There is Brexit role for Remainers, which is to help produce an outcome which is worse than what we had before, but better than it would otherwise be. The problem is that Remainers don't see why they should deal with problems that they think others caused; while Leavers don't accept the consequences of their earlier decision and are therefore incapable of dealing with those consequences.
We will deal with the consequences as and when they appear rather than sitting around claiming the sky is falling when it quite clearly is not.
Many years ago when such things were still fresh in people's minds, there used to be a popular comment along the lines of whether or not you would want a chap beside you in the trenches. Most Remainers would very clearly fail that test.
That's hardly a recipe for Brexit success. Particularly when Leavers refuse to accept they started the war.
Lol, delusional like the rest of your EUphile rabble. Fuck off to Europe.
Exactly! You and RT demonstrate my original point. Remainers don't want to be engaged, while Leavers refuse to take responsibility. That isn't a good situation.
I am happy to take full responsibility. Just tell me what imaginary disaster we have caused. Until then stop moaning about nothing.
Glad you accept that. And why should I whine. We won. You lost. I don't say it often but once in a while it is nice to remind you of just how much of a failure you have been. You carry on predicting disaster and the rest of us will carry on enjoying our success.
There is Brexit role for Remainers, which is to help produce an outcome which is worse than what we had before, but better than it would otherwise be. The problem is that Remainers don't see why they should deal with problems that they think others caused; while Leavers don't accept the consequences of their earlier decision and are therefore incapable of dealing with those consequences.
We will deal with the consequences as and when they appear rather than sitting around claiming the sky is falling when it quite clearly is not.
Many years ago when such things were still fresh in people's minds, there used to be a popular comment along the lines of whether or not you would want a chap beside you in the trenches. Most Remainers would very clearly fail that test.
That's hardly a recipe for Brexit success. Particularly when Leavers refuse to accept they started the war.
Lol, delusional like the rest of your EUphile rabble. Fuck off to Europe.
Exactly! You and RT demonstrate my original point. Remainers don't want to be engaged, while Leavers refuse to take responsibility. That isn't a good situation.
I am happy to take full responsibility. Just tell me what imaginary disaster we have caused. Until then stop moaning about nothing.
We're on the path to leave their beloved EU, that's the disaster for them. They don't care about this country, it's all pretence to defend the EU.
In reality there is no disaster, brexit will be full of compromises but in the end we will leave and set the nation on a diverging path from the super state which they wish this country to be subsumed by.
Scotland + SE England + SW England + Eastern England = c.260 seats. Labour currently holds 13 of them. Not moving in the appropriate direction to make gains.
Looked at more positively they don't have a lot to lose in these areas. If they do better in the Cities (and there is some indications of that, particularly in London) the damage might not be quite as severe as it really ought to be. I think getting rid of Labour and growing a replacement opposition is going to prove much more difficult than some seem to be assuming.
They should be worried about Wales and the North East
I think at the next election it is the east and west midlands that they will need to worry about. They have a lot more to lose there.
The north too. Plenty of Brexity marginals / targets in the North West and Yorkshire.
In fact, it's everywhere except London (where they're doing ok) and the south and Scotland (where they've hardly any MPs to lose).
Which is why Labour is week for the NHS.
Is Labour feeling its way towards that? Corbyn is - sensibly for once - but he seems to be struggling to take his party with him.
Sure, the road ahead is not yet clear, but that is true also for the Tories, when their business backers want a bonfire of the welfare state as the price of the inevitable Hard Brexit.
British social conservatism is not like American social conservatism. Britons are not that bothered if gays marry ostentatiously, but threaten their local hospital with downgrading and there is hell to pay.
The Tory STP's are looking at closing a lot of smaller hospitals in marginal constituencies across provincial England. That may not be difficult to sell in Surrey, but it will not sell in Copeland. It is why Copeland is the one to watch on Thursday. Stoke is a circus, with clowns.
The Tories are actually putting more
This is the situation at my Trust. A £27million projected deficit this year, though unusually for the NHS this is slightly down on previous years.
For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
Just been to the Sutton Utd V The Arse game. Fantastic atmosphere, dull game. And who should stand next to me , but Mr Speaker Bercow. Taller than expected. He wasn't grumpy or bashful, but happy. Clearly an Arsenal fan.
Seemed quite a good game on TV. But maybe I'm used to watching Everton.
Ha!. I suppose I was looking for an Underdog victory. Sutton were ponderous, but they are part-timers. The Arse should have buried them. £30 a ticket, to boot, excessive.
I expect the LDs to be competitive over a large section of Southern, South Western suburban and rural England and Wales, while Labour has over 150 rock solid urban seats. They will be competitive in different geographies.
There are very few close Con/LD marginals, so this requires one to make some pretty heroic assumptions about the ability of the Lib Dems to win back large numbers of voters from other parties. This probably means significant movements directly from the Tories, as well as squeezing Labour for votes. And needless to say, this is rather more difficult in the context of a General Election - having to fight all of your target seats at once, and get yourself heard in a 2.5 party system in which the SNP, not you, are the 0.5 - than in a one-off contest in a custom-made seat like Richmond Park.
There is little evidence, as yet, to suggest that they are likely to prove able to achieve the swings required.
Remain voting Tory seats which used to have a LD MP like Bath, Kingston Upon Thames, Twickenham, Lewes, Guildford, Winchester, Harrogate as well as of course Richmond Park are all potential LD gains at the next election if they work them hard enough and for a party which only has 8 MPs every gain is significant
Conversely, under boundary change it is currently estimated that four of the eight seats they won in 2015 would be notionally held by another party. Even in the event of an early election, it's arguable that none of their MPs are safe apart from Farron himself. So they must also defend.
There's enough evidence from the polls now to reasonably suggest that the Lib Dems have recovered support, crudely speaking, from around 8% to 11%, principally at Labour's expense. But they still have a Hell of a long way to go.
If the LDs are good at anything it is pouring into their selected targets, as their council and Richmond Park by election wins show, they will go hard at the next election in a few selected Tory and Labour Remain seats they held sometime between 1997-2015
"A few" being the operative term. I'm sceptical of the LDs getting very far at all; I've discussed this with others in the recent past who think they'll probably get back up into the low teens; if they can reach the twenty seats they managed in 1992 then they'll be doing very well indeed. Not enough to make much difference to the Parliamentary arithmetic, however, should Labour be clobbered anything like as badly as is anticipated.
Just been to the Sutton Utd V The Arse game. Fantastic atmosphere, dull game. And who should stand next to me , but Mr Speaker Bercow. Taller than expected. He wasn't grumpy or bashful, but happy. Clearly an Arsenal fan.
Seemed quite a good game on TV. But maybe I'm used to watching Everton.
Ha!. I suppose I was looking for an Underdog victory. Sutton were ponderous, but they are part-timers. The Arse should have buried them. £30 a ticket, to boot, excessive.
