In other news, SpaceX appear to have had a slight issue with the carbon-fibre tank they've been testing for their next-next-generation BFR (Big Falcon F*****g Rocket):
I voted Labour through the seventies up until 1997. I then switched to the LDs (and quite liked Paddy and the alky one) through to 2015 when I voted Kipper. I wouldn't think of voting Ukip now ... unless the anti-democrats gain the upper hand. Give me a good reason to so.
Once Tim ( a good old God-botherer) loses his Euro-fanaticism, I'll probably go back to the Yellows. Unless they dry hump the Greens, of course. I don't want to spend my dotage in a draughty cave eating grass.
This is a survey of one person (me) but why would Stoke vote Ukip at the moment?.
This UKIP failure in Stoke seems to be in the same PB certainty bracket as
Ukip not winning Euros Carswell not winning Clacton by E Reckless losing Rochester By E NOM at GE 15 "It's the economy, stupid' 'meaning Remain win the Ref ...and the first female POTUS!
I don't think that everybody agrees it's certain, but even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.
I think like trump and brexit, the odds seem too long for a two horse race. It could be a value bet if the odds drift too far.
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remember that and also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
@MirandaGrell: Simon F is best political strategist out there. Ken's #London mayoralty a success due to SF. How anyone could favour Milne over SF baffling! twitter.com/PippaCrerar/st…
On topic why would UKIP voters go to the polls to give Lab a good kicking? Without Corbyn's tacit sympathy Brexit would never won through and so many Leave voters will sit on their hands. As a result turnout will be low especially as Nuttall and the Lab candidate are vying for the title of the biggest jerk on view. I am with Mike in that I think the LDs will do surprisingly well in Stoke.
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remember that and also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
Wasn't that 3 year holiday a reference to Brown following Clarke's spending plans for the next three years.
That he would be needed when Brown needed some new plans.
In other news, SpaceX appear to have had a slight issue with the carbon-fibre tank they've been testing for their next-next-generation BFR (Big Falcon F*****g Rocket):
They're looking at launching their next current-generation Falcon-9 rocket tomorrow afternoon, on a resupply mission to the ISS.
I doubt this will worry SpaceX much, the tank was a first go and nothing quite like it has been constructed before. It's all good data for the next iteration.
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remember that and also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
He was overly optimistic about sanity returning to the Tory party. Instead they went into the 2001 election with Billy Hague's egregious 'save the Pound' campaign and got destroyed.
@jamiemaxwell86: SNP 5 minutes ago: Tony Blair's a toxic war criminal. SNP now: Blair's super rational. Let's hear what he has to say about Brexit & indy.
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remember that and also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
He was overly optimistic about sanity returning to the Tory party. Instead they went into the 2001 election with Billy Hague's egregious 'save the Pound' campaign and got destroyed.
Without that campaign Blair may have joined the Euro
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remember that and also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
He was overly optimistic about sanity returning to the Tory party. Instead they went into the 2001 election with Billy Hague's egregious 'save the Pound' campaign and got destroyed.
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remember that and also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
He was overly optimistic about sanity returning to the Tory party. Instead they went into the 2001 election with Billy Hague's egregious 'save the Pound' campaign and got destroyed.
poor lad was just ahead of his time. always precocious, i suppose, dear William
I wonder if Blair would ever consider putting himself forward as an independent MP in a remain strong constituency in a by-election. I'm thinking him, David Laws and David Cameron could possibly make a pretty potent force if they put their minds together. A very long shot indeed, of course, but as we know, strange things are happening in elected politics. Two years ago, who would have predicted a Trump Presidency, and that an IRA symapthising, far left back bencher would be leading the Labour party?
All well and good but only 13% are LD voters. I have certainly found in Copeland that a voter leaning between Labour and the Tories will move to the Tories when you point out to them that will ensure backing for May's Brexit plans
I thought Jeremy Corbyn had sold out on his supporters, and was backing Mrs May`s Brexit plan.
That was a few days ago, of course.
Plenty of his MPs opposed Brexit and the Labour candidate in Copeland may well be of a similar view if elected, only Ken Clarke opposed it on the Tory benches
Plenty of Tories (MPs and voters) are opposed to Brexit, only one MP voted against implementing the referendum result. There is a big difference, the Tories are nowhere near united on Brexit.
Curious that Tories rate Brexit far more highly as an issue than UKIP.
UKIP's figure may reflect that if you've won, you can be more detached.
It is a huge issue. But that doesn't mean 'concern'. We need to get on with it. LD issue is to ensure that we don't Tory issue is to ensure that we do. Labour focussing more on health. UKIP don't give a shit - job largely done.
Or it could be that the main concern of Conservative voters is that we do not end up with the economy wrecked. In this, they are like Lib Dem voters.
A lot of them have not yet realised that Mrs May, with her concern to outflank UKIP and keep the Tory Party united, is doing precisely that.
The Mori attitudes survey shows the prevalence of remarkable complacency across the political spectrum regarding the economy.
