It is interesting that both UKIP and the Lib Dems haven't really moved much in the polls.
For all the hype, the Lib Dems really haven't made much progress in the polls at all. They've barely crawled up a few points since the EU referendum, and, worse, any progress they've made seems to have completely stalled since the New Year (after they got a bit of a lift following Richmond Park). They're only a bit ahead of where they were at this point in the disastrous 2010-15 parliament.
Of course, the picture of the polls is completely contradicted by the local council byelections week after week, so goodness knows what's really going on with them.
For all the hype? As far as I can see the LibDems have received very little.They get very little Press coverage and their Leader is regularly rubbished, both here and in the right-wing Press.
Like Labour, the LibDems have a leader problem. Unlike Corbyn, Farron is not hopelessly out of touch, does not hold views that are anathema to 80% of the population and is not utterly useless at leading, but he does not have a persona that commands attention. With millions and millions of voters looking on in bemusement at what is currently happening in and to the UK looking for someone to articulate their frustration, the opportunity is huge. It's tailor-made for someone like Charlie Kennedy or a pre-coalition Clegg, but the LibDems do not have that god dust anymore, it seems.
I think you are under estimating what the Liberals can do, if Corbyn stays in situ. 10% could easily become 20% in no time. Mostly, from Labour but a few from the Tories too.
With a strong leader, I suspect that the LDs would already be closer to 20% than 10%. Farron just does not inspire. If Corbyn is in charge in 2020, they will probably get my vote (if anyone does), but it's easy for me - I live in a seat that the Tories are going to hold come what may.
One problem the extreme Remainers face is that they've emphasised the difficulties of leaving.
We're in a battle with the EU, it will be hard and difficult pounding, there's no easy way out. The more they liken it to a war, the more there's a tendency to close ranks against them.
It's why Turkey is going big on the Netherlands, it unites the Nation against the implied threat.
There's two options. There's the national unity against the enemy option, or there's the Sir Robin option, who "when danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled."
Blair, Heseltine and the Liberals look to be joining Sir Robin.
It is interesting that both UKIP and the Lib Dems haven't really moved much in the polls.
For all the hype, the Lib Dems really haven't made much progress in the polls at all. They've barely crawled up a few points since the EU referendum, and, worse, any progress they've made seems to have completely stalled since the New Year (after they got a bit of a lift following Richmond Park). They're only a bit ahead of where they were at this point in the disastrous 2010-15 parliament.
Of course, the picture of the polls is completely contradicted by the local council byelections week after week, so goodness knows what's really going on with them.
For all the hype? As far as I can see the LibDems have received very little.They get very little Press coverage and their Leader is regularly rubbished, both here and in the right-wing Press.
Like Labour, the LibDems have a leader problem. Unlike Corbyn, Farron is not hopelessly out of touch, does not hold views that are anathema to 80% of the population and is not utterly useless at leading, but he does not have a persona that commands attention. With millions and millions of voters looking on in bemusement at what is currently happening in and to the UK looking for someone to articulate their frustration, the opportunity is huge. It's tailor-made for someone like Charlie Kennedy or a pre-coalition Clegg, but the LibDems do not have that god dust anymore, it seems.
I think you are under estimating what the Liberals can do, if Corbyn stays in situ. 10% could easily become 20% in no time. Mostly, from Labour but a few from the Tories too.
Given what he's been like up to now, wha more would it take to turn it from 10 to 20?
Have you looked at the Y axis! The PVV is only 43%. Barely more than four in ten of their voters are sure.
Of course, other political parties are (mostly) worse. I find it richly ironic that the party whose supporters are most sure are those of the Reformed Political Party. This is the oldest party in the Netherlands, and one that has managed to never be a member of a coalition or government.
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
Scotland needs immigrants. Free movement in independent Scotland.
Davis has proposed potentially some free movement continuing to a Scotland still in the UK
Hold on. I thought Scotland was told they could not have access to the single market because we are "one United Kingdom". How come on freedom of movement, there can be two United Kingdoms ?
If they want some extra single market access presumably they must have extra free movement too
Have you looked at the Y axis! The PVV is only 43%. Barely more than four in ten of their voters are sure.
Of course, other political parties are (mostly) worse. I find it richly ironic that the party whose supporters are most sure are those of the Reformed Political Party. This is the oldest party in the Netherlands, and one that has managed to never be a member of a coalition or government.
Well, looks like 4 or 5 might be needed this time, so unless they have some inherent opposition to coalitions, maybe this is their chance?
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
Important caveat there. How outlandish is it, given all the shire counties that are voting?
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
It's doing what the British people want. To Meeks this is unforgivable as he despises the British people.
The residual UKIP vote is essentially anti. Anti everything.
It's role is now essentially corrosive.
Yes, though I'd put it a bit less pejoratively - they're now a classic protest party. Protest parties are largely immune to leadership problems, wacky representatives, shaky programmes, etc. It can even be helpful - I once met a voter who said he wished Hitler was standing in his local election, because "If we voted for him that'd REALLY shake the Westminster bastards up." I'm not suggesting that UKIP voters fancy Hitler (even that guy didn't really, he just wanted a good fat protest), merely that they're not too bothered by usual political stuff.
Where I think Alastair is mistaken is in linking this too closely to Brexit. I don't think the average UKIP voter is following it that closely - they half-expect to be betrayed over immigration even if we have a hard Brexit. But if you want to stick it to the Establishment in a general unfocused way, UKIP is clearly a good option. The Tories are not, which is why the core UKIP vote won't come to them even if the party collapses - they'll just abstain until another protest vehicle comes along.
Meanwhile, Labour's leftward swing isn't picking up the fed-up vote. That's partly because we're seen as soft on immigration and that is something which fed-up voters do dislike. And partly that Corbyn doesn't do populist rants - the calm lecturer style appeals to people like me, but positively puts off people who just want to stuff the traditional political class. (I suspect that if Labour was led by, say, Galloway or Scargill in their prime it would be making inroads into the fed-up vote, while horrifying people like me.)
Frankly, I am amazed you are not horrified at what Corbyn's leadership is doing to the Labour Party. You must know he cannot possibly win a GE.
Corbyn attracts a lot of support from well-off old men who do not need a Labour government or worry too much about a Tory one.
And, moreover, a Labour Party which provides a social and moral detox for corrupted minds by being ideologically pure. A bit like homeopathy.
Yep - Corbynism is an "all about me" doctrine. It's very 21st century in that way.
Like Labour, the LibDems have a leader problem. Unlike Corbyn, Farron is not hopelessly out of touch, does not hold views that are anathema to 80% of the population and is not utterly useless at leading, but he does not have a persona that commands attention. With millions and millions of voters looking on in bemusement at what is currently happening in and to the UK looking for someone to articulate their frustration, the opportunity is huge. It's tailor-made for someone like Charlie Kennedy or a pre-coalition Clegg, but the LibDems do not have that god dust anymore, it seems.
One or two on here have never liked Tim Farron but I tend more to the view they would be as hostile if Norman Lamb had been elected leader (why didn't you choose Farron, you'd be doing better ?).
Yes of course the party of only 8 MPs and 8% of the vote in 2015 is going to struggle to get its voice heard and even more so during these unsettling times.
The road to 20% was a long one in the first place - the road back there isn't going to be quick. As with Iraq, the Party has a USP which is a huge advantage. Clearly, there is a constituency for those who, while recognising we will be out of the EU, want to continue to maintain a strong economic and political relationship with the organisation and that includes associate membership of the Single Market and, let's be honest, a more open border for EU nationals (a nuanced FoM).
Given a majority of Labour voters and a significant minority (30% or so) of Conservative voters supported REMAIN, there's clearly a constituency of people who want to continue a close relationship with the EU in one form or another.