You won't see many better value 1/7 shots. I thought we'd be 1/33 a la England in San Marino
There is Brexit role for Remainers, which is to help produce an outcome which is worse than what we had before, but better than it would otherwise be. The problem is that Remainers don't see why they should deal with problems that they think others caused; while Leavers don't accept the consequences of their earlier decision and are therefore incapable of dealing with those consequences.
We will deal with the consequences as and when they appear rather than sitting around claiming the sky is falling when it quite clearly is not.
Many years ago when such things were still fresh in people's minds, there used to be a popular comment along the lines of whether or not you would want a chap beside you in the trenches. Most Remainers would very clearly fail that test.
That's hardly a recipe for Brexit success. Particularly when Leavers refuse to accept they started the war.
Lol, delusional like the rest of your EUphile rabble. Fuck off to Europe.
You Brexiters are coming across as very angry, tetchy "winners", anyone would think you were worried that it's going to turn out to be a total f*ing disaster!
Not really, I just tire of the same fucking bullshit day after day after day. When brexit turns out to be a middling compromise which is neither successful nor a failure I do hope everyone will just move on. Those who can't really should fuck off the Brussels with Mandy and Blair, some of your lot seem to have gone round the bend.
Neither side has a monopoly on bullshit, the delusional guff the kippers come out with on here does my head in. Brexit is going to totally dominate UK politics for at least the next 10 years, it's a momentous decision which will have no end of repercussions and consequences, I think the chances of anyone moving on any time soon are remote.
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
It is my best outcome financially. they were only a few votes behind the kippers last time, and I think that the votes are going from Purple to Blue, Red and the various strands of Looney.
For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
Sack 50% of the managers, when no one notices the difference sack 50% of the remaining ones. Keep doing it until someone notices then do it one more time for good measure.
I think that should save the NHS enough money to keep up with rising health costs for a while at least.
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
It is my best outcome financially. they were only a few votes behind the kippers last time, and I think that the votes are going from Purple to Blue, Red and the various strands of Looney.
I expect the LDs to be competitive over a large section of Southern, South Western suburban and rural England and Wales, while Labour has over 150 rock solid urban seats. They will be competitive in different geographies.
There are very few close Con/LD marginals, so this requires one to make some pretty heroic assumptions about the ability of the Lib Dems to win back large numbers of voters from other parties. This probably means significant movements directly from the Tories, as well as squeezing Labour for votes. And needless to say, this is rather more difficult in the context of a General Election - having to fight all of your target seats at once, and get yourself heard in a 2.5 party system in which the SNP, not you, are the 0.5 - than in a one-off contest in a custom-made seat like Richmond Park.
There is little evidence, as yet, to suggest that they are likely to prove able to achieve the swings required.
Remain voting Tory seats which used to have a LD MP like Bath, Kingston Upon Thames, Twickenham, Lewes, Guildford, Winchester, Harrogate as well as of course Richmond Park are all potential LD gains at the next election if they work them hard enough and for a party which only has 8 MPs every gain is significant
Look what happened to Newbury after the LibDems won it in a by-election. Once lost again, it quickly moved out of reach for the LibDems. It is back being an ultra-safe Tory seat
Glad you accept that. And why should I whine. We won. You lost. I don't say it often but once in a while it is nice to remind you of just how much of a failure you have been. You carry on predicting disaster and the rest of us will carry on enjoying our success.
Just been to the Sutton Utd V The Arse game. Fantastic atmosphere, dull game. And who should stand next to me , but Mr Speaker Bercow. Taller than expected. He wasn't grumpy or bashful, but happy. Clearly an Arsenal fan.
Seemed quite a good game on TV. But maybe I'm used to watching Everton.
Ha!. I suppose I was looking for an Underdog victory. Sutton were ponderous, but they are part-timers. The Arse should have buried them. £30 a ticket, to boot, excessive.
You won't see many better value 1/7 shots. I thought we'd be 1/33 a la England in San Marino
There is Brexit role for Remainers, which is to help produce an outcome which is worse than what we had before, but better than it would otherwise be. The problem is that Remainers don't see why they should deal with problems that they think others caused; while Leavers don't accept the consequences of their earlier decision and are therefore incapable of dealing with those consequences.
We will deal with the consequences as and when they appear rather than sitting around claiming the sky is falling when it quite clearly is not.
Many years ago when such things were still fresh in people's minds, there used to be a popular comment along the lines of whether or not you would want a chap beside you in the trenches. Most Remainers would very clearly fail that test.
That's hardly a recipe for Brexit success. Particularly when Leavers refuse to accept they started the war.
Lol, delusional like the rest of your EUphile rabble. Fuck off to Europe.
Exactly! You and RT demonstrate my original point. Remainers don't want to be engaged, while Leavers refuse to take responsibility. That isn't a good situation.
I am happy to take full responsibility. Just tell me what imaginary disaster we have caused. Until then stop moaning about nothing.
Decline in the value of the pound hasn't affected anyone and was absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, no sireee!
I expect the LDs to be competitive over a large section of Southern, South Western suburban and rural England and Wales, while Labour has over 150 rock solid urban seats. They will be competitive in different geographies.
There are very few close Con/LD marginals, so this requires one to make some pretty heroic assumptions about the ability of the Lib Dems to win back large numbers of voters from other parties. This probably means significant movements directly from the Tories, as well as squeezing Labour for votes. And needless to say, this is rather more difficult in the context of a General Election - having to fight all of your target seats at once, and get yourself heard in a 2.5 party system in which the SNP, not you, are the 0.5 - than in a one-off contest in a custom-made seat like Richmond Park.
There is little evidence, as yet, to suggest that they are likely to prove able to achieve the swings required.
Remain voting Tory seats which used to have a LD MP like Bath, Kingston Upon Thames, Twickenham, Lewes, Guildford, Winchester, Harrogate as well as of course Richmond Park are all potential LD gains at the next election if they work them hard enough and for a party which only has 8 MPs every gain is significant
Conversely, under boundary change it is currently
There's enough evidence from the polls now to reasonably suggest that the Lib Dems have recovered support, crudely speaking, from around 8% to 11%, principally at Labour's expense. But they still have a Hell of a long way to go.
If the LDs are good at anything it is pouring into their selected targets, as their council and Richmond Park by election wins show, they will go hard at the next election in a few selected Tory and Labour Remain seats they held sometime between 1997-2015
"A few" being the operative term. I'm sceptical of the LDs getting very far at all; I've discussed this with others in the recent past who think they'll probably get back up into the low teens; if they can reach the twenty seats they managed in 1992 then they'll be doing very well indeed. Not enough to make much difference to the Parliamentary arithmetic, however, should Labour be clobbered anything like as badly as is anticipated.
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
I expect the LDs to be competitive over a large section of Southern, South Western suburban and rural England and Wales, while Labour has over 150 rock solid urban seats. They will be competitive in different geographies.
