibDem in 2010 and misremembered (or even lied).
The consequence of this was that the pollsters 'upweighted' these people who remembered voting LibDem. The weighted LD vote share was almost inevitably higher than the raw one. (Spiral of silence adjustments added even more to the published LD numbers.) This struggle to find people who remembered voting LD in 2010 was one of the reasons I was uber bearish on their chances.
Now, 15 or 16 months on from the General Election, one would expect the pollsters to find around 8% of people who claim to have voted LD last time around. You don't. You find around 10% (or even slightly more) who claim to have voted for them last year. The result is that the LibDem vote share is weighted down rather than up. The actual raw number of respondents saying they'll vote LibDem is markedly higher now than it was before GE2020.
Now this isn't a big effect. The LDs are getting c. 10% of raw responses now, against 7% ahead of the GE. If it is a recovery, it's a tiny one. But it's another small datapoint that I believe points to the LDs getting 10 to 14% (and 10 to 14 seats) in 2020.
100% correct analysis . I am still happy with my forecast vote shares for Witney , spot on for Con and LD under estimated Labour a little over estimated UKIP and Green a tad .
It was not quite like 1993 though, because unlike at Newbury and Christchurch the Labour vote did not collapse or disappear! That should worry the LibDems in terms of trying to regain seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
I think that's absolutely right. The LDs need to take votes of labour
The received wisdom is that with Corbyn in charge it has never been easier for the LibDems to take voters from the right flank of Labour. The Witney result suggests it isn't so straight forward.
The locals next May will give a great insight into how voters are taking to the Tezza-Jezza political landscape. The LibDems need to show bouncebackability. The signs are there, but I'm not yet convinced.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
St albans is full of sanctimonious twits who think they have a right to a seat on a peak hour train and honk 'move down inside please' at every opportunity' while thinking it clever to own a vastly overpriced house, not realising that if they moved to Bedford they could get a much bigger house cheaply and always get a seat even though the journey isnt much longer or expensive.
There are of course some good sorts too like our own Verulamium of course.
Fortunately there wasnt an election there yesterday as most of the inhabitants are currently in London still trying to get home after the train service collapsed.
St. Alban's is, in some ways, very atypical for a Conservative seat. Anne Main won and held the seat because left wing voters can't decide whether to support Labour or Lib Dems.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
St albans is full of sanctimonious twits who think they have a right to a seat on a peak hour train and honk 'move down inside please' at every opportunity' while thinking it clever to own a vastly overpriced house, not realising that if they moved to Bedford they could get a much bigger house cheaply and always get a seat even though the journey isnt much longer or expensive.
There are of course some good sorts too like our own Verulamium of course.
Fortunately there wasnt an election there yesterday as most of the inhabitants are currently in London still trying to get home after the train service collapsed.
I remember when 'Bed-Pan Man' was regarded as the key demographic. That was until he eloped with Worcester Woman.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
St albans is full of sanctimonious twits who think they have a right to a seat on a peak hour train and honk 'move down inside please' at every opportunity' while thinking it clever to own a vastly overpriced house, not realising that if they moved to Bedford they could get a much bigger house cheaply and always get a seat even though the journey isnt much longer or expensive.
There are of course some good sorts too like our own Verulamium of course.
Fortunately there wasnt an election there yesterday as most of the inhabitants are currently in London still trying to get home after the train service collapsed.
St. Alban's is, in some ways, very atypical for a Conservative seat. Anne Main won and held the seat because left wing voters can't decide whether to support Labour or Lib Dems.
It is noticable how many of their commuters are 20s and early 30s. The place seems to be a cross between tory stockbroker belt and Shoreditch Hipster. But then agreeable Cathedral cities with eight fast trains an hour to London taking 20 minutes (less than half an hour to the city) are rather thin on the ground.
The other equivalents are Woking, Croydon, Wstford, Slough and Upminster which dont really pass muster to say the least.
Australian FM Julie Bishop went off script at the Canberra launch of the EU-Australia Leadership Forum to deliver unusually effusive praise for the bloc, calling it a “global force for peace,” and a “shining example of democracy and the rule of law.”
The fact that the U.K. had voted to leave the EU has added to a global “sense of unease,” Bishop said. “We have to face that the international rules-based order is under threat.”
