I think people are wrong to assume that voting behaviour at the next election will be determined by attitudes to Brexit. It will - at most - be one issue , and I suspect that for most voters it will not be particulary salient.
It is the prism through which all other issues will be viewed.
Economy stagnant? Brexit
Immigration? Brexit
NHS funding? Brexit
Political anoraks might do that , but I have a strong sense that the public at large is already sick to death of the issue -never mind in May 2020.
If they're sick to death of it there's only one way out - vote for a party that will call the whole thing off. If we press on it will dominate our politics indefinitely.
No - I think people will want to focus on other issues.
I think people are wrong to assume that voting behaviour at the next election will be determined by attitudes to Brexit. It will - at most - be one issue , and I suspect that for most voters it will not be particulary salient.
It is the prism through which all other issues will be viewed.
Economy stagnant? Brexit
Immigration? Brexit
NHS funding? Brexit
Political anoraks might do that , but I have a strong sense that the public at large is already sick to death of the issue -never mind in May 2020.
If they're sick to death of it there's only one way out - vote for a party that will call the whole thing off. If we press on it will dominate our politics indefinitely.
Still in the denial phase. The way out is to get on with it and be a normal country again.
I think people are wrong to assume that voting behaviour at the next election will be determined by attitudes to Brexit. It will - at most - be one issue , and I suspect that for most voters it will not be particulary salient.
It is the prism through which all other issues will be viewed.
I think people are wrong to assume that voting behaviour at the next election will be determined by attitudes to Brexit. It will - at most - be one issue , and I suspect that for most voters it will not be particulary salient.
It is the prism through which all other issues will be viewed.
Economy stagnant? Brexit
Immigration? Brexit
NHS funding? Brexit
Political anoraks might do that , but I have a strong sense that the public at large is already sick to death of the issue -never mind in May 2020.
If they're sick to death of it there's only one way out - vote for a party that will call the whole thing off. If we press on it will dominate our politics indefinitely.
Still in the denial phase. The way out is to get on with it and be a normal country again.
Most normal European countries are reconciled to their membership of the EU. I'd be happy to get back to that.
I think people are wrong to assume that voting behaviour at the next election will be determined by attitudes to Brexit. It will - at most - be one issue , and I suspect that for most voters it will not be particulary salient.
It is the prism through which all other issues will be viewed.
Economy stagnant? Brexit
Immigration? Brexit
NHS funding? Brexit
Political anoraks might do that , but I have a strong sense that the public at large is already sick to death of the issue -never mind in May 2020.
If they're sick to death of it there's only one way out - vote for a party that will call the whole thing off. If we press on it will dominate our politics indefinitely.
Still in the denial phase. The way out is to get on with it and be a normal country again.
Most normal European countries are reconciled to their membership of the EU. I'd be happy to get back to that.
Get back to that? We were never reconciled with our membership.
I think people are wrong to assume that voting behaviour at the next election will be determined by attitudes to Brexit. It will - at most - be one issue , and I suspect that for most voters it will not be particulary salient.
It is the prism through which all other issues will be viewed.
Economy stagnant? Brexit
Immigration? Brexit
NHS funding? Brexit
Political anoraks might do that , but I have a strong sense that the public at large is already sick to death of the issue -never mind in May 2020.
If they're sick to death of it there's only one way out - vote for a party that will call the whole thing off. If we press on it will dominate our politics indefinitely.
Still in the denial phase. The way out is to get on with it and be a normal country again.
Most normal European countries are reconciled to their membership of the EU. I'd be happy to get back to that.
Get back to that? We were never reconciled with our membership.
Prior to Jacques Delors' seduction of the Labour movement it was never such a toxic issue on the right.
On Topic. The article would be fair enough in normal times but things have changed. Firstly, The Labour Leadership & most of the members have abandoned Mainstream Politics, The PLP havent but theres little they can do without developing a reckless courage they havent shown so far. Secondly, Polls on the major Parties are usually a good predictor of Election performance. Labour are currently averaging 13 or 14% behind The Government, at a time when The Official Opposition is usually ahead. Everything suggests that Labour are going to be crushed in 2020, at some point even loyal voteres are going to give up on them & look for something else.
I think people are wrong to assume that voting behaviour at the next election will be determined by attitudes to Brexit. It will - at most - be one issue , and I suspect that for most voters it will not be particulary salient.
It is the prism through which all other issues will be viewed.
Economy stagnant? Brexit
Immigration? Brexit
NHS funding? Brexit
Political anoraks might do that , but I have a strong sense that the public at large is already sick to death of the issue -never mind in May 2020.
If they're sick to death of it there's only one way out - vote for a party that will call the whole thing off. If we press on it will dominate our politics indefinitely.
Still in the denial phase. The way out is to get on with it and be a normal country again.
Most normal European countries are reconciled to their membership of the EU. I'd be happy to get back to that.
Move to the Netherlands? Britain's never really been reconciled.
On Topic. The article would be fair enough in normal times but things have changed. Firstly, The Labour Leadership & most of the members have abandoned Mainstream Politics, The PLP havent but theres little they can do without developing a reckless courage they havent shown so far. Secondly, Polls on the major Parties are usually a good predictor of Election performance. Labour are currently averaging 13 or 14% behind The Government, at a time when The Official Opposition is usually ahead. Everything suggests that Labour are going to be crushed in 2020, at some point even loyal voteres are going to give up on them & look for something else.
Thank you, that hits a number of points with some accuracy and in a taught way that I couldn't do. The only issue that I'd take with it is the word reckless. There's an absence of courage, reckless or otherwise. More a hope that something will turn up. For what it's worth, I still think that won't lead to Labour meltdown.
The London cross tab from that Yougov poll shows 63% to 28% think that leaving the EU is the wrong decision. Labour has a very tough choice to make. So far they show every sign of leaving their metropolitan flank open to an attack from a pro-EU position.
The problem is, they can hardly help but leave one flank or the other wide open to attack. Join the Remainian Crusade and they're entirely reliant on Ukip and the Tories failing to slice them to pieces. Hang back from doing so and they risk a sustained assault from the Liberal Democrats in London.
It really depends on which threat they perceive to be the most dangerous. Of course, dithering about in the middle and being anonymous could end up bringing the wrath of voters in both of these categories down upon their heads at the same time. Then we might really get an opportunity to test if Labour's floor of support in England is 27%, 25%, or something lower. This helpful chart suggests that Labour's 2015 vote is already splintering in favour of several opponents with mutually conflicting aims and bases of strength:
As I've been saying for some time, Labour is everybody's primary enemy in British party politics. It must fight battles that it is lamentably ill-equipped for on multiple fronts against the Tories, Lib Dems, Ukip, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and has displayed varying degrees of weakness with respect to them all. All that Labour has to fall back on is the 10-15% of the electorate seriously willing to entertain a Far Left Government, working age people who live off benefits, lower income BAME voters who reflexively reject both the Tories and Ukip, and brand loyalty. It's in a very difficult place.
"Don’t imagine that the swathe of Lib Dems seats the Conservatives won in 2015 are all itching to go back to the Lib Dems purely on the issue of Brexit – looking at Hanretty’s estimates, 20 of the 27 Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives gained in 2015 voted to Leave the EU."
I hesitate to disagree with OGH but this is the first post-Corbyn election where Labour has been squeezed. Until yesterday they had outperformed admittedly low expectations each time. So there is some significance to the fact that the right Lib Dem in the right place can borrow Labour votes. This is new information.
"Don’t imagine that the swathe of Lib Dems seats the Conservatives won in 2015 are all itching to go back to the Lib Dems purely on the issue of Brexit – looking at Hanretty’s estimates, 20 of the 27 Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives gained in 2015 voted to Leave the EU."
In a way, this by-election result may help to concentrate government minds, and indeed, raise their game in general. There is complacency seeping into government ranks, maybe subconsciously. Easy trap to fall into with Labour's front bench probably the worst in their history. Indeed, I cannot think of three worse leaders presiding over the main parties all at the same time. Can anyone else hold a candle to May, Corbyn and Farron? We are all being short changed.
I think people are wrong to assume that voting behaviour at the next election will be determined by attitudes to Brexit. It will - at most - be one issue , and I suspect that for most voters it will not be particulary salient.
It is the prism through which all other issues will be viewed.
Economy stagnant? Brexit
Immigration? Brexit
NHS funding? Brexit
Political anoraks might do that , but I have a strong sense that the public at large is already sick to death of the issue -never mind in May 2020.
If they're sick to death of it there's only one way out - vote for a party that will call the whole thing off. If we press on it will dominate our politics indefinitely.
Still in the denial phase. The way out is to get on with it and be a normal country again.
Most normal European countries are reconciled to their membership of the EU. I'd be happy to get back to that.
The world is bigger than Europe. Most countries aren't members of anything like the EU. Also, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Hungary to name a few don't look too comfortable with EU membership right now.
