Doubtless we shall have something new to talk about if and when this evidence comes to light. Question number 1: if Continuity Remain is both so popular and a priority, then why are the Lib Dems not yet polling in the mid-twenties?
I find that very encouraging. 50% of Remain voters would not, therefore, support a STOP BREXIT party in preference to their normal choice.
Good afternoon, everyon.
That also means that 77% are of the other persuasion
Not at all. Think about it. If an opinion poll found that 3% would vote for the "I Like Marmite" party, that hardly means that 97% hate Marmite!
On topic, thanks once again @david_herdson for an interesting thread header.
Seems to me there's a really significant problem facing the LibDems as a would-be partner in government. Either they are prepared to partner any other party, or they aren't.
If they aren't, then the non-left section of their potential voters wouldn't risk it, surely?
Yesterday I had had a lunch with nine friends and colleagues all who work in advertising and media and unusually the subject of Brexit came up. The anger was palpable. Much more so than I remember closer to the vote. Not a single person had voted for Brexit
Yeah, and that's why you lost.
Where do these Brexit morons live? Hartlepool isn't that big
Most of England and Wales, outside of Inner London.
Just as school kids have trips out to the country to look at fields perhaps Inner Londoners should have visits to Blueland - "Here is an industrial estate which has buildings called factories in which they make the things you buy in the shops and later we'll be visiting a housing estate where people own their own semi-detached house. Yes that's right Jemima people here actually own their own homes if you can believe it."
This is a supermarket, it sells amongst other things, breakfast cereal and milk, yes that's right Tarquin, here people don't pay almost five pounds to eat it in a cafe, some how they get by without 30 different types of milk and 20 different toppings. Do you see that trolley there ? that is what people do when they can't get their stuff delivered by Amazon Fresh. Yes, I know it involves moving away from the computer screen for a few minutes, somehow people manage.
Yet those services that Tarquin's dad created: the fintech app, or the cloud platform, they are what we export these days.
and ... ?
Someone with that sort of intellect and financial reach should be ensuring their children become useful citizens of the world, not conceited tossers eating overpriced breakfast cereal
Why does your choice of breakfast cereal make you a conceited twat?
I also suspect you'd find rather more of the bearded, tattooed hipsters voted Leave than you'd expect.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
I can't see how the SNP get into national debates when they only contest a small fraction of the seats.
The interesting thing to poll would be whether the Lib Dems on a Stop Brexit ticket underperform the hypothetical Stop Brexit party. If so the brand is still toxic.
You beat me to posting that thought.
In any case, even if a dedicated Stop Brexit party is formed that is not toxic, it is highly unlikely that it will get all of those 24% of those who voted in June who comprise this 50%. A 75% conversion rate would be amazing (brings it down about UKIP levels of support at UKIP peak ~ 18%).
''If I were the subject of sexual or any other harassment, I'd not go to Gloria Allred. She turns many people against her clients before their story is even heard.''
I reckon the American public are going to get a bit sick of people coming forward to claim something that may or may not have happened 20 years ago.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
And a perfectly valid one. Unless something dramatic changes between now and then (admittedly not impossible given the circumstances) then these three parties will not only be the dominant players in the current Parliament, but likely to remain so in the next one. Or, to put it another way, whilst the Prime Minister will only realistically come from one of two parties, Labour at least is unlikely to be able to return to power again without SNP support. It has therefore become a lot more relevant to the whole of the UK that, when the election campaign comes, we hear what the SNP have to say about everything.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
Doubtless we shall have something new to talk about if and when this evidence comes to light. Question number 1: if Continuity Remain is both so popular and a priority, then why are the Lib Dems not yet polling in the mid-twenties?
1) A theoretical STOP BREXIT party is not the same as the real-life Lib Dems. People poll differently to hypotheticals. 2) The question has been asked of REMAIN voters but not of LEAVE voters nor of those who did not vote in the referendum. It sounds obvious but it needs repeating: REMAIN voters are not[1] a representative sample of GE voters 3) Lumpiness. I assume the pro-EU vote in Scotland is being soaked up by the SNP, just as the antiEU vote is being soaked up by May in E&W.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
There are numerous factors, including number of MPs, vote at the previous election, and opinion polls.
It was the LibDem polling in the run up to 2015 that meant they got less coverage than in the 2010 election.
If you look back historically, then in 1992 and 1997 the rule was 4:4:3, and I think for 2001 and 2005 it was equality.