Having oversold the immediate collapse of the economy post-Brexit, the correction that there's nothing to worry about goes too far in my view.
In other news, SpaceX appear to have had a slight issue with the carbon-fibre tank they've been testing for their next-next-generation BFR (Big Falcon F*****g Rocket):
They're looking at launching their next current-generation Falcon-9 rocket tomorrow afternoon, on a resupply mission to the ISS.
I doubt this will worry SpaceX much, the tank was a first go and nothing quite like it has been constructed before. It's all good data for the next iteration.
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remember that and also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
He was overly optimistic about sanity returning to the Tory party. Instead they went into the 2001 election with Billy Hague's egregious 'save the Pound' campaign and got destroyed.
tbf, the Pound was saved.
But at what cost? If Ken Clarke had been leader of the opposition we would probably have joined the Euro and not joined the Iraq war. The country and the world paid dearly for the Tories indulging a pair of leaders who were in turns childish and thick.
@jamiemaxwell86: SNP 5 minutes ago: Tony Blair's a toxic war criminal. SNP now: Blair's super rational. Let's hear what he has to say about Brexit & indy.
war crimes can be perfectly rational, don't you reckon? dambusters would probably be a war crime, along with many other WW2 actions if we really wanted to count them that way.
not sure why SNP has to be more consistent than all other political parties, tho
On topic why would UKIP voters go to the polls to give Lab a good kicking? Without Corbyn's tacit sympathy Brexit would never won through and so many Leave voters will sit on their hands. As a result turnout will be low especially as Nuttall and the Lab candidate are vying for the title of the biggest jerk on view. I am with Mike in that I think the LDs will do surprisingly well in Stoke.
I am in full agreement, I think LD are good value in stoke, but whether they can squeak it I don't know.
In other news, SpaceX appear to have had a slight issue with the carbon-fibre tank they've been testing for their next-next-generation BFR (Big Falcon F*****g Rocket):
They're looking at launching their next current-generation Falcon-9 rocket tomorrow afternoon, on a resupply mission to the ISS.
I doubt this will worry SpaceX much, the tank was a first go and nothing quite like it has been constructed before. It's all good data for the next iteration.
This UKIP failure in Stoke seems to be in the same PB certainty bracket as
Ukip not winning Euros Carswell not winning Clacton by E Reckless losing Rochester By E NOM at GE 15 "It's the economy, stupid' 'meaning Remain win the Ref ...and the first female POTUS!
I don't think that everybody agrees it's certain, but even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.
I think like trump and brexit, the odds seem too long for a two horse race. It could be a value bet if the odds drift too far.
Who knows but the market is so weak it might as well not be there. On PB any Ukip candidate is written off and any UK establishment party that's an odds on chance is generally thought of as already won.
Meanwhile, for all the attention Tony Blair has had this morning for getting his response to the referendum result entirely wrong, it's worth giving some praise to Lucy Thomas, formerly deputy director of BSE, who this morning got it resoundingly correct:
Agree with Ms Thomas. Those that voted Remain because they faced up to the realities of Brexit have to deal with those realities now. It's up to them to mitigate the disaster. Neither hardcore Leavers nor hardcore Remainers will be doing so.
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remember that and also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
He was overly optimistic about sanity returning to the Tory party. Instead they went into the 2001 election with Billy Hague's egregious 'save the Pound' campaign and got destroyed.
tbf, the Pound was saved.
But at what cost? If Ken Clarke had been leader of the opposition we would probably have joined the Euro and not joined the Iraq war. The country and the world paid dearly for the Tories indulging a pair of leaders who were in turns childish and thick.
We would have joined the Euro by 1999 and Blair would have beaten Clarke in 2001 and still taken us into Iraq
Let it happen, and if we're proved wrong about it, so be it, it'll be great for the country and us, I'd much rather be mocked than see the UK struggle.
If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left.
Schadenfreude is not something I enjoy, but in that scenario it would be very hard to avoid. I fully expect us to rejoin once the Baby Boomers (or a significant proportion of them) are in their graves.
Curious that Tories rate Brexit far more highly as an issue than UKIP.
UKIP's figure may reflect that if you've won, you can be more detached.
It is a huge issue. But that doesn't mean 'concern'. We need to get on with it. LD issue is to ensure that we don't Tory issue is to ensure that we do. Labour focussing more on health. UKIP don't give a shit - job largely done.
Or it could be that the main concern of Conservative voters is that we do not end up with the economy wrecked. In this, they are like Lib Dem voters.
A lot of them have not yet realised that Mrs May, with her concern to outflank UKIP and keep the Tory Party united, is doing precisely that.
Or maybe they're concerned that we don't wreck our democracy. Parliament not Brussels. Essentially all Remainers think staying in means staying in as things are now not as they will inevitably develop to become in the EU. They have not realised this yet. Status quo was never an option. The choice was Brexit or Superstate.