There are very few close Con/LD marginals, so this requires one to make some pretty heroic assumptions about the ability of the Lib Dems to win back large numbers of voters from other parties. This probably means significant movements directly from the Tories, as well as squeezing Labour for votes. And needless to say, this is rather more difficult in the context of a General Election - having to fight all of your target seats at once, and get yourself heard in a 2.5 party system in which the SNP, not you, are the 0.5 - than in a one-off contest in a custom-made seat like Richmond Park.
There is little evidence, as yet, to suggest that they are likely to prove able to achieve the swings required.
Remain voting Tory seats which used to have a LD MP like Bath, Kingston Upon Thames, Twickenham, Lewes, Guildford, Winchester, Harrogate as well as of course Richmond Park are all potential LD gains at the next election if they work them hard enough and for a party which only has 8 MPs every gain is significant
Look what happened to Newbury after the LibDems won it in a by-election. Once lost again, it quickly moved out of reach for the LibDems. It is back being an ultra-safe Tory seat
What happened to Newbury after the LDs won it in a by election? They held it in 1997 and 2001. All the polls are showing the Tories have gained votes from C2DEs since the last general election but lost a few ABC1s, it is ABC1 Tory Remain seats the LDs will target most
Scotland + SE England + SW England + Eastern England = c.260 seats. Labour currently holds 13 of them. Not moving in the appropriate direction to make gains.
Looked at more positively they don't have a lot to lose in these areas. If they do better in the Cities (and there is some indications of that, particularly in London) the damage might not be quite as severe as it really ought to be. I think getting rid of Labour and growing a replacement opposition is going to prove much more difficult than some seem to be assuming.
They should be worried about Wales and the North East
I think at the next election it is the east and west midlands that they will need to worry about. They have a lot more to lose there.
The north too. Plenty of Brexity marginals / targets in the North West and Yorkshire.
In fact, it's everywhere except London (where they're doing ok) and the south and Scotland (where they've hardly any MPs to lose).
Which is why Labour is week for the NHS.
Is Labour feeling its way towards that? Corbyn is - sensibly for once - but he seems to be struggling to take his party with him.
Sure, the road ahead is not yet clear, but that is true also for the Tories, when their business backers want a bonfire of the welfare state as the price of the inevitable Hard Brexit.
British social conservatism is not like American social conservatism. Britons are not that bothere.
The Tories are actually putting more
This is the situation at my Trust. A £27million projected deficit this year, though unusually for the NHS this is slightly down on previous years.
For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
The NHS is getting £8 billion a year extra from this Tory government. Though as I said this morning what may be needed is to increase NIs for 50-67 year olds to pay for the NHS and Social Care
There is Brexit role for Remainers, which is to help produce an outcome which is worse than what we had before, but better than it would otherwise be. The problem is that Remainers don't see why they should deal with problems that they think others caused; while Leavers don't accept the consequences of their earlier decision and are therefore incapable of dealing with those consequences.
We will deal with the consequences as and when they appear rather than sitting around claiming the sky is falling when it quite clearly is not.
Many years ago when such things were still fresh in people's minds, there used to be a popular comment along the lines of whether or not you would want a chap beside you in the trenches. Most Remainers would very clearly fail that test.
That's hardly a recipe for Brexit success. Particularly when Leavers refuse to accept they started the war.
Lol, delusional like the rest of your EUphile rabble. Fuck off to Europe.
Exactly! You and RT demonstrate my original point. Remainers don't want to be engaged, while Leavers refuse to take responsibility. That isn't a good situation.
I am happy to take full responsibility. Just tell me what imaginary disaster we have caused. Until then stop moaning about nothing.
Decline in the value of the pound hasn't affected anyone and was absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, no sireee!
4.2% industrial growth. Isn't that what Labour are supposed to stand for? Industrial workers? This year could be a banner year for UK industry with much of the growth based on a semi permanent weak currency and higher importation costs.
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
It is my best outcome financially. they were only a few votes behind the kippers last time, and I think that the votes are going from Purple to Blue, Red and the various strands of Looney.
I'm often wrong, but no way at all.
My best outcome financially is Tories to win, with kippers in 4th place (10/1 with Shadsy earlier today, and also under 20% at 8/1 also from Shadsy), though I am comfortably Green on everything appart from UKIP win. I expect a Labour win.
In Copeland I am most up on Labour, preferably with the kippers below 10%.
Just been to the Sutton Utd V The Arse game. Fantastic atmosphere, dull game. And who should stand next to me , but Mr Speaker Bercow. Taller than expected. He wasn't grumpy or bashful, but happy. Clearly an Arsenal fan.
Seemed quite a good game on TV. But maybe I'm used to watching Everton.
Ha!. I suppose I was looking for an Underdog victory. Sutton were ponderous, but they are part-timers. The Arse should have buried them. £30 a ticket, to boot, excessive.
You won't see many better value 1/7 shots. I thought we'd be 1/33 a la England in San Marino
Out of interest what would England have been against Iceland last year?
I expect the LDs to be competitive over a large section of Southern, South Western suburban and rural England and Wales, while Labour has over 150 rock solid urban seats. They will be competitive in different geographies.
There are very few close Con/LD marginals, so this requires one to make some pretty heroic assumptions about the ability of the Lib Dems to win back large numbers of voters from other parties. This probably means significant movements directly from the Tories, as well as squeezing Labour for votes. And needless to say, this is rather more difficult in the context of a General Election - having to fight all of your target seats at once, and get yourself heard in a 2.5 party system in which the SNP, not you, are the 0.5 - than in a one-off contest in a custom-made seat like Richmond Park.
There is little evidence, as yet, to suggest that they are likely to prove able to achieve the swings required.
Remain voting Tory seats which used to have a LD MP like Bath, Kingston Upon Thames, Twickenham, Lewes, Guildford, Winchester, Harrogate as well as of course Richmond Park are all potential LD gains at the next election if they work them hard enough and for a party which only has 8 MPs every gain is significant
Conversely, under boundary change it is currently estimated that four of the eight seats they won in 2015 would be notionally held by another party. Even in the event of an early election, it's arguable that none of their MPs are safe apart from Farron himself. So they must also defend.
There's enough evidence from the polls now to reasonably suggest that the Lib Dems have recovered support, crudely speaking, from around 8% to 11%, principally at Labour's expense. But they still have a Hell of a long way to go.
If the LDs are good at anything it is pouring into their selected targets, as their council and Richmond Park by election wins show, they will go hard at the next election in a few selected Tory and Labour Remain seats they held sometime between 1997-2015
"A few" being the operative term. I'm sceptical of the LDs getting very far at all; I've discussed this with others in the recent past who think they'll probably get back up into the low teens; if they can reach the twenty seats they managed in 1992 then they'll be doing very well indeed. Not enough to make much difference to the Parliamentary arithmetic, however, should Labour be clobbered anything like as badly as is anticipated.
For the LDs though 20 seats would be more than doubling their present representation
A helpful reminder that not all polities are alike: in France, voter support for the most Right-wing option goes DOWN with age.
Is that not because France used to be a lot more left wing than it is now? They used to have a very strong communist party IIRC. I suspect in France it is the lefties who are dying out.