If the LibDems are in the high teens in the polls come the General Election I suspect they'll get something like 3:3:2, otherwise, probably it'll be 2:2:1.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
And a perfectly valid one. Unless something dramatic changes between now and then (admittedly not impossible given the circumstances) then these three parties will not only be the dominant players in the current Parliament, but likely to remain so in the next one. Or, to put it another way, whilst the Prime Minister will only realistically come from one of two parties, Labour at least is unlikely to be able to return to power again without SNP support. It has therefore become a lot more relevant to the whole of the UK that, when the election campaign comes, we hear what the SNP have to say about everything.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
That might be affected though by the fact the SNP would have only 59 candidates in the field and have no prospect of forming a Government. Beyond that coverage of the LibDems in England & Wales would be more limited than at any time since the 1960s.
Has any research been done on the average intelligence of leave v remain voters?.
What difference would it make if there had, are you proposing some sort of reduced voting status for "stupid people" ?
I wasn't suggesting anything, I merely asked if there had been any research. I assume you must have voted to leave, judging from the immediacy of your response.
Nope.
Although that is because you are in the Philippines, and didn't organise a postal ballot, no?
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
There are numerous factors, including number of MPs, vote at the previous election, and opinion polls.
It was the LibDem polling in the run up to 2015 that meant they got less coverage than in the 2010 election.
If you look back historically, then in 1992 and 1997 the rule was 4:4:3, and I think for 2001 and 2005 it was equality.
If the LibDems are in the high teens in the polls come the General Election I suspect they'll get something like 3:3:2, otherwise, probably it'll be 2:2:1.
But if opinion polls were a factor at all , account would need to be taken of their findings throughout the Parliament rather than - say - the 12 months prior to Polling Day. Given that we are now almost 30% through this Parliament, it would not be a factor likely to weigh in their favour.
If I were the subject of sexual or any other harassment, I'd not go to Gloria Allred. She turns many people against her clients before their story is even heard.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
And a perfectly valid one. Unless something dramatic changes between now and then (admittedly not impossible given the circumstances) then these three parties will not only be the dominant players in the current Parliament, but likely to remain so in the next one. Or, to put it another way, whilst the Prime Minister will only realistically come from one of two parties, Labour at least is unlikely to be able to return to power again without SNP support. It has therefore become a lot more relevant to the whole of the UK that, when the election campaign comes, we hear what the SNP have to say about everything.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
I would guess the SNP will probably lost 5-15 seats at the next GE, mostly on the back of Unionist tactical voting. The borders seats should all fall to the Tories, as should one of the Edinburgh ones, while Edinburgh West and Fife should go to the LDs, and there should be a couple that go Labour too.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
And a perfectly valid one. Unless something dramatic changes between now and then (admittedly not impossible given the circumstances) then these three parties will not only be the dominant players in the current Parliament, but likely to remain so in the next one. Or, to put it another way, whilst the Prime Minister will only realistically come from one of two parties, Labour at least is unlikely to be able to return to power again without SNP support. It has therefore become a lot more relevant to the whole of the UK that, when the election campaign comes, we hear what the SNP have to say about everything.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
I would guess the SNP will probably lost 5-15 seats at the next GE, mostly on the back of Unionist tactical voting. The borders seats should all fall to the Tories, as should one of the Edinburgh ones, while Edinburgh West and Fife should go to the LDs, and there should be a couple that go Labour too.
I think that is very possible , and would not be surprised to see the SNP vote share falling back to circa 42/43%.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
There are numerous factors, including number of MPs, vote at the previous election, and opinion polls.
It was the LibDem polling in the run up to 2015 that meant they got less coverage than in the 2010 election.
If you look back historically, then in 1992 and 1997 the rule was 4:4:3, and I think for 2001 and 2005 it was equality.
If the LibDems are in the high teens in the polls come the General Election I suspect they'll get something like 3:3:2, otherwise, probably it'll be 2:2:1.
But if opinion polls were a factor at all , account would need to be taken of their findings throughout the Parliament rather than - say - the 12 months prior to Polling Day. Given that we are now almost 30% through this Parliament, it would not be a factor likely to weigh in their favour.
Opinion polls are a factor, it's not an "if".
But it's all a bit hand-wavy. If the LibDems get 20% in the local elections in 2019 and are polling a similar amount, they will get similar coverage to 2015.
''If I were the subject of sexual or any other harassment, I'd not go to Gloria Allred. She turns many people against her clients before their story is even heard.''
I reckon the American public are going to get a bit sick of people coming forward to claim something that may or may not have happened 20 years ago.
not really. Polls show most people believe the women over a self confessed sexual assaulter
Yesterday I had had a lunch with nine friends and colleagues all who work in advertising and media and unusually the subject of Brexit came up. The anger was palpable. Much more so than I remember closer to the vote. Not a single person had voted for Brexit
Yeah, and that's why you lost.