Farron is also, unlike Nick Clegg, the activists' friend. He works hard on the doorstep doing the sharp end of politics and is appreciated for that. Richmond was his baptism of fire just as Romney was for CK and Eastbourne for Paddy. For all the hype, Stoke and Copeland were going to be very difficult and Gorton remains no more than a possible in my view.
The May elections will hopefully see progress in a number of areas but it won't be uniform (it never is) and it'll be seats here and there rather than driving the Conservatives out of Kent and Hampshire for example - the Conservatives will do well as UKIP falls back.
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
It's doing what the British people want. To Meeks this is unforgivable as he despises the British people.
That might or might not be true - the government has still definitely gone harder than before.
The residual UKIP vote is essentially anti. Anti everything.
It's role is now essentially corrosive.
Yes, though I'd put it a bit less pejoratively - they're now a classic protest party. Protest parties are largely immune to leadership problems, wacky representatives, shaky programmes, etc. It can even be helpful - I once met a voter who said he wished Hitler was standing in his local election, because "If we voted for him that'd REALLY shake the Westminster bastards up." I'm not suggesting that UKIP voters fancy Hitler (even that guy didn't really, he just wanted a good fat protest), merely that they're not too bothered by usual political stuff.
Where I think Alastair is mistaken is in linking this too closely to Brexit. I don't think the average UKIP voter is following it that closely - they half-expect to be betrayed over immigration even if we have a hard Brexit. But if you want to stick it to the Establishment in a general unfocused way, UKIP is clearly a good option. The Tories are not, which is why the core UKIP vote won't come to them even if the party collapses - they'll just abstain until another protest vehicle comes along.
Meanwhile, Labour's leftward swing isn't picking up the fed-up vote. That's partly because we're seen as soft on immigration and that is something which fed-up voters do dislike. And partly that Corbyn doesn't do populist rants - the calm lecturer style appeals to people like me, but positively puts off people who just want to stuff the traditional political class. (I suspect that if Labour was led by, say, Galloway or Scargill in their prime it would be making inroads into the fed-up vote, while horrifying people like me.)
Frankly, I am amazed you are not horrified at what Corbyn's leadership is doing to the Labour Party. You must know he cannot possibly win a GE.
Corbyn attracts a lot of support from well-off old men who do not need a Labour government or worry too much about a Tory one.
And, moreover, a Labour Party which provides a social and moral detox for corrupted minds by being ideologically pure. A bit like homeopathy.
Yep - Corbynism is an "all about me" doctrine. It's very 21st century in that way.
Makes you feel good while being very bad for you, god damn our indulgent consumer lifestyles, eh?
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
The LibDems got a NEV of 28% in the equivalent elections of this year's:
I really, really hope that once A50 is invoked and the negotiations to leave start, the more excitable remainers in the media will start to calm down a bit and get behind the British negotiations. I very much doubt that's what will happen though, instead they seem determined to show the rest of the EU just how much we're willing to bend over.
Life and politics don't work that way as you well know.
Simply repeating "Trust Theresa" ad infinitum and ad nauseam isn't going to cut it if and when it appears not all the expectations that she has been happy to accommodate since last July are going to be fulfilled.
For months we've had this meme of "all things to all people" from the Prime Minister but A50 will mean choices will have to be made and some people are going to be disappointed and it remains to be seen how well May copes with serious opposition (unlike Corbyn). Not well if her ludicrous over-reaction to Heseltine is any indication.
The strange thing is, May is an interventionist Conservative who believes in the power of the State to solve problems. To me, she's virtually indistinguishable from Blair and indeed Heseltine in wanting to use the State as a force for change and progress. Yet she's being hailed in some quarters as a "traditional Conservative" yet Hammond, whose Budget she presumably supported, is condemned for "not being Conservative".
Blair is back - the SDP won - the "social market economy" marches on.
The problem comes when the British negotiators are needing to flight two flanks at once, one against the EU and the other against the British Remainers. Far better for the latter group to make their representations in private to the government and negotiators, rather than seek to present themselves to the public as being on the side of the EU, against the UK.
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
I wrote "the vote being implemented in a hardline version by a Conservative government". That is different from the words that you read.
It is interesting that both UKIP and the Lib Dems haven't really moved much in the polls.
For all the hype, the Lib Dems really haven't made much progress in the polls at all. They've barely crawled up a few points since the EU referendum, and, worse, any progress they've made seems to have completely stalled since the New Year (after they got a bit of a lift following Richmond Park). They're only a bit ahead of where they were at this point in the disastrous 2010-15 parliament.
Of course, the picture of the polls is completely contradicted by the local council byelections week after week, so goodness knows what's really going on with them.
For all the hype? As far as I can see the LibDems have received very little.They get very little Press coverage and their Leader is regularly rubbished, both here and in the right-wing Press.
Like Labour, the LibDems have a leader problem. Unlike Corbyn, Farron is not hopelessly out of touch, does not hold views that are anathema to 80% of the population and is not utterly useless at leading, but he does not have a persona that commands attention. With millions and millions of voters looking on in bemusement at what is currently happening in and to the UK looking for someone to articulate their frustration, the opportunity is huge. It's tailor-made for someone like Charlie Kennedy or a pre-coalition Clegg, but the LibDems do not have that god dust anymore, it seems.
I think you are under estimating what the Liberals can do, if Corbyn stays in situ. 10% could easily become 20% in no time. Mostly, from Labour but a few from the Tories too.
I think that's right. Also after a period where all leaders are in it for the ego trip (Trump being the most egregious example) the pendulum is due to swing. So it's not impossible that Farron's brand of mousiness doesn't grab the zeitgeist
The residual UKIP vote is essentially anti. Anti everything.
It's role is now essentially corrosive.
Meanwhile, Labour's leftward swing isn't picking up the fed-up vote. That's partly because we're seen as soft on immigration and that is something which fed-up voters do dislike. And partly that Corbyn doesn't do populist rants - the calm lecturer style appeals to people like me, but positively puts off people who just want to stuff the traditional political class. (I suspect that if Labour was led by, say, Galloway or Scargill in their prime it would be making inroads into the fed-up vote, while horrifying people like me.)
It's indeed partly (at least) because we're seen as soft on immigration and that in particular will scupper the party's chances of regaining any significant chunk of C2DE Leave voters while it continues.
For that, I blame Corbyn in particular. There are large swathes of the party especially its MPs who recognise the need to change Labour's previous stance on EU immigration to accept the need for some form of direct control. I've lost count of the senior party figures urging that change, but I could only name Corbyn and Abbott who are resisting it. Without Corbyn pushing strongly against that, the change would have happened. Even Corbyn's advisers seem to have accepted the need for a change of approach. So we had the car crash of an attempted populist relaunch of Corbyn in early January, in which in the early morning the BBC (based on briefings by advisers) was running the story that Corbyn was going to make a speech announcing he would change tack, only for Corbyn to counter that in the actual speech by which time in interviews he had stated that he didn't see the level of EU immigration as a problem.
One problem the extreme Remainers face is that they've emphasised the difficulties of leaving.
We're in a battle with the EU, it will be hard and difficult pounding, there's no easy way out. The more they liken it to a war, the more there's a tendency to close ranks against them.
It's why Turkey is going big on the Netherlands, it unites the Nation against the implied threat.
There's two options. There's the national unity against the enemy option, or there's the Sir Robin option, who "when danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled."
Blair, Heseltine and the Liberals look to be joining Sir Robin.
There is a risk of Remainer calls of doom being a self-fulfilling prophecy. OTOH you might expect Leavers to actually WANT Brexit to be a success. "hard and difficult pounding", "no easy way out", "war", "ugly head", "threat" are no-one's definition of success. Bear in mind all of this was optional. We didn't have to choose this route.
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
The LibDems got a NEV of 28% in the equivalent elections of this year's:
Given the mess that Labour and UKIP are in they should be aiming for a similar vote this year.