The launch of the EU-Australia forum signals Australia is pivoting toward Europe, its traditional ally, after an extended period in which it focused on its nearer neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region.
“It is at times like these that we need to stand up and fight for the values we share, our commitment to the rule of law, our democratic heritage and the belief in the power of markets,” Bishop said. “Amidst all this, the EU-Australia relationship has deepened, broadened.”
“This momentum behind this EU and Australia relationship will continue,” Bishop said. “We look forward to negotiating an EU-Australia free-trade agreement.”
Roger is right....the minor parties are defined by their leader; and the very middling Farron is not going to raise them that far. It's a shame....with a Clegg, Kennedy or Steel they could have started to return to being a key player. I genuinely see the LD's as a force for good.
There is a good 45% of the electorate that I would see as within their target group- the 15% who are genuine floaters open to protest parties, the 15% lean Tory floaters (who wouldn't consider Labour) and the 15% lean Labour floaters who wouldn't countenance Tory (i.e. people like me).
Nick Palmer posted the other day that Corbyn appeals to 25% of the electorate. I would strongly disagree...the Labour brand probably has an electoral floor of circa 25%; the Tories a little higher, 30% or so. Corbyn probably does bring a few percentage of the ideological left, but more than offset than the numbers he repulses.
The issue is also where in the country that Corbynista repulses people. I rather suspect it is in the marginals and that is why Labour are in deep trouble.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
St albans is full of sanctimonious twits who think they have a right to a seat on a peak hour train and honk 'move down inside please' at every opportunity' while thinking it clever to own a vastly overpriced house, not realising that if they moved to Bedford they could get a much bigger house cheaply and always get a seat even though the journey isnt much longer or expensive.
There are of course some good sorts too like our own Verulamium of course.
Fortunately there wasnt an election there yesterday as most of the inhabitants are currently in London still trying to get home after the train service collapsed.
There was a by election in St Albans on Thursday , Lib Dem hold with increased majority
It was not quite like 1993 though, because unlike at Newbury and Christchurch the Labour vote did not collapse or disappear! That should worry the LibDems in terms of trying to regain seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
No, that's true. Although I did write that "unless Farron can move his party on from trying to endlessly relive Newbury and Christchurch". (my emphasis just now) - and it's the trying which is important. Whether or not they were successful, they were still trying to replicate that model, which is - as you say - not entirely applicable anyway, besides leading them up a cul-de-sac.
I did write a paragraph asking whether these were just the comments of a bitter or worried Tory but again, cut it for space.
Fact is, there's nothing to be bitter or sour-grapsey about. The Conservatives won, comfortably. Worried? Well, clearly the Lib Dem machine is off intensive care but no, I'm not particularly worried either, not least because the sort of by-election the Lib Dems ran couldn't be replicated in a GE. And with Labour doing so disastrously, a Lib Dem revival would be more likely to hurt them than the Tories.
So no, it's advice well-meant. It's not good for the country to have no effective opposition.
Australian FM Julie Bishop went off script at the Canberra launch of the EU-Australia Leadership Forum to deliver unusually effusive praise for the bloc, calling it a “global force for peace,” and a “shining example of democracy and the rule of law.”
The fact that the U.K. had voted to leave the EU has added to a global “sense of unease,” Bishop said. “We have to face that the international rules-based order is under threat.”
The launch of the EU-Australia forum signals Australia is pivoting toward Europe, its traditional ally, after an extended period in which it focused on its nearer neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region.
“It is at times like these that we need to stand up and fight for the values we share, our commitment to the rule of law, our democratic heritage and the belief in the power of markets,” Bishop said. “Amidst all this, the EU-Australia relationship has deepened, broadened.”
“This momentum behind this EU and Australia relationship will continue,” Bishop said. “We look forward to negotiating an EU-Australia free-trade agreement.”
I suppose that Australia and the EU have a lot in common. Both ruled over by unelected foreigners.
It was not quite like 1993 though, because unlike at Newbury and Christchurch the Labour vote did not collapse or disappear! That should worry the LibDems in terms of trying to regain seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
No, that's true. Although I did write that "unless Farron can move his party on from trying to endlessly relive Newbury and Christchurch". (my emphasis just now) - and it's the trying which is important. Whether or not they were successful, they were still trying to replicate that model, which is - as you say - not entirely applicable anyway, besides leading them up a cul-de-sac.