Not so. Your prejudices against the EU run so deep you cannot conceive of it changing for the better. With the political climate as it is in other EU countries it is quite conceivable that the EU actually develops into something looser and more acceptable to the UK. If political pressures in the Netherlands, France etc lead to changes in freedom of movement then the EU would be acceptable to the majority. Brexit won by exploiting the immigration issue, without that it is probable that Remain would have won very comfortably.
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remember that and also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
He was overly optimistic about sanity returning to the Tory party. Instead they went into the 2001 election with Billy Hague's egregious 'save the Pound' campaign and got destroyed.
tbf, the Pound was saved.
But at what cost? If Ken Clarke had been leader of the opposition we would probably have joined the Euro and not joined the Iraq war. The country and the world paid dearly for the Tories indulging a pair of leaders who were in turns childish and thick.
We would have joined the Euro by 1999 and Blair would have beaten Clarke in 2001 and still taken us into Iraq
Blair would have had a reduced majority in 2001 and with Clarke opposed to Iraq, Blair could never have risked taking it to the Commons so even if we had still taken part, it would have been without the poisonous legacy of the dodgy dossiers. With Europe a settled issue the Tories would have been fully united behind Clarke.
The transaction tax is one of these things that lots of people are in favour of in principle, but they all have different specific objections with any particular implementation.
For that reason, I suspect that the UK will remain the only country in the world with a financial transactions tax.
Let it happen, and if we're proved wrong about it, so be it, it'll be great for the country and us, I'd much rather be mocked than see the UK struggle.
If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left.
Schadenfreude is not something I enjoy, but in that scenario it would be very hard to avoid. I fully expect us to rejoin once the Baby Boomers (or a significant proportion of them) are in their graves.
The Baby Boomers voted to join the EU in 1975. As they die off, they'll simply be replaced by new age cohorts of eurosceptics.
Curious that Tories rate Brexit far more highly as an issue than UKIP.
UKIP's figure may reflect that if you've won, you can be more detached.
It is a huge issue. But that doesn't mean 'concern'. We need to get on with it. LD issue is to ensure that we don't Tory issue is to ensure that we do. Labour focussing more on health. UKIP don't give a shit - job largely done.
Or it could be that the main concern of Conservative voters is that we do not end up with the economy wrecked. In this, they are like Lib Dem voters.
A lot of them have not yet realised that Mrs May, with her concern to outflank UKIP and keep the Tory Party united, is doing precisely that.
Or maybe they're concerned that we don't wreck our democracy. Parliament not Brussels. Essentially all Remainers think staying in means staying in as things are now not as they will inevitably develop to become in the EU. They have not realised this yet. Status quo was never an option. The choice was Brexit or Superstate.
Not so. Your prejudices against the EU run so deep you cannot conceive of it changing for the better.
40+ years of experience of the Project show how it can change, and from the UK consensus view that is not for the better.
Curious that Tories rate Brexit far more highly as an issue than UKIP.
UKIP's figure may reflect that if you've won, you can be more detached.
It is a huge issue. But that doesn't mean 'concern'. We need to get on with it. LD issue is to ensure that we don't Tory issue is to ensure that we do. Labour focussing more on health. UKIP don't give a shit - job largely done.
Or it could be that the main concern of Conservative voters is that we do not end up with the economy wrecked. In this, they are like Lib Dem voters.
A lot of them have not yet realised that Mrs May, with her concern to outflank UKIP and keep the Tory Party united, is doing precisely that.
Or maybe they're concerned that we don't wreck our democracy. Parliament not Brussels. Essentially all Remainers think staying in means staying in as things are now not as they will inevitably develop to become in the EU. They have not realised this yet. Status quo was never an option. The choice was Brexit or Superstate.
Brexit won by exploiting the immigration issue, without that it is probable that Remain would have won very comfortably.
Remain came painfully close to winning by deploying Project Bullshit. Had Dave gone for a Leave result, having realised EU reform is not ever going to happen and with the power of the state behind him, it would have been 70/30 for Leave. So actually well done Remain - you very nearly nudged the British people away from their natural Euroscepticism.
Up to and including advocating not leaving, right?
Tricky one. I do believe in making the best of any situation. I don't have a problem with the UK collectively changing its mind and Brexit not going ahead. If the consensus is not going to change, and realistically I don't think it will at this stage, we have to roll with it. I do think we should be level about Brexit. It doesn't solve a single real problem we have (that I'm aware of at least); it makes several real problems we do have that much more difficult to solve; it introduces a number of new real problems as well. The biggest lie of the Leave campaign wasn't the £350 million pounds for the NHS. It was the implicit assertion that leaving the EU was free of consequences, when in fact there are many consequences, most of them bad.
Britain post-Brexit will be a very frustrating place. Much more so than before.
Ensuring Labour’s survival in the North of England and the Midlands is not just a question of strengthening the party’s appeal to the so-called traditional Labour voter who voted to Leave. There are simply not enough of them for that alone to be a viable strategy. Rather, it is also about retaining the support of the majority of Labour voters in the northern half of England who voted to Remain. For without them, the party really will be in trouble.