In 2010 they got 23% of the vote. If they do really well in 2020, they'll end up with 15% of the vote (and I would peg their likely result as more like 12-14%). To be on target for 15% of the vote, they probably need to be on a NEV of 20-22% this time around. I suspect they'll end up slightly shy of that, and would guess 19%.
I really, really hope that once A50 is invoked and the negotiations to leave start, the more excitable remainers in the media will start to calm down a bit and get behind the British negotiations. I very much doubt that's what will happen though, instead they seem determined to show the rest of the EU just how much we're willing to bend over.
Life and politics don't work that way as you well know.
Simply repeating "Trust Theresa" ad infinitum and ad nauseam isn't going to cut it if and when it appears not all the expectations that she has been happy to accommodate since last July are going to be fulfilled.
For months we've had this meme of "all things to all people" from the Prime Minister but A50 will mean choices will have to be made and some people are going to be disappointed and it remains to be seen how well May copes with serious opposition (unlike Corbyn). Not well if her ludicrous over-reaction to Heseltine is any indication.
The strange thing is, May is an interventionist Conservative who believes in the power of the State to solve problems. To me, she's virtually indistinguishable from Blair and indeed Heseltine in wanting to use the State as a force for change and progress. Yet she's being hailed in some quarters as a "traditional Conservative" yet Hammond, whose Budget she presumably supported, is condemned for "not being Conservative".
Blair is back - the SDP won - the "social market economy" marches on.
The problem comes when the British negotiators are needing to flight two flanks at once, one against the EU and the other against the British Remainers. Far better for the latter group to make their representations in private to the government and negotiators, rather than seek to present themselves to the public as being on the side of the EU, against the UK.
Maybe it would be, for negotiating purposes, but how exactly are remainers and soft brexiters supposed to privately make their representations? Bear in mind without public pressure, governments dont listen. What is parliament for if not to provide that place for representations and debate? It makes things awkward, but no matter the outcome, no matter the issue, we'll never be 100% united, and with inability and unwillingness to make people be quiet, there's not much point telling them to, the government has to deal with it. They can try to blame a poor deal on being hamstrung by it if they like,should it come to that,
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
As a former Kipper and regular critic of Alastair I see no sign of sneering in this piece.
I really, really hope that once A50 is invoked and the negotiations to leave start, the more excitable remainers in the media will start to calm down a bit and get behind the British negotiations. I very much doubt that's what will happen though, instead they seem determined to show the rest of the EU just how much we're willing to bend over.
Life and politics don't work that way as you well know.
Simply repeating "Trust Theresa" ad infinitum and ad nauseam isn't going to cut it if and when it appears not all the expectations that she has been happy to accommodate since last July are going to be fulfilled.
For months we've had this meme of "all things to all people" from the Prime Minister but A50 will mean choices will have to be made and some people are going to be disappointed and it remains to be seen how well May copes with serious opposition (unlike Corbyn). Not well if her ludicrous over-reaction to Heseltine is any indication.
The strange thing is, May is an interventionist Conservative who believes in the power of the State to solve problems. To me, she's virtually indistinguishable from Blair and indeed Heseltine in wanting to use the State as a force for change and progress. Yet she's being hailed in some quarters as a "traditional Conservative" yet Hammond, whose Budget she presumably supported, is condemned for "not being Conservative".
Blair is back - the SDP won - the "social market economy" marches on.
The problem comes when the British negotiators are needing to flight two flanks at once, one against the EU and the other against the British Remainers. Far better for the latter group to make their representations in private to the government and negotiators, rather than seek to present themselves to the public as being on the side of the EU, against the UK.
In a democracy, opposing the government and its strategies is not the same as opposing the country or its interests.
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
I agree. Post-Copeland, I think NEV's could be something like Con 35, Lab 26, Lib Dem 20, UKIP 12.
If that turns out to be correct, PVV may end up with fewer seats than in 2010.
No they would not, at the last election they got 10%
He said 2010.
You compare each election to the last election not one you randomly pick and in 2010 they came third now they are a close second
On Wednesday evening, the PVV will pick up something in the mid-teens vote share-wise. This may be enough for first. It may put them in third.
But ultimately the position is irrelevent. They have next to no chance of being a part of any governing coalition and they are the choice of only about one in eight Dutch voters, barely more than the LibDems are likely to get in 2020.
I really, really hope that once A50 is invoked and the negotiations to leave start, the more excitable remainers in the media will start to calm down a bit and get behind the British negotiations. I very much doubt that's what will happen though, instead they seem determined to show the rest of the EU just how much we're willing to bend over.
Life and politics don't work that way as you well know.
Simply repeating "Trust Theresa" ad infinitum and ad nauseam isn't going to cut it if and when it appears not all the expectations that she has been happy to accommodate since last July are going to be fulfilled.
For months we've had this meme of "all things to all people" from the Prime Minister but A50 will mean choices will have to be made and some people are going to be disappointed and it remains to be seen how well May copes with serious opposition (unlike Corbyn). Not well if her ludicrous over-reaction to Heseltine is any indication.
The strange thing is, May is an interventionist Conservative who believes in the power of the State to solve problems. To me, she's virtually indistinguishable from Blair and indeed Heseltine in wanting to use the State as a force for change and progress. Yet she's being hailed in some quarters as a "traditional Conservative" yet Hammond, whose Budget she presumably supported, is condemned for "not being Conservative".
Blair is back - the SDP won - the "social market economy" marches on.
The problem comes when the British negotiators are needing to flight two flanks at once, one against the EU and the other against the British Remainers. Far better for the latter group to make their representations in private to the government and negotiators, rather than seek to present themselves to the public as being on the side of the EU, against the UK.
In a democracy, opposing the government and its strategies is not the same as opposing the country or its interests.
The residual UKIP vote is essentially anti. Anti everything.
It's role is now essentially corrosive.
Yes, though I'd put it a bit less pejoratively - they're now a classic protest party. Protest parties are largely immune to leadership problems, wacky representatives, shaky programmes, etc. It can even be helpful - I once met a voter who said he wished Hitler was standing in his local election, because "If we voted for him that'd REALLY shake the Westminster bastards up." I'm not suggesting that UKIP voters fancy Hitler (even that guy didn't really, he just wanted a good fat protest), merely that they're not too bothered by usual political stuff.
Where I think Alastair is mistaken is in linking this too closely to Brexit. I don't think the average UKIP voter is following it that closely - they half-expect to be betrayed over immigration even if we have a hard Brexit. But if you want to stick it to the Establishment in a general unfocused way, UKIP is clearly a good option. The Tories are not, which is why the core UKIP vote won't come to them even if the party collapses - they'll just abstain until another protest vehicle comes along.
Meanwhile, Labour's leftward swing isn't picking up the fed-up vote. That's partly because we're seen as soft on immigration and that is something which fed-up voters do dislike. And partly that Corbyn doesn't do populist rants - the calm lecturer style appeals to people like me, but positively puts off people who just want to stuff the traditional political class. (I suspect that if Labour was led by, say, Galloway or Scargill in their prime it would be making inroads into the fed-up vote, while horrifying people like me.)
Frankly, I am amazed you are not horrified at what Corbyn's leadership is doing to the Labour Party. You must know he cannot possibly win a GE.
Corbyn attracts a lot of support from well-off old men who do not need a Labour government or worry too much about a Tory one.
And, moreover, a Labour Party which provides a social and moral detox for corrupted minds by being ideologically pure. A bit like homeopathy.
Yep - Corbynism is an "all about me" doctrine. It's very 21st century in that way.
Makes you feel good while being very bad for you, god damn our indulgent consumer lifestyles, eh?
Tory governments are not very bad for well-off old men.