To be fair David your article didn't really provide solutions for the Lib Dems. They did try defining themselves as the party of IN - that didn't work too well. They could try being the party of the coalition and contrasting it to the current government but remember they got massacred at the last election for that and I've yet to detect any great yearning for the Rose Garden. I think there are two key demographics for the Lib Dems. Wealthy people who don't like the Tories and poorer people in areas wher Labour has traditionally been weak e.g rural areas like Cornwall. I don't think that is an unmanageable coalition of support but admittedly the latter are not likely to be prone to europhilia.
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.
Good points. But don't the LDs have more fundamental problems? With 8 MPs they have to prove to themselves that they are still in the game, that it worth thinking about policy and competing for attention.
As such Witney was a success. They feel good about themselves for the first time in ages. I reckon they now believe they could win a more marginal seat.
They can prove they're in the game by being relevant and different. There's a big gap in the market for a credible opposition at the moment. You'd think that ought to be opportunity enough to start winning over centre-left voters from Labour and some swing voters from the Tories.
Despite their huge effort , there was very little sign of them picking up Labour votes at Witney. That should depress them!
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
No, it's not hilarious. It's bad for everyone, as is Brexit. The Walloon rejection of CETA and our rejection of the EU have the same motivations.
Is it?
Is CETA really a good deal? ; there being considerable objections to it from places other than Wallonia. Perhaps the Walloons are right to be suspicious.
Do we want multi-national companies to be able to use specially set up courts to override national sovereignty? I do not think so. Indeed much of what we object to about the EU would be re-imposed by CETA.
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 )
Wow.
You must be on to something here.
So the Liberals are in majority Govt riding high in the polls and the Tories struggling for survival on 8 seats, right?
Just had a look at the demographics of the IDB/TIPP poll. Trump on 17% amongst African Americans.
I definitely agree that if Trump gets 17% of the African American vote he wins
Doubles and 1992 all round.
It has occurred to me that Trump is going to, by positioning himself outside the establishment and unambiguously right wing going to pick up quite a lot of afro Americans.
Many Africans find liberal racial guilt embarassing and a sign of weakness (compared with resoluteness of our ancestors) and are socially very conservative which is the opposite of clinton.
They may not like Trump but may respect him enough to vote for him.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
St albans is full of sanctimonious twits who think they have a right to a seat on a peak hour train and honk 'move down inside please' at every opportunity' while thinking it clever to own a vastly overpriced house, not realising that if they moved to Bedford they could get a much bigger house cheaply and always get a seat even though the journey isnt much longer or expensive.
There are of course some good sorts too like our own Verulamium of course.
Fortunately there wasnt an election there yesterday as most of the inhabitants are currently in London still trying to get home after the train service collapsed.
St. Alban's is, in some ways, very atypical for a Conservative seat. Anne Main won and held the seat because left wing voters can't decide whether to support Labour or Lib Dems.
It is noticable how many of their commuters are 20s and early 30s. The place seems to be a cross between tory stockbroker belt and Shoreditch Hipster. But then agreeable Cathedral cities with eight fast trains an hour to London taking 20 minutes (less than half an hour to the city) are rather thin on the ground.
The other equivalents are Woking, Croydon, Wstford, Slough and Upminster which dont really pass muster to say the least.
St. Alban's constituency only has two reliably Conservative wards (on the Council, the Tories pile up votes in Harpenden and outlying villages). The Lib Dems need to find a way of eliminating Labour from the Council, in order to unite the left wing vote behind them.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
St albans is full of sanctimonious twits who think they have a right to a seat on a peak hour train and honk 'move down inside please' at every opportunity' while thinking it clever to own a vastly overpriced house, not realising that if they moved to Bedford they could get a much bigger house cheaply and always get a seat even though the journey isnt much longer or expensive.
There are of course some good sorts too like our own Verulamium of course.
Fortunately there wasnt an election there yesterday as most of the inhabitants are currently in London still trying to get home after the train service collapsed.
There was a by election in St Albans on Thursday , Lib Dem hold with increased majority
That because all the Tories were stuck at St Pancras in the chaos
I should think the last thing the Lib Dems have to worry about now is the prospect of another coalition!
In the same way that a hiker shouldn't worry about the weather?
Absolutely not in that way. More in the way that a troglodyte shouldn't worry about being hit by a meteorite.