"Don’t imagine that the swathe of Lib Dems seats the Conservatives won in 2015 are all itching to go back to the Lib Dems purely on the issue of Brexit – looking at Hanretty’s estimates, 20 of the 27 Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives gained in 2015 voted to Leave the EU."
If it's only the Remain voters who are concerned, then he has his point.
As soon as the softer Leave voters start to share the same concerns about where HMG might be headed, May has a problem.
It all has the potential to get very complicated. In Southern seats that could turn into straight Con-LD fights, you have both the Remain/Leave balance to consider AND the balance of other forces. If Leftist voters have started to forgive the LDs for the Coalition then that brings a lot of Green and Labour votes potentially into play, but at the same time the Southern Ukip vote could turn out to be very soft if Tory Brexiteers appear to be under threat. And that's without taking into account the possibility of a "Vote Farron, get Corbyn and the SNP" strategy being deployed. Or the fact that the Tories share with the Lib Dems the ability to deploy a strong ground game, but have many more resources at their disposal.
I think people are wrong to assume that voting behaviour at the next election will be determined by attitudes to Brexit. It will - at most - be one issue , and I suspect that for most voters it will not be particulary salient.
It is the prism through which all other issues will be viewed.
Economy stagnant? Brexit
Immigration? Brexit
NHS funding? Brexit
Political anoraks might do that , but I have a strong sense that the public at large is already sick to death of the issue -never mind in May 2020.
If they're sick to death of it there's only one way out - vote for a party that will call the whole thing off. If we press on it will dominate our politics indefinitely.
Still in the denial phase. The way out is to get on with it and be a normal country again.
Most normal European countries are reconciled to their membership of the EU. I'd be happy to get back to that.
Get back to that? We were never reconciled with our membership.
Prior to Jacques Delors' seduction of the Labour movement it was never such a toxic issue on the right.
In a way, this by-election result may help to concentrate government minds, and indeed, raise their game in general. There is complacency seeping into government ranks, maybe subconsciously. Easy trap to fall into with Labour's front bench probably the worst in their history. Indeed, I cannot think of three worse leaders presiding over the main parties all at the same time. Can anyone else hold a candle to May, Corbyn and Farron? We are all being short changed.
It will provide a narrative and a purpose to UKIP as well as the Lib Dems.
I honestly can't see where Labour goes now. The more the Remainers - predominantly the relatively well-off left - bang on about Brexit, the more Labour will be forced to pick a side.
"Don’t imagine that the swathe of Lib Dems seats the Conservatives won in 2015 are all itching to go back to the Lib Dems purely on the issue of Brexit – looking at Hanretty’s estimates, 20 of the 27 Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives gained in 2015 voted to Leave the EU."
If it's only the Remain voters who are concerned, then he has his point.
As soon as the softer Leave voters start to share the same concerns about where HMG might be headed, May has a problem.
Yes this is a key point. Boris, Gove and the rest of the Leave campaign gave people the impression it would all be painless and easy. Gove's answer to a women concerned about her right to French residency on retirement might as well have been, "Don't you worry your pretty little head about it." If the soft Leave voters start to feel angry that they've been let down it will be very bad news indeed for the Conservatives who will have failed to live up to their name.
Timely commentary posed by the challenger parties to Labour (and the Tories as well) as a result of post-Brexit dynamics. The Tories potentially have a Lib Dem problem on their hands, but Labour's voter coalition is vulnerable to fracture through having to deal with two very different opponents:
"At every point, the referendum question poses difficulties for Labour. Even when neither Ukip nor the Liberal Democrats take seats from them directly, they can hurt them badly, allowing the Conservatives to come through the middle.
"The big problem is that the stance that makes sense in terms of maintaining party unity is to try to run on a ticket of moving past the referendum and focussing on the party's core issues of social justice, better public services and redistribution.
"But the trouble with that approach is that it's alarmingly similar to the one favoured by Kezia Dugdale and Scottish Labour in 2016, who tried to make the election about public services, not the constitution. They came third, behind a Conservative party that ran on an explicitly pro-Union platform. The possibility of an English sequel should not be ruled out."
Farron said something like: it wasn't inevitable that populism, that the 2015 GE result, the referendum result, or the Trump result, needed to happen. There was another way etc etc.
' The Richmond Park result is as worrying for LAB as Christchurch was in the 1992-1997 parliament where the red team was squeezed even more than overnight – it means nothing. '
Actually the Labour performance in byelections in 1992-1994 was deeply unimpressive.
It was only after Blair became leader that Labour racked up the big wins.
' The Richmond Park result is as worrying for LAB as Christchurch was in the 1992-1997 parliament where the red team was squeezed even more than overnight – it means nothing. '
Actually the Labour performance in byelections in 1992-1994 was deeply unimpressive.
It was only after Blair became leader that Labour racked up the big wins.
Also seem to recall having read a suggestion (apologies if it was on here!) that this vote was the first contested by-election in London in which Labour has failed to poll at least 5% of the vote since 1909. In and of itself it may not make much difference, but it's noteworthy in terms of Labour Party history for that reason if for no other.
Do people here think that Italy will have to leave the EURO group of nations eventually...
Yes.
Or rather, Italy has an unenviable choice: either completely change the structure of its labour market, or leave the Euro. Spain did the former. I don't believe the political will is in Italy to follow the Spanish path.
Furthermore, Italy has other real major problems: the worst demographics in western Europe, corruption, and excessive government debt.
"Don’t imagine that the swathe of Lib Dems seats the Conservatives won in 2015 are all itching to go back to the Lib Dems purely on the issue of Brexit – looking at Hanretty’s estimates, 20 of the 27 Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives gained in 2015 voted to Leave the EU." http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9782/
There is also the question of the general incompetence of Mrs May`s government. Do they really know what they are doing?
"Don’t imagine that the swathe of Lib Dems seats the Conservatives won in 2015 are all itching to go back to the Lib Dems purely on the issue of Brexit – looking at Hanretty’s estimates, 20 of the 27 Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives gained in 2015 voted to Leave the EU." http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9782/
There is also the question of the general incompetence of Mrs May`s government. Do they really know what they are doing?
The no running commentary rule certainly doesn't help.
"Don’t imagine that the swathe of Lib Dems seats the Conservatives won in 2015 are all itching to go back to the Lib Dems purely on the issue of Brexit – looking at Hanretty’s estimates, 20 of the 27 Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives gained in 2015 voted to Leave the EU." http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9782/
There is also the question of the general incompetence of Mrs May`s government. Do they really know what they are doing?
@Scott_P I agree on this. Think of Brexit as a flavouring rather than the ingredients of a meal. The real danger to the UK is politics will become a Brexit was wearing/Brexit was botched dialectic. I don't believe we'll ever go back to the original Remain/Leave choice. I fear we're heading to a smug/betrayed dialectic. Brexit will be botched and then Brexit will disappoint the angry and and insecure because what they are angry and insecure about has almost nothing to do with the EU.
Such voters won't admit they were wrong. They'll feel more right that ever. The same villains, politicians and the EU, will have botched Brexit in the way they bothedvEUnmembership.
Meanwhile people like me will be screaming I told you so. Elated to be proved right but bitter that Brexit happened anyway.
If I'm right, nd recently I haven't been right, we're heading towards a period of angry cultural decline where Brexit is everything and nothing in British politics.
Britain (and the Western World in general) has been in a period of angry cultural decline for over a decade.
Personal anecdote. I've just been invited to a Christmas party where everyone is forbidden from talking about Brexit or Trump.
Much as I love to gossip about politics, I felt a significant sense of relief when I read that. I'm bored of this shit. It's endless. It's also pointless, the ultra-Remainers (10% of the UK?) simply won't accept Leave, they can't, they are incapable, it's like asking faithful Muslims to denounce the Prophet. The same can be said, from the other side, for hardcore Brexiteers. No one will be persuaded, argument is valueless.
But most of the country is not like this. Intensity and obsession turns them off.
That means there are grave risks for both sides here. Who will annoy the voters the most?
It also means that TMay might find it surprisingly easy to sell Soft Brexit (which is I believe her intention). The bored and irritated electorate will settle for it with a sigh of gratitude.
Of course, that depends on whether anything approximating to a "soft Brexit" is on offer, or even possible.
I believe that the Prime Minister is willing to make compromises on immigration and pay lots of money to the upkeep of the EU, in exchange for good access to the single market. The EU would doubtless gladly accept the latter, but is it capable of making any meaningful concessions with respect to the former? I mean, does the EU look like a pragmatic and flexible organisation, or a dogmatic and rigid monolith?
Personal anecdote. I've just been invited to a Christmas party where everyone is forbidden from talking about Brexit or Trump.