Just been to the Sutton Utd V The Arse game. Fantastic atmosphere, dull game. And who should stand next to me , but Mr Speaker Bercow. Taller than expected. He wasn't grumpy or bashful, but happy. Clearly an Arsenal fan.
Seemed quite a good game on TV. But maybe I'm used to watching Everton.
Ha!. I suppose I was looking for an Underdog victory. Sutton were ponderous, but they are part-timers. The Arse should have buried them. £30 a ticket, to boot, excessive.
You won't see many better value 1/7 shots. I thought we'd be 1/33 a la England in San Marino
Out of interest what would England have been against Iceland last year?
Can't remember but wouldn't have been anything like that. 1/2 maybe?
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
It is my best outcome financially. they were only a few votes behind the kippers last time, and I think that the votes are going from Purple to Blue, Red and the various strands of Looney.
My take on Mays visit is that the reds are hemorrhaging votes to LD, UKIP are not getting enough and they are switching to Cons. It's now a tight 4 way marginal and May's visit will either get the Tory vote out or frighten LDs back to Labour / get the Lab vote out to keep out the baby eating tories.
Either way a gain or Lad victory is the best result for the tories.
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
It would have to be Inverness '92 all over again - with nothing between all four. I just don't see the Tories getting 28%, up from 22.5%.
I mean, it's Stoke.
I still think May's visit today was more of a signal to next-door Newcastle under Lyme (where the Tories really do have a good chance at the next election) than it was about this byelection.
'Blair's election literature in the 1983 UK general election endorsed left-wing policies that Labour advocated in the early 1980s.[citation needed] He called for Britain to leave the EEC[34] as early as the 1970s,[35] though he had told his selection conference that he personally favoured continuing membership[citation needed] and voted "Yes" in the 1975 referendum on the subject. He opposed the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in 1986 but supported the ERM by 1989.[36] He was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, despite never strongly being in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament.'
Ah, Don Brind. He can always be relied upon for the most ludicrously partisan of partisan spinning.
He writes: I don’t trust Theresa May, now the zealous convert to Leave after being a virtually silent a Remain campaigner. So, again, I enjoyed Blair’s withering assault on her. “The Government are not masters of this situation. They’re not driving this bus. They’re being driven.”
In reality, Tony Blair's 'withering assault' wasn't quite so withering:
I make no personal criticism of the PM or the Government. I know the PM is someone who cares about our country, who is trying to do the right thing as she sees it, and I know how demanding the job of leadership is.
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
It is my best outcome financially. they were only a few votes behind the kippers last time, and I think that the votes are going from Purple to Blue, Red and the various strands of Looney.
My take on Mays visit is that the reds are hemorrhaging votes to LD, UKIP are not getting enough and they are switching to Cons. It's now a tight 4 way marginal
Sounds like wishful thinking to me, for all a tight 4 way would be the most interesting and hilarious outcome. But there are plenty of reasons may might have visited, for instance trying to cement second place from ukip, even if first is out of their grasp.
Call me a blinkered corbynista, I just cannot see Lab dropping enough in stoke to be vulnerable to the tories, and ukip not capitalising. By election lab voters seem willing to stick through despite the dear leader.,
' Above all, the European Economic Community takes away Britain's freedom to follow the sort of economic policies we need.' Tony Blair, writing in his personal manifesto when standing for Parliament in Beaconsfield in 1982
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
'Blair's election literature in the 1983 UK general election endorsed left-wing policies that Labour advocated in the early 1980s.[citation needed] He called for Britain to leave the EEC[34] as early as the 1970s,[35] though he had told his selection conference that he personally favoured continuing membership[citation needed] and voted "Yes" in the 1975 referendum on the subject. He opposed the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in 1986 but supported the ERM by 1989.[36] He was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, despite never strongly being in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament.'
I don't think we can call him a conviction politician
The complexity of the act of self harming that is Brexit is certainly beyond me.
Referring to experts I draw attention to a recent article in the Economist (February 11 to 17, 2017, page 19ff) that discusses the possible size of a Brexit exit charge. It could be humongous.
This really is the dumbest argument the Europhiles have come up with. Even taking the highest figure, what they are actually arguing is that because we might be liable for the equivalent of 4 years gross payments, we should instead commit ourselves to making those gross payments every year for ever more.
With arguments like that it is no wonder the Eurofanatics lost.
And you have to pay that bill upfront.
Yes, but it's a one-time thing.
Why? Why wouldn't the UK negotiate a payment plan?
Labour stood on a manifesto of leaving the EEC in 1983. Part of the longest suicide note in history.
Blair was ingratiating himself with Foot at the time. In correspondence with the then leader he explained how he'd come to Labour via Marx and Trotsky.
For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
Sack 50% of the managers, when no one notices the difference sack 50% of the remaining ones. Keep doing it until someone notices then do it one more time for good measure.
I think that should save the NHS enough money to keep up with rising health costs for a while at least.
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
They used to say in Stoke only when hell froze over. I really really just can't see it, even given the Trump tribute act and Walter Mitty. Anti-Tory attitudes in Stoke are still massive, as remember the mines and pottery industries were incredibly hard hit by Thatcher, and since then things haven't exactly improved much.
Labour stood on a manifesto of leaving the EEC in 1983. Part of the longest suicide note in history.
Blair was ingratiating himself with Foot at the time. In correspondence with the then leader he explained how he'd come to Labour via Marx and Trotsky.
You'd almost think he wasn't a pretty straight kind of guy after all, wouldn't you?
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
They used to say in Stoke only when hell froze over. I really really just can't see it, even given the Trump tribute act and Walter Mitty. Anti-Tory attitudes in Stoke are still massive, as remember the mines and pottery industries were incredibly hard hit by Thatcher, and since then things haven't exactly improved much.
This is ridiculous. Even in the current febrile atmosphere for Labour there is not a chance in hell of the Tories taking Stoke.
One problem with crime surveys generally (including UK) is how difficult it is getting hold of data from one of the most crime-afflicted subgroups in the country: poor immigrants who don't speak the language. This is believed to bias the UK results quite considerably.
I'd be astonished if the number of "intra-community" crimes committed has stayed static but not astonished at all if it was largely missing from survey data. When you have Somali gangs blowing car bombs up at each other, your society has issues. And aside from immigrant-dominated poor suburbs, goodness knows how much crime is going on inside refugee centres - from all accounts I can gather, very masculine-dominated places where the strongest establish, enforce and profit from a pecking order much like occurs in prisons.
On the other hand, the idea of nice middle-class white women in plush suburbs living in fear of being raped by swarthy newcomers is - as it ever is, anywhere in history where notable migration has occurred - overblown.
I do wonder what the relevant counterfactual is for many of those immigrants who have discovered Sweden is not so peaceful and pleasant as they'd first hoped. Compared to the average Swede, they live lives plagued by poverty and a genuine threat of violence. But should their situation really be compared to the average Swede? Would it be more realistic to compare to the difficulties they would have experienced as a newly arrived migrant in Germany or England? And for Somalis, Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans, it's entirely conceivable they have a stabler and safer life even in the grottiest of Western Europe's ghettos to what they had in Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
Sack 50% of the managers, when no one notices the difference sack 50% of the remaining ones. Keep doing it until someone notices then do it one more time for good measure.