Just to be clear, what I mean is that what the Lib Dems have to worry about is simply surviving as a national party, and that the chances of their being in a position to enter another coalition in the foreseeable future are minuscule.
In the 11 general elections since the resurgence of the early 1970s, the Lib/LD vote never dropped below 13.8% and sometimes rose as high as the mid-20s. Yet because of the electoral system, there was only one opportunity to enter a coalition. Now their national opinion poll ratings are at 7 or 8%, with not a flicker of recovery in nearly 18 months since the last election. They have lost their status as a major party, and they are struggling for precedence with two other minor national parties (while being dwarfed by the SNP in parliament). Unless there is a significant improvement in their support, the boundary changes could quite easily leave them with only 3 or 4 MPs after the next election.
They have to worry about survival, not continue fantasising about future coalitions.
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.
SW Surrey ??? I don't see much chance in Guildford, Eastleigh and Winchester either in the next decade either.
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
St albans is full of sanctimonious twits who think they have a right to a seat on a peak hour train and honk 'move down inside please' at every opportunity' while thinking it clever to own a vastly overpriced house, not realising that if they moved to Bedford they could get a much bigger house cheaply and always get a seat even though the journey isnt much longer or expensive.
There are of course some good sorts too like our own Verulamium of course.
Fortunately there wasnt an election there yesterday as most of the inhabitants are currently in London still trying to get home after the train service collapsed.
There was a by election in St Albans on Thursday , Lib Dem hold with increased majority
That because all the Tories were stuck at St Pancras in the chaos
LOL . The Lib Dem vote share in the ward was the highest since 2003
Just had a look at the demographics of the IDB/TIPP poll. Trump on 17% amongst African Americans.
I definitely agree that if Trump gets 17% of the African American vote he wins
Doubles and 1992 all round.
It has occurred to me that Trump is going to, by positioning himself outside the establishment and unambiguously right wing going to pick up quite a lot of afro Americans.
Many Africans find liberal racial guilt embarassing and a sign of weakness (compared with resoluteness of our ancestors) and are socially very conservative which is the opposite of clinton.
They may not like Trump but may respect him enough to vote for him.
But then he is a massive, massive birther racist. And all the other polls have him with 3-4% AA vote. When the 'n word' video finally comes out, thatd be lower.
Isnt it hilarious how the pro eu UK media spins the collapse of EU Canada deal as bad news for us post brexit rather than the reality that it is bad for the EU (and consequently us pre brexit) and brilliant news for us post brexit when we can conclude such deals ourselves without baggage such has having to appease a bunch of socialist wallies & loons.
No, it's not hilarious. It's bad for everyone, as is Brexit. The Walloon rejection of CETA and our rejection of the EU have the same motivations.
Is it?
Is CETA really a good deal? ; there being considerable objections to it from places other than Wallonia. Perhaps the Walloons are right to be suspicious.
Do we want multi-national companies to be able to use specially set up courts to override national sovereignty? I do not think so. Indeed much of what we object to about the EU would be re-imposed by CETA.
I will happily swap the ECJ for the London Court of International Arbitration. However that is not the point. The ECJ was not really an issue when it was basically a trade arbitration court. However the EU have conceitedly aggrandised it far greater powers, particularily in the Lisbon Treaty. That is the issue.
Alas for you remainers we in the UK now have a blue peter, heres one I prepared earlier trade deal with Canada that we can just cut and paste UK for EU and sign the day after we leave.
Furthermore, the EU have just demonstrated to the Politicians and Electorate of Canada and similar countries how appalling the EU is and why we in the UK voted to get out, which will increase understanding and co-operation as we turn increasingly away from decaying and decadent Europe towards them.
Comments
St Albans is more interesting - it had the highest Remain vote in England outside London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Its a surprise that the LibDems have never done well there - Labour's win there in 1997 was one of the most remarkable even for that year.
The LibDems ran the council for a number of years until recently; it has been a minority conservative administration since.
There was a good LibDem result in 2010 (with a top 10 turnout) but fell back in 2015.
The current LibDem PPC is Daisy Cooper, selected a couple of months ago in preparation for a 2017 general election.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/789759094278193152
A fascinating thread on what is the point of the LDs. If they can't find a USP now, will they ever? Perhaps Farron hopes May's Tories implode.
But not internationalist left wing parties.