"Let it happen, and ...If it turns out Brexit is a disaster, well we can be proved right, and imagine the look on the Leavers face when they realise that we'll have to rejoin on the EU on worse terms than we left."
Funny that. I remember the Tories saying something similar in 1997. Let this new kid Blair ruin the economy like they always do and we'll be back within three years. How did that turn out?
Oh my goodness I remnd also Ken Clarke saying in a TV interview that he looked forward to a 3 year holiday on the back benches
He was overly optimistic about sanity returning to the Tory party. Instead they went into the 2001 election with Billy Hague's egregious 'save the Pound' campaign ans saved.
But at what cost? If Ken Clarke had been leader of the opposition we would probably have joined the Euro and not joined the Iraq war. The country and the world paid dearly for the Tories indulging a pair of leaders who were in turns childish and thick.
We would have joined the Euro by 1999 and Blair would have beaten Clarke in 2001 and still taken us into Iraq
Blair would have had a reduced majority in 2001 and with Clarke opposed to Iraq, Blair could never have risked taking it to the Commons so even if we had stipl taken part, it would have been without the poisonous legacy of the dodgy dossiers. With Europe a settled issue the Tories would have been fully united behind Clarke.
Tory Euro splits would likely have cost Clarke in 2001 and UKIP would have done better. After losing to Blair Clarke would probably have been succeeded by a Eurosceptic, maybe even Hague
Up to and including advocating not leaving, right?
Tricky one. I do believe in making the best of any situation. I don't have a problem with the UK collectively changing its mind and Brexit not going ahead. If the consensus is not going to change, and realistically I don't think it will at this stage, we have to roll with it. I do think we should be level about Brexit. It doesn't solve a single real problem we have (that I'm aware of at least); it makes several real problems we do have that much more difficult to solve; it introduces a number of new real problems as well. The biggest lie of the Leave campaign wasn't the £350 million pounds for the NHS. It was the implicit assertion that leaving the EU was free of consequences, when in fact there are many consequences, most of them bad.
Britain post-Brexit will be a very frustrating place. Much more so than before.
any UK establishment party that's an odds on chance is generally thought of as already won.
Tories too short for my liking in Copeland :<>
I'm gutted I'm too cautious to have gone "balls in" when they were 1.30 (laying obviously).
For me I wouldn't be surprised with a LD win in either or a Tory win in Stoke even though they've got quite long odds. I think there is value there for a small wager.
Ensuring Labour’s survival in the North of England and the Midlands is not just a question of strengthening the party’s appeal to the so-called traditional Labour voter who voted to Leave. There are simply not enough of them for that alone to be a viable strategy. Rather, it is also about retaining the support of the majority of Labour voters in the northern half of England who voted to Remain. For without them, the party really will be in trouble.
The problem with any analysis like this is it assumes that everyone who voted in the EU referendum views this as an existential issue, and/or that voters on both sides are equally passionate. The first assertion is clearly wrong, and my hunch is that the second is also mistaken.
I think that a great many voters have long since moved on from Brexit, but that of those who remain deeply concerned about it, a greater proportion voted Leave than Remain. It would certainly help to explain why the shambolic Ukip continues to have the edge over the well-organised Lib Dems in most of the General Election VI polls: in a contest between two parties whose agendas have become so dominated by the European question, Ukip continues to have the edge over Anti-Ukip because more people loathe the EU than love it.
This is not reflected in local and by-elections, where the Remain tendency has a turnout advantage, but in a general election the strong Leavers should be in evidence in significantly greater numbers.
Up to and including advocating not leaving, right?
Tricky one. I do believe in making the best of any situation. I don't have a problem with the UK collectively changing its mind and Brexit not going ahead. If the consensus is not going to change, and realistically I don't think it will at this stage, we have to roll with it. I do think we should be level about Brexit. It doesn't solve a single real problem we have (that I'm aware of at least); it makes several real problems we do have that much more difficult to solve; it introduces a number of new real problems as well. The biggest lie of the Leave campaign wasn't the £350 million pounds for the NHS. It was the implicit assertion that leaving the EU was free of consequences, when in fact there are many consequences, most of them bad.
Britain post-Brexit will be a very frustrating place. Much more so than before.
There will be consequences from Brexit, both positive and negative. My view has always been that we were a poor fit for the EU: with very different legal, political and historical traditions to our neighbours. We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
We will, in general, be happier after we leave. But I have also become more negative on our near term economics than I was. There is this general view that Britain's economic model works, while the Eurozone's is doomed. But the truth is that our current debt and consumer spending model is fundamentally broken. We currently spend more than we earn, and unwinding that gets more difficult every day. Rising GDP expectations, driven almost entirely off the back of unsecured consumer credit growing 11% year-over-year, are not sustainable.