I think that should save the NHS enough money to keep up with rising health costs for a while at least.
But who would attend the meetings?
The medical and nursing staff!
Our SMT at Leicester are very good indeed, and have reduced the budget deficit, while under extreme financial pressure, dropped the in hosital mortality by 10% and eradicated both MRSA and C Diff. They have even met most clinical targets, though the 4 hour wait will still be excessive until our new emergency floor opens in April.
For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
Sack 50% of the managers, when no one notices the difference sack 50% of the remaining ones. Keep doing it until someone notices then do it one more time for good measure.
I think that should save the NHS enough money to keep up with rising health costs for a while at least.
But who would attend the meetings?
The doctors when they should be seeing the patients, you still need some managers in the NHS
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
It would not do that beyond maybe some of the most prosperous inner city areas but it could pose a challenge to the Tories in their wealthier suburbs and in Cathedral cities in a way that Corbyn Labour cannot
The complexity of the act of self harming that is Brexit is certainly beyond me.
Referring to experts I draw attention to a recent article in the Economist (February 11 to 17, 2017, page 19ff) that discusses the possible size of a Brexit exit charge. It could be humongous.
This really is the dumbest argument the Europhiles have come up with. Even taking the highest figure, what they are actually arguing is that because we might be liable for the equivalent of 4 years gross payments, we should instead commit ourselves to making those gross payments every year for ever more.
With arguments like that it is no wonder the Eurofanatics lost.
And you have to pay that bill upfront.
Yes, but it's a one-time thing.
Why? Why wouldn't the UK negotiate a payment plan?
I meant that there wouldn't be recurring membership fees.
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
It doesn't need to, just needs to develop coalition politics. multiple party politics works under FPTP where there is geographic delineation.
A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters.
Tories count a lot of unhatched chickens for a party with a wafer thin majority.
For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
Sack 50% of the managers, when no one notices the difference sack 50% of the remaining ones. Keep doing it until someone notices then do it one more time for good measure.
I think that should save the NHS enough money to keep up with rising health costs for a while at least.
But who would attend the meetings?
The doctors when they should be seeing the patients, you still need some managers in the NHS
Of course you do but certainly in Scotland it is doubtful you need as many as you have now. England may have squeezed more of the excess out already (at considerable cost) with the reforms in the last Parliament.
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
It doesn't need to, just needs to develop coalition politics. multiple party politics works under FPTP where there is geographic delineation.
A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters.
Tories count a lot of unhatched chickens for a party with a wafer thin majority.
For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
Sack 50% of the managers, when no one notices the difference sack 50% of the remaining ones. Keep doing it until someone notices then do it one more time for good measure.
I think that should save the NHS enough money to keep up with rising health costs for a while at least.
But who would attend the meetings?
The doctors when they should be seeing the patients, you still need some managers in the NHS
Of course you do but certainly in Scotland it is doubtful you need as many as you have now. England may have squeezed more of the excess out already (at considerable cost) with the reforms in the last Parliament.
Yes in England I think management levels in the NHS are about right
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
It doesn't need to, just needs to develop coalition politics. multiple party politics works under FPTP where there is geographic delineation.
A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters.
Tories count a lot of unhatched chickens for a party with a wafer thin majority.
Starting to wonder - even if Lab frontbench does back down when the Commons reverses Lords amendments, is there a chance Govt could still lose, ie:
LDs + Crossbench + Con rebels + some Lab backbench will outvote Con.
I think it could happen - at least once. The thing is that I then expect the Government to go for all nighter - eg reverse in Commons at midnight, back to Lords 1am; if Lords overturn again then back to Commons 2am, back to Lords 3am etc - and the Lords would then ultimately cave in.
It would not do that beyond maybe some of the most prosperous inner city areas but it could pose a challenge to the Tories in their wealthier suburbs in a way that Corbyn Labour cannot
Again maybe, but any centrist alternative to the Tories is always going to suffer from the following problems if it can't prove itself strong enough to win a Parliamentary majority on its own, namely:
1. Contagion from the Far Left: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the rump of Labour and therefore vulnerable to being pulled in a direction that Tory defectors really wouldn't like 2. Contagion from Scottish Nationalism: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the SNP, bringing both the West Lothian Question and the possibility of Scottish public services being hosed down with (even more) English taxpayers' cash into sharp focus
Given that it's unlikely that the SNP is going anywhere anytime soon, it's simply essential that any plausible alternative to Labour be able to demonstrate that it can win outright without recourse to Scottish votes. Given that the Conservatives also have a pretty high floor to their vote, that means that the successor party needs to be able to destroy Labour.
Tory-leaning voters won't back a centrist party if it's an obvious Trojan horse for a coalition of Scottish special pleading and loopy socialism.
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
It doesn't need to, just needs to develop coalition politics. multiple party politics works under FPTP where there is geographic delineation.
A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters.
Tories count a lot of unhatched chickens for a party with a wafer thin majority.
Not under Corbynism it won't
Farron should be leader - or Salmond ;-)
Labour will support neither becoming PM although this is all hypothetical as on present polling the Tories will increase their majority
Starting to wonder - even if Lab frontbench does back down when the Commons reverses Lords amendments, is there a chance Govt could still lose, ie:
LDs + Crossbench + Con rebels + some Lab backbench will outvote Con.
I think it could happen - at least once. The thing is that I then expect the Government to go for all nighter - eg reverse in Commons at midnight, back to Lords 1am; if Lords overturn again then back to Commons 2am, back to Lords 3am etc - and the Lords would then ultimately cave in.
What is the point of a revising chamber if its revisions are not even considered?
I have long been in favour of abolition of the Lords, but it would be ironic if the Tories added that policy from Labours "suicide note" 83 manifesto!
It would not do that beyond maybe some of the most prosperous inner city areas but it could pose a challenge to the Tories in their wealthier suburbs in a way that Corbyn Labour cannot
Again maybe, but any centrist alternative to the Tories is always going to suffer from the following problems if it can't prove itself strong enough to win a Parliamentary majority on its own, namely:
1. Contagion from the Far Left: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the rump of Labour and therefore vulnerable to being pulled in a direction that Tory defectors really wouldn't like 2. Contagion from Scottish Nationalism: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the SNP, bringing both the West Lothian Question and the possibility of Scottish public services being hosed down with (even more) English taxpayers' cash into sharp focus
Given that it's unlikely that the SNP is going anywhere anytime soon, it's simply essential that any plausible alternative to Labour be able to demonstrate that it can win outright without recourse to Scottish votes. Given that the Conservatives also have a pretty high floor to their vote, that means that the successor party needs to be able to destroy Labour.