Where do these Brexit morons live? Hartlepool isn't that big
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
And a perfectly valid one. Unless something dramatic changes between now and then (admittedly not impossible given the circumstances) then these three parties will not only be the dominant players in the current Parliament, but likely to remain so in the next one. Or, to put it another way, whilst the Prime Minister will only realistically come from one of two parties, Labour at least is unlikely to be able to return to power again without SNP support. It has therefore become a lot more relevant to the whole of the UK that, when the election campaign comes, we hear what the SNP have to say about everything.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
I would guess the SNP will probably lost 5-15 seats at the next GE, mostly on the back of Unionist tactical voting. The borders seats should all fall to the Tories, as should one of the Edinburgh ones, while Edinburgh West and Fife should go to the LDs, and there should be a couple that go Labour too.
Hmmm... five at a push, fifteen seems way too ambitious. First, the SNP vote shows no sign of weakening. Second, presumably there was no shortage of Unionist tactical voting last time, and a fat lot of good it did. Third, boundary change.
Yesterday I had had a lunch with nine friends and colleagues all who work in advertising and media and unusually the subject of Brexit came up. The anger was palpable. Much more so than I remember closer to the vote. Not a single person had voted for Brexit
Yeah, and that's why you lost.
Where do these Brexit morons live? Hartlepool isn't that big
Most of England and Wales, outside of Inner London.
Just as school kids have trips out to the country to look at fields perhaps Inner Londoners should have visits to Blueland - "Here is an industrial estate which has buildings called factories in which they make the things you buy in the shops and later we'll be visiting a housing estate where people own their own semi-detached house. Yes that's right Jemima people here actually own their own homes if you can believe it."
This is a supermarket, it sells amongst other things, breakfast cereal and milk, yes that's right Tarquin, here people don't pay almost five pounds to eat it in a cafe, some how they get by without 30 different types of milk and 20 different toppings. Do you see that trolley there ? that is what people do when they can't get their stuff delivered by Amazon Fresh. Yes, I know it involves moving away from the computer screen for a few minutes, somehow people manage.
Yet those services that Tarquin's dad created: the fintech app, or the cloud platform, they are what we export these days.
Or perhaps Tarquin's dad has a highly paid non-job in a quango or is one of Roger's media and advertising pals.
What proportion of the British workforce would you estimate are wealth creating ?
A vague question and includes broad groupings I know.
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..
So destined for non greatness..
It depends on your view of politics.
Politics is about power, and getting things done. On that basis it is easy to conclude that the LibDems haven't been successful for many decades.
However politics is also about promoting ideas and seeing them become policy. Farage and UKIP have shown how holding conventional power isn't essential to achieve this.
And when you look back across the history of the LibDems, the party has very often been the champion of ideas that have eventually become mainstream (e.g abortion reform, LGBT rights, green politics, devolution) or probably will do so relatively soon (e.g. votes at 16, soft drug liberalisation). If you look back across the post-WWII years the LibDems have contributed at least as much to implemented policy as have the big parties. It isn't a coincidence that the word "liberal" is often attached to UK government policy since the 1960s.
On this basis liberalism has (at least until June) been very successful indeed. It's just that, because their ideas and philosophy are shared broadly rather than deeply, Britain's political system has (ex 2010-15) worked to exclude them from holding power directly.
I think that hits the nail on the head.
David Herdson wrote: "that elections are means to an end; to the exercise of power, not an end in themselves." For some Lib Dems, of course they are an end in themselves. I agree they shouldn't be, but the real end can be the exercise of influence rather than the exercise of power. As you say, that's been the way in the past with the Liberals and Lib Dems, and actually by-election gains have often been a very powerful element in that process.
He also referred to "the disagreeable business of actually holding power and being able to do something with it". But in coalition, I think the Lib Dems more often gave the impression of being in office but not in power (to quote Norman Lamont).
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
And a perfectly valid one. Unless something dramatic changes between now and then (admittedly not impossible given the circumstances) then these three parties will not only be the dominant players in the current Parliament, but likely to remain so in the next one. Or, to put it another way, whilst the Prime Minister will only realistically come from one of two parties, Labour at least is unlikely to be able to return to power again without SNP support. It has therefore become a lot more relevant to the whole of the UK that, when the election campaign comes, we hear what the SNP have to say about everything.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
I would guess the SNP will probably lost 5-15 seats at the next GE, mostly on the back of Unionist tactical voting. The borders seats should all fall to the Tories, as should one of the Edinburgh ones, while Edinburgh West and Fife should go to the LDs, and there should be a couple that go Labour too.