The best outcome for the UK would be an increasingly loose relationship with the EU, where we agree to a gradual disentangling. This will, of course, be much more (headline) expensive than just severing all ties, but I suspect it would be better - in terms of the final settlement, and in terms of businesses adjusting their supply chains - for the economy as a whole. Sadly, I suspect that's not where we're going, and it worries me greatly.
Aren't National Guards technically under the control of the individual states? Or is he deliberately attempting to provoke a fight with liberal California, Vermont, etc.?
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
That may be your view and the view of a section of the elite which sadly grew over the last few decades, but is a completely inadequate reading of the politics of the 60s and 70s. We joined for political reasons, of which being able to run a sane economy was just one of a long list.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
Aren't National Guards technically under the control of the individual states? Or is he deliberately attempting to provoke a fight with liberal California, Vermont, etc.?
Aren't National Guards technically under the control of the individual states? Or is he deliberately attempting to provoke a fight with liberal California, Vermont, etc.?
Apparently within a certain distance of the border (including the oceans) they fall under the command of the Federal government. I think this may have been a post-9/11 change.
The Mori poll giving the Tories a lead of 11% represents a swing of 2.2% in their direction from Labour across GB since 2015. Applied universally that would result in 15 Tory gains at Labour’s expense – reducing Labour to 217 seats and giving the Tories a majority of 42. However, the details of poll tend to confirm the pattern shown by Opinium two weeks ago – ie that a very strong swing to the Tories in Scotland is hiding relatively little change in England. The Tory lead in England as stated by Mori is also 11% – but it was already 9.5% in 2015. That would imply a swing to the Tories of just 0.75% and would only lead to 7 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would still retain 225 MPs and the Tory majority would be 26. Moreover , most of those 7 vulnerable Labour seats have MPs newly elected in 2015 and who could reasonably expect a first – time incumbency boost in the same way enjoyed by Tory MPs in marginal seats in 2015. On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties. The strong Tory performance in Scotland does raise the possibility of several gains from the SNP.At the same time some of the Tory gains from the LibDems in 2015 might be reversed – though not many!
Aren't National Guards technically under the control of the individual states? Or is he deliberately attempting to provoke a fight with liberal California, Vermont, etc.?
Apparently within a certain distance of the border (including the oceans) they fall under the command of the Federal government. I think this may have been a post-9/11 change.
Nah, Eisenhower and JFK federalised the National Guard in the South to enforce Civil Rights.
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
That may be your view and the view of a section of the elite which sadly grew over the last few decades, but is a completely inadequate reading of the politics of the 60s and 70s. We joined for political reasons, of which being able a sane economy was just one of a long list.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
Britain's economy in the early 1970s was broken.
The countries of the EEC had done much, much better than the UK in the preceding decade, and had caught up, and even surpassed us on most metrics.
The government picked economic winners (badly), while unions were very short sighted, bringing down a number of profitable firms.
We thought that the difference between Germany's economic fate and ours, was that they were members of the EEC. Obviously that wasn't true.
But look, I have a very counter-consensus view on the Eurozone economy in the next ten years to the PB consensus. I suspect that - absent a major political shock - it will substantially outgrow the UK, as it gets into a virtuous circle of falling savings rates boosting growth, boosting confidence pulling down the savings rate. Countries like Spain - which have modernised their economies - could well see a decade of 3% growth ahead of them.
The Mori poll giving the Tories a lead of 11% represents a swing of 2.2% in their direction from Labour across GB since 2015. Applied universally that would result in 15 Tory gains at Labour’s expense – reducing Labour to 217 seats and giving the Tories a majority of 42. However, the details of poll tend to confirm the pattern shown by Opinium two weeks ago – ie that a very strong swing to the Tories in Scotland is hiding relatively little change in England. The Tory lead in England as stated by Mori is also 11% – but it was already 9.5% in 2015. That would imply a swing to the Tories of just 0.75% and would only lead to 7 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would still retain 225 MPs and the Tory majority would be 26. Moreover , most of those 7 vulnerable Labour seats have MPs newly elected in 2015 and who could reasonably expect a first – time incumbency boost in the same way enjoyed by Tory MPs in marginal seats in 2015. On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties. The strong Tory performance in Scotland does raise the possibility of several gains from the SNP.At the same time some of the Tory gains from the LibDems in 2015 might be reversed – though not many!
You're assuming that there will be no change between midterm and the general election. Which is rather brave.
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
That may be your view and the view of a section of the elite which sadly grew over the last few decades, but is a completely inadequate reading of the politics of the 60s and 70s. We joined for political reasons, of which being able to run a sane economy was just one of a long list.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
It's the political side of the EU which very few of us want.
But look, I have a very counter-consensus view on the Eurozone economy in the next ten years to the PB consensus. I suspect that - absent a major political shock - it will substantially outgrow the UK, as it gets into a virtuous circle of falling savings rates boosting growth, boosting confidence pulling down the savings rate. Countries like Spain - which have modernised their economies - could well see a decade of 3% growth ahead of them.