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
That's almost certain. When the May elections were last held in 2013, Lab got something like 21% for an NEV of 29% - and that was at the peak of Miliband's popularity. The councils up this year are more LD than UKIP territory, maybe LD could be as high as 20-25% actual vote share for an NEV of 12-15%.
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
Aren't you a former UKIP candidate? Have you torn up your membership card?
The problem comes when the British negotiators are needing to flight two flanks at once, one against the EU and the other against the British Remainers. Far better for the latter group to make their representations in private to the government and negotiators, rather than seek to present themselves to the public as being on the side of the EU, against the UK.
In a democracy, opposing the government and its strategies is not the same as opposing the country or its interests.
You can't tell some Conservatives that, my friend. They see themselves as the unique custodians of the country's interests and don't accept that people who aren't Conservatives might love this country and want it to do well as much as they do.
Indeed, anyone who dares to criticise a Conservative Government is already beyond the pale in their eyes.
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
That's almost certain. When the May elections were last held in 2013, Lab got something like 21% for an NEV of 29% - and that was at the peak of Miliband's popularity. The councils up this year are more LD than UKIP territory, maybe LD could be as high as 20-25% actual vote share for an NEV of 12-15%.
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
If that turns out to be correct, PVV may end up with fewer seats than in 2010.
No they would not, at the last election they got 10%
He said 2010.
You compare each election to the last election not one you randomly pick and in 2010 they came third now they are a close second
On Wednesday evening, the PVV will pick up something in the mid-teens vote share-wise. This may be enough for first. It may put them in third.
But ultimately the position is irrelevent. They have next to no chance of being a part of any governing coalition and they are the choice of only about one in eight Dutch voters, barely more than the LibDems are likely to get in 2020.
They may not form a government but if they come first it would be hugely symbolic and Rutte has only kept his party in front by adopting some of Wilders' rhetoric
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
If you can't sneer at UKIPers then sneering has lost all meaning
If that turns out to be correct, PVV may end up with fewer seats than in 2010.
No they would not, at the last election they got 10%
He said 2010.
You compare each election to the last election not one you randomly pick and in 2010 they came third now they are a close second
On Wednesday evening, the PVV will pick up something in the mid-teens vote share-wise. This may be enough for first. It may put them in third.
But ultimately the position is irrelevent. They have next to no chance of being a part of any governing coalition and they are the choice of only about one in eight Dutch voters, barely more than the LibDems are likely to get in 2020.
They may not form a government but if they come first it would be hugely symbolic and Rutte has only kept his party in front by adopting some of Wilders' rhetoric
It's symbolic only of the fact that the Netherlands has a hugely fragmented political landscape.
If the PVV was fourth with 20% of the vote, that would be a much better performance than first with 10%.
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
If you can't sneer at UKIPers then sneering has lost all meaning
Exactly the reason they are still polling in double figures and hurting Labour. The Conservative party smile broadly at comments such as that, they learned to stop insulting Ukip voters.
I really, really hope that once A50 is invoked and the negotiations to leave start, the more excitable remainers in the media will start to calm down a bit and get behind the British negotiations. I very much doubt that's what will happen though, instead they seem determined to show the rest of the EU just how much we're willing to bend over.
Life and politics don't work that way as you well know.
Simply repeating "Trust Theresa" ad infinitum and ad nauseam isn't going to cut it if and when it appears not all the expectations that she has been happy to accommodate since last July are going to be fulfilled.
For months we've had this meme of "all things to all people" from the Prime Minister but A50 will mean choices will have to be made and some people are going to be disappointed and it remains to be seen how well May copes with serious opposition (unlike Corbyn). Not well if her ludicrous over-reaction to Heseltine is any indication.
The strange thing is, May is an interventionist Conservative who believes in the power of the State to solve problems. To me, she's virtually indistinguishable from Blair and indeed Heseltine in wanting to use the State as a force for change and progress. Yet she's being hailed in some quarters as a "traditional Conservative" yet Hammond, whose Budget she presumably supported, is condemned for "not being Conservative".
Blair is back - the SDP won - the "social market economy" marches on.
The problem comes when the British negotiators are needing to flight two flanks at once, one against the EU and the other against the British Remainers. Far better for the latter group to make their representations in private to the government and negotiators, rather than seek to present themselves to the public as being on the side of the EU, against the UK.
In a democracy, opposing the government and its strategies is not the same as opposing the country or its interests.
Their job is to hold the government to account for what they do, not by frustrating the process by which they are trying to achieve what the people voted for in a referendum. Right now they look as if they're preparing to line up with the EU against Britain.
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
If you can't sneer at UKIPers then sneering has lost all meaning
I appreciate ukip because by having such shambolic leadership issues, and the banks and Carswell stuff, I feel free to indulge in some fun sneering, while telling myself it's not the same as sneering at their concerns or policies. UKIP are a serious party with serious positions held deeply by many serious people. I actually wisgph them well, I want more parties to have more representation. But the leadership stuff this past year has been funny.
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
I wrote "the vote being implemented in a hardline version by a Conservative government". That is different from the words that you read.
Hmmm.....to be implemented at all meaningfully we need to regain control of trade and borders. So not in the EU Customs Union or Single Market governance structure. As was warned clearly and prominently by both sides during the referendum. May seems to want to deliver on those two but to retain negotiating freedom to get the best deal we can given the two 'must haves'. How is that hardline? I believe your definition of 'hardline' Brexit is any version which technically means we leave the EU but notice no meaningful difference whatever.
The problem comes when the British negotiators are needing to flight two flanks at once, one against the EU and the other against the British Remainers. Far better for the latter group to make their representations in private to the government and negotiators, rather than seek to present themselves to the public as being on the side of the EU, against the UK.
In a democracy, opposing the government and its strategies is not the same as opposing the country or its interests.
You can't tell some Conservatives that, my friend. They see themselves as the unique custodians of the country's interests and don't accept that people who aren't Conservatives might love this country and want it to do well as much as they do.
Indeed, anyone who dares to criticise a Conservative Government is already beyond the pale in their eyes.
When political parties and their supporters start to claim that opposing them is opposing the national interest you are at the top of a very slippery slope. Being opposed to the government's wing and a prayer Brexit and expressing that opposition is really not the same as being on the side of the EU.
I really, really hope that once A50 is invoked and the negotiations to leave start, the more excitable remainers in the media will start to calm down a bit and get behind the British negotiations. I very much doubt that's what will happen though, instead they seem determined to show the rest of the EU just how much we're willing to bend over.
Life and politics don't work that way as you well know.
Simply repeating "Trust Theresa" ad infinitum and ad nauseam isn't going to cut it if and when it appears not all the expectations that she has been happy to accommodate since last July are going to be fulfilled.
For months we've had this meme of "all things to all people" from the Prime Minister but A50 will mean choices will have to be made and some people are going to be disappointed and it remains to be seen how well May copes with serious opposition (unlike Corbyn). Not well if her ludicrous over-reaction to Heseltine is any indication.
The strange thing is, May is an interventionist Conservative who believes in the power of the State to solve problems. To me, she's virtually indistinguishable from Blair and indeed Heseltine in wanting to use the State as a force for change and progress. Yet she's being hailed in some quarters as a "traditional Conservative" yet Hammond, whose Budget she presumably supported, is condemned for "not being Conservative".
Blair is back - the SDP won - the "social market economy" marches on.
The problem comes when the British negotiators are needing to flight two flanks at once, one against the EU and the other against the British Remainers. Far better for the latter group to make their representations in private to the government and negotiators, rather than seek to present themselves to the public as being on the side of the EU, against the UK.
In a democracy, opposing the government and its strategies is not the same as opposing the country or its interests.
Their job is to hold the government to account for what they do, not by frustrating the process by which they are trying to achieve what the people voted for in a referendum. Right now they look as if they're preparing to line up with the EU against Britain.