Hmmm... five at a push, fifteen seems way too ambitious. First, the SNP vote shows no sign of weakening. Second, presumably there was no shortage of Unionist tactical voting last time, and a fat lot of good it did. Third, boundary change.
Look at the last Holyrood elections, the SNP lost constituency seats to Unionist tactical voting, despite their vote share actually rising 1.1%.
Edit to add: the SNP, of course, took a whole bunch of constituency seats off Labour in Glasgow.
Yesterday I had had a lunch with nine friends and colleagues all who work in advertising and media and unusually the subject of Brexit came up. The anger was palpable. Much more so than I remember closer to the vote. Not a single person had voted for Brexit
Yeah, and that's why you lost.
Where do these Brexit morons live? Hartlepool isn't that big
Most of England and Wales, outside of Inner London.
Just as school kids have trips out to the country to look at fields perhaps Inner Londoners should have visits to Blueland - "Here is an industrial estate which has buildings called factories in which they make the things you buy in the shops and later we'll be visiting a housing estate where people own their own semi-detached house. Yes that's right Jemima people here actually own their own homes if you can believe it."
This is a supermarket, it sells amongst other things, breakfast cereal and milk, yes that's right Tarquin, here people don't pay almost five pounds to eat it in a cafe, some how they get by without 30 different types of milk and 20 different toppings. Do you see that trolley there ? that is what people do when they can't get their stuff delivered by Amazon Fresh. Yes, I know it involves moving away from the computer screen for a few minutes, somehow people manage.
Yet those services that Tarquin's dad created: the fintech app, or the cloud platform, they are what we export these days.
Or perhaps Tarquin's dad has a highly paid non-job in a quango or is one of Roger's media and advertising pals.
What proportion of the British workforce would you estimate are wealth creating ?
A vague question and includes broad groupings I know.
Roger's advertising mates are a big export industry for the UK. Even French agency Publicis employs more people in the UK than France.
We should all be wary about characterizing those we disagree with as somehow unworthy.
Has any research been done on the average intelligence of leave v remain voters?.
What difference would it make if there had, are you proposing some sort of reduced voting status for "stupid people" ?
I wasn't suggesting anything, I merely asked if there had been any research. I assume you must have voted to leave, judging from the immediacy of your response.
Nope.
Although that is because you are in the Philippines, and didn't organise a postal ballot, no?
Or more exactly because my location is so remote it takes DHL 4-5 weeks to deliver here from the UK and more like 10 weeks for the standard air mail. There wasn't the faintest chance of getting an application in an a form back, since I wasn't registered to vote.
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..
So destined for non greatness..
It depends on your view of politics.
Politics is about power, and getting things done. On that basis it is easy to conclude that the LibDems haven't been successful for many decades.
However politics is also about promoting ideas and seeing them become policy. Farage and UKIP have shown how holding conventional power isn't essential to achieve this.
And when you look back across the history of the LibDems, the party has very often been the champion of ideas that have eventually become mainstream (e.g abortion reform, LGBT rights, green politics, devolution) or probably will do so relatively soon (e.g. votes at 16, soft drug liberalisation). If you look back across the post-WWII years the LibDems have contributed at least as much to implemented policy as have the big parties. It isn't a coincidence that the word "liberal" is often attached to UK government policy since the 1960s.
On this basis liberalism has (at least until June) been very successful indeed. It's just that, because their ideas and philosophy are shared broadly rather than deeply, Britain's political system has (ex 2010-15) worked to exclude them from holding power directly.
I think that hits the nail on the head.
David Herdson wrote: "that elections are means to an end; to the exercise of power, not an end in themselves." For some Lib Dems, of course they are an end in themselves. I agree they shouldn't be, but the real end can be the exercise of influence rather than the exercise of power. As you say, that's been the way in the past with the Liberals and Lib Dems, and actually by-election gains have often been a very powerful element in that process.
He also referred to "the disagreeable business of actually holding power and being able to do something with it". But in coalition, I think the Lib Dems more often gave the impression of being in office but not in power (to quote Norman Lamont).
Lib Dems that want to exercise power join the Conservatives... see Cameron, Osborne, TSE
Yesterday I had had a lunch with nine friends and colleagues all who work in advertising and media and unusually the subject of Brexit came up. The anger was palpable. Much more so than I remember closer to the vote. Not a single person had voted for Brexit
Yeah, and that's why you lost.