Much as I love to gossip about politics, I felt a significant sense of relief when I read that. I'm bored of this shit. It's endless. It's also pointless, the ultra-Remainers (10% of the UK?) simply won't accept Leave, they can't, they are incapable, it's like asking faithful Muslims to denounce the Prophet. The same can be said, from the other side, for hardcore Brexiteers. No one will be persuaded, argument is valueless.
But most of the country is not like this. Intensity and obsession turns them off.
That means there are grave risks for both sides here. Who will annoy the voters the most?
It also means that TMay might find it surprisingly easy to sell Soft Brexit (which is I believe her intention). The bored and irritated electorate will settle for it with a sigh of gratitude.
I agree with pretty much all of that, bar the guess at May's intentions - I'm pretty convinced she will go for the best option she think is easily achievable in a reasonable time, and that's hard brexit, as soft brexit requires a lot of effort and luck.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
Well lets look at history:
Orpington gained 1962, held 1964, held 1966, lost 1970 Sutton & Cheam gained 1972, lost 1974 Croydon NW gained 1981, lost 1983
So that's 1/3 holds.
To be fair Lib/SDP/LibDem gains from Labour in London were all initially held.
But the LibDem problem in Richmond Park is that they'll be referred to as a vote for Labour, a Labour led by Corbyn, a Labour led by Corbyn in the pocked of the SNP.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
Nevertheless we shouldn't fall into the trap of treating predictions like dedicated gamblers treat the dice and throwers at a craps table. Just because someone was right before doesn't increase their chances of repeating the stunt by that much and, similarly, people who got it wrong last time arent cursed to repeat the experience until the end of time.
It also means that TMay might find it surprisingly easy to sell Soft Brexit (which is I believe her intention). The bored and irritated electorate will settle for it with a sigh of gratitude.
A sizeable proportion of the public have always wanted a compromise between trade and immigration.
The ultra-Remainers don't seem to understand that Remain isn't one.
Mr. Taxman, if GDP rises but the wages of the lower middle and working class decline due to increased migration, which also puts pressure on local services (a migrant takes a few hours to arrive, a new road, school or hospital rather longer to build) then the country becomes richer but for many people the situation worsens.
That's a difficult square to circle, but the contempt with which those who had genuine concerns over migration were treated and the utter failure to come up with a solution means that feeling of division is not going to dissipate soon.
If we end up staying in, the bitterness and resentment could become dangerously high.
It also bears repeating that median real wages fell in Japan and the US more than in the UK over the last 15 years, which tells you that it isn't just migration affecting incomes.
(Median wages rose in Switzerland and Germany, both of whom have educational systems that concentrate on giving "the next 60%" employable skills.)
Out of curiosity did the German and Swiss equivalents of GCSEs and A levels have rising proportions of passes each and every year for 20+ years ?
Remember that Derren Brown stunt? He picks a whole batch of people and sends them a 'sure fire' horse racing tip, in a race where there are only three or four likely winners. Except that he divides the people into three or four groups and tips a different horse to each group. Those tipped the losers, he drops. The next week sends those who were tipped the winner a fresh tip, again dividing them into groups each of whom receive a different tip. He rinses and repeats until there is just one person left, to whom he has tipped a winning horse four or five weeks in a row. That person he persuades - on the basis of his stunning 'five out of five' success rate - to put their life savings on his sixth tip, then, as the race is about to start, he explains what he has done.....
Personal anecdote. I've just been invited to a Christmas party where everyone is forbidden from talking about Brexit or Trump.
Much as I love to gossip about politics, I felt a significant sense of relief when I read that. I'm bored of this shit. It's endless. It's also pointless, the ultra-Remainers (10% of the UK?) simply won't accept Leave, they can't, they are incapable, it's like asking faithful Muslims to denounce the Prophet. The same can be said, from the other side, for hardcore Brexiteers. No one will be persuaded, argument is valueless.
But most of the country is not like this. Intensity and obsession turns them off.
That means there are grave risks for both sides here. Who will annoy the voters the most?
It also means that TMay might find it surprisingly easy to sell Soft Brexit (which is I believe her intention). The bored and irritated electorate will settle for it with a sigh of gratitude.
Politics is an intergenerational effort. Nothing lasts forever. Everything has to be fought for. Europhobe have discovered that this year. Get bored of it if you want but you'll find the electorate won't stand. This obsession with the 23rd of June beingbthe end of history is the single biggest mistake europhobe at making.
Although that said I agree with the vast bulk of your post. People will tire of this. The " control " people wanted to take back didn't smack of year upon year of Somme like international negotiations about Carrot imports. So the market amongst ordinary voters will be there for something ( a) Called Brexit. ( b ) that happens and can be said to be over ( c) changes something but as little as possible.
The problem is though demonstrated by your appalling hypocrisy on this topic. One minute you're an arch pragmatist soft Brexiter who'll be delighted with the above to protect the equity in your Camden flat. The next minute your an unpleasant and bullying arch nationalist who wants Remain voters deported.
Talented novelists and travel writers can hold these contradictions in a single person but lots of people don't. You need to deal with the ultras on the europhobe side to get what you say ( until the next blood chemistry spike ) you want.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
Nevertheless we shouldn't fall into the trap of treating predictions like dedicated gamblers treat the dice and throwers at a craps table. Just because someone was right before doesn't increase their chances of repeating the stunt by that much and, similarly, people who got it wrong last time arent cursed to repeat the experience until the end of time.
We shouldn't fall into another trap of thinking people who were inconveniently right before were just lucky or those that were inconveniently wrong before were just unlucky.
There is always scope to learn more and few things are ever 'nailed on'.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
Nevertheless we shouldn't fall into the trap of treating predictions like dedicated gamblers treat the dice and throwers at a craps table. Just because someone was right before doesn't increase their chances of repeating the stunt by that much and, similarly, people who got it wrong last time arent cursed to repeat the experience until the end of time.
We shouldn't fall into another trap of thinking people who were inconveniently right before were just lucky or those that were inconveniently wrong before were just unlucky.
There is always scope to learn more and few things are ever 'nailed on'.
Clinton was certainly never a 99.999% probability.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
Nevertheless we shouldn't fall into the trap of treating predictions like dedicated gamblers treat the dice and throwers at a craps table. Just because someone was right before doesn't increase their chances of repeating the stunt by that much and, similarly, people who got it wrong last time arent cursed to repeat the experience until the end of time.
We shouldn't fall into another trap of thinking people who were inconveniently right before were just lucky or those that were inconveniently wrong before were just unlucky.
There is always scope to learn more and few things are ever 'nailed on'.
All true.
Nevertheless my confident prediction is based upon:
A ) knowing the LibDem organisation and very long track record in LB Richmond, at first hand since I first went to help them over thirty years ago; B ) having observed the big incumbency advantage by-election winners almost always get when defending their seat the first time around at the next GE; C) my view that the LibDems now have a usp and are unlikely to be in as bad a position in 2020 as they were in 2015; D) my view the Zac experience and the ensuing splits and defeat probably won't leave the Richmond Tories in a very good place, and it'll take them some years to recover.
In betting there aren't any sure fire outcomes, but (once I have seen the boundaries) putting some money on a LibDem hold in Richmond is as near as you'll get IMHO DYOR etc.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
Nevertheless we shouldn't fall into the trap of treating predictions like dedicated gamblers treat the dice and throwers at a craps table. Just because someone was right before doesn't increase their chances of repeating the stunt by that much and, similarly, people who got it wrong last time arent cursed to repeat the experience until the end of time.
We shouldn't fall into another trap of thinking people who were inconveniently right before were just lucky or those that were inconveniently wrong before were just unlucky.
There is always scope to learn more and few things are ever 'nailed on'.
All true.
Nevertheless my confident prediction is based upon:
A ) knowing the LibDem organisation and very long track record in LB Richmond, at first hand since I first went to help them over thirty years ago; having observed the big incumbency advantage by-election winners almost always get when defending their seat the first time around at the next GE; C) my view that the LibDems now have a usp and are unlikely to be in as bad a position in 2020 as they were in 2015; D) my view the Zac experience and the ensuing splits and defeat probably won't leave the Richmond Tories in a very good place, and it'll take them some years to recover.
In betting there aren't any sure fire outcomes, but (once I have seen the boundaries) putting some money on a LibDem hold in Richmond is as near as you'll get IMHO DYOR etc.
Personal anecdote. I've just been invited to a Christmas party where everyone is forbidden from talking about Brexit or Trump.
Much as I love to gossip about politics, I felt a significant sense of relief when I read that. I'm bored of this shit. It's endless. It's also pointless, the ultra-Remainers (10% of the UK?) simply won't accept Leave, they can't, they are incapable, it's like asking faithful Muslims to denounce the Prophet. The same can be said, from the other side, for hardcore Brexiteers. No one will be persuaded, argument is valueless.
But most of the country is not like this. Intensity and obsession turns them off.
That means there are grave risks for both sides here. Who will annoy the voters the most?