The Mori poll giving the Tories a lead of 11% represents a swing of 2.2% in their direction from Labour across GB since 2015. Applied universally that would result in 15 Tory gains at Labour’s expense – reducing Labour to 217 seats and giving the Tories a majority of 42. However, the details of poll tend to confirm the pattern shown by Opinium two weeks ago – ie that a very strong swing to the Tories in Scotland is hiding relatively little change in England. The Tory lead in England as stated by Mori is also 11% – but it was already 9.5% in 2015. That would imply a swing to the Tories of just 0.75% and would only lead to 7 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would still retain 225 MPs and the Tory majority would be 26. Moreover , most of those 7 vulnerable Labour seats have MPs newly elected in 2015 and who could reasonably expect a first – time incumbency boost in the same way enjoyed by Tory MPs in marginal seats in 2015. On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties. The strong Tory performance in Scotland does raise the possibility of several gains from the SNP.At the same time some of the Tory gains from the LibDems in 2015 might be reversed – though not many!
You're assuming that there will be no change between midterm and the general election. Which is rather brave.
I am not predicting the next election result at all. I am just looking at the figures as they stand today - based on Mori's data.
The Mori poll giving the Tories a lead of 11% represents a swing of 2.2% in their direction from Labour across GB since 2015. Applied universally that would result in 15 Tory gains at Labour’s expense – reducing Labour to 217 seats and giving the Tories a majority of 42. However, the details of poll tend to confirm the pattern shown by Opinium two weeks ago – ie that a very strong swing to the Tories in Scotland is hiding relatively little change in England. The Tory lead in England as stated by Mori is also 11% – but it was already 9.5% in 2015. That would imply a swing to the Tories of just 0.75% and would only lead to 7 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would still retain 225 MPs and the Tory majority would be 26. Moreover , most of those 7 vulnerable Labour seats have MPs newly elected in 2015 and who could reasonably expect a first – time incumbency boost in the same way enjoyed by Tory MPs in marginal seats in 2015. On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties. The strong Tory performance in Scotland does raise the possibility of several gains from the SNP.At the same time some of the Tory gains from the LibDems in 2015 might be reversed – though not many!
You're assuming that there will be no change between midterm and the general election. Which is rather brave.
I am not predicting the next election result at all. I am just looking at the figures as they stand today - based on Mori's data.
"On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties" is "not predicting the next election result at all"?
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
That may be your view and the view of a section of the elite which sadly grew over the last few decades, but is a completely inadequate reading of the politics of the 60s and 70s. We joined for political reasons, of which being able a sane economy was just one of a long list.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
Britain's economy in the early 1970s was broken.
The countries of the EEC had done much, much better than the UK in the preceding decade, and had caught up, and even surpassed us on most metrics.
The government picked economic winners (badly), while unions were very short sighted, bringing down a number of profitable firms.
We thought that the difference between Germany's economic fate and ours, was that they were members of the EEC. Obviously that wasn't true.
But look, I have a very counter-consensus view on the Eurozone economy in the next ten years to the PB consensus. I suspect that - absent a major political shock - it will substantially outgrow the UK, as it gets into a virtuous circle of falling savings rates boosting growth, boosting confidence pulling down the savings rate. Countries like Spain - which have modernised their economies - could well see a decade of 3% growth ahead of them.
I don't think Spain is the problem with the EU. The problems will be the top level counties that haven't reformed - Italy and to a lesser extent France.
The Mori poll giving the Tories a lead of 11% represents a swing of 2.2% in their direction from Labour across GB since 2015. Applied universally that would result in 15 Tory gains at Labour’s expense – reducing Labour to 217 seats and giving the Tories a majority of 42. However, the details of poll tend to confirm the pattern shown by Opinium two weeks ago – ie that a very strong swing to the Tories in Scotland is hiding relatively little change in England. The Tory lead in England as stated by Mori is also 11% – but it was already 9.5% in 2015. That would imply a swing to the Tories of just 0.75% and would only lead to 7 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would still retain 225 MPs and the Tory majority would be 26. Moreover , most of those 7 vulnerable Labour seats have MPs newly elected in 2015 and who could reasonably expect a first – time incumbency boost in the same way enjoyed by Tory MPs in marginal seats in 2015. On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties. The strong Tory performance in Scotland does raise the possibility of several gains from the SNP.At the same time some of the Tory gains from the LibDems in 2015 might be reversed – though not many!
You're assuming that there will be no change between midterm and the general election. Which is rather brave.
I am not predicting the next election result at all. I am just looking at the figures as they stand today - based on Mori's data.
"On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties" is "not predicting the next election result at all"?
OK then.
No - it is implying what would be likely to happen at an election held now - or a few days ago when the survey was conducted!
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
That may be your view and the view of a section of the elite which sadly grew over the last few decades, but is a completely inadequate reading of the politics of the 60s and 70s. We joined for political reasons, of which being able a sane economy was just one of a long list.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
Britain's economy in the early 1970s was broken.