Where do these Brexit morons live? Hartlepool isn't that big
Most of England and Wales, outside of Inner London.
Just as school kids have trips out to the country to look at fields perhaps Inner Londoners should have visits to Blueland - "Here is an industrial estate which has buildings called factories in which they make the things you buy in the shops and later we'll be visiting a housing estate where people own their own semi-detached house. Yes that's right Jemima people here actually own their own homes if you can believe it."
This is a supermarket, it sells amongst other things, breakfast cereal and milk, yes that's right Tarquin, here people don't pay almost five pounds to eat it in a cafe, some how they get by without 30 different types of milk and 20 different toppings. Do you see that trolley there ? that is what people do when they can't get their stuff delivered by Amazon Fresh. Yes, I know it involves moving away from the computer screen for a few minutes, somehow people manage.
Yet those services that Tarquin's dad created: the fintech app, or the cloud platform, they are what we export these days.
Or perhaps Tarquin's dad has a highly paid non-job in a quango or is one of Roger's media and advertising pals.
What proportion of the British workforce would you estimate are wealth creating ?
A vague question and includes broad groupings I know.
Roger's advertising mates are a big export industry for the UK. Even French agency Publicis employs more people in the UK than France.
We should all be wary about characterizing those we disagree with as somehow unworthy.
Few things have done as much harm to the British economy as advertising with its "Don't put it off, put it on" and "Cos I'm worth it" memes.
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..
So destined for non greatness..
It depends on your view of politics.
Politics is about power, and getting things done. On that basis it is easy to conclude that the LibDems haven't been successful for many decades.
However politics is also about promoting ideas and seeing them become policy. Farage and UKIP have shown how holding conventional power isn't essential to achieve this.
And when you look back across the history of the LibDems, the party has very often been the champion of ideas that have eventually become mainstream (e.g abortion reform, LGBT rights, green politics, devolution) or probably will do so relatively soon (e.g. votes at 16, soft drug liberalisation). If you look back across the post-WWII years the LibDems have contributed at least as much to implemented policy as have the big parties. It isn't a coincidence that the word "liberal" is often attached to UK government policy since the 1960s.
On this basis liberalism has (at least until June) been very successful indeed. It's just that, because their ideas and philosophy are shared broadly rather than deeply, Britain's political system has (ex 2010-15) worked to exclude them from holding power directly.
I think that hits the nail on the head.
David Herdson wrote: "that elections are means to an end; to the exercise of power, not an end in themselves." For some Lib Dems, of course they are an end in themselves. I agree they shouldn't be, but the real end can be the exercise of influence rather than the exercise of power. As you say, that's been the way in the past with the Liberals and Lib Dems, and actually by-election gains have often been a very powerful element in that process.
He also referred to "the disagreeable business of actually holding power and being able to do something with it". But in coalition, I think the Lib Dems more often gave the impression of being in office but not in power (to quote Norman Lamont).
Lib Dems that want to exercise power join the Conservatives...
Yes. Or Labour, taking a longer view.
[Edit: Though, to be fair, Nick Clegg would never have become a government minister if he'd adopted that approach.]
Oh please, please let there be a stop Brexit party formed.
It would be absolutely hilarious to see it split the 'progressive' vote and then be roundly humiliated in a general election.
Remember these:
' The Pro-Euro Conservative Party was a British political party announced by John Stevens and Brendan Donnelly in February 1999, formed to contest the 1999 European Parliament Elections. The founders were Members of the European Parliament who had resigned from the UK Conservative Party in protest at its anti-euro stance. Their reported aim was to replace the Eurosceptic Conservative leadership of William Hague with that of Kenneth Clarke. Stevens later said that they had intended to push Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Chris Patten and other pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party into "an SDP-style breakaway, in combination with the Liberal Democrats".
The party stood 84 candidates in the European Parliament elections, receiving 138,097 votes, or 1.4% of the vote and no seats. In the same election the United Kingdom Independence Party, which campaigns for withdrawal from the European Union, received just under 7% of the vote and three seats in the European Parliament.
John Stevens received 3.8% of the vote as the PECP candidate in the 1999 Kensington & Chelsea by-election against Michael Portillo. The party announced that it planned to change its name after the by-election due to voter hostility.
In December 2001 the Pro-Euro Conservative Party disbanded, expressing disappointment at failing to persuade pro-European "grandees" to leave the Conservative Party and cooperate with the Liberal Democrats. Leader John Stevens called the Conservative Party under their then newly elected leader Iain Duncan Smith "a cancer of extremism and xenophobia". He was one of approximately 20 supporters who joined the Liberal Democrats and urged the remainder of the party's claimed 500 members to follow suit. '
Lib Dems that want to exercise power join the Conservatives...