Tory-leaning voters won't back a centrist party if it's an obvious Trojan horse for a coalition of Scottish special pleading and loopy socialism.
Such a centrist party could well go into coalition with the Tories as well as Labour if the alternative is a Labour SNP pact and as I said may well contain some Cameroons too. However it will only conceivably happen if Labour lose the next election but Corbyn or a Corbynista retains the leadership
It would not do that beyond maybe some of the most prosperous inner city areas but it could pose a challenge to the Tories in their wealthier suburbs in a way that Corbyn Labour cannot
Again maybe, but any centrist alternative to the Tories is always going to suffer from the following problems if it can't prove itself strong enough to win a Parliamentary majority on its own, namely:
1. Contagion from the Far Left: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the rump of Labour and therefore vulnerable to being pulled in a direction that Tory defectors really wouldn't like 2. Contagion from Scottish Nationalism: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the SNP, bringing both the West Lothian Question and the possibility of Scottish public services being hosed down with (even more) English taxpayers' cash into sharp focus
Given that it's unlikely that the SNP is going anywhere anytime soon, it's simply essential that any plausible alternative to Labour be able to demonstrate that it can win outright without recourse to Scottish votes. Given that the Conservatives also have a pretty high floor to their vote, that means that the successor party needs to be able to destroy Labour.
Tory-leaning voters won't back a centrist party if it's an obvious Trojan horse for a coalition of Scottish special pleading and loopy socialism.
What if the coalition were openly pro independence? That would deal with the suspicion that the government would pay any price to maintain the union.
There is Brexit role for Remainers, which is to help produce an outcome which is worse than what we had before, but better than it would otherwise be. The problem is that Remainers don't see why they should deal with problems that they think others caused; while Leavers don't accept the consequences of their earlier decision and are therefore incapable of dealing with those consequences.
We will deal with the consequences as and when they appear rather than sitting around claiming the sky is falling when it quite clearly is not.
Many years ago when such things were still fresh in people's minds, there used to be a popular comment along the lines of whether or not you would want a chap beside you in the trenches. Most Remainers would very clearly fail that test.
That's hardly a recipe for Brexit success. Particularly when Leavers refuse to accept they started the war.
Lol, delusional like the rest of your EUphile rabble. Fuck off to Europe.
Exactly! You and RT demonstrate my original point. Remainers don't want to be engaged, while Leavers refuse to take responsibility. That isn't a good situation.
I am happy to take full responsibility. Just tell me what imaginary disaster we have caused. Until then stop moaning about nothing.
Decline in the value of the pound hasn't affected anyone and was absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, no sireee!
Decline in the pound has been good for the economy. It was something good that many were wanting whether we voted for Brexit or not..
I agree, it will be mostly a matter of building solid foundations in 2020, with strong councils and second places. It is the following GE, by which time the Tories will be haggard and spent, that the real fruits will be seen.
Perhaps, but 2025 is a political eternity away. If Labour goes down to an historic defeat in the next General Election then we may end up having the long-awaited realignment.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Although it is not impossible if the LDs joined with the Blairites some of the Osbornites and Cameroons would get on board too
Quite, and this is one possible route to the return of a fully-functioning Opposition, i.e. a plausible alternative Government which can therefore effectively challenge the incumbent Conservatives. But if such a grouping were to really make a success of it then they would need to work out how to turf Labour out of its fortresses in the big cities, and that is liable to prove very difficult indeed.
It doesn't need to, just needs to develop coalition politics. multiple party politics works under FPTP where there is geographic delineation.
A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters.
Tories count a lot of unhatched chickens for a party with a wafer thin majority.
"A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters."
I well remember being one of the first PB Tories to post about just how relaxed I would be if the chances of a Lab+SNP coalition in the event of a Hung Parliament gathered momentum before the last GE.
Starting to wonder - even if Lab frontbench does back down when the Commons reverses Lords amendments, is there a chance Govt could still lose, ie:
LDs + Crossbench + Con rebels + some Lab backbench will outvote Con.
I think it could happen - at least once. The thing is that I then expect the Government to go for all nighter - eg reverse in Commons at midnight, back to Lords 1am; if Lords overturn again then back to Commons 2am, back to Lords 3am etc - and the Lords would then ultimately cave in.
What is the point of a revising chamber if its revisions are not even considered?
I have long been in favour of abolition of the Lords, but it would be ironic if the Tories added that policy from Labours "suicide note" 83 manifesto!
Not really because that House of Lords doesn't exist. What we have now is a Blairite fudge of a second chamber.
Starting to wonder - even if Lab frontbench does back down when the Commons reverses Lords amendments, is there a chance Govt could still lose, ie:
LDs + Crossbench + Con rebels + some Lab backbench will outvote Con.
I think it could happen - at least once. The thing is that I then expect the Government to go for all nighter - eg reverse in Commons at midnight, back to Lords 1am; if Lords overturn again then back to Commons 2am, back to Lords 3am etc - and the Lords would then ultimately cave in.
What is the point of a revising chamber if its revisions are not even considered?
I have long been in favour of abolition of the Lords, but it would be ironic if the Tories added that policy from Labours "suicide note" 83 manifesto!
The Lords is far too big to be a revising chamber. It's the world's only Upper House with more members than its respective Lower House.
It would not do that beyond maybe some of the most prosperous inner city areas but it could pose a challenge to the Tories in their wealthier suburbs in a way that Corbyn Labour cannot
Again maybe, but any centrist alternative to the Tories is always going to suffer from the following problems if it can't prove itself strong enough to win a Parliamentary majority on its own, namely:
1. Contagion from the Far Left: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the rump of Labour and therefore vulnerable to being pulled in a direction that Tory defectors really wouldn't like 2. Contagion from Scottish Nationalism: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the SNP, bringing both the West Lothian Question and the possibility of Scottish public services being hosed down with (even more) English taxpayers' cash into sharp focus
Given that it's unlikely that the SNP is going anywhere anytime soon, it's simply essential that any plausible alternative to Labour be able to demonstrate that it can win outright without recourse to Scottish votes. Given that the Conservatives also have a pretty high floor to their vote, that means that the successor party needs to be able to destroy Labour.
Tory-leaning voters won't back a centrist party if it's an obvious Trojan horse for a coalition of Scottish special pleading and loopy socialism.
Such a centrist party could well go into coalition with the Tories as well as Labour if the alternative is a Labour SNP pact and as I said may well contain some Cameroons too. However it will only conceivably happen if Labour lose the next election but Corbyn or a Corbynista retains the leadership
I think the situation is a bit more fluid than that. What if Tony Blair keeps pushing, the economy worsens and polls start showing that a consistent majority would vote to stop Brexit? Surely then the pro-EU part of the PLP would split off? How could they stay part of a party that by virtue of the spread of different areas that it represents can form no better response to Brexit than to go limp?
You'd end up with a centrist party built around stopping Brexit, just as the Liberals were built around supporting free trade. If it built up a head of steam I think the SNP could be smashed and the Labour Party reduced to a pro-Brexit Northern rump.