It also means that TMay might find it surprisingly easy to sell Soft Brexit (which is I believe her intention). The bored and irritated electorate will settle for it with a sigh of gratitude.
Although that said I agree with the vast bulk of your post. People will tire of this. The " control " people wanted to take back didn't smack of year upon year of Somme like international negotiations about Carrot imports. So the market amongst ordinary voters will be there for something ( a) Called Brexit. ( b ) that happens and can be said to be over ( c) changes something but as little as possible.
Causes and consequences.
It is the current situation which is causing change via immigration.
If the ordinary voter wants as little as possible change then immigration has to be controlled and more generally the journey of EverCloserUnion has to be ended.
'Thing have to change if things are to stay the same' as someone said sometime, somewhere.
Where Olney went wrong was by not saying: "great idea, there will be a second vote. In 2020, and in the meantime I wouldn't expect Labour or the Conservatives to stop campaigning against me."
But, as I have said on here many times, the demand for a second referendum has not been thought through. The only question could be:
a) accept deal as negotiated; or b) reject deal as negotiated.
If it's b) then we go to WTO and hard Brexit so all a second Referendum would do would be to give the headbanging Brexiters a veto over any deal that TMay manages to negotiate. Not what they had in mind, I'm sure.
Personal anecdote. I've just been invited to a Christmas party where everyone is forbidden from talking about Brexit or Trump.
Much as I love to gossip about politics, I felt a significant sense of relief when I read that. I'm bored of this shit. It's endless. It's also pointless, the ultra-Remainers (10% of the UK?) simply won't accept Leave, they can't, they are incapable, it's like asking faithful Muslims to denounce the Prophet. The same can be said, from the other side, for hardcore Brexiteers. No one will be persuaded, argument is valueless.
But most of the country is not like this. Intensity and obsession turns them off.
That means there are grave risks for both sides here. Who will annoy the voters the most?
It also means that TMay might find it surprisingly easy to sell Soft Brexit (which is I believe her intention). The bored and irritated electorate will settle for it with a sigh of gratitude.
Although that said I agree with the vast bulk of your post. People will tire of this. The " control " people wanted to take back didn't smack of year upon year of Somme like international negotiations about Carrot imports. So the market amongst ordinary voters will be there for something ( a) Called Brexit. ( b ) that happens and can be said to be over ( c) changes something but as little as possible.
Causes and consequences.
It is the current situation which is causing change via immigration.
If the ordinary voter wants as little as possible change then immigration has to be controlled and more generally the journey of EverCloserUnion has to be ended.
'Thing have to change if things are to stay the same' as someone said sometime, somewhere.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1)c
on.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
Nevertheless we shouldn't fall into the trap of treating predictions like dedicated gamblers treat the dice and throwers at a craps table. Just because someone was right before doesn't increase their chances of repeating the stunt by that much and, similarly, people who got it wrong last time arent cursed to repeat the experience until the end of time.
There is always scope to learn more and few things are ever 'nailed on'.
All true.
Nevertheless my confident prediction is based upon:
A ) knowing the LibDem organisation and very long track record in LB Richmond, at first hand since I first went to help them over thirty years ago; having observed the big incumbency advantage by-election winners almost always get when defending their seat the first time around at the next GE; C) my view that the LibDems now have a usp and are unlikely to be in as bad a position in 2020 as they were in 2015; D) my view the Zac experience and the ensuing splits and defeat probably won't leave the Richmond Tories in a very good place, and it'll take them some years to recover.
In betting there aren't any sure fire outcomes, but (once I have seen the boundaries) putting some money on a LibDem hold in Richmond is as near as you'll get IMHO DYOR etc.
On D, on what lines would they split?
I don't mean formal splits - but I know there are some who think Zac mishandled everything, some who think the local party should have stood against him, some who would have fought the campaign differently. In my experience such events normally lead to a bunch of people walking away and finding other ways to occupy their spare time, and I don't see a strong motivator for local Tories to get stuck in to win the seat back?
Edit/ plus I would guess that the Richmond Tory party is probably quite Remain-friendly, so they will have their own doubts about how things are going right now.
Mr. Taxman, if GDP rises but the wages of the lower middle and working class decline due to increased migration, which also puts pressure on local services (a migrant takes a few hours to arrive, a new road, school or hospital rather longer to build) then the country becomes richer but for many people the situation worsens.
That's a difficult square to circle, but the contempt with which those who had genuine concerns over migration were treated and the utter failure to come up with a solution means that feeling of division is not going to dissipate soon.
If we end up staying in, the bitterness and resentment could become dangerously high.
It also bears repeating that median real wages fell in Japan and the US more than in the UK over the last 15 years, which tells you that it isn't just migration affecting incomes.
(Median wages rose in Switzerland and Germany, both of whom have educational systems that concentrate on giving "the next 60%" employable skills.)
Out of curiosity did the German and Swiss equivalents of GCSEs and A levels have rising proportions of passes each and every year for 20+ years ?
Where Olney went wrong was by not saying: "great idea, there will be a second vote. In 2020, and in the meantime I wouldn't expect Labour or the Conservatives to stop campaigning against me."
But, as I have said on here many times, the demand for a second referendum has not been thought through. The only question could be:
a) accept deal as negotiated; or b) reject deal as negotiated.
If it's b) then we go to WTO and hard Brexit so all a second Referendum would do would be to give the headbanging Brexiters a veto over any deal that TMay manages to negotiate. Not what they had in mind, I'm sure.
Really ? I'm far from convinced.
I suspect that when the time comes and if a second referendum is offered (and I doubt it will be) a rejection won't automatically lead to WTO and a "hard Brexit" as you put it.
What would happen in the event of a rejection isn't clear but what you propose is far from being the only scenario. Another is further negotiation leading to a revised post-EU Treaty which would again be put to a referendum.
It might also be that May would consider rejection a trigger for a General Election.
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
Nevertheless we shouldn't fall into the trap of treating predictions like dedicated gamblers treat the dice and throwers at a craps table. Just because someone was right before doesn't increase their chances of repeating the stunt by that much and, similarly, people who got it wrong last time arent cursed to repeat the experience until the end of time.
We shouldn't fall into another trap of thinking people who were inconveniently right before were just lucky or those that were inconveniently wrong before were just unlucky.
There is always scope to learn more and few things are ever 'nailed on'.
All true.
Nevertheless my confident prediction is based upon:
A ) knowing the LibDem organisation and very long track record in LB Richmond, at first hand since I first went to help them over thirty years ago; B ) having observed the big incumbency advantage by-election winners almost always get when defending their seat the first time around at the next GE; C) my view that the LibDems now have a usp and are unlikely to be in as bad a position in 2020 as they were in 2015; D) my view the Zac experience and the ensuing splits and defeat probably won't leave the Richmond Tories in a very good place, and it'll take them some years to recover.
In betting there aren't any sure fire outcomes, but (once I have seen the boundaries) putting some money on a LibDem hold in Richmond is as near as you'll get IMHO DYOR etc.
Translates as "I want it to happen so it must happen".
What causes disaster is rarely things we don't know about but rather things we are sure about but are wrong.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
The quality of all reporting is in the gutter. Very few out there ask the hard questions. I'd have loved to interview Paul Johnson of the IFS on his claim of slow wage growth until 2021 and put the simple question of whether he thinks the reason wages and productivity haven't risen quickly is because there is an unlimited amount of slack in the Labour market, especially at the lower skill levels. I don't see Peston or whoever Sky have asking that question and I know it would completely flummox him as he is an ardent remainer.
Mr. Taxman, if GDP rises but the wages of the lower middle and working class decline due to increased migration, which also puts pressure on local services (a migrant takes a few hours to arrive, a new road, school or hospital rather longer to build) then the country becomes richer but for many people the situation worsens.
That's a difficult square to circle, but the contempt with which those who had genuine concerns over migration were treated and the utter failure to come up with a solution means that feeling of division is not going to dissipate soon.
If we end up staying in, the bitterness and resentment could become dangerously high.
It also bears repeating that median real wages fell in Japan and the US more than in the UK over the last 15 years, which tells you that it isn't just migration affecting incomes.
(Median wages rose in Switzerland and Germany, both of whom have educational systems that concentrate on giving "the next 60%" employable skills.)
Out of curiosity did the German and Swiss equivalents of GCSEs and A levels have rising proportions of passes each and every year for 20+ years ?
Not in Switzerland, not sure about Germany.
I bet the Swiss never had 'education, education, education' either.
Personal anecdote. I've just been invited to a Christmas party where everyone is forbidden from talking about Brexit or Trump.
Much as I love to gossip about politics, I felt a significant sense of relief when I read that. I'm bored of this shit. It's endless. It's also pointless, the ultra-Remainers (10% of the UK?) simply won't accept Leave, they can't, they are incapable, it's like asking faithful Muslims to denounce the Prophet. The same can be said, from the other side, for hardcore Brexiteers. No one will be persuaded, argument is valueless.