Yes but you are focusing on the aspect that interests you the most and ignoring some even bigger issues.
The UK had over the course of only a few decades lost Ireland, lost a global empire, lost its place as a global power and lost even its role holding the balance of power in Europe. Joining the EEC gave it a political lifeline.
Brexit as a sovereignty play means above all trying to recreate a unitary state where the writ of Westminster is absolute. This is incompatible with the present UK that includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, but to the Brexiteers losing them, and any associated collateral damage, would be a price worth paying.
We are witnessing the death throes of a once great state, that received a stay of execution as a member of the European project, but has now decided once again to get on the fast track to historical oblivion.
There are children being born today who will need to consult Wikipedia to learn what the United Kingdom was.
The Mori poll giving the Tories a lead of 11% represents a swing of 2.2% in their direction from Labour across GB since 2015. Applied universally that would result in 15 Tory gains at Labour’s expense – reducing Labour to 217 seats and giving the Tories a majority of 42. However, the details of poll tend to confirm the pattern shown by Opinium two weeks ago – ie that a very strong swing to the Tories in Scotland is hiding relatively little change in England. The Tory lead in England as stated by Mori is also 11% – but it was already 9.5% in 2015. That would imply a swing to the Tories of just 0.75% and would only lead to 7 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would still retain 225 MPs and the Tory majority would be 26. Moreover , most of those 7 vulnerable Labour seats have MPs newly elected in 2015 and who could reasonably expect a first – time incumbency boost in the same way enjoyed by Tory MPs in marginal seats in 2015. On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties. The strong Tory performance in Scotland does raise the possibility of several gains from the SNP.At the same time some of the Tory gains from the LibDems in 2015 might be reversed – though not many!
Sorry but that is garbage. Even if the poll is right your analysis is the phrase 'applied universally'. It won't be. Labour would probably do better in areas where they are already strong and much worse in the areas where they are vulnerable.
The Mori poll giving the Tories a lead of 11% represents a swing of 2.2% in their direction from Labour across GB since 2015. Applied universally that would result in 15 Tory gains at Labour’s expense – reducing Labour to 217 seats and giving the Tories a majority of 42. However, the details of poll tend to confirm the pattern shown by Opinium two weeks ago – ie that a very strong swing to the Tories in Scotland is hiding relatively little change in England. The Tory lead in England as stated by Mori is also 11% – but it was already 9.5% in 2015. That would imply a swing to the Tories of just 0.75% and would only lead to 7 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would still retain 225 MPs and the Tory majority would be 26. Moreover , most of those 7 vulnerable Labour seats have MPs newly elected in 2015 and who could reasonably expect a first – time incumbency boost in the same way enjoyed by Tory MPs in marginal seats in 2015. On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties. The strong Tory performance in Scotland does raise the possibility of several gains from the SNP.At the same time some of the Tory gains from the LibDems in 2015 might be reversed – though not many!
You're assuming that there will be no change between midterm and the general election. Which is rather brave.
I am not predicting the next election result at all. I am just looking at the figures as they stand today - based on Mori's data.
"On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties" is "not predicting the next election result at all"?
OK then.
No - it is implying what would be likely to happen at an election held now - or a few days ago when the survey was conducted!
"On that basis, very few seats might change hands at all between the major parties. "
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
That may be your view and the view of a section of the elite which sadly grew over the last few decades, but is a completely inadequate reading of the politics of the 60s and 70s. We joined for political reasons, of which being able a sane economy was just one of a long list.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
Britain's economy in the early 1970s was broken.
Yes but you are focusing on the aspect that interests you the most and ignoring some even bigger issues.
The UK had over the course of only a few decades lost Ireland, lost a global empire, lost its place as a global power and lost even its role holding the balance of power in Europe. Joining the EEC gave it a political lifeline.
Brexit as a sovereignty play means above all trying to recreate a unitary state where the writ of Westminster is absolute. This is incompatible with the present UK that includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, but to the Brexiteers losing them, and any associated collateral damage, would be a price worth paying.
We are witnessing the death throes of a once great state, that received a stay of execution as a member of the European project, but has now decided once again to get on the fast track to historical oblivion.
There are children being born today who will need to consult Wikipedia to learn what the United Kingdom was.
That's wishful thinking on your part. And highly disingenuous, given that you want this country to become part of a new country called Europe.
Last time I checked the National Guard was 350,000 strong.
1.4 million - Motto, "Always Ready, Always There!"
Isn't the 350k the infantry/soldier number and the 1.4m the total including support/logistics/non combat staff
I’ve not seen that figure quoted, the Federal National Guard doesn’t appear to differentiate between combative and support - and should not be confused with non-federal State militia and Reserve forces.
Comments
In other news, SpaceX appear to have had a slight issue with the carbon-fibre tank they've been testing for their next-next-generation BFR (Big Falcon F*****g Rocket):
Before:
https://imgur.com/a/nDyLI
After:
http://imgur.com/a/bGHR6
Ooops.