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
I wrote "the vote being implemented in a hardline version by a Conservative government". That is different from the words that you read.
Hmmm.....to be implemented at all meaningfully we need to regain control of trade and borders. So not in the EU Customs Union or Single Market governance structure. As was warned clearly and prominently by both sides during the referendum. May seems to want to deliver on those two but to retain negotiating freedom to get the best deal we can given the two 'must haves'. How is that hardline? I believe your definition of 'hardline' Brexit is any version which technically means we leave the EU but notice no meaningful difference whatever.
You have your own view of the word "meaningfully". You don't have to look too far down this thread to find other Leavers who would have much preferred a very different type of Brexit. That is how it is hardline.
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
That's almost certain. When the May elections were last held in 2013, Lab got something like 21% for an NEV of 29% - and that was at the peak of Miliband's popularity. The councils up this year are more LD than UKIP territory, maybe LD could be as high as 20-25% actual vote share for an NEV of 12-15%.
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
That's almost certain. When the May elections were last held in 2013, Lab got something like 21% for an NEV of 29% - and that was at the peak of Miliband's popularity. The councils up this year are more LD than UKIP territory, maybe LD could be as high as 20-25% actual vote share for an NEV of 12-15%.
Last time around the LDs got 14% of the vote. So, if they did make it to 20-25%, that would be pretty solid local progress for them.
Absolutely they'll make good local progress, but I'm not sure how that would translate into a GE - where the message of vote for a competent conservative will resonate as it did last time. I'm with you on your prediction of 12-15 LD seats in a 2020 election.
In the councils up this year there's IMHO likely to be a big UKIP>Con swing, a smaller Con> LD swing and everyone taking votes from Labour. The story of the night is going to be the Lab wipeout in Scotland, and hopefully Andy Street beating Sion Simon to the West Mids mayoralty. Corbyn will be under more pressure than ever in the aftermath.
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
I wrote "the vote being implemented in a hardline version by a Conservative government". That is different from the words that you read.
Hmmm.....to be implemented at all meaningfully we need to regain control of trade and borders. So not in the EU Customs Union or Single Market governance structure. As was warned clearly and prominently by both sides during the referendum. May seems to want to deliver on those two but to retain negotiating freedom to get the best deal we can given the two 'must haves'. How is that hardline? I believe your definition of 'hardline' Brexit is any version which technically means we leave the EU but notice no meaningful difference whatever.
Spot on. Remoaners immediately (once they accepted the vote) attempted to make Brexit mean a merely nominal leaving of the EU.
As May famously said (much to the annoyance of said Remoaners) 'Brexit means BREXIT'.
Scotland needs immigrants. Free movement in independent Scotland.
Davis has proposed potentially some free movement continuing to a Scotland still in the UK
Hold on. I thought Scotland was told they could not have access to the single market because we are "one United Kingdom". How come on freedom of movement, there can be two United Kingdoms ?
If they want some extra single market access presumably they must have extra free movement too
Will May negotiate better single market access for Scotland ? I cannot see why not as we are now told that the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, will be "seamless", then so could the border between England and Scotland.
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
I really, really hope that once A50 is invoked and the negotiations to leave start, the more excitable remainers in the media will start to calm down a bit and get behind the British negotiations. I very much doubt that's what will happen though, instead they seem determined to show the rest of the EU just how much we're willing to bend over.
Life and politics don't work that way as you well know.
Blair is back - the SDP won - the "social market economy" marches on.
In a democracy, opposing the government and its strategies is not the same as opposing the country or its interests.
Their job is to hold the government to account for what they do, not by frustrating the process by which they are trying to achieve what the people voted for in a referendum. Right now they look as if they're preparing to line up with the EU against Britain.
In your view. MPs are perfectly entitled to frustrate the process of government, not just wait for it to happen. We the public can judge the opposition harshly if we do not agree with how they oppose afterwards.
By your logic an opposition has no right to frustrate the policies the people voted for at a general election. Referendum s are not magical, they don't remove parliamentary oversight.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out to death, the referendum was about leaving, not how. Now, I happen to think the government's position on interpreting the vote is the most popular option out there right now. But MPs are clearly going to once again back a vote to leave, there are just debates on the best approach. That suggested approach may even come from some remainers seeking to frustrate things. But if MPs were to adopt them, and I don't think they will, we would still leave, therefore it is not against the public wishes. And would half of mos in this scenario be siding with the eu against Britain? No, that's absurd. It might be better for the eu, but they'd do it because they think it is better for Britain too. Even if they are wrong and the government is right, and I'm not sold on the amendments, that is not the same as lining up against Britain.
I think we have to be very careful about how we condemn those who oppose government policy in a way which may be friendlier to the eu. That doesn't mean they aren't also looking out for britaibs interests. They think being friendlier is the way to do that. They think mitigating a hard Brexit is the best way to do that,
They are allowed to do it. Hard Brexit won no referendum, though I imagine it would, the government s suppirters need to stop whinging about opponents not doing what they want. That's practically corbyn like.
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
If you can't sneer at UKIPers then sneering has lost all meaning
I appreciate ukip because by having such shambolic leadership issues, and the banks and Carswell stuff, I feel free to indulge in some fun sneering, while telling myself it's not the same as sneering at their concerns or policies. UKIP are a serious party with serious positions held deeply by many serious people. I actually wisgph them well, I want more parties to have more representation. But the leadership stuff this past year has been funny.
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
I wrote "the vote being implemented in a hardline version by a Conservative government". That is different from the words that you read.
Hmmm.....to be implemented at all meaningfully we need to regain control of trade and borders. So not in the EU Customs Union or Single Market governance structure. As was warned clearly and prominently by both sides during the referendum. May seems to want to deliver on those two but to retain negotiating freedom to get the best deal we can given the two 'must haves'. How is that hardline? I believe your definition of 'hardline' Brexit is any version which technically means we leave the EU but notice no meaningful difference whatever.
Spot on. Remoaners immediately (once they accepted the vote) attempted to make Brexit mean a merely nominal leaving of the EU.
As May famously said (much to the annoyance of said Remoaners) 'Brexit means BREXIT'.
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
I wrote "the vote being implemented in a hardline version by a Conservative government". That is different from the words that you read.
Hmmm.....to be implemented at all meaningfully we need to regain control of trade and borders. So not in the EU Customs Union or Single Market governance structure. As was warned clearly and prominently by both sides during the referendum. May seems to want to deliver on those two but to retain negotiating freedom to get the best deal we can given the two 'must haves'. How is that hardline? I believe your definition of 'hardline' Brexit is any version which technically means we leave the EU but notice no meaningful difference whatever.
Spot on. Remoaners immediately (once they accepted the vote) attempted to make Brexit mean a merely nominal leaving of the EU.
As May famously said (much to the annoyance of said Remoaners) 'Brexit means BREXIT'.
It annoys plenty of leavers too, since the phrase is about making only one version of leaving 'true', seeking to make any alternate version therefore illegitimate if one wants to still uphold the referendum, but in a different way. It's about making any criticism of government policy the same as resisting the referendum. It's bollocks in other words.
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
That's almost certain. When the May elections were last held in 2013, Lab got something like 21% for an NEV of 29% - and that was at the peak of Miliband's popularity. The councils up this year are more LD than UKIP territory, maybe LD could be as high as 20-25% actual vote share for an NEV of 12-15%.
Surely this map ignores the combined authority mayoralty elections? As these are City based there will be a significantly different percentage vote for the parties than in the county elections.
Consequently the vote share percentages for the 2017 locals (including the mayoralty elections) will not be comparable to the 2013.