But most of the country is not like this. Intensity and obsession turns them off.
That means there are grave risks for both sides here. Who will annoy the voters the most?
It also means that TMay might find it surprisingly easy to sell Soft Brexit (which is I believe her intention). The bored and irritated electorate will settle for it with a sigh of gratitude.
Although that said I agree with the vast bulk of your post. People will tire of this. The " control " people wanted to take back didn't smack of year upon year of Somme like international negotiations about Carrot imports. So the market amongst ordinary voters will be there for something ( a) Called Brexit. ( b ) that happens and can be said to be over ( c) changes something but as little as possible.
Causes and consequences.
It is the current situation which is causing change via immigration.
If the ordinary voter wants as little as possible change then immigration has to be controlled and more generally the journey of EverCloserUnion has to be ended.
'Thing have to change if things are to stay the same' as someone said sometime, somewhere.
Brexiters are forever saying all we need to do, and all anyone voted for was to leave the EU, and no pre-Referendum pledge, not the £350m, not this or that matters now; it's all up to the government. So in that light, presumably no Brexiter would complain if the government said ok we're going to leave the EU but we'll pay to play in the single market and we'll keep freedom of movement also.
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
Nevertheless we shouldn't fall into the trap of treating predictions like dedicated gamblers treat the dice and throwers at a craps table. Just because someone was right before doesn't increase their chances of repeating the stunt by that much and, similarly, people who got it wrong last time arent cursed to repeat the experience until the end of time.
We shouldn't fall into another trap of thinking people who were inconveniently right before were just lucky or those that were inconveniently wrong before were just unlucky.
There is always scope to learn more and few things are ever 'nailed on'.
All true.
Nevertheless my confident prediction is based upon:
A ) knowing the LibDem organisation and very long track record in LB Richmond, at first hand since I first went to help them over thirty years ago; B ) having observed the big incumbency advantage by-election winners almost always get when defending their seat the first time around at the next GE; C) my view that the LibDems now have a usp and are unlikely to be in as bad a position in 2020 as they were in 2015; D) my view the Zac experience and the ensuing splits and defeat probably won't leave the Richmond Tories in a very good place, and it'll take them some years to recover.
In betting there aren't any sure fire outcomes, but (once I have seen the boundaries) putting some money on a LibDem hold in Richmond is as near as you'll get IMHO DYOR etc.
Translates as "I want it to happen so it must happen".
What causes disaster is rarely things we don't know about but rather things we are sure about but are wrong.
"I don't want it so it won't" is hardly firmer ground?
In any event some at least of my post - such as the well established success of by-election victors in holding their seat at least once more - is objective fact.
Nevertheless my confident prediction is based upon:
A ) knowing the LibDem organisation and very long track record in LB Richmond, at first hand since I first went to help them over thirty years ago; B ) having observed the big incumbency advantage by-election winners almost always get when defending their seat the first time around at the next GE; C) my view that the LibDems now have a usp and are unlikely to be in as bad a position in 2020 as they were in 2015; D) my view the Zac experience and the ensuing splits and defeat probably won't leave the Richmond Tories in a very good place, and it'll take them some years to recover.
In betting there aren't any sure fire outcomes, but (once I have seen the boundaries) putting some money on a LibDem hold in Richmond is as near as you'll get IMHO DYOR etc.
Current proposal is that the boundaries don't change.
Mr. Taxman, if GDP rises but the wages of the lower middle and working class decline due to increased migration, which also puts pressure on local services (a migrant takes a few hours to arrive, a new road, school or hospital rather longer to build) then the country becomes richer but for many people the situation worsens.
That's a difficult square to circle, but the contempt with which those who had genuine concerns over migration were treated and the utter failure to come up with a solution means that feeling of division is not going to dissipate soon.
If we end up staying in, the bitterness and resentment could become dangerously high.
It also bears repeating that median real wages fell in Japan and the US more than in the UK over the last 15 years, which tells you that it isn't just migration affecting incomes.
(Median wages rose in Switzerland and Germany, both of whom have educational systems that concentrate on giving "the next 60%" employable skills.)
Out of curiosity did the German and Swiss equivalents of GCSEs and A levels have rising proportions of passes each and every year for 20+ years ?
Not in Switzerland, not sure about Germany.
I bet the Swiss never had 'education, education, education' either.
Definitely not, but the Swiss education system is selective at 14 into grammar, vocational/apprentice and trade school based on secondary school grades and teacher assessment. As Robert says, they make sure everyone gets a fair go at a decent job, not just the lucky ones smart enough to go to a decent university or the even luckier ones who live near a technical academy. It is an highly enviable system and we should copy it.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
The quality of all reporting is in the gutter. Very few out there ask the hard questions. I'd have loved to interview Paul Johnson of the IFS on his claim of slow wage growth until 2021 and put the simple question of whether he thinks the reason wages and productivity haven't risen quickly is because there is an unlimited amount of slack in the Labour market, especially at the lower skill levels. I don't see Peston or whoever Sky have asking that question and I know it would completely flummox him as he is an ardent remainer.
Productivity needs to improve, we're all agreed. As does education for those at the bottom. Neither issue necessarily needed Brexit for the government to address them.
Governments have been shying away from necessary measures to address these issues for decades. Same with house prices. Which government is going to rebase house prices to the level they "should" be? GO tried with his buy-to-let measures, but will anyone do anything now?
The other question about Richmond Park which I don't know the answer to is it's regional significance. In my experience London doesn't think of it's self as having a regional identity because it thinks of it's self as normative. London is the UK. Having been disabused of that fact will it begin to develop a self aware regional politics. Of course London has always had different politics but now it would notice it's difference and celebrate it.
To oversimplify to what extent is Richmond Park urban liberals sending a " Millwall " message ?
Where Olney went wrong was by not saying: "great idea, there will be a second vote. In 2020, and in the meantime I wouldn't expect Labour or the Conservatives to stop campaigning against me."
But, as I have said on here many times, the demand for a second referendum has not been thought through. The only question could be:
a) accept deal as negotiated; or b) reject deal as negotiated.
If it's b) then we go to WTO and hard Brexit so all a second Referendum would do would be to give the headbanging Brexiters a veto over any deal that TMay manages to negotiate. Not what they had in mind, I'm sure.
Really ? I'm far from convinced.
I suspect that when the time comes and if a second referendum is offered (and I doubt it will be) a rejection won't automatically lead to WTO and a "hard Brexit" as you put it.
What would happen in the event of a rejection isn't clear but what you propose is far from being the only scenario. Another is further negotiation leading to a revised post-EU Treaty which would again be put to a referendum.
It might also be that May would consider rejection a trigger for a General Election.
The deal is only likely to be known close to 2019. There won't be time to renegotiate because A50 will have set a two-year deadline. Plus the EU27 will know they have us over a barrel. Would they really agree to an extension, having, presumably, reached the limit of what they were prepared to offer during the actual negotiations?
Where Olney went wrong was by not saying: "great idea, there will be a second vote. In 2020, and in the meantime I wouldn't expect Labour or the Conservatives to stop campaigning against me."
But, as I have said on here many times, the demand for a second referendum has not been thought through. The only question could be:
a) accept deal as negotiated; or b) reject deal as negotiated.
If it's b) then we go to WTO and hard Brexit so all a second Referendum would do would be to give the headbanging Brexiters a veto over any deal that TMay manages to negotiate. Not what they had in mind, I'm sure.
or b) revert to the status quo of membership of the EU.
I know we've been round this one several times about whether Article 50 can be revoked etc so let's not do it again.
We read this fucking anti democratic bilge on here from the likes of williamglenn and Scott P. It's repulsive and wrong. We've had the vote. The deed is done. Honour democracy.
Fuck off Sean. I have never mentioned reversing the vote
Where Olney went wrong was by not saying: "great idea, there will be a second vote. In 2020, and in the meantime I wouldn't expect Labour or the Conservatives to stop campaigning against me."
But, as I have said on here many times, the demand for a second referendum has not been thought through. The only question could be:
a) accept deal as negotiated; or b) reject deal as negotiated.
If it's b) then we go to WTO and hard Brexit so all a second Referendum would do would be to give the headbanging Brexiters a veto over any deal that TMay manages to negotiate. Not what they had in mind, I'm sure.
or b) revert to the status quo of membership of the EU.
I know we've been round this one several times about whether Article 50 can be revoked etc so let's not do it again.
We have. My view is that without Dave's deal the EU would be a difficult place to be.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
The quality of all reporting is in the gutter. Very few out there ask the hard questions. I'd have loved to interview Paul Johnson of the IFS on his claim of slow wage growth until 2021 and put the simple question of whether he thinks the reason wages and productivity haven't risen quickly is because there is an unlimited amount of slack in the Labour market, especially at the lower skill levels. I don't see Peston or whoever Sky have asking that question and I know it would completely flummox him as he is an ardent remainer.