Yes. Or Labour, taking a longer view.
[Edit: Though, to be fair, Nick Clegg would never have become a government minister if he'd adopted that approach.]
I don't get the impression that Clegg was looking for power, he appeared to be enjoying the position of being able to be morally superior and sanctimonious to both major parties and then unexpectedly got the opportunity to be in a coalition, and for the most part was surprised to find he enjoyed it.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
And a perfectly valid one. Unless something dramatic changes between now and then (admittedly not impossible given the circumstances) then these three parties will not only be the dominant players in the current Parliament, but likely to remain so in the next one. Or, to put it another way, whilst the Prime Minister will only realistically come from one of two parties, Labour at least is unlikely to be able to return to power again without SNP support. It has therefore become a lot more relevant to the whole of the UK that, when the election campaign comes, we hear what the SNP have to say about everything.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
I would guess the SNP will probably lost 5-15 seats at the next GE, mostly on the back of Unionist tactical voting. The borders seats should all fall to the Tories, as should one of the Edinburgh ones, while Edinburgh West and Fife should go to the LDs, and there should be a couple that go Labour too.
Hmmm... five at a push, fifteen seems way too ambitious. First, the SNP vote shows no sign of weakening. Second, presumably there was no shortage of Unionist tactical voting last time, and a fat lot of good it did. Third, boundary change.
Holyrood elections did provide some evidence of SNP support falling back a bit. On the basis of the constituency vote their support was 46.5% - compared with almost 50% a year earlier for Westminster. In the past, the SNP has tended to overperform at Holyrood in relation to Westminster so ,on that basis, I suspect the SNP would have struggled to poll 45% had a Westminster election taken place last May. I don't think we should assume anything about new Boundaries until they have been approved. Personally , I am not expecting that to happen!
1. Ignore referendum and continue as now. 2. Leave, but do a deal that's so close that we might as well have stayed. 3. EEA, but add other EU regs back in again.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
There are numerous factors, including number of MPs, vote at the previous election, and opinion polls.
It was the LibDem polling in the run up to 2015 that meant they got less coverage than in the 2010 election.
If you look back historically, then in 1992 and 1997 the rule was 4:4:3, and I think for 2001 and 2005 it was equality.
If the LibDems are in the high teens in the polls come the General Election I suspect they'll get something like 3:3:2, otherwise, probably it'll be 2:2:1.
But if opinion polls were a factor at all , account would need to be taken of their findings throughout the Parliament rather than - say - the 12 months prior to Polling Day. Given that we are now almost 30% through this Parliament, it would not be a factor likely to weigh in their favour.
Opinion polls are a factor, it's not an "if".
But it's all a bit hand-wavy. If the LibDems get 20% in the local elections in 2019 and are polling a similar amount, they will get similar coverage to 2015.
Thanks for that document. I have just read it.Having done so , it seems highly unlikely that a party will obtain much consideration from Ofcom in respect of a last minute surge as Polling Day approaches - ie the last 12 months of the Parliament. Performance at the previous General Election will clearly weigh heavily.
I had already said that prior to the vote. I would have believed it a mistake and actually would have been confident in.my predictions that the EU was converging so fast that we would have been forced out far more painfully within a decade. But I would not personally have continue to campaign as I would have considered it disrespectful to try to revisit the question for a decade or so.
Is wanting to stay in the single market not in some sense revisiting the question? The people voted out in response to a disreputable campaign which was centred on immigration. If you think we can pick and chose which bits of the EU we should leave your democratic moral conscience is no purer than anyone else's.
If as you say the leave campaign was centred on immigration, it is reasonable to conclude that people voted out because they wanted to change immigration numbers, something we can't do with four freedoms, and ergo something we can't do in the single market.
Given that the win was by 51.9%, unless any particular issue was so great as to be certainly a deciding factor for more than 96% of those who voted Leave, citing that particular issue as being the expressed will of the people is not supported.
"Brexit means closing the borders" "Brexit means leaving the Single Market" "Brexit means blue passports" "Brexit means leaving all our existing treaties with everyone because all infringe on our sovereignty" "Brexit means whatever I favour" ...
No. As our new PM has said so often, "Brexit means Brexit". Nothing more. Nothing less. If we end up leaving the European Union, we have achieved what was voted for, no matter whether we're in the EEA, in EFTA, with Swiss-style bilateral treaties, in a Customs Union, with a CETA-style treaty, in NAFTA somehow, in the WTO with no other treaties, outside the WTO, or in a personal union with North Korea, practicing juche.