Now Milo's book cancelled. Blizzards of snowflakes everywhere. People in power soon ditch the no longer useful idiots.
It's all part of a cunning masterplan to get loads of clicks on Youtube, or to distract from what Trump is really up to, or to get people to realise what a disaster liberal Europe is.
Sexual assault in Sweden staying steady despite the broad definition of what counts ad Sexual assault in Sweden. Basically the alt right live in an alt universe. Are there gang problems? Yes. Is Sweden turning into Iraq? No. Not by a long shot.
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
They used to say in Stoke only when hell froze over. I really really just can't see it, even given the Trump tribute act and Walter Mitty. Anti-Tory attitudes in Stoke are still massive, as remember the mines and pottery industries were incredibly hard hit by Thatcher, and since then things haven't exactly improved much.
This is ridiculous. Even in the current febrile atmosphere for Labour there is not a chance in hell of the Tories taking Stoke.
The SNP overturned a Labour majority of 43.7% in the Glasgow East by-election in July 2008 on what was a high turnout in that seat for a by-election, and with Gordon Brown as PM. And while Labour then regained both Glasgow East and the Fife seat they lost to William Rennie of the Libdems in an earlier be-election at the 2010 GE, they subsequently went onto lose both seats to the SNP in the 2015 GE. Now there is no such thing as a safe Labour heartland Westminster seat in Scotland, even when the Conservatives are in Government.
"The latest poll marked a record low for Labour under Corbyn. According to ICM’s Martin Boon, only three other comparable polls have given the Tories a higher lead over Labour since 1983.
Two of those polls were just before the 1983 general election, when Margaret Thatcher crushed Michael Foot, and the other was in June 2008, when Gordon Brown’s was at his most unpopular."
It would not do that beyond maybe some of the most prosperous inner city areas but it could pose a challenge to the Tories in their wealthier suburbs in a way that Corbyn Labour cannot
Again maybe, but any centrist alternative to the Tories is always going to suffer from the following problems if it can't prove itself strong enough to win a Parliamentary majority on its own, namely:
1. Contagion from the Far Left: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the rump of Labour and therefore vulnerable to being pulled in a direction that Tory defectors really wouldn't like 2. Contagion from Scottish Nationalism: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the SNP, bringing both the West Lothian Question and the possibility of Scottish public services being hosed down with (even more) English taxpayers' cash into sharp focus
Given that it's unlikely that the SNP is going anywhere anytime soon, it's simply essential that any plausible alternative to Labour be able to demonstrate that it can win outright without recourse to Scottish votes. Given that the Conservatives also have a pretty high floor to their vote, that means that the successor party needs to be able to destroy Labour.
Tory-leaning voters won't back a centrist party if it's an obvious Trojan horse for a coalition of Scottish special pleading and loopy socialism.
Such a centrist party could well go into coalition with the Tories as well as Labour if the alternative is a Labour SNP pact and as I said may well contain some Cameroons too. However it will only conceivably happen if Labour lose the next election but Corbyn or a Corbynista retains the leadership
I think the situation is a bit more fluid than that. What if Tony Blair keeps pushing, the economy worsens and polls start showing that a consistent majority would vote to stop Brexit? Surely then the pro-EU part of the PLP would split off? How could they stay part of a party that by virtue of the spread of different areas that it represents can form no better response to Brexit than to go limp?
You'd end up with a centrist party built around stopping Brexit, just as the Liberals were built around supporting free trade. If it built up a head of steam I think the SNP could be smashed and the Labour Party reduced to a pro-Brexit Northern rump.
I can't see a stop Brexit party winning the next general election, voters don't want to be told they were wrong given they voted to leave the EU, though the LDs may try. A party campaigning on a platform of returning to the EEA rather than the full EU though may have a chance in 2025
Now Milo's book cancelled. Blizzards of snowflakes everywhere. People in power soon ditch the no longer useful idiots.
It's all part of a cunning masterplan to get loads of clicks on Youtube, or to distract from what Trump is really up to, or to get people to realise what a disaster liberal Europe is.
Sexual assault in Sweden staying steady despite the broad definition of what counts ad Sexual assault in Sweden. Basically the alt right live in an alt universe. Are there gang problems? Yes. Is Sweden turning into Iraq? No. Not by a long shot.
Except that graph doesn't cover the relevant period.
Exactly! You and RT demonstrate my original point. Remainers don't want to be engaged, while Leavers refuse to take responsibility. That isn't a good situation.
Your version of engagement is "the EU is great, the UK is shit". As I said since you seem to love the EU so very much you should think about fucking off there and not looking back, since you seem to loathe the UK so much or at least think so little of our great nation.
Exactly! You and RT demonstrate my original point. Remainers don't want to be engaged, while Leavers refuse to take responsibility. That isn't a good situation.
Your version of engagement is "the EU is great, the UK is shit". As I said since you seem to love the EU so very much you should think about fucking off there and not looking back, since you seem to loathe the UK so much or at least think so little of our great nation.
...The Lords is far too big to be a revising chamber....
I'm sorry: there's a maximum size beyond which they lose the power to revise? Gravitational pull? Their hands get all tangled up? They turn into zombies? What?
Mendacity, Mr Brind? Well we have had lies, disinformation, fake renegotiations and more from purveyors of 'Europe' over a 45-year period; my whole working life in fact. And had the 48% actually won, their own 'mendacity' would have been irrelevant. I also take exception to your praise for Blair. A great Labour leader maybe, but that doesn't mean much. And he did more damage to my Country than did Nazi Germany.
@SkyNewsBreak: President Donald Trump has appointed General H.R. McMaster as his National Security Adviser following the resignation of Michael Flynn
That man is an absolute legend.
The Battle of 73 Easting was magnificent.
I may be getting my Gulf War engagements mixed up but it think it is 73Eastings that was extensively wargamed post-war and the conclusion was that it was a perfect storm factors that led to the crushing allied victory - whilst the key component of comparative gun quality between the Iraqi and American tanks was a given and the largest factor there was all kind of things like the exact reduced visibility of the sandstorm (either an increased or decreased range would have hurt the Americans), the non-performance of the Iraqi pickets, the psychological effect of the weeks allied air strikes and the exact initial angle of engagement. Any one of those factors changing meant that the Americans would have taken significant casualties.
Interesting thing war.
What made the British and American v Iraqi tank battles so one sided were the following
The Challenger and Abrams M1 tanks were superior to the Iraqi tanks because
1) They were better protected
2) Had a longer firing distance
3) Had GPS, which was brilliant for desert warfare
4) Had better trained troops
5) Had better air support (aircraft and attack helicopter)
6) Iraqis used tanks as effectively self propelled howitzers
7) Also we had better night vision equipment.
8) The Iraqis were shellshocked, i) from weeks of bombing ii) Half an hour before the main ground war offensive the Anglo-American artillery line fired 11,000 artillery rounds and 600,00 RPGs at the Iraqis
At 73 Easting all those advantages clicked into place for a perfect storm as were The Battle of Medina Ridge and The Battle of Norfolk
I heard a story once, don't know if its true, that the US intelligence was so good they were texting individual Iraqis just before they blew their tanks up to warn them to get out of them.