Productivity needs to improve, we're all agreed. As does education for those at the bottom. Neither issue necessarily needed Brexit for the government to address them.
Governments have been shying away from necessary measures to address these issues for decades. Same with house prices. Which government is going to rebase house prices to the level they "should" be? GO tried with his buy-to-let measures, but will anyone do anything now?
Agreed, but I think the problem is that the unlimited low skilled labour pool provided by the EU takes the pressure off the government and businesses to invest in productivity improvements.
On house prices, let's wait and see what Hammond has in the budget. I'm not heartened by the move to encourage build-to-let over build-to-sell among developers. We need to increase homeownership and drive private landlords into the equity investments.
I think Zac Goldsmith lost because of arrogance.Most voters cannot make a big show and dance if they disagree with their bosses- they generally have to lump it , Zac , perhaps becasue of his upbringing thought he was different and does not have to show loyalty or bite his lip occasionally . Most voters probably thought he was being immature in his resignation .
I wouls expect the PM is fairly happy with this result - It puts mavericks in their place somewhat and shows what throwing toys out of prams can bring you
Where Olney went wrong was by not saying: "great idea, there will be a second vote. In 2020, and in the meantime I wouldn't expect Labour or the Conservatives to stop campaigning against me."
But, as I have said on here many times, the demand for a second referendum has not been thought through. The only question could be:
a) accept deal as negotiated; or b) reject deal as negotiated.
If it's b) then we go to WTO and hard Brexit so all a second Referendum would do would be to give the headbanging Brexiters a veto over any deal that TMay manages to negotiate. Not what they had in mind, I'm sure.
or b) revert to the status quo of membership of the EU.
I know we've been round this one several times about whether Article 50 can be revoked etc so let's not do it again.
We have. My view is that without Dave's deal the EU would be a difficult place to be.
Having gone through a polarising referendum and secured an unlikely victory, those on the winning side are still angry, angrier even than they were before.
Eh Sean?
Similar to the petulant chippy vibe of the Brexit victory, the Trump triumph is peevish and cantankerous, seizing on any opportunity to reclaim the credentials of the besieged that propelled him to victory. But you see, in a way, he has been robbed. As Brexiters have been. They have been robbed of the ability to blame everything on others and not be accountable. They have been robbed of the virtue of the victim and the helpless underdog.
On Topic. The article would be fair enough in normal times but things have changed. Firstly, The Labour Leadership & most of the members have abandoned Mainstream Politics, The PLP havent but theres little they can do without developing a reckless courage they havent shown so far. Secondly, Polls on the major Parties are usually a good predictor of Election performance. Labour are currently averaging 13 or 14% behind The Government, at a time when The Official Opposition is usually ahead. Everything suggests that Labour are going to be crushed in 2020, at some point even loyal voteres are going to give up on them & look for something else.
Thank you, that hits a number of points with some accuracy and in a taught way that I couldn't do. The only issue that I'd take with it is the word reckless. There's an absence of courage, reckless or otherwise. More a hope that something will turn up. For what it's worth, I still think that won't lead to Labour meltdown.
Even today's polls would not imply a Labour meltdown A 12% Tory lead implies a majority of 54 - a clear win but not a landslide.
The other question about Richmond Park which I don't know the answer to is it's regional significance. In my experience London doesn't think of it's self as having a regional identity because it thinks of it's self as normative. London is the UK. Having been disabused of that fact will it begin to develop a self aware regional politics. Of course London has always had different politics but now it would notice it's difference and celebrate it.
To oversimplify to what extent is Richmond Park urban liberals sending a " Millwall " message ?
Richmond Park is as far from Tower Hamlets or Dagenham as Sunderland is from Sussex.
Richmond Park is the best place to live in the whole of the UK (apart from the bloody planes). And we've got a new MP.
I think Theresa May's problem is not that's she is incompetent but she is not willing to face reality, nor to confront her supporters with the reality, nor to prepare the public for it. The reality is there are no special deals to be had, neither with the EU nor the wider world. We can trade on Most Favoured Nation basis with everyone including the EU. Because of the way the WTO is set up that means giving everyone our most favourable tariff while getting their worst tariffs in return. Or we can stay in the EU system and on the grace and favour of that institution.
How will Mrs May play this? Will she let the Article 50 clock run out, eating time talking about "Canada Plus" and then crash out to "WTO rules" and blame the EU for intransigence? Will she fold early and accept whatever integration the EU offers up? Or will she delay indefinitely? None of those options look attractive from a political view.
Nevertheless we shouldn't fall into the trap of treating predictions like dedicated gamblers treat the dice and throwers at a craps table. Just because someone was right before doesn't increase their chances of repeating the stunt by that much and, similarly, people who got it wrong last time arent cursed to repeat the experience until the end of time.
We shouldn't fall into another trap of thinking people who were inconveniently right before were just lucky or those that were inconveniently wrong before were just unlucky.
There is always scope to learn more and few things are ever 'nailed on'.
All true.
Nevertheless my confident prediction is based upon:
A ) knowing the LibDem organisation and very long track record in LB Richmond, at first hand since I first went to help them over thirty years ago; B ) having observed the big incumbency advantage by-election winners almost always get when defending their seat the first time around at the next GE; C) my view that the LibDems now have a usp and are unlikely to be in as bad a position in 2020 as they were in 2015; D) my view the Zac experience and the ensuing splits and defeat probably won't leave the Richmond Tories in a very good place, and it'll take them some years to recover.
In betting there aren't any sure fire outcomes, but (once I have seen the boundaries) putting some money on a LibDem hold in Richmond is as near as you'll get IMHO DYOR etc.
Translates as "I want it to happen so it must happen".
What causes disaster is rarely things we don't know about but rather things we are sure about but are wrong.
"I don't want it so it won't" is hardly firmer ground?
In any event some at least of my post - such as the well established success of by-election victors in holding their seat at least once more - is objective fact.
I think you'll find it's me who is keeping the open mind and you who is making 'nailed on' predictions.
As to the "well established success of by-election victors in holding their seat at least once more" I don't see you giving any examples. Rather the person giving examples was me and as I showed in London there was a 1/3 record of Liberal holds at the subsequent general election.
Now there are constituencies outside London where the Liberals / SDP / LibDems did hold a byelection gain - Berwick, Isle of Ely, Roxburgh, Glasgow Hillhead, Brecon, Romsey, Eastleigh, Littleborough, Newbury.
But there are a similar number where the Conservatives regained the constituency at the first opportunity - Ripon, Crosby, Portsmouth S, Eastbourne, Ribble Valley, Ryedale, Kincardine, Christchurch, Torrington.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
The quality of all reporting is in the gutter. Very few out there ask the hard questions. I'd have loved to interview Paul Johnson of the IFS on his claim of slow wage growth until 2021 and put the simple question of whether he thinks the reason wages and productivity haven't risen quickly is because there is an unlimited amount of slack in the Labour market, especially at the lower skill levels. I don't see Peston or whoever Sky have asking that question and I know it would completely flummox him as he is an ardent remainer.
Productivity needs to improve, we're all agreed. As does education for those at the bottom. Neither issue necessarily needed Brexit for the government to address them.
Governments have been shying away from necessary measures to address these issues for decades. Same with house prices. Which government is going to rebase house prices to the level they "should" be? GO tried with his buy-to-let measures, but will anyone do anything now?
Agreed, but I think the problem is that the unlimited low skilled labour pool provided by the EU takes the pressure off the government and businesses to invest in productivity improvements.
That sounds like a diagnosis in search of a disease and the EU isn't an unlimited pool of low skilled labour in any case.
I never usually watch Eastenders but it seems like the ethnic makeup of the show is just a tad out of keeping with the actual population of London. Most people on the show are still white British which isn't the case in reality.
Personal anecdote. I've just been invited to a Christmas party where everyone is forbidden from talking about Brexit or Trump.
Much as I love to gossip about politics, I felt a significant sense of relief when I read that. I'm bored of this shit. It's endless. It's also pointless, the ultra-Remainers (10% of the UK?) simply won't accept Leave, they can't, they are incapable, it's like asking faithful Muslims to denounce the Prophet. The same can be said, from the other side, for hardcore Brexiteers. No one will be persuaded, argument is valueless.
But most of the country is not like this. Intensity and obsession turns them off.
That means there are grave risks for both sides here. Who will annoy the voters the most?
It also means that TMay might find it surprisingly easy to sell Soft Brexit (which is I believe her intention). The bored and irritated electorate will settle for it with a sigh of gratitude.
Although that said I agree with the vast bulk of your post. People will tire of this. The " control " people wanted to take back didn't smack of year upon year of Somme like international negotiations about Carrot imports. So the market amongst ordinary voters will be there for something ( a) Called Brexit. ( b ) that happens and can be said to be over ( c) changes something but as little as possible.