They're looking at launching their next current-generation Falcon-9 rocket tomorrow afternoon, on a resupply mission to the ISS.
I think like trump and brexit, the odds seem too long for a two horse race. It could be a value bet if the odds drift too far.
That he would be needed when Brown needed some new plans.
It's all good data for the next iteration.
SNP 5 minutes ago: Tony Blair's a toxic war criminal.
SNP now: Blair's super rational. Let's hear what he has to say about Brexit & indy.
Are you trying to find a copy of the guide?
not sure why SNP has to be more consistent than all other political parties, tho
damn the image didn't come out
a) allow a mess to happen and then clean it up? Or,
b) stop it from happening in the first place?
Sadly the consensus seem to be (a)
Agreed.
Schadenfreude is not something I enjoy, but in that scenario it would be very hard to avoid. I fully expect us to rejoin once the Baby Boomers (or a significant proportion of them) are in their graves.
"Senior Republican adviser says something is ‘deeply wrong’ with Donald Trump
Comments follow what adviser described as ‘the most bizarre press conference in history’"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-republican-adviser-something-deeply-wrong-quote-a7585511.html
For that reason, I suspect that the UK will remain the only country in the world with a financial transactions tax.
Britain post-Brexit will be a very frustrating place. Much more so than before.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/is-labours-brexit-dilemma-being-misunderstood/?platform=hootsuite
Ensuring Labour’s survival in the North of England and the Midlands is not just a question of strengthening the party’s appeal to the so-called traditional Labour voter who voted to Leave. There are simply not enough of them for that alone to be a viable strategy. Rather, it is also about retaining the support of the majority of Labour voters in the northern half of England who voted to Remain. For without them, the party really will be in trouble.
https://twitter.com/philbc3/status/832512036638699520
For me I wouldn't be surprised with a LD win in either or a Tory win in Stoke even though they've got quite long odds. I think there is value there for a small wager.
I think that a great many voters have long since moved on from Brexit, but that of those who remain deeply concerned about it, a greater proportion voted Leave than Remain. It would certainly help to explain why the shambolic Ukip continues to have the edge over the well-organised Lib Dems in most of the General Election VI polls: in a contest between two parties whose agendas have become so dominated by the European question, Ukip continues to have the edge over Anti-Ukip because more people loathe the EU than love it.
This is not reflected in local and by-elections, where the Remain tendency has a turnout advantage, but in a general election the strong Leavers should be in evidence in significantly greater numbers.
We will, in general, be happier after we leave. But I have also become more negative on our near term economics than I was. There is this general view that Britain's economic model works, while the Eurozone's is doomed. But the truth is that our current debt and consumer spending model is fundamentally broken. We currently spend more than we earn, and unwinding that gets more difficult every day. Rising GDP expectations, driven almost entirely off the back of unsecured consumer credit growing 11% year-over-year, are not sustainable.
The best outcome for the UK would be an increasingly loose relationship with the EU, where we agree to a gradual disentangling. This will, of course, be much more (headline) expensive than just severing all ties, but I suspect it would be better - in terms of the final settlement, and in terms of businesses adjusting their supply chains - for the economy as a whole. Sadly, I suspect that's not where we're going, and it worries me greatly.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/louise-mensch-trump-russia-ties-media-scoop
perhaps I am. well, good for Louise if so
The countries of the EEC had done much, much better than the UK in the preceding decade, and had caught up, and even surpassed us on most metrics.
The government picked economic winners (badly), while unions were very short sighted, bringing down a number of profitable firms.
We thought that the difference between Germany's economic fate and ours, was that they were members of the EEC. Obviously that wasn't true.
But look, I have a very counter-consensus view on the Eurozone economy in the next ten years to the PB consensus. I suspect that - absent a major political shock - it will substantially outgrow the UK, as it gets into a virtuous circle of falling savings rates boosting growth, boosting confidence pulling down the savings rate. Countries like Spain - which have modernised their economies - could well see a decade of 3% growth ahead of them.
In Northern California it's going to go down like a lead balloon
Just saying.
Blair is yesterday's man. It won't mean more than 1% extra to Ukip.
OK then.
https://twitter.com/taylorivers/status/832615875588927489
The UK had over the course of only a few decades lost Ireland, lost a global empire, lost its place as a global power and lost even its role holding the balance of power in Europe. Joining the EEC gave it a political lifeline.
Brexit as a sovereignty play means above all trying to recreate a unitary state where the writ of Westminster is absolute. This is incompatible with the present UK that includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, but to the Brexiteers losing them, and any associated collateral damage, would be a price worth paying.
We are witnessing the death throes of a once great state, that received a stay of execution as a member of the European project, but has now decided once again to get on the fast track to historical oblivion.
There are children being born today who will need to consult Wikipedia to learn what the United Kingdom was.
OK then.