Comments
https://m.dreamteamfc.com/c/s3/dreamteamfc-prod/uploads/2017/02/shaw4-720x405.jpg
In reality there is no disaster, brexit will be full of compromises but in the end we will leave and set the nation on a diverging path from the super state which they wish this country to be subsumed by.
http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/leicester-s-hospitals-in-deficit-by-27-million/story-30147242-detail/story.html
For the last two weeks all routine surgical non-cancer admissions were cancelled as the beds on the surgical unit were needed for all the medical admissions. In PB Tory land the NHS is over funded.
Labour drifting.
Does anyone really think that Con could win Stoke?
I think that should save the NHS enough money to keep up with rising health costs for a while at least.
https://twitter.com/ronin_grumpigit/status/833740127717511169
I mean, it's Stoke.
We should have known.
In Copeland I am most up on Labour, preferably with the kippers below 10%.
Either way a gain or Lad victory is the best result for the tories.
Personally i hope LDs squeak it.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=81860
'Blair's election literature in the 1983 UK general election endorsed left-wing policies that Labour advocated in the early 1980s.[citation needed] He called for Britain to leave the EEC[34] as early as the 1970s,[35] though he had told his selection conference that he personally favoured continuing membership[citation needed] and voted "Yes" in the 1975 referendum on the subject. He opposed the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in 1986 but supported the ERM by 1989.[36] He was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, despite never strongly being in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament.'
He writes: I don’t trust Theresa May, now the zealous convert to Leave after being a virtually silent a Remain campaigner. So, again, I enjoyed Blair’s withering assault on her. “The Government are not masters of this situation. They’re not driving this bus. They’re being driven.”
In reality, Tony Blair's 'withering assault' wasn't quite so withering:
I make no personal criticism of the PM or the Government. I know the PM is someone who cares about our country, who is trying to do the right thing as she sees it, and I know how demanding the job of leadership is.
In the English context, of the five most prominent political parties currently in the field the only ones I am pretty sure will still be around five years' hence are the Conservatives and the Greens.
Call me a blinkered corbynista, I just cannot see Lab dropping enough in stoke to be vulnerable to the tories, and ukip not capitalising. By election lab voters seem willing to stick through despite the dear leader.,
Tony Blair, writing in his personal manifesto when standing for Parliament in Beaconsfield in 1982
One problem with crime surveys generally (including UK) is how difficult it is getting hold of data from one of the most crime-afflicted subgroups in the country: poor immigrants who don't speak the language. This is believed to bias the UK results quite considerably.
I'd be astonished if the number of "intra-community" crimes committed has stayed static but not astonished at all if it was largely missing from survey data. When you have Somali gangs blowing car bombs up at each other, your society has issues. And aside from immigrant-dominated poor suburbs, goodness knows how much crime is going on inside refugee centres - from all accounts I can gather, very masculine-dominated places where the strongest establish, enforce and profit from a pecking order much like occurs in prisons.
On the other hand, the idea of nice middle-class white women in plush suburbs living in fear of being raped by swarthy newcomers is - as it ever is, anywhere in history where notable migration has occurred - overblown.
I do wonder what the relevant counterfactual is for many of those immigrants who have discovered Sweden is not so peaceful and pleasant as they'd first hoped. Compared to the average Swede, they live lives plagued by poverty and a genuine threat of violence. But should their situation really be compared to the average Swede? Would it be more realistic to compare to the difficulties they would have experienced as a newly arrived migrant in Germany or England? And for Somalis, Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans, it's entirely conceivable they have a stabler and safer life even in the grottiest of Western Europe's ghettos to what they had in Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our SMT at Leicester are very good indeed, and have reduced the budget deficit, while under extreme financial pressure, dropped the in hosital mortality by 10% and eradicated both MRSA and C Diff. They have even met most clinical targets, though the 4 hour wait will still be excessive until our new emergency floor opens in April.
A LD+Lab+SNP coalition may be a nightmare for PB Tories, but conceivably popular with British voters.
Tories count a lot of unhatched chickens for a party with a wafer thin majority.
Starting to wonder - even if Lab frontbench does back down when the Commons reverses Lords amendments, is there a chance Govt could still lose, ie:
LDs + Crossbench + Con rebels + some Lab backbench will outvote Con.
I think it could happen - at least once. The thing is that I then expect the Government to go for all nighter - eg reverse in Commons at midnight, back to Lords 1am; if Lords overturn again then back to Commons 2am, back to Lords 3am etc - and the Lords would then ultimately cave in.
1. Contagion from the Far Left: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the rump of Labour and therefore vulnerable to being pulled in a direction that Tory defectors really wouldn't like
2. Contagion from Scottish Nationalism: it will be presented as being reliant on votes from the SNP, bringing both the West Lothian Question and the possibility of Scottish public services being hosed down with (even more) English taxpayers' cash into sharp focus
Given that it's unlikely that the SNP is going anywhere anytime soon, it's simply essential that any plausible alternative to Labour be able to demonstrate that it can win outright without recourse to Scottish votes. Given that the Conservatives also have a pretty high floor to their vote, that means that the successor party needs to be able to destroy Labour.
Tory-leaning voters won't back a centrist party if it's an obvious Trojan horse for a coalition of Scottish special pleading and loopy socialism.
I have long been in favour of abolition of the Lords, but it would be ironic if the Tories added that policy from Labours "suicide note" 83 manifesto!
I well remember being one of the first PB Tories to post about just how relaxed I would be if the chances of a Lab+SNP coalition in the event of a Hung Parliament gathered momentum before the last GE.
You'd end up with a centrist party built around stopping Brexit, just as the Liberals were built around supporting free trade. If it built up a head of steam I think the SNP could be smashed and the Labour Party reduced to a pro-Brexit Northern rump.
The SNP overturned a Labour majority of 43.7% in the Glasgow East by-election in July 2008 on what was a high turnout in that seat for a by-election, and with Gordon Brown as PM. And while Labour then regained both Glasgow East and the Fife seat they lost to William Rennie of the Libdems in an earlier be-election at the 2010 GE, they subsequently went onto lose both seats to the SNP in the 2015 GE. Now there is no such thing as a safe Labour heartland Westminster seat in Scotland, even when the Conservatives are in Government.
Huff Post Politics - Jeremy Corbyn Warns Stoke And Copeland ‘On A Knife-Edge’, Attacks The Media For New Huge Tory Poll Lead
"The latest poll marked a record low for Labour under Corbyn. According to ICM’s Martin Boon, only three other comparable polls have given the Tories a higher lead over Labour since 1983.
Two of those polls were just before the 1983 general election, when Margaret Thatcher crushed Michael Foot, and the other was in June 2008, when Gordon Brown’s was at his most unpopular."
https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/Facts-and-statistics-/Statistics.html