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
If you can't sneer at UKIPers then sneering has lost all meaning
I appreciate ukip because by having such shambolic leadership issues, and the banks and Carswell stuff, I feel free to indulge in some fun sneering, while telling myself it's not the same as sneering at their concerns or policies. UKIP are a serious party with serious positions held deeply by many serious people. I actually wisgph them well, I want more parties to have more representation. But the leadership stuff this past year has been funny.
It's not just the leadership stuff that has been amusing, look at how many of their MEPs stayed the course. Look at the statements made by some of their councillors and candidates. Not really a serious party at all.
On topic - a very fair overview. On Mr Meeks' final point, I noted the other day that there's no iron law against polling 50%. Though to get there in Government would be extraordinary.
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
I wrote "the vote being implemented in a hardline version by a Conservative government". That is different from the words that you read.
Hmmm.....to be implemented at all meaningfully we need to regain control of trade and borders. So not in the EU Customs Union or Single Market governance structure. As was warned clearly and prominently by both sides during the referendum. May seems to want to deliver on those two but to retain negotiating freedom to get the best deal we can given the two 'must haves'. How is that hardline? I believe your definition of 'hardline' Brexit is any version which technically means we leave the EU but notice no meaningful difference whatever.
You have your own view of the word "meaningfully". You don't have to look too far down this thread to find other Leavers who would have much preferred a very different type of Brexit. That is how it is hardline.
I'll confess to finding hardliners generally, but brexiter hardliners in particular, very frustrating. I'm willing to accept May's approach is probably the most popular option, and I hope it succeeds, but from the anger at judges doing their job -which the Gov accepted in court, and was well prepared for a loss so it didn't matter - to the lords to MPs honestly giving their views, there's too much hostility even when it is not a hardcore remoaner position.
This is probably one of your most measured pieces in a long time, but it's provoked a similar reaction to so e of the more, well m provocative ones.
Off topic, Kong, skull island looked silly and stupid, but is actually really fun and awesome,
The whole financial establishment are full of cheats. But I cannot see how it can be stopped. The incentive to earn big money is worth the risk. All you have to do is pay-off some insiders.
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
If you can't sneer at UKIPers then sneering has lost all meaning
I appreciate ukip because by having such shambolic leadership issues, and the banks and Carswell stuff, I feel free to indulge in some fun sneering, while telling myself it's not the same as sneering at their concerns or policies. UKIP are a serious party with serious positions held deeply by many serious people. I actually wisgph them well, I want more parties to have more representation. But the leadership stuff this past year has been funny.
Except for Diane James being spat at on a train.
She was a joke too ! But then within a bunch of jokers.........
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
Actually, it's pretty common for much of the old guard to remain in place, after throwing some of their number to the wolves, and adapting to the new reality. Somebody has to run the place. It happened in much of Eastern Europe after 1989.
In your view. MPs are perfectly entitled to frustrate the process of government, not just wait for it to happen. We the public can judge the opposition harshly if we do not agree with how they oppose afterwards.
By your logic an opposition has no right to frustrate the policies the people voted for at a general election. Referendum s are not magical, they don't remove parliamentary oversight.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out to death, the referendum was about leaving, not how. Now, I happen to think the government's position on interpreting the vote is the most popular option out there right now. But MPs are clearly going to once again back a vote to leave, there are just debates on the best approach. That suggested approach may even come from some remainers seeking to frustrate things. But if MPs were to adopt them, and I don't think they will, we would still leave, therefore it is not against the public wishes. And would half of mos in this scenario be siding with the eu against Britain? No, that's absurd. It might be better for the eu, but they'd do it because they think it is better for Britain too. Even if they are wrong and the government is right, and I'm not sold on the amendments, that is not the same as lining up against Britain.
I think we have to be very careful about how we condemn those who oppose government policy in a way which may be friendlier to the eu. That doesn't mean they aren't also looking out for britaibs interests. They think being friendlier is the way to do that. They think mitigating a hard Brexit is the best way to do that,
They are allowed to do it. Hard Brexit won no referendum, though I imagine it would, the government s suppirters need to stop whinging about opponents not doing what they want. That's practically corbyn like.
I don't disagree with most of that, after all the official Opposition don't seem to care about holding the government to account right now.
I just think the recent interventions by the likes of Blair, Clegg and Major would have been better done either through private channels or in Parliament, which is the correct public forum for this sort of debate.
The impression they give is not one of wishing Britain well, but rather of trying to frustrate the desicion of the people on the matter of EU membership. At best they want us to leave in name only, still contributing to the EU budget and unable to make our own trade deals, at worst they would rather that they - the great and the good - could just ignore the result of the referendum. That's not a good look to the majority of the country.
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
I do not for one moment believe Theresa May was a Remainer. All her instincts are to leave and through a hard leave.
She said what she said is because she like most is not a principled politician, She believed Remain would win reasonably comfortably or at the very least, win.
On the other hand, I am not sure what Boris' feelings were. My guess is that he wanted a narrow Remain win.
Regarding the LibDems, I am going to make an outlandish prediction. In the English council elections in May, they will garner more votes than either Labour or UKIP*.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
That's almost certain. When the May elections were last held in 2013, Lab got something like 21% for an NEV of 29% - and that was at the peak of Miliband's popularity. The councils up this year are more LD than UKIP territory, maybe LD could be as high as 20-25% actual vote share for an NEV of 12-15%.
Surely this map ignores the combined authority mayoralty elections? As these are City based there will be a significantly different percentage vote for the parties than in the county elections.
Consequently the vote share percentages for the 2017 locals (including the mayoralty elections) will not be comparable to the 2013.
That's a good question, I wonder how they will present the results on the night? The mayoral areas have electorates of several million people so could make a big difference.
Since there no agreement within UKIP itself as to what its purpose now is or what strategy it should follow, and since it remains as fissiparous, or even more so, than ever, and since its only MP is at war with its main donor and with the leadership, and since its leader is remarkably useless, and since it will lose its MEPs in a couple of years' time, and since it doesn't seem to be doing very well in the local elections which might in other circumstances provide a base for future progress, it surely follows, as night follows day, that it will decline into irrelevance, becoming entirely a receptacle for unfocussed 'none of the above' votes.. The only question in my mind is: how quickly?
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
I thought you voted UKIP because you wanted us to get close to a Powellite agenda where we didn't have 'wide grinning piccaninnis chasing us to the shops'?
The thread header implies that support of Ukip is inexplicable, if you are well paid and living in London you simply can't understand why people vote for them. If the national figure is 11%ish in certain parts it will be 20%. The likes of Mr Meeks would do well to chat with these people instead of sneering at them.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
If you can't sneer at UKIPers then sneering has lost all meaning
I appreciate ukip because by having such shambolic leadership issues, and the banks and Carswell stuff, I feel free to indulge in some fun sneering, while telling myself it's not the same as sneering at their concerns or policies. UKIP are a serious party with serious positions held deeply by many serious people. I actually wisgph them well, I want more parties to have more representation. But the leadership stuff this past year has been funny.
Except for Diane James being spat at on a train.
She was a joke too ! But then within a bunch of jokers.........
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
Actually, it's pretty common for much of the old guard to remain in place, after throwing some of their number to the wolves, and adapting to the new reality. Somebody has to run the place. It happened in much of Eastern Europe after 1989.
Fair enough, but I doubt those agitating for change just quit and left them to it?
I just think the recent interventions by the likes of Blair, Clegg and Major would have been better done either through private channels or in Parliament, which is the correct public forum for this sort of debate. The impression they give is not one of wishing Britain well, but rather of trying to frustrate the desicion of the people on the matter of EU membership. At best they want us to leave in name only, still contributing to the EU budget and unable to make our own trade deals, at worst they would rather that they - the great and the good - could just ignore the result of the referendum. That's not a good look to the majority of the country.
The impression they give to me is that they believe that British interests are not best served by the strategy that the government currently seems to be pursuing. They have every right to make that point in public.