Adam Johns @AdamJohns31 18m18 minutes ago
@JohnRentoul in Plasnewydd ward (Cardiff Cent) the membership is said over 300, and Lab lost a by-election last month managing 910 votes.
The bits that the Tories were in charge of (Home Office for example) will be recognised as the failures that they were.
At the next general election the Conservatives will have incumbency on their side and much of the UKIP support is likely to head their way in Eastleigh.
The 2020s will be the economic cycle of actual austerity.
However not everyone agrees it is all over.
"All of the tracking polls keep holding at Trump being ahead,” he continued. “And then all of these other polls that are one-off polls, or whatever … I don’t know how they’re doing some of these university polls. You just put the name of some university and apparently it becomes credible, whether they know what they’re doing, or not.
Caddell was pointing out the discrepancy between the different types of polls. “But in any event, polling is all over the place…. Something isn’t adding up,” said Caddell.
“Something is going to happen here, I just sense it,” he concluded. Either “Hillary will glide into the White House, or we’re headed for one of the greatest shocks in American politics. I think it’s a very close call. I think the shock potential is enormous.”"
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/21/pat-caddell-polling-is-all-over-the-place-shock-potential-is-enormous/
I'm hoping that the odds on Trump will go a bit further out than 5-1 between now and Nov 8th. In this regard the pro Hillary media narrative is my friend.
That will probably drag us down too.
- there are other things LibDems need to be doing, but throwing everything at the by-election was nevertheless sensible (imagine the coverage if they had stayed in fourth place?);
- you can't read across from a 'mountain-to-climb' seat to others the LibDems won previously or where they have a stronger track record. As DH says in the header, Witney is complicated by Labour's track record there, which is absent in most LD target seats. Both Witney and local results suggest LibDems could win if the right by-elections comes along;
- the LDs have a distinctive position on Brexit which will pay dividends if it starts to go bad. If Brexit is seen as a success then the Tories rule for a generation anyway and all the opposition parties are stuffed. My take is that bad Brexit looks much more likely right now; the question is short-term bumpy ride v lasting economic damage?
- Witney will be good for morale ('mojo is still there') but otherwise not really significant. Of more significance are signs this week that LibDems may slowly be regaining their position as the UK's third party. This will be far more important in terms of perception and media treatment during a GE than one good by-election.
In 2015, pollsters struggled to find people who claimed to have voted LibDem in 2010. Less than 10% of YouGov panel members remembered voting that way. The numbers for the phone pollsters were not so extreme, but neither Ipsos not ICM could find more than a low teens number of people who remembered voting for the LibDems in 2010.
People, basically, were embarassed to admit they voted LibDem in 2010 and misremembered (or even lied).
The consequence of this was that the pollsters 'upweighted' these people who remembered voting LibDem. The weighted LD vote share was almost inevitably higher than the raw one. (Spiral of silence adjustments added even more to the published LD numbers.) This struggle to find people who remembered voting LD in 2010 was one of the reasons I was uber bearish on their chances.
Now, 15 or 16 months on from the General Election, one would expect the pollsters to find around 8% of people who claim to have voted LD last time around. You don't. You find around 10% (or even slightly more) who claim to have voted for them last year. The result is that the LibDem vote share is weighted down rather than up. The actual raw number of respondents saying they'll vote LibDem is markedly higher now than it was before GE2020.
Now this isn't a big effect. The LDs are getting c. 10% of raw responses now, against 7% ahead of the GE. If it is a recovery, it's a tiny one. But it's another small datapoint that I believe points to the LDs getting 10 to 14% (and 10 to 14 seats) in 2020.
https://theringer.com/donald-trump-is-on-a-presidential-death-march-weve-never-seen-before-2a23da0e8af4#.oajpz6yvt
As an aside the Gettysburg battlefield "museum" ( us the whole site) is absolutely fascinating. Even Mrs Owl was dead impressed. The Americans do do this sort of thing well (Williamsburg Virginia is another great out first "museum" too).
She said May was pleading (she wasn't) then suggested May had no right to expect to have a say in the EU as we're leaving, despite the EU being presumably content to take billions from us in membership fees.
The Canada deal highlights the ridiculousness of having Wallonia able to veto a deal for us. Once we're out of the customs union we'll be able to negotiate in the British national interest rather than in the EU interest (whereby a deal benefiting Germany, Sweden, Slovenia and Greece but harming us would be seen as a positive thing).