Causes and consequences.
It is the current situation which is causing change via immigration.
If the ordinary voter wants as little as possible change then immigration has to be controlled and more generally the journey of EverCloserUnion has to be ended.
'Thing have to change if things are to stay the same' as someone said sometime, somewhere.
Brexiters are forever saying all we need to do, and all anyone voted for was to leave the EU, and no pre-Referendum pledge, not the £350m, not this or that matters now; it's all up to the government. So in that light, presumably no Brexiter would complain if the government said ok we're going to leave the EU but we'll pay to play in the single market and we'll keep freedom of movement also.
It would technically satisfy the instructions of the electorate, but they'd be politically unwise to do so (and certainly Brexiteers could object, but not on the grounds that the referendum had been ignored)
Personal anecdote. I've just been invited to a Christmas party where everyone is forbidden from talking about Brexit or Trump.
Much as I love to gossip about politics, I felt a significant sense of relief when I read that. I'm bored of this shit. It's endless. It's also pointless, the ultra-Remainers (10% of the UK?) simply won't accept Leave, they can't, they are incapable, it's like asking faithful Muslims to denounce the Prophet. The same can be said, from the other side, for hardcore Brexiteers. No one will be persuaded, argument is valueless.
But most of the country is not like this. Intensity and obsession turns them off.
That means there are grave risks for both sides here. Who will annoy the voters the most?
It also means that TMay might find it surprisingly easy to sell Soft Brexit (which is I believe her intention). The bored and irritated electorate will settle for it with a sigh of gratitude.
Although that said I agree with the vast bulk of your post. People will tire of this. The " control " people wanted to take back didn't smack of year upon year of Somme like international negotiations about Carrot imports. So the market amongst ordinary voters will be there for something ( a) Called Brexit. ( b ) that happens and can be said to be over ( c) changes something but as little as possible.
Causes and consequences.
It is the current situation which is causing change via immigration.
If the ordinary voter wants as little as possible change then immigration has to be controlled and more generally the journey of EverCloserUnion has to be ended.
'Thing have to change if things are to stay the same' as someone said sometime, somewhere.
Brexiters are forever saying all we need to do, and all anyone voted for was to leave the EU, and no pre-Referendum pledge, not the £350m, not this or that matters now; it's all up to the government. So in that light, presumably no Brexiter would complain if the government said ok we're going to leave the EU but we'll pay to play in the single market and we'll keep freedom of movement also.
It is a matter for the government of the day as to immigration, trade etc.
And any political party has the choice to propose policies which relate to the above.
The other question about Richmond Park which I don't know the answer to is it's regional significance. In my experience London doesn't think of it's self as having a regional identity because it thinks of it's self as normative. London is the UK. Having been disabused of that fact will it begin to develop a self aware regional politics. Of course London has always had different politics but now it would notice it's difference and celebrate it.
To oversimplify to what extent is Richmond Park urban liberals sending a " Millwall " message ?
One way of looking at the Richmond Park result is as an angry response from voters who are accustomed to always getting their own, way with Brexit being the first time their political tastes were rebuffed by the wider electorate. Their social liberal, economically liberal views weren't seriously challenged between 1990 and 2016.
I never usually watch Eastenders but it seems like the ethnic makeup of the show is just a tad out of keeping with the actual population of London. Most people on the show are still white British which isn't the case in reality.
Due to gentrification white Britons now living in the old east end are more likely of the yuppie sort than the Alf Garnett sort
So having whined incessantly for 40 years, and toppled at least one Government, having won a vote on a narrow margin after the most dishonest campaign in living memory, Brexiteers will only be happy if everyone else shuts up?
I believe the appropriate phrase is, Suck it up!!
The forces that gave Brexit and Trump momentum coalesced around grievance rather than vision. There was no agenda, no genuinely thought-out project that the winners could soberly set about executing, just resentment. And the grievance narrative must be continued even in success because that is pretty much the whole energising principle.
Thinking about ways last night could be good for the Conservatives:
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Unless the boundaries are radically different, LibDem hold, nailed on.
LOL
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
There is probably at least half a fair point in there, somewhere.
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
It's pretty abrupt but it hits on an area which particularly irritates me in relation to the media. The faithful reporting of predictions without reference to the accuracy of previous predictions from the same organisation. press release analysis in action.
The quality of all reporting is in the gutter. Very few out there ask the hard questions. I'd have loved to interview Paul Johnson of the IFS on his claim of slow wage growth until 2021 and put the simple question of whether he thinks the reason wages and productivity haven't risen quickly is because there is an unlimited amount of slack in the Labour market, especially at the lower skill levels. I don't see Peston or whoever Sky have asking that question and I know it would completely flummox him as he is an ardent remainer.
Productivity needs to improve, we're all agreed. As does education for those at the bottom. Neither issue necessarily needed Brexit for the government to address them.
Governments have been shying away from necessary measures to address these issues for decades. Same with house prices. Which government is going to rebase house prices to the level they "should" be? GO tried with his buy-to-let measures, but will anyone do anything now?
Agreed, but I think the problem is that the unlimited low skilled labour pool provided by the EU takes the pressure off the government and businesses to invest in productivity improvements.
That sounds like a diagnosis in search of a disease and the EU isn't an unlimited pool of low skilled labour in any case.
So having whined incessantly for 40 years, and toppled at least one Government, having won a vote on a narrow margin after the most dishonest campaign in living memory, Brexiteers will only be happy if everyone else shuts up?
I believe the appropriate phrase is, Suck it up!!
Not shut up, but accept the result, which many clearly don't.
I think Theresa May's problem is not that's she is incompetent but she is not willing to face reality, nor to confront her supporters with the reality, nor to prepare the public for it. The reality is there are no special deals to be had, neither with the EU nor the wider world. We can trade on Most Favoured Nation basis with everyone including the EU. Because of the way the WTO is set up that means giving everyone our most favourable tariff while getting their worst tariffs in return. Or we can stay in the EU system and on the grace and favour of that institution.
How will Mrs May play this? Will she let the Article 50 clock run out, eating time talking about "Canada Plus" and then crash out to "WTO rules" and blame the EU for intransigence? Will she fold early and accept whatever integration the EU offers up? Or will she delay indefinitely? None of those options look attractive from a political view.
I do have sympathy here , there will be one hell of a negotiation to make and as everyone in business will know the secret of negotiation is to prepare but also to keep your cards close to your chest - She is doing that but of course we live in a media age where everything has to be known straight away
Agreed, but I think the problem is that the unlimited low skilled labour pool provided by the EU takes the pressure off the government and businesses to invest in productivity improvements.
That sounds like a diagnosis in search of a disease and the EU isn't an unlimited pool of low skilled labour in any case.
40,000 Romanian migrants. Shut the fuck up.
Does that explain why our productivity is so much worse than many other EU countries that are tapping into the same pool of labour as us?
Comments
Sorry Scott, couldn't help it
(Today's Tories are basically the Radicals + the Liberal Unionists; UKIP the Adullamites, Ditchers and Joe Chamberlain's Imperial Preferencers)
[repost because of messed up nesting]
Lib Lab abstain - Dec 2016 = 22, 025
Some protest.
The article would be fair enough in normal times but things have changed. Firstly, The Labour Leadership & most of the members have abandoned Mainstream Politics, The PLP havent but theres little they can do without developing a reckless courage they havent shown so far.
Secondly, Polls on the major Parties are usually a good predictor of Election performance. Labour are currently averaging 13 or 14% behind The Government, at a time when The Official Opposition is usually ahead. Everything suggests that Labour are going to be crushed in 2020, at some point even loyal voteres are going to give up on them & look for something else.
Brexit - Dec 2016 = 18,638
It really depends on which threat they perceive to be the most dangerous. Of course, dithering about in the middle and being anonymous could end up bringing the wrath of voters in both of these categories down upon their heads at the same time. Then we might really get an opportunity to test if Labour's floor of support in England is 27%, 25%, or something lower. This helpful chart suggests that Labour's 2015 vote is already splintering in favour of several opponents with mutually conflicting aims and bases of strength:
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/804724501271416832
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/804675753682096129
As I've been saying for some time, Labour is everybody's primary enemy in British party politics. It must fight battles that it is lamentably ill-equipped for on multiple fronts against the Tories, Lib Dems, Ukip, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and has displayed varying degrees of weakness with respect to them all. All that Labour has to fall back on is the 10-15% of the electorate seriously willing to entertain a Far Left Government, working age people who live off benefits, lower income BAME voters who reflexively reject both the Tories and Ukip, and brand loyalty. It's in a very difficult place.
"Don’t imagine that the swathe of Lib Dems seats the Conservatives won in 2015 are all itching to go back to the Lib Dems purely on the issue of Brexit – looking at Hanretty’s estimates, 20 of the 27 Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives gained in 2015 voted to Leave the EU."