What are you trying to say? That if you cherry-pick only close referendums, it isn't that close as some? How do you define a close referendum? if it's "a referendum with a winning margin of equal or less to the referendum I'm using to make my point", then of course that particular referendum will be the largest margin one.
I thought you were a scientist. Define your terms and justify them, man.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
And a perfectly valid one. Unless something dramatic changes between now and then (admittedly not impossible given the circumstances) then these three parties will not only be the dominant players in the current Parliament, but likely to remain so in the next one. Or, to put it another way, whilst the Prime Minister will only realistically come from one of two parties, Labour at least is unlikely to be able to return to power again without SNP support. It has therefore become a lot more relevant to the whole of the UK that, when the election campaign comes, we hear what the SNP have to say about everything.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
I would guess the SNP will probably lost 5-15 seats at the next GE, mostly on the back of Unionist tactical voting. The borders seats should all fall to the Tories, as should one of the Edinburgh ones, while Edinburgh West and Fife should go to the LDs, and there should be a couple that go Labour too.
I think that is very possible , and would not be surprised to see the SNP vote share falling back to circa 42/43%.
Is it not the case that because of their very weak performance in 2015 the LibDems will be denied the same level of coverage by the BBC and other broadcasters in 2020? Fewer PPBs too!
I think that depends on their opinion polling in the next few years.
I don't think it does - on that basis UKIP would have been entitled to at least the same coverage as the LibDems back in 2015. I am pretty sure the key determinant is performance at the previous General Election.
You may have a point; if the 2020 debates take place, they’re likely to be between Con, Lab & SNP. - Now there's a thought...
And a perfectly valid one. Unless something dramatic changes between now and then (admittedly not impossible given the circumstances) then these three parties will not only be the dominant players in the current Parliament, but likely to remain so in the next one. Or, to put it another way, whilst the Prime Minister will only realistically come from one of two parties, Labour at least is unlikely to be able to return to power again without SNP support. It has therefore become a lot more relevant to the whole of the UK that, when the election campaign comes, we hear what the SNP have to say about everything.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
I would guess the SNP will probably lost 5-15 seats at the next GE, mostly on the back of Unionist tactical voting. The borders seats should all fall to the Tories, as should one of the Edinburgh ones, while Edinburgh West and Fife should go to the LDs, and there should be a couple that go Labour too.
I think that is very possible , and would not be surprised to see the SNP vote share falling back to circa 42/43%.
that is a keeper, will be embarrassing come 2020
Given the SNP won 50% in 2015, 40% to 60% must surely be the best/worst scenarios.
One I don't think the boundary changes are going through.
Two I think the SNP vote will be up not down for the simple reasons that Labour under Corbyn will be weaker not stronger, the May Tory honeymoon will be long gone and they will do not much better than 2015 and while the Libs will be a bit stronger they are uncompetitive just about everywhere.
Comments
Seems to me there's a really significant problem facing the LibDems as a would-be partner in government. Either they are prepared to partner any other party, or they aren't.
If they aren't, then the non-left section of their potential voters wouldn't risk it, surely?
I also suspect you'd find rather more of the bearded, tattooed hipsters voted Leave than you'd expect.
In any case, even if a dedicated Stop Brexit party is formed that is not toxic, it is highly unlikely that it will get all of those 24% of those who voted in June who comprise this 50%. A 75% conversion rate would be amazing (brings it down about UKIP levels of support at UKIP peak ~ 18%).
Hard Brexit = Default WTO.
That’s my interpretation at least.
I reckon the American public are going to get a bit sick of people coming forward to claim something that may or may not have happened 20 years ago.
I doubt that Mrs May would be particularly upset at this prospect...
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2015/major-parties-consultation
They use both past elections and opinion polls, apparently.
Its seems Trumpism is catching.
2) The question has been asked of REMAIN voters but not of LEAVE voters nor of those who did not vote in the referendum. It sounds obvious but it needs repeating: REMAIN voters are not[1] a representative sample of GE voters
3) Lumpiness. I assume the pro-EU vote in Scotland is being soaked up by the SNP, just as the antiEU vote is being soaked up by May in E&W.
[1] weirdly enough, nor are LEAVE voters...
It was the LibDem polling in the run up to 2015 that meant they got less coverage than in the 2010 election.
If you look back historically, then in 1992 and 1997 the rule was 4:4:3, and I think for 2001 and 2005 it was equality.
If the LibDems are in the high teens in the polls come the General Election I suspect they'll get something like 3:3:2, otherwise, probably it'll be 2:2:1.