As the EU-hostile Daily Mail says, it is a "sign of how difficult Brexit negotiations will be" and the "failure raises questions about how easy it will be for Britain post-Brexit"
They can win individual seats on local issues and playing a tactical game.
But to be a substantial national party people need to know
- what they stand for
- how they are distinctive from other parties and
- what their priorities are when trade offs have to be made
eg between an unsustainable deficit and spending on social issues.
It is not good enough to say you are in favour of fairness, equality and attributes that any party could claim. Lib Dems need to say what they are in favour of that other parties are against eg on drug policy.
There is of course not so much room between the Conservatives with economic liberalism and and Labour with social liberalism.
Gladstone established the Liberals economic liberalism. Wikipedia states
"Gladstonian liberalism consisted of limited government expenditure and low taxation whilst making sure government had balanced budgets and the classical liberal stress on self-help and freedom of choice. Gladstonian liberalism also emphasised free trade, little government intervention in the economy and equality of opportunity through institutional reform."
"However in the early twentieth-century the Liberal Party began to move away from Gladstonian liberalism and instead developed new policies based on social liberalism (or what Gladstone called "constructionism"). The Liberal government of 1906-1914 is noted for its social reforms and these included old age pensions and National Insurance. Taxation and public expenditure was also increased and New Liberal ideas led to David Lloyd George's People's Budget of 1909-10".
I rather like the Gladstonian philosophy. Can the Lib Dems find a balance between Gladstone and Lloyd George that people can see represents a cohesive third way?
If fox and rcs are right and the LDs are already north of 10%, then we are almost back to normal territory rather than the "still flat on its back" position that 7-8% suggests.
The risk for 2020 is that the third party slot will be muddied, certainly by the SNP. But outside Scotland, the Greens have lost out badly to Corbyn and UKIP is self-destructing, so the LibDems may well regain their mantle as principal challenger to the two-party system. And my guess is that there may well no shortage of NOTOs from Con v Lab in 2020.
Short term it doesn't bode well for us in trade terms, I fear, as if the Transylvanian regional assembly farmers' party, or some such other obscure Ruritanian outfit we've never heard of can ( a la Walonia) put the mockers on things, then it doesn't bode well getting a deal by 2019, frankly. Not great but let's admit it. Longer term it really points out the issue: Europe is going to be Austria Hungary of the 21st century. A web of competing cross national messy slow compromise that gradually gums up its whole works till the rest of the world starts laughing at it and picking it off.
Better out now than later.
Might make a few Canadians see why so many millions of us said "enough".
"For the UK post-Brexit, it suggests two contrasting implications:
Negotiating a trade agreement that gives British exporters barrier free access to the EU's single market could be a huge challenge. For sure, there will be some important differences. For the EU, Britain is a more important export market than Canada, so some EU states will have a good deal to lose from failing to agree. But securing the agreement of all of them is unlikely to be straightforward
On the other hand, negotiating an agreement with other countries outside the EU should become easier. To put it bluntly, the British government will not need to care what the Walloon parliament, for example, thinks"
Which seems (to me) like very well balanced analysis for a mainstream audience. The second paragraph is very similar to what you wrote yourself in fact.
Excellent article, Mr Herdson.
"Those who fail to learn from history will be condemned to repeat it."
Someone once said to me how they had often thought they had learnt a lesson from the past, then found they made the same mistake again in the same situation.
Changing one's nature is very very hard.
What is noticable is the amount of comments feom Canadians there and on other news sources along the lines of "we get why you voted for Brexit" now.
Lets face it, if the EU can't do a trade deal with a country including Quebec, which the French regard as a virtual province of France, because of a small group of Frenchmen in a part of Belgium that the French regard as a virtual province of France (both only not being in France because of Britain forcing France to cede them), the EU are long term Fubar'ed.
There is a good 45% of the electorate that I would see as within their target group- the 15% who are genuine floaters open to protest parties, the 15% lean Tory floaters (who wouldn't consider Labour) and the 15% lean Labour floaters who wouldn't countenance Tory (i.e. people like me).
Nick Palmer posted the other day that Corbyn appeals to 25% of the electorate. I would strongly disagree...the Labour brand probably has an electoral floor of circa 25%; the Tories a little higher, 30% or so. Corbyn probably does bring a few percentage of the ideological left, but more than offset than the numbers he repulses.