On thread: Potentially interesting question, but I stopped reading after 'hardline version of a Conservative government' as it was clearly turning into one of Alastair's sulks about how the common people are just awful. How is this a 'hardline' government? On all measures I can see it's pretty centrist.
I wrote "the vote being implemented in a hardline version by a Conservative government". That is different from the words that you read.
Hmmm.....to be implemented at all meaningfully we need to regain control of trade and borders. So not in the EU Customs Union or Single Market governance structure. As was warned clearly and prominently by both sides during the referendum. May seems to want to deliver on those two but to retain negotiating freedom to get the best deal we can given the two 'must haves'. How is that hardline? I believe your definition of 'hardline' Brexit is any version which technically means we leave the EU but notice no meaningful difference whatever.
Spot on. Remoaners immediately (once they accepted the vote) attempted to make Brexit mean a merely nominal leaving of the EU.
As May famously said (much to the annoyance of said Remoaners) 'Brexit means BREXIT'.
It annoys plenty of leavers too, since the phrase is about making only one version of leaving 'true', seeking to make any alternate version therefore illegitimate if one wants to still uphold the referendum, but in a different way. It's about making any criticism of government policy the same as resisting the referendum. It's bollocks in other words.
Well said! There's more than one way of skinning the Brexit cat. The government has chosen one way but it is perfectly legitimate - and indeed necessary IMO - to criticize that choice and suggest alternatives. Immigration is important - arguably very important - but it is not the only factor which should determine how the country proceeds from now on.
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
I thought you voted UKIP because you wanted us to get close to a Powellite agenda where we didn't have 'wide grinning piccaninnis chasing us to the shops'?
Just keep saying whatever makes you feel good about yourself old chap.
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
I thought you voted UKIP because you wanted us to get close to a Powellite agenda where we didn't have 'wide grinning piccaninnis chasing us to the shops'?
Just keep saying whatever makes you feel good about yourself old chap
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
I thought you voted UKIP because you wanted us to get close to a Powellite agenda where we didn't have 'wide grinning piccaninnis chasing us to the shops'?
Just keep saying whatever makes you feel good about yourself old chap
I do!
Better than tablets in the long run I reckon. Take plenty of exercise in the fresh air too
@PCollinsTimes: Surely Theresa May will just say no to a Sottish referendum. The SNP get the grievance and keep the issue and everyone is sort of happy.
From the free bit, it sounds like the journalists are complaining that he's not taking enough journalists with him on the trip. Maybe his priorities are on actually doing the work he's going to Asia to do, rather than bringing a large bunch of hacks who won't have anything positive to say on a free long haul jolly.
I've heard similar things from my oil industry friends.
(Apparently the problem is compounded by the fact that Rex thinks he's much smarter than Donald, and doesn't mind who knows it. Unfortunately one of the people who now knows it is Donald.)
Foreign citizens employed by the NHS are by definition ALWAYS considering whether to leave.
So its more FAKE NEWS.
It's interesting that three-fifths have resisted all the scaremongering and aren't even considering leaving.
And for any that do decide to leave, there will be hundreds of qualified medical professionals from the rest of the world who'd welcome the opportunity to work in the UK.
So, we will replace EU-based medical migration with Commonwealth or wider migration. I suspect, to put it mildly, that this is not what the average Leave voter had in mind.
I'm not sure the average Leave voter cares too much about immigration of doctors and nurses.
The problems they have are with Romanian Big Issue sellers on benefits, of so many Polish plumbers that British plumbers can't earn a living, and of arranged marriages from Pakistan with people who don't speak English and prefer to turn certain parts of England into a mini-Lahore.
In other words, they want control over who is allowed into their country, they want the immigration of productive people that benefits the UK and don't want immigration of those who will be a drain on society or who want to change it rather than integrate.
If leave voters think Pakistan is part of the EU then they are certainly living up to stereotype.
The problem they have is with the "Right to family life" rules under the Social Chapter, that means we can't deport foreign criminals and ban arranged marriages from certain countries. Out of the EU we are free to make our own rules on these things.
No we aren't, that's part of the ECHR. Nothing to do with the EU.
Foreign citizens employed by the NHS are by definition ALWAYS considering whether to leave.
So its more FAKE NEWS.
It's interesting that three-fifths have resisted all the scaremongering and aren't even considering leaving.
And for any that do decide to leave, there will be hundreds of qualified medical professionals from the rest of the world who'd welcome the opportunity to work in the UK.
So, we will replace EU-based medical migration with Commonwealth or wider migration. I suspect, to put it mildly, that this is not what the average Leave voter had in mind.
I'm not sure the average Leave voter cares too much about immigration of doctors and nurses.
The problems they have are with Romanian Big Issue sellers on benefits, of so many Polish plumbers that British plumbers can't earn a living, and of arranged marriages from Pakistan with people who don't speak English and prefer to turn certain parts of England into a mini-Lahore.
In other words, they want control over who is allowed into their country, they want the immigration of productive people that benefits the UK and don't want immigration of those who will be a drain on society or who want to change it rather than integrate.
If leave voters think Pakistan is part of the EU then they are certainly living up to stereotype.
The Tories could have stopped immigrants from Pakistan through arranged marriages and who don't speak English.
They had a Home Secretary with the powers to do so. Her name is Theresa May.
She did. Spousal visas now have an English speaking requirement that is quite stringent, as well as checks that the marriage is genuine.
Ahead of Mrs McTurnip's likely announcement today of SINDYREF2 because of BREXIT, the SNP government's own White Paper on independence pointed out Scotland being removed from the EU against its wishes three times was a reason to vote for independence - and still they were turned down:
Second, the Scotland’s Future White Paper. In November 2013, the previous First Minister and the present First Minister launched the Scotland’s Future White Paper, which was described as a ‘guide to an independent Scotland’. In that White Paper, the Scottish Government referred to the referendum as a ‘once in a generation opportunity’ (pages i and 556). Crucially, it also explicitly raised the prospect of a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU resulting in a vote to leave despite a majority of voters in Scotland voting to remain (pages 60, 217 and 460). In other words, although it explicitly highlighted the possibility of a majority of people in the UK as a whole voting to leave the EU while a majority of people in Scotland voted to remain, it still referred to the referendum as a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity, without any caveat or conditions with regard to future events.
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
I thought you voted UKIP because you wanted us to get close to a Powellite agenda where we didn't have 'wide grinning piccaninnis chasing us to the shops'?
Just keep saying whatever makes you feel good about yourself old chap
I do!
Better than tablets in the long run I reckon. Take plenty of exercise in the fresh air too
Ahead of Mrs McTurnip's likely announcement today of SINDYREF2 because of BREXIT, the SNP government's own White Paper on independence pointed out Scotland being removed from the EU against its wishes three times was a reason to vote for independence - and still they were turned down:
Second, the Scotland’s Future White Paper. In November 2013, the previous First Minister and the present First Minister launched the Scotland’s Future White Paper, which was described as a ‘guide to an independent Scotland’. In that White Paper, the Scottish Government referred to the referendum as a ‘once in a generation opportunity’ (pages i and 556). Crucially, it also explicitly raised the prospect of a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU resulting in a vote to leave despite a majority of voters in Scotland voting to remain (pages 60, 217 and 460). In other words, although it explicitly highlighted the possibility of a majority of people in the UK as a whole voting to leave the EU while a majority of people in Scotland voted to remain, it still referred to the referendum as a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity, without any caveat or conditions with regard to future events.
Out of interest, can we point to a policy in Scotland that proves the SNP are genuinely successful / deliver on domestic issues? I'm not sure if those baby boxes have had any impact yet.
Reason I ask is thats its probably a good indicator as to how successful an independent Scotland would be.
Given they have about 10% of the powers how could they change Westminster policies apart from around the fringes.