I would interpret hard Brexit as being the WTO option which is not on the cards.
Hard/soft Brexit is incredibly simplistic.
But it's all a bit hand-wavy. If the LibDems get 20% in the local elections in 2019 and are polling a similar amount, they will get similar coverage to 2015.
If you want to understand how the weightings are calculated, here's the Ofcom review ahead of GE2015 - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/72142/major_parties_statement.pdf
REMAIN 16.1 million
What proportion of the British workforce would you estimate are wealth creating ?
A vague question and includes broad groupings I know.
David Herdson wrote: "that elections are means to an end; to the exercise of power, not an end in themselves." For some Lib Dems, of course they are an end in themselves. I agree they shouldn't be, but the real end can be the exercise of influence rather than the exercise of power. As you say, that's been the way in the past with the Liberals and Lib Dems, and actually by-election gains have often been a very powerful element in that process.
He also referred to "the disagreeable business of actually holding power and being able to do something with it". But in coalition, I think the Lib Dems more often gave the impression of being in office but not in power (to quote Norman Lamont).
Edit to add: the SNP, of course, took a whole bunch of constituency seats off Labour in Glasgow.
F1: P3 kicks off in 12 minutes or so.
Edited extra bit: Toro Rosso have confirmed they're keeping Sainz and Kvyat for next year.
We should all be wary about characterizing those we disagree with as somehow unworthy.
It would be absolutely hilarious to see it split the 'progressive' vote and then be roundly humiliated in a general election.
[Edit: Though, to be fair, Nick Clegg would never have become a government minister if he'd adopted that approach.]
' The Pro-Euro Conservative Party was a British political party announced by John Stevens and Brendan Donnelly in February 1999, formed to contest the 1999 European Parliament Elections. The founders were Members of the European Parliament who had resigned from the UK Conservative Party in protest at its anti-euro stance. Their reported aim was to replace the Eurosceptic Conservative leadership of William Hague with that of Kenneth Clarke. Stevens later said that they had intended to push Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Chris Patten and other pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party into "an SDP-style breakaway, in combination with the Liberal Democrats".
The party stood 84 candidates in the European Parliament elections, receiving 138,097 votes, or 1.4% of the vote and no seats. In the same election the United Kingdom Independence Party, which campaigns for withdrawal from the European Union, received just under 7% of the vote and three seats in the European Parliament.
John Stevens received 3.8% of the vote as the PECP candidate in the 1999 Kensington & Chelsea by-election against Michael Portillo. The party announced that it planned to change its name after the by-election due to voter hostility.
In December 2001 the Pro-Euro Conservative Party disbanded, expressing disappointment at failing to persuade pro-European "grandees" to leave the Conservative Party and cooperate with the Liberal Democrats. Leader John Stevens called the Conservative Party under their then newly elected leader Iain Duncan Smith "a cancer of extremism and xenophobia". He was one of approximately 20 supporters who joined the Liberal Democrats and urged the remainder of the party's claimed 500 members to follow suit. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Euro_Conservative_Party
I don't think we should assume anything about new Boundaries until they have been approved. Personally , I am not expecting that to happen!
What would a Stop Brexit party stand for?
1. Ignore referendum and continue as now.
2. Leave, but do a deal that's so close that we might as well have stayed.
3. EEA, but add other EU regs back in again.
It would be split before it began.
new thread
"Brexit means closing the borders"
"Brexit means leaving the Single Market"
"Brexit means blue passports"
"Brexit means leaving all our existing treaties with everyone because all infringe on our sovereignty"
"Brexit means whatever I favour"
...
No. As our new PM has said so often, "Brexit means Brexit". Nothing more. Nothing less. If we end up leaving the European Union, we have achieved what was voted for, no matter whether we're in the EEA, in EFTA, with Swiss-style bilateral treaties, in a Customs Union, with a CETA-style treaty, in NAFTA somehow, in the WTO with no other treaties, outside the WTO, or in a personal union with North Korea, practicing juche.
That if you cherry-pick only close referendums, it isn't that close as some?
How do you define a close referendum? if it's "a referendum with a winning margin of equal or less to the referendum I'm using to make my point", then of course that particular referendum will be the largest margin one.
I thought you were a scientist. Define your terms and justify them, man.
One I don't think the boundary changes are going through.
Two I think the SNP vote will be up not down for the simple reasons that Labour under Corbyn will be weaker not stronger, the May Tory honeymoon will be long gone and they will do not much better than 2015 and while the Libs will be a bit stronger they are uncompetitive just about everywhere.
Opinion polls thus far back my view.