It is, however, predicated on one assumption: the Lib Dems want to become large enough to form part of a Coalition Government again..
I see no evidence of such wishes, nor - and here I agree with the article - any evidence of the leadership needed to do so. Rather the reverse.. Harking for a return to the EU past is an impossible dream in my view..
So destined for non greatness..
There are of course some good sorts too like our own Verulamium of course.
Fortunately there wasnt an election there yesterday as most of the inhabitants are currently in London still trying to get home after the train service collapsed.
May gets this which is why UKIP are finished, alas Farron dosent.
The locals next May will give a great insight into how voters are taking to the Tezza-Jezza political landscape. The LibDems need to show bouncebackability. The signs are there, but I'm not yet convinced.
The other equivalents are Woking, Croydon, Wstford, Slough and Upminster which dont really pass muster to say the least.
I definitely agree that if Trump gets 17% of the African American vote he wins
http://www.politico.eu/article/australia-pivots-to-the-eu-ceta-free-trade-liberalization-europe/
Australian FM Julie Bishop went off script at the Canberra launch of the EU-Australia Leadership Forum to deliver unusually effusive praise for the bloc, calling it a “global force for peace,” and a “shining example of democracy and the rule of law.”
The fact that the U.K. had voted to leave the EU has added to a global “sense of unease,” Bishop said. “We have to face that the international rules-based order is under threat.”
The launch of the EU-Australia forum signals Australia is pivoting toward Europe, its traditional ally, after an extended period in which it focused on its nearer neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region.
“It is at times like these that we need to stand up and fight for the values we share, our commitment to the rule of law, our democratic heritage and the belief in the power of markets,” Bishop said. “Amidst all this, the EU-Australia relationship has deepened, broadened.”
“This momentum behind this EU and Australia relationship will continue,” Bishop said. “We look forward to negotiating an EU-Australia free-trade agreement.”
Fact is, there's nothing to be bitter or sour-grapsey about. The Conservatives won, comfortably. Worried? Well, clearly the Lib Dem machine is off intensive care but no, I'm not particularly worried either, not least because the sort of by-election the Lib Dems ran couldn't be replicated in a GE. And with Labour doing so disastrously, a Lib Dem revival would be more likely to hurt them than the Tories.
So no, it's advice well-meant. It's not good for the country to have no effective opposition.
Is CETA really a good deal? ; there being considerable objections to it from places other than Wallonia. Perhaps the Walloons are right to be suspicious.
Do we want multi-national companies to be able to use specially set up courts to override national sovereignty? I do not think so. Indeed much of what we object to about the EU would be re-imposed by CETA.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/09/22/opposition-to-the-canadian-eu-trade-deal-is-reaching-a-tippi
You must be on to something here.
So the Liberals are in majority Govt riding high in the polls and the Tories struggling for survival on 8 seats, right?
No - the situation is the reverse.
It has occurred to me that Trump is going to, by positioning himself outside the establishment and unambiguously right wing going to pick up quite a lot of afro Americans.
Many Africans find liberal racial guilt embarassing and a sign of weakness (compared with resoluteness of our ancestors) and are socially very conservative which is the opposite of clinton.
They may not like Trump but may respect him enough to vote for him.
In the 11 general elections since the resurgence of the early 1970s, the Lib/LD vote never dropped below 13.8% and sometimes rose as high as the mid-20s. Yet because of the electoral system, there was only one opportunity to enter a coalition. Now their national opinion poll ratings are at 7 or 8%, with not a flicker of recovery in nearly 18 months since the last election. They have lost their status as a major party, and they are struggling for precedence with two other minor national parties (while being dwarfed by the SNP in parliament). Unless there is a significant improvement in their support, the boundary changes could quite easily leave them with only 3 or 4 MPs after the next election.
They have to worry about survival, not continue fantasising about future coalitions.
Alas for you remainers we in the UK now have a blue peter, heres one I prepared earlier trade deal with Canada that we can just cut and paste UK for EU and sign the day after we leave.
Furthermore, the EU have just demonstrated to the Politicians and Electorate of Canada and similar countries how appalling the EU is and why we in the UK voted to get out, which will increase understanding and co-operation as we turn increasingly away from decaying and decadent Europe towards them.