I don't see much controversial in what Alastair has said. I would probably vote UKIP still even though our objective seems to have been fulfilled, there is always the worry that once you leave, the others revert to type. The facts is that every other party leader supported Remain, and the supposedly "Hardline Brexit" PM and chancellor are both Remainers. In Stoke, every other candidate was a Remainer etc etc
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
I thought you voted UKIP because you wanted us to get close to a Powellite agenda where we didn't have 'wide grinning piccaninnis chasing us to the shops'?
Just keep saying whatever makes you feel good about yourself old chap
I do!
Better than tablets in the long run I reckon. Take plenty of exercise in the fresh air too
Comments
We're in a battle with the EU, it will be hard and difficult pounding, there's no easy way out. The more they liken it to a war, the more there's a tendency to close ranks against them.
It's why Turkey is going big on the Netherlands, it unites the Nation against the implied threat.
There's two options. There's the national unity against the enemy option, or there's the Sir Robin option, who "when danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled."
Blair, Heseltine and the Liberals look to be joining Sir Robin.
Of course, other political parties are (mostly) worse. I find it richly ironic that the party whose supporters are most sure are those of the Reformed Political Party. This is the oldest party in the Netherlands, and one that has managed to never be a member of a coalition or government.
* This will probably put them behind Labour on a NEV share basis.
Yes of course the party of only 8 MPs and 8% of the vote in 2015 is going to struggle to get its voice heard and even more so during these unsettling times.
The road to 20% was a long one in the first place - the road back there isn't going to be quick. As with Iraq, the Party has a USP which is a huge advantage. Clearly, there is a constituency for those who, while recognising we will be out of the EU, want to continue to maintain a strong economic and political relationship with the organisation and that includes associate membership of the Single Market and, let's be honest, a more open border for EU nationals (a nuanced FoM).
Given a majority of Labour voters and a significant minority (30% or so) of Conservative voters supported REMAIN, there's clearly a constituency of people who want to continue a close relationship with the EU in one form or another.
Farron is also, unlike Nick Clegg, the activists' friend. He works hard on the doorstep doing the sharp end of politics and is appreciated for that. Richmond was his baptism of fire just as Romney was for CK and Eastbourne for Paddy. For all the hype, Stoke and Copeland were going to be very difficult and Gorton remains no more than a possible in my view.
The May elections will hopefully see progress in a number of areas but it won't be uniform (it never is) and it'll be seats here and there rather than driving the Conservatives out of Kent and Hampshire for example - the Conservatives will do well as UKIP falls back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2009
Given the mess that Labour and UKIP are in they should be aiming for a similar vote this year.
For that, I blame Corbyn in particular. There are large swathes of the party especially its MPs who recognise the need to change Labour's previous stance on EU immigration to accept the need for some form of direct control. I've lost count of the senior party figures urging that change, but I could only name Corbyn and Abbott who are resisting it. Without Corbyn pushing strongly against that, the change would have happened. Even Corbyn's advisers seem to have accepted the need for a change of approach. So we had the car crash of an attempted populist relaunch of Corbyn in early January, in which in the early morning the BBC (based on briefings by advisers) was running the story that Corbyn was going to make a speech announcing he would change tack, only for Corbyn to counter that in the actual speech by which time in interviews he had stated that he didn't see the level of EU immigration as a problem.
I wouldn't vote Ukip right now but I perfectly understand why plenty would.
Oxford was the greatest University in Europe for several hundred years before we joined the EU. Bizarre argument from ivory towered dons.
But ultimately the position is irrelevent. They have next to no chance of being a part of any governing coalition and they are the choice of only about one in eight Dutch voters, barely more than the LibDems are likely to get in 2020.
This will make the more excitable LDs have an orgasm, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty much meaningless when related to a general election.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2017
Black=currently NOC
Purple=no elections in 2017
Indeed, anyone who dares to criticise a Conservative Government is already beyond the pale in their eyes.
Last time around the LDs got 14% of the vote. So, if they did make it to 20-25%, that would be pretty solid local progress for them.
If the PVV was fourth with 20% of the vote, that would be a much better performance than first with 10%.
Kind of on topic, if the Tories are found to have broken the law in Thanet will Farage have another go in any subsequent by election?
In the councils up this year there's IMHO likely to be a big UKIP>Con swing, a smaller Con> LD swing and everyone taking votes from Labour. The story of the night is going to be the Lab wipeout in Scotland, and hopefully Andy Street beating Sion Simon to the West Mids mayoralty. Corbyn will be under more pressure than ever in the aftermath.
As May famously said (much to the annoyance of said Remoaners) 'Brexit means BREXIT'.
Think of other places where a regime has been overthrown, would the victors be happy with the old guard in place, promising to have changed? I wont give examples as they would encourage inane faux outrage and deliberate misunderstanding, but I am sure you can figure them out!
By your logic an opposition has no right to frustrate the policies the people voted for at a general election. Referendum s are not magical, they don't remove parliamentary oversight.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out to death, the referendum was about leaving, not how. Now, I happen to think the government's position on interpreting the vote is the most popular option out there right now. But MPs are clearly going to once again back a vote to leave, there are just debates on the best approach. That suggested approach may even come from some remainers seeking to frustrate things. But if MPs were to adopt them, and I don't think they will, we would still leave, therefore it is not against the public wishes. And would half of mos in this scenario be siding with the eu against Britain? No, that's absurd. It might be better for the eu, but they'd do it because they think it is better for Britain too. Even if they are wrong and the government is right, and I'm not sold on the amendments, that is not the same as lining up against Britain.
I think we have to be very careful about how we condemn those who oppose government policy in a way which may be friendlier to the eu. That doesn't mean they aren't also looking out for britaibs interests. They think being friendlier is the way to do that. They think mitigating a hard Brexit is the best way to do that,
They are allowed to do it. Hard Brexit won no referendum, though I imagine it would, the government s suppirters need to stop whinging about opponents not doing what they want. That's practically corbyn like.
I read somewhere on Twitter (maybe the General Election Date [or similar] account) that Farage has said he will stand there if there's a re-run.
Consequently the vote share percentages for the 2017 locals (including the mayoralty elections) will not be comparable to the 2013.
https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/841220944949608448
This is probably one of your most measured pieces in a long time, but it's provoked a similar reaction to so e of the more, well m provocative ones.
Off topic, Kong, skull island looked silly and stupid, but is actually really fun and awesome,
I just think the recent interventions by the likes of Blair, Clegg and Major would have been better done either through private channels or in Parliament, which is the correct public forum for this sort of debate.
The impression they give is not one of wishing Britain well, but rather of trying to frustrate the desicion of the people on the matter of EU membership. At best they want us to leave in name only, still contributing to the EU budget and unable to make our own trade deals, at worst they would rather that they - the great and the good - could just ignore the result of the referendum. That's not a good look to the majority of the country.
She said what she said is because she like most is not a principled politician, She believed Remain would win reasonably comfortably or at the very least, win.
On the other hand, I am not sure what Boris' feelings were. My guess is that he wanted a narrow Remain win.
The impression they give is not one of wishing Britain well, but rather of trying to frustrate the desicion of the people on the matter of EU membership. At best they want us to leave in name only, still contributing to the EU budget and unable to make our own trade deals, at worst they would rather that they - the great and the good - could just ignore the result of the referendum. That's not a good look to the majority of the country.
The impression they give to me is that they believe that British interests are not best served by the strategy that the government currently seems to be pursuing. They have every right to make that point in public.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-camera-shy-secretary-state-rex-tillerson-must/
https://goo.gl/images/kncwYI
(Apparently the problem is compounded by the fact that Rex thinks he's much smarter than Donald, and doesn't mind who knows it. Unfortunately one of the people who now knows it is Donald.)
What excuse is Wee Nippy going to find for not calling Indyref2 this time?