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9782/
As soon as the softer Leave voters start to share the same concerns about where HMG might be headed, May has a problem.
Well, maybe not toxic!
I honestly can't see where Labour goes now. The more the Remainers - predominantly the relatively well-off left - bang on about Brexit, the more Labour will be forced to pick a side.
"At every point, the referendum question poses difficulties for Labour. Even when neither Ukip nor the Liberal Democrats take seats from them directly, they can hurt them badly, allowing the Conservatives to come through the middle.
"The big problem is that the stance that makes sense in terms of maintaining party unity is to try to run on a ticket of moving past the referendum and focussing on the party's core issues of social justice, better public services and redistribution.
"But the trouble with that approach is that it's alarmingly similar to the one favoured by Kezia Dugdale and Scottish Labour in 2016, who tried to make the election about public services, not the constitution. They came third, behind a Conservative party that ran on an explicitly pro-Union platform. The possibility of an English sequel should not be ruled out."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/12/after-richmond-park-labour-mps-are-haunted-familiar-ghost
Farron said something like: it wasn't inevitable that populism, that the 2015 GE result, the referendum result, or the Trump result, needed to happen. There was another way etc etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/02/icelands-radical-pirate-party-asked-form-next-government/
Actually the Labour performance in byelections in 1992-1994 was deeply unimpressive.
It was only after Blair became leader that Labour racked up the big wins.
1) Is a warning about complacency - there's plenty of that among the PB Tories
2) Gets rid of prima donna Zac - Richmond Park will likely be won by a 'proper' Conservative at the next election
3) Reduces the threat of other Conservatives becoming Independents, having unnecessary byelections etc
Or rather, Italy has an unenviable choice: either completely change the structure of its labour market, or leave the Euro. Spain did the former. I don't believe the political will is in Italy to follow the Spanish path.
Furthermore, Italy has other real major problems: the worst demographics in western Europe, corruption, and excessive government debt.
Brexit is a consequence of that not a cause.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingdom-Asunder-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B01N8UF799/
Anyway, time to sod off. Rosberg's retirement might be the single most surprising thing that happened this year.
How many LibDem holds, nailed on did you predict in 2015 ?
How many LibDem gains, nailed on did you predict in 2010 ?
And I bet you were saying Richmond Park LibDem hold, nailed on in 2010 also.
I believe that the Prime Minister is willing to make compromises on immigration and pay lots of money to the upkeep of the EU, in exchange for good access to the single market. The EU would doubtless gladly accept the latter, but is it capable of making any meaningful concessions with respect to the former? I mean, does the EU look like a pragmatic and flexible organisation, or a dogmatic and rigid monolith?
Nevertheless, this time I am right, and I guess that you know it
Orpington gained 1962, held 1964, held 1966, lost 1970
Sutton & Cheam gained 1972, lost 1974
Croydon NW gained 1981, lost 1983
So that's 1/3 holds.
To be fair Lib/SDP/LibDem gains from Labour in London were all initially held.
But the LibDem problem in Richmond Park is that they'll be referred to as a vote for Labour, a Labour led by Corbyn, a Labour led by Corbyn in the pocked of the SNP.
Difficult.
The ultra-Remainers don't seem to understand that Remain isn't one.
Although that said I agree with the vast bulk of your post. People will tire of this. The " control " people wanted to take back didn't smack of year upon year of Somme like international negotiations about Carrot imports. So the market amongst ordinary voters will be there for something ( a) Called Brexit. ( b ) that happens and can be said to be over ( c) changes something but as little as possible.
The problem is though demonstrated by your appalling hypocrisy on this topic. One minute you're an arch pragmatist soft Brexiter who'll be delighted with the above to protect the equity in your Camden flat. The next minute your an unpleasant and bullying arch nationalist who wants Remain voters deported.
Talented novelists and travel writers can hold these contradictions in a single person but lots of people don't. You need to deal with the ultras on the europhobe side to get what you say ( until the next blood chemistry spike ) you want.
There is always scope to learn more and few things are ever 'nailed on'.
Nevertheless my confident prediction is based upon:
A ) knowing the LibDem organisation and very long track record in LB Richmond, at first hand since I first went to help them over thirty years ago;
B ) having observed the big incumbency advantage by-election winners almost always get when defending their seat the first time around at the next GE;
C) my view that the LibDems now have a usp and are unlikely to be in as bad a position in 2020 as they were in 2015;
D) my view the Zac experience and the ensuing splits and defeat probably won't leave the Richmond Tories in a very good place, and it'll take them some years to recover.
In betting there aren't any sure fire outcomes, but (once I have seen the boundaries) putting some money on a LibDem hold in Richmond is as near as you'll get IMHO DYOR etc.
It is the current situation which is causing change via immigration.
If the ordinary voter wants as little as possible change then immigration has to be controlled and more generally the journey of EverCloserUnion has to be ended.
'Thing have to change if things are to stay the same' as someone said sometime, somewhere.
But, as I have said on here many times, the demand for a second referendum has not been thought through. The only question could be:
a) accept deal as negotiated; or
b) reject deal as negotiated.
If it's b) then we go to WTO and hard Brexit so all a second Referendum would do would be to give the headbanging Brexiters a veto over any deal that TMay manages to negotiate. Not what they had in mind, I'm sure.
Edit/ plus I would guess that the Richmond Tory party is probably quite Remain-friendly, so they will have their own doubts about how things are going right now.
I suspect that when the time comes and if a second referendum is offered (and I doubt it will be) a rejection won't automatically lead to WTO and a "hard Brexit" as you put it.
What would happen in the event of a rejection isn't clear but what you propose is far from being the only scenario. Another is further negotiation leading to a revised post-EU Treaty which would again be put to a referendum.
It might also be that May would consider rejection a trigger for a General Election.
What causes disaster is rarely things we don't know about but rather things we are sure about but are wrong.
In any event some at least of my post - such as the well established success of by-election victors in holding their seat at least once more - is objective fact.
Governments have been shying away from necessary measures to address these issues for decades. Same with house prices. Which government is going to rebase house prices to the level they "should" be? GO tried with his buy-to-let measures, but will anyone do anything now?
To oversimplify to what extent is Richmond Park urban liberals sending a " Millwall " message ?
I know we've been round this one several times about whether Article 50 can be revoked etc so let's not do it again.
On house prices, let's wait and see what Hammond has in the budget. I'm not heartened by the move to encourage build-to-let over build-to-sell among developers. We need to increase homeownership and drive private landlords into the equity investments.
I wouls expect the PM is fairly happy with this result - It puts mavericks in their place somewhat and shows what throwing toys out of prams can bring you
Eh Sean?
Similar to the petulant chippy vibe of the Brexit victory, the Trump triumph is peevish and cantankerous, seizing on any opportunity to reclaim the credentials of the besieged that propelled him to victory. But you see, in a way, he has been robbed. As Brexiters have been. They have been robbed of the ability to blame everything on others and not be accountable. They have been robbed of the virtue of the victim and the helpless underdog.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/02/brexit-trump-populists-sore-winners-play-victim
How will Mrs May play this? Will she let the Article 50 clock run out, eating time talking about "Canada Plus" and then crash out to "WTO rules" and blame the EU for intransigence? Will she fold early and accept whatever integration the EU offers up? Or will she delay indefinitely? None of those options look attractive from a political view.
As to the "well established success of by-election victors in holding their seat at least once more" I don't see you giving any examples. Rather the person giving examples was me and as I showed in London there was a 1/3 record of Liberal holds at the subsequent general election.
Now there are constituencies outside London where the Liberals / SDP / LibDems did hold a byelection gain - Berwick, Isle of Ely, Roxburgh, Glasgow Hillhead, Brecon, Romsey, Eastleigh, Littleborough, Newbury.
But there are a similar number where the Conservatives regained the constituency at the first opportunity - Ripon, Crosby, Portsmouth S, Eastbourne, Ribble Valley, Ryedale, Kincardine, Christchurch, Torrington.
I never usually watch Eastenders but it seems like the ethnic makeup of the show is just a tad out of keeping with the actual population of London. Most people on the show are still white British which isn't the case in reality.
And any political party has the choice to propose policies which relate to the above.
So having whined incessantly for 40 years, and toppled at least one Government, having won a vote on a narrow margin after the most dishonest campaign in living memory, Brexiteers will only be happy if everyone else shuts up?
I believe the appropriate phrase is, Suck it up!!
The forces that gave Brexit and Trump momentum coalesced around grievance rather than vision. There was no agenda, no genuinely thought-out project that the winners could soberly set about executing, just resentment. And the grievance narrative must be continued even in success because that is pretty much the whole energising principle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38189925
Umm, ok...
It's fascinating that after fulminating against a result for 40 years, this latest result is sacrosanct for eternity to the Brexiteers.
Back in the Real World, circumstances change.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV