Good thread header Mr H. Unfortunately for Labour, not an April Fool.
Questions for the Conservatives & Unionists in our ranks - would you rather keep hold of Scotland or Gibraltar?
Also worth noting that there are plenty more Brits in Spain than in Gibraltar, and it is the former group who are potentially at risk of deportation. Shouldn't they be prioritised?
How will the eu back them? With no legal right to the land, the most the eu could do is support Spain's requests for us to open a dialogue on the subject since even the Spanish cannot say we've stolen the place from It's rightful owner hence the treaty , and punish the Gibraltarians for not currently wanting to be part of Spain. How non imperialist of them.
The eu is not about to tell a sovereign nation, the legal holders of a territory supported overwhelmingly by its citizens, that they must hand over its people to another state or it will punish those people. How malevolent do you think the eu is!?
Spain are being quite selfish in using an eu wide negotiation to open an issue which has nothing to do with the others.
IMO the inclusion of a Spanish veto over EU-Gibraltar relations in the EU's Draft Guidelines for Article 50 talks shows two things. Firstly that by leaving the EU we have traded real influence for notional sovereignty. What was previously a dispute between two EU members is now one between an EU member and outsider. The EU now sides with the remaining member and will ignore the one that has left. Secondly, the EU hasn't the slightest intention of allowing Gibraltar to derail the main deal with the UK. I doubt the UK does either.
None of this means the EU will support a Spanish takeover of Gibraltar by force. That runs contrary to what it stands for.
Spain only has a veto on any UK/EU deal being automatically applied to Gibraltar. All the EU will do from now on is have nothing to do with the whole issue. Once we are out, EU rules about free movement of goods, services, finance and people will no longer apply to Gibraltar, meaning Spain can choose to play silly buggers to its heart's content with no check.
Mostly I think this is to clear the Gibraltar barnacle off the boat. The EU doesn't want Spain to come in at a late stage and say, we're not agreeing the Brexit deal until we get our way over Gibraltar. This separates the two issues, which is less good from Gibraltar's point of view. I doubt the UK government minds about that, as long as the Union flag keeps flying over the Rock.
And edit. This is the price of Brexit. The UK government will trade away all sorts of interests to get the Brexit deal: UK fishermen (as always) and now Gibraltarians, banks and UK farmers.
They haven't traded away UK fishermen - they just referred in the letter to the need for an agreement on fishing stock management which is common sense. It doesn't, necessarily, mean continuation of the status quo
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
What's to stop Gib joining the EU on its own account?
Is there not a long queue that takes a hundred years to get to the top of, or so they keep telling us that will be the case once we are independent. Oh and lots of countries will veto them as they don't want to encourage independence movements as well , oh and they are a basket case economy dependent on Westminster so will not meet Euro rules. So I am afraid that is not an option on any front. PS they hav eno lender of last resort so will be even more of a basket case and will be forbidden to use the pound as well so no currency.
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
What's to stop Gib joining the EU on its own account?
I asked that yesterday and was told "The Treaty of Utrecht".
Article X is clear that Spain has the first option in the event of a transfer to a third party:
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
Though arguably that wouldn't apply in the event of a UDI.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
You've clearly never been to Hong Kong have you. Misery, indeed.
Francois Fillon was last traded at 5.9 for next French president. Does anyone have any idea why? Have I missed a poll?
There was a poll showing Melenchon only 1% behind him and with all the momentum. Coming 4th wouldn't be a shock.
Well quite. So not a 5/1 shot to win the whole thing.
Some of the prices in this market are crazy, but that can happen when one or two people are prepared to put down largish sums of money to influence the market.
A week ago we were discussing Macron's price which was 1.47 at the time. Most were in agreement that it represented good value and some said he should really be 1.25 -1.30. Today, although little has changed in the polls, as I write, he last traded at 1.67.
Francois Assenlieu has consistently polled at 0.5%, I don't know what sort of bizarre scenario gets him through to the second round in three weks time, but would be intrigued to hear it from the person who is holding his price on Betfair at 180 with a bet of over £200. I am sure everyone would agree that he is a lay at that price, but of course to lay that price you need to have a spare 35k or so in your bank that you are prepared to tie up for the next month or so.
Fillon CAN still win, if all the polls are totally wrong. I am not ruling that possibility out, but 5.9 is a crazy price. He was around 8 or 9 a couple of weeks ago and his polling since then has actually got worse and yet his price has continued to contract.
Bottom line is that the prices on Betfair are governed by the weight of money some people are prepared to put down, rather than a reflection of the chances of a particular outcome happening.
What's to stop Gib joining the EU on its own account?
I asked that yesterday and was told "The Treaty of Utrecht".
Article X is clear that Spain has the first option in the event of a transfer to a third party:
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
Though arguably that wouldn't apply in the event of a UDI.
Gibraltar staying in the EU, but still being an UK overseas territory would seem a viable compromise?
Francois Fillon was last traded at 5.9 for next French president. Does anyone have any idea why? Have I missed a poll?
There was a poll showing Melenchon only 1% behind him and with all the momentum. Coming 4th wouldn't be a shock.
Well quite. So not a 5/1 shot to win the whole thing.
Some of the prices in this market are crazy, but that can happen when one or two people are prepared to put down largish sums of money to influence the market.
A week ago we were discussing Macron's price which was 1.47 at the time. Most were in agreement that it represented good value and some said he should really be 1.25 -1.30. Today, although little has changed in the polls, as I write, he last traded at 1.67.
Francois Assenlieu has consistently polled at 0.5%, I don't know what sort of bizarre scenario gets him through to the second round in three weks time, but would be intrigued to hear it from the person who is holding his price on Betfair at 180 with a bet of over £200. I am sure everyone would agree that he is a lay at that price, but of course to lay that price you need to have a spare 35k or so in your bank that you are prepared to tie up for the next month or so.
Fillon CAN still win, if all the polls are totally wrong. I am not ruling that possibility out, but 5.9 is a crazy price. He was around 8 or 9 a couple of weeks ago and his polling since then has actually got worse and yet his price has continued to contract.
Bottom line is that the prices on Betfair are governed by the weight of money some people are prepared to put down, rather than a reflection of the chances of a particular outcome happening.
Mostly I think this is to clear the Gibraltar barnacle off the boat. The EU doesn't want Spain to come in at a late stage and say, we're not agreeing the Brexit deal until we get our way over Gibraltar. This separates the two issues, which is less good from Gibraltar's point of view. I doubt the UK government minds about that, as long as the Union flag keeps flying over the Rock.
And edit. This is the price of Brexit. The UK government will trade away all sorts of interests to get the Brexit deal: UK fishermen (as always) and now Gibraltarians, banks and UK farmers.
The British government would love to get rid of Gibraltar. They have spent years trying to hand it over- who could forget everyone's least favourite New Labour type, Hain, trying to persuade everyone that joint sovereignty merely meant another flag outside government buildings (which we all knew it wasn't but we also knew was the only way the people affected might be persuaded to swallow it)?
The real snag from their point of view is that there is no legal way for them to do so, Peter Caruana memorably invoking self-determination to stop that one by means of a wildcat referendum which if Sturgeon had any brains she would have studied closely. As a result, Gibraltar remains British regardless of how inconvenient that is in geopolitical terms.
Menorca also came under British rule in 1713 following the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1781, during the American War of Independence, the British were defeated by a combination of French and Spanish forces, and on 5 January 1782 the Spanish regained control of the island, after a long siege of St. Philip's Castle in Port Mahon.
While I don't expect force to be used, the Spanish could blockade Gibraltar and effectively force its handover. Even the mere threat of such a blockade might be sufficient to achieve this objective.
I would point out the 165 the Cons won in 1997 included North Norfolk and Westmorland and Lonsdale.
The AB - CDE split has been very evident in my personal door-knocking here in South Cumbria. AB's seem to be content with Farron's words on Brexit - which they generally fear. CDEs talk of smashing the telly when his face comes on. That includes two families which used to have loads of Farron posters in their gardens.
For the first time Farron's photo in a LD leaflet here is a vote loser.
The LibDems desperately need to get themselves some policies, rather than rely on the discontent with the Brexit vote, which I suspect has a rather short shelf-life.
I think the discontent will get them past the next election. The 21% who want Brexit overturned will gravitate to them.
They will pick up arch Remainers of a certain age, nationality and ethnicity, I'd guess.
I think the young will be tempted by the Greens, the nationalists by PC and the SNP, while Jezza's inner city BAME vote will essentially hold, especially the Muslim segment.
How many Euro super Enthusiast, overwhelmingly white, middle class, 40+, pro UK, Tory coalition forgiving voters are there to go around?
These 21% who want Brexit overturned will include a chunk of committed Conservative and Labour voters. Where is the evidence that they are mopping up the Anna Soubrey's? The Tony Blairs? The Libdems might skim off a few, but equally, will lose previous LibDems who think the whining about the Brexit result and wanting to overturn a democratic mandate is not for them.
Article 50 Notice is served. We are leaving. The LibDems will be painted as Rejoiners - having the UK grasp the ankles and assume the position on the Euro, free movement, ever greater union, an EU army, standardised tax rates....
The evidence is in the polling.
Despite the Lib Dems having advanced since the election, in contrast to UKIP and Labour, the LDs frequently return the smallest retention rate of their 2015GE voters, at around half (which of itself ought to be a terrifying stat, implying as it does that the true core LD vote is no higher than 4%).
However, while they've lost quite a few (including to Labour), they've also gained a lot. This is almost certainly Brexit-related given that while the proportion of their 2015 vote that backed Brexit was about 1 in 3, the proportion of their current vote that did so is about 1 in 6: a big enough difference given the relatively small growth in their share to imply both sizable Remain gains from other parties and also losses of Leave voters to them.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
Poundland Carlotta? You're slipping if you missed the chance to slip in a dig about Nicola's plans for the currency.
I'm surprised you aren't busy drawing up posters to explain how Ruth Davidson is the new Disraeli.
I'd compare Davidson to Derby. Not electorally especially successful (although a case could be made that he is the only party leader to win five consecutive general elections) but generally respected and doing a reasonable job after an extinction level event. I see no sign of a Scottish Disraeli.
Is that 'winning an election' in the same sense that Hillary Clinton 'won'?
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
Apparently, the whole thing was a cock-up. From the 1997 version of The Economist
Britain, claims a Communist Party stalwart, Huang Wenfang, need never have had to hand Hong Kong back to China. Only when, with a humiliating and legalistic insistence, Britain pushed China into a corner during crucial negotiations in the early 1980s, did China feel compelled to insist on Hong Kong's full return on July 1st 1997. Before that, says Mr Huang, “we had no plan to recover Hong Kong”.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
You've clearly never been to Hong Kong have you. Misery, indeed.
I have never been because I hav eno wish to go there, so come on then clever clogs regale us with your fascinating tales of Hong Kong and its throngs of people and high rise buildings. I have seen enough to know it is an overpopulated dump being run by a dictatorship. Politicians hand picked and ruled by China as they wish. They were abandoned in a flash by Westminster who were scared of the Chinese, they sent them off with their tails between their legs. As is usual with UK only the rich got to come to Britain , the rest were dumped.
What's to stop Gib joining the EU on its own account?
I asked that yesterday and was told "The Treaty of Utrecht".
Article X is clear that Spain has the first option in the event of a transfer to a third party:
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
Though arguably that wouldn't apply in the event of a UDI.
Gibraltar staying in the EU, but still being an UK overseas territory would seem a viable compromise?
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
Morning Malc!
Morning GIN, real April fools stuff on here today, plenty making real fools of themselves. Just getting a good laugh before I go off to pot on my Begonias.
What's to stop Gib joining the EU on its own account?
I asked that yesterday and was told "The Treaty of Utrecht".
Article X is clear that Spain has the first option in the event of a transfer to a third party:
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
Though arguably that wouldn't apply in the event of a UDI.
Gibraltar staying in the EU, but still being an UK overseas territory would seem a viable compromise?
The EU negotiating clause suggests that Gibraltar's way of guaranteeing EU access is by becoming a full member of the UK. It's seems to be essentially the same clause that would allow NI into the EU but only if it agreed to Irish statehood.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
Apparently, the whole thing was a cock-up. From the 1997 version of The Economist
Britain, claims a Communist Party stalwart, Huang Wenfang, need never have had to hand Hong Kong back to China. Only when, with a humiliating and legalistic insistence, Britain pushed China into a corner during crucial negotiations in the early 1980s, did China feel compelled to insist on Hong Kong's full return on July 1st 1997. Before that, says Mr Huang, “we had no plan to recover Hong Kong”.
Brexit will go the same way, these clowns struggle to tie their shoelaces so when they come up against real negotiators they will get absolutely slaughtered.
While I don't expect force to be used, the Spanish could blockade Gibraltar and effectively force its handover. Even the mere threat of such a blockade might be sufficient to achieve this objective.
A blockade is a hostile act and preventing shipping from free movement may be illegal under various maritime acts. Boarding a vessel without permission whilst it is going about its legal business may be viewed as piracy.
There is a large naval dockyard in Gibraltar and whilst the Royal Navy may be run down compared to its past glory, it is still an effective force to escort shipping.
Mostly I think this is to clear the Gibraltar barnacle off the boat. The EU doesn't want Spain to come in at a late stage and say, we're not agreeing the Brexit deal until we get our way over Gibraltar. This separates the two issues, which is less good from Gibraltar's point of view. I doubt the UK government minds about that, as long as the Union flag keeps flying over the Rock.
And edit. This is the price of Brexit. The UK government will trade away all sorts of interests to get the Brexit deal: UK fishermen (as always) and now Gibraltarians, banks and UK farmers.
The British government would love to get rid of Gibraltar. They have spent years trying to hand it over- who could forget everyone's least favourite New Labour type, Hain, trying to persuade everyone that joint sovereignty merely meant another flag outside government buildings (which we all knew it wasn't but we also knew was the only way the people affected might be persuaded to swallow it)?
The real snag from their point of view is that there is no legal way for them to do so, Peter Caruana memorably invoking self-determination to stop that one by means of a wildcat referendum which if Sturgeon had any brains she would have studied closely. As a result, Gibraltar remains British regardless of how inconvenient that is in geopolitical terms.
Menorca also came under British rule in 1713 following the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1781, during the American War of Independence, the British were defeated by a combination of French and Spanish forces, and on 5 January 1782 the Spanish regained control of the island, after a long siege of St. Philip's Castle in Port Mahon.
While I don't expect force to be used, the Spanish could blockade Gibraltar and effectively force its handover. Even the mere threat of such a blockade might be sufficient to achieve this objective.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
Morning Malc!
Morning GIN, real April fools stuff on here today, plenty making real fools of themselves. Just getting a good laugh before I go off to pot on my Begonias.
I would point out the 165 the Cons won in 1997 included North Norfolk and Westmorland and Lonsdale.
The AB - CDE split has been very evident in my personal door-knocking here in South Cumbria. AB's seem to be content with Farron's words on Brexit - which they generally fear. CDEs talk of smashing the telly when his face comes on. That includes two families which used to have loads of Farron posters in their gardens.
For the first time Farron's photo in a LD leaflet here is a vote loser.
The LibDems desperately need to get themselves some policies, rather than rely on the discontent with the Brexit vote, which I suspect has a rather short shelf-life.
I think the discontent will get them past the next election. The 21% who want Brexit overturned will gravitate to them.
They will pick up arch Remainers of a certain age, nationality and ethnicity, I'd guess.
I think the young will be tempted by the Greens, the nationalists by PC and the SNP, while Jezza's inner city BAME vote will essentially hold, especially the Muslim segment.
How many Euro super Enthusiast, overwhelmingly white, middle class, 40+, pro UK, Tory coalition forgiving voters are there to go around?
Article 50 Notice is served. We are leaving. The LibDems will be painted as Rejoiners - having the UK grasp the ankles and assume the position on the Euro, free movement, ever greater union, an EU army, standardised tax rates....
The evidence is in the polling.
Despite the Lib Dems having advanced since the election, in contrast to UKIP and Labour, the LDs frequently return the smallest retention rate of their 2015GE voters, at around half (which of itself ought to be a terrifying stat, implying as it does that the true core LD vote is no higher than 4%).
However, while they've lost quite a few (including to Labour), they've also gained a lot. This is almost certainly Brexit-related given that while the proportion of their 2015 vote that backed Brexit was about 1 in 3, the proportion of their current vote that did so is about 1 in 6: a big enough difference given the relatively small growth in their share to imply both sizable Remain gains from other parties and also losses of Leave voters to them.
The fact that they are unprincipled lying toerags does not support them recovering for a very very long time.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
While I don't expect force to be used, the Spanish could blockade Gibraltar and effectively force its handover. Even the mere threat of such a blockade might be sufficient to achieve this objective.
A blockade is a hostile act and preventing shipping from free movement may be illegal under various maritime acts. Boarding a vessel without permission whilst it is going about its legal business may be viewed as piracy.
There is a large naval dockyard in Gibraltar and whilst the Royal Navy may be run down compared to its past glory, it is still an effective force to escort shipping.
Bev, get a grip, the Royal Navy is a joke. Have you never watched the Spanish making fools of them off Gibralter whenever it suits them or they want a laugh. By the time we got our battalion of Admirals out of the jacuzzi and sobered up enough to get any of the few bathtubs we still have floating out of the harbour they would have had a few days fun and would laugh their socks off. Remember our last clash with a few Iranian motorboats , ended up with our lot crying because their ipods were confiscated, whilst the big bathtubs implored the nasty Iranians to stop or they would get really really cross with them.
Mostly I think this is to clear the Gibraltar barnacle off the boat. The EU doesn't want Spain to come in at a late stage and say, we're not agreeing the Brexit deal until we get our way over Gibraltar. This separates the two issues, which is less good from Gibraltar's point of view. I doubt the UK government minds about that, as long as the Union flag keeps flying over the Rock.
And edit. This is the price of Brexit. The UK government will trade away all sorts of interests to get the Brexit deal: UK fishermen (as always) and now Gibraltarians, banks and UK farmers.
The British government would love to get rid of Gibraltar. They have spent years trying to hand it over- who could forget everyone's least favourite New Labour type, Hain, trying to persuade everyone that joint sovereignty merely meant another flag outside government buildings (which we all knew it wasn't but we also knew was the only way the people affected might be persuaded to swallow it)?
The real snag from their point of view is that there is no legal way for them to do so, Peter Caruana memorably invoking self-determination to stop that one by means of a wildcat referendum which if Sturgeon had any brains she would have studied closely. As a result, Gibraltar remains British regardless of how inconvenient that is in geopolitical terms.
Menorca also came under British rule in 1713 following the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1781, during the American War of Independence, the British were defeated by a combination of French and Spanish forces, and on 5 January 1782 the Spanish regained control of the island, after a long siege of St. Philip's Castle in Port Mahon.
While I don't expect force to be used, the Spanish could blockade Gibraltar and effectively force its handover. Even the mere threat of such a blockade might be sufficient to achieve this objective.
Nope. Not a chance.
This is all a bit silly, isn't it? All that's happened is what was bound to happen if we voted for Brexit. I genuinely don't understand why this is attracting so much coverage.
"Gorsuch added: “No doubt, the Greens’ religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens’ beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are sincerely held religious beliefs.” "
Hmmm... like that makes it OK. Lots of people have "... sincerely held religious beliefs ..." that are simply not acceptable. People complain about extreme Islam blowing up historical artefacts, but surely it should be OK as they have "...sincerely held religious beliefs"
Destroying history is shameful, but interfering in the lives of other people and removing their choices to suit sincerely held religious beliefs is worse.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
What a charming person you are.
Take a good look in the mirror
Something not going well for you?
Ha Ha Ha , all is extremely well with me. No need to ask you that given your silver spoon.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
Apparently, the whole thing was a cock-up. From the 1997 version of The Economist
Britain, claims a Communist Party stalwart, Huang Wenfang, need never have had to hand Hong Kong back to China. Only when, with a humiliating and legalistic insistence, Britain pushed China into a corner during crucial negotiations in the early 1980s, did China feel compelled to insist on Hong Kong's full return on July 1st 1997. Before that, says Mr Huang, “we had no plan to recover Hong Kong”.
I seem to recall being taught, back in the 50’s, that in 1997 China would be entitled to have what were then called the New Territories back, and if they did go back Hong Kong Island would no longer be viable as a city.
The subtitle is "Jeremy Corbyn has announced he is to spend more time with his vegetables." which reminds me of a famous incident at a party conference where Margaret Thatcher and some of her cabinet where ordering dinner
Mrs T: I will have the roast beef Waiter: What about the vegetables ma'am? Mrs T: They'll have roast beef too!
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
The subtitle is "Jeremy Corbyn has announced he is to spend more time with his vegetables." which reminds me of a famous incident at a party conference where Margaret Thatcher and some of her cabinet where ordering dinner
Mrs T: I will have the roast beef Waiter: What about the vegetables ma'am? Mrs T: They'll have roast beef too!
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
Apparently, the whole thing was a cock-up. From the 1997 version of The Economist
Britain, claims a Communist Party stalwart, Huang Wenfang, need never have had to hand Hong Kong back to China. Only when, with a humiliating and legalistic insistence, Britain pushed China into a corner during crucial negotiations in the early 1980s, did China feel compelled to insist on Hong Kong's full return on July 1st 1997. Before that, says Mr Huang, “we had no plan to recover Hong Kong”.
I seem to recall being taught, back in the 50’s, that in 1997 China would be entitled to have what were then called the New Territories back, and if they did go back Hong Kong Island would no longer be viable as a city.
OKC , yes the rapacious UK shysters could not make as much money out of it so they abandoned the people, only allowing their millionaire pals to come to UK. It was ever thus with these bloodsuckers, they are still the establishment and still sucking people dry.
The subtitle is "Jeremy Corbyn has announced he is to spend more time with his vegetables." which reminds me of a famous incident at a party conference where Margaret Thatcher and some of her cabinet where ordering dinner
Mrs T: I will have the roast beef Waiter: What about the vegetables ma'am? Mrs T: They'll have roast beef too!
A spitting image sketch I believe.
Perhaps it was. I could believe it happened though...
When you go down to point 5, you'll even find there that only a small minority of Republicans see contraceptives as immoral. So right wingers who see birth control as immoral really are a tiny minority in the States. The more shocking stats are, that 46% of GOPers see premartial sex as immoral, and 54% see homosexuality as a sin.
Francois Fillon was last traded at 5.9 for next French president. Does anyone have any idea why? Have I missed a poll?
There was a poll showing Melenchon only 1% behind him and with all the momentum. Coming 4th wouldn't be a shock.
Well quite. So not a 5/1 shot to win the whole thing.
Some of the prices in this market are crazy, but that can happen when one or two people are prepared to put down largish sums of money to influence the market.
A week ago we were discussing Macron's price which was 1.47 at the time. Most were in agreement that it represented good value and some said he should really be 1.25 -1.30. Today, although little has changed in the polls, as I write, he last traded at 1.67.
Francois Assenlieu has consistently polled at 0.5%, I don't know what sort of bizarre scenario gets him through to the second round in three weks time, but would be intrigued to hear it from the person who is holding his price on Betfair at 180 with a bet of over £200. I am sure everyone would agree that he is a lay at that price, but of course to lay that price you need to have a spare 35k or so in your bank that you are prepared to tie up for the next month or so.
Fillon CAN still win, if all the polls are totally wrong. I am not ruling that possibility out, but 5.9 is a crazy price. He was around 8 or 9 a couple of weeks ago and his polling since then has actually got worse and yet his price has continued to contract.
Bottom line is that the prices on Betfair are governed by the weight of money some people are prepared to put down, rather than a reflection of the chances of a particular outcome happening.
1.66 on Macron looks massive to me.
It IS massive, in relation to his actual chances of winning. But that is not to say that it will not be even more massive in a few days time. The market at the moment is not a reflection of the chances of a particular candidate winning. The downward movement of Fillons price proves that - the worse he does in the polls the lower his price has gone in the past couple of weeks.
Maybe a bit nearer the actual vote, some serious bettors with serious money will enter the market and take advantage of the anomalies that currently exist. If that happens, then prices will become more realistically aligned with chances of the candidates winning. At the moment, the market is being driven by Traders.
Mostly I think this is to clear the Gibraltar barnacle off the boat. The EU doesn't want Spain to come in at a late stage and say, we're not agreeing the Brexit deal until we get our way over Gibraltar. This separates the two issues, which is less good from Gibraltar's point of view. I doubt the UK government minds about that, as long as the Union flag keeps flying over the Rock.
And edit. This is the price of Brexit. The UK government will trade away all sorts of interests to get the Brexit deal: UK fishermen (as always) and now Gibraltarians, banks and UK farmers.
The British government would love to get rid of Gibraltar. They have spent years trying to hand it over- who could forget everyone's least favourite New Labour type, Hain, trying to persuade everyone that joint sovereignty merely meant another flag outside government buildings (which we all knew it wasn't but we also knew was the only way the people affected might be persuaded to swallow it)?
The real snag from their point of view is that there is no legal way for them to do so, Peter Caruana memorably invoking self-determination to stop that one by means of a wildcat referendum which if Sturgeon had any brains she would have studied closely. As a result, Gibraltar remains British regardless of how inconvenient that is in geopolitical terms.
Menorca also came under British rule in 1713 following the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1781, during the American War of Independence, the British were defeated by a combination of French and Spanish forces, and on 5 January 1782 the Spanish regained control of the island, after a long siege of St. Philip's Castle in Port Mahon.
While I don't expect force to be used, the Spanish could blockade Gibraltar and effectively force its handover. Even the mere threat of such a blockade might be sufficient to achieve this objective.
Nope. Not a chance.
This is all a bit silly, isn't it? All that's happened is what was bound to happen if we voted for Brexit. I genuinely don't understand why this is attracting so much coverage.
"Gorsuch added: “No doubt, the Greens’ religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens’ beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are sincerely held religious beliefs.” "
Hmmm... like that makes it OK. Lots of people have "... sincerely held religious beliefs ..." that are simply not acceptable. People complain about extreme Islam blowing up historical artefacts, but surely it should be OK as they have "...sincerely held religious beliefs"
Destroying history is shameful, but interfering in the lives of other people and removing their choices to suit sincerely held religious beliefs is worse.
Agreed. Gorsuch though is a Conservative, and they tend to prize religious freedom (along with gun rights).
Conservatives on Twitter love him (and can't understand why anyone else wouldn't). He came across okay in his Senate Hearings (overall), but I must admit that some of his rulings are concerning.
When you go down to point 5, you'll even find there that only a small minority of Republicans see contraceptives as immoral. So right wingers who see birth control as immoral really are a tiny minority in the States. The more shocking stats are, that 46% of GOPers see premartial sex as immoral, and 54% see homosexuality as a sin.
As the last two add up to 100% I assume it was an either/or choice.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
Apparently, the whole thing was a cock-up. From the 1997 version of The Economist
Britain, claims a Communist Party stalwart, Huang Wenfang, need never have had to hand Hong Kong back to China. Only when, with a humiliating and legalistic insistence, Britain pushed China into a corner during crucial negotiations in the early 1980s, did China feel compelled to insist on Hong Kong's full return on July 1st 1997. Before that, says Mr Huang, “we had no plan to recover Hong Kong”.
I seem to recall being taught, back in the 50’s, that in 1997 China would be entitled to have what were then called the New Territories back, and if they did go back Hong Kong Island would no longer be viable as a city.
OKC , yes the rapacious UK shysters could not make as much money out of it so they abandoned the people, only allowing their millionaire pals to come to UK. It was ever thus with these bloodsuckers, they are still the establishment and still sucking people dry.
They mis-read it. It really said that Jeremy Corbyn has gone for a contract extension, and has re-signed to lead the Labour Party for 20 more years....
While I don't expect force to be used, the Spanish could blockade Gibraltar and effectively force its handover. Even the mere threat of such a blockade might be sufficient to achieve this objective.
A blockade is a hostile act and preventing shipping from free movement may be illegal under various maritime acts. Boarding a vessel without permission whilst it is going about its legal business may be viewed as piracy.
There is a large naval dockyard in Gibraltar and whilst the Royal Navy may be run down compared to its past glory, it is still an effective force to escort shipping.
It's not piracy when carried out by a state. It could legally be considered - like a blockade - an act of war.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
Apparently, the whole thing was a cock-up. From the 1997 version of The Economist
Britain, claims a Communist Party stalwart, Huang Wenfang, need never have had to hand Hong Kong back to China. Only when, with a humiliating and legalistic insistence, Britain pushed China into a corner during crucial negotiations in the early 1980s, did China feel compelled to insist on Hong Kong's full return on July 1st 1997. Before that, says Mr Huang, “we had no plan to recover Hong Kong”.
I seem to recall being taught, back in the 50’s, that in 1997 China would be entitled to have what were then called the New Territories back, and if they did go back Hong Kong Island would no longer be viable as a city.
OKC , yes the rapacious UK shysters could not make as much money out of it so they abandoned the people, only allowing their millionaire pals to come to UK. It was ever thus with these bloodsuckers, they are still the establishment and still sucking people dry.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
What a charming person you are.
Take a good look in the mirror
Something not going well for you?
Ha Ha Ha , all is extremely well with me. No need to ask you that given your silver spoon.
Primogeniture sucks. That's all you need to know about my silver spoon.
The subtitle is "Jeremy Corbyn has announced he is to spend more time with his vegetables." which reminds me of a famous incident at a party conference where Margaret Thatcher and some of her cabinet where ordering dinner
Mrs T: I will have the roast beef Waiter: What about the vegetables ma'am? Mrs T: They'll have roast beef too!
You do realise that was Spitting Image, not a real incident ?!
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
What a charming person you are.
Take a good look in the mirror
Something not going well for you?
Ha Ha Ha , all is extremely well with me. No need to ask you that given your silver spoon.
Primogeniture sucks. That's all you need to know about my silver spoon.
@kle4 - Do you think we should have clung on to the part of Hong Kong that was permanent British territory? With the UK out of the EU, we are again faced with a similar question.
My understanding was that land was leased to us, not permanent?
It's a difficult question either way and I'll sidestep as I don't know about that one, including what the locals wanted.
Hong Kong island was sovereign territory of the UK. Most of the surrounding land was leased.
Hong Kong Island was a non-viable state - no water, no power, no sewage management system. In the circumstances we did the best that we could do for them (although we should have extended visas in the way that Canada did)
Yes all you rich tossers got your money out and abandoned the natives to their misery
What a charming person you are.
Take a good look in the mirror
Something not going well for you?
Ha Ha Ha , all is extremely well with me. No need to ask you that given your silver spoon.
Primogeniture sucks. That's all you need to know about my silver spoon.
So you’re in the modern equivalent of the Church or the Army. Or possibly the Indian or the Colonial Civil Service?
Slightly mystifying why the PB Thatchurbators are so desperate to draw comparisons between Thatch & Sturgeon. In their customary cloth eared way when it comes to Scotland, do they think the voters (who still largely loathe Magrit) are going to suddenly turn away from the EssEnnPee in a fit of 1980s déjà vu?
Thatcher makes people on all sides slightly hysterical.
Personally I think the comparisons from photo framing and valid slogans is just an amusing trifle.
You are not a tax avoiding Channel Islands based Tory bigot who hates Scotland though.
This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
"Gorsuch added: “No doubt, the Greens’ religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens’ beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are sincerely held religious beliefs.” "
Hmmm... like that makes it OK. Lots of people have "... sincerely held religious beliefs ..." that are simply not acceptable. People complain about extreme Islam blowing up historical artefacts, but surely it should be OK as they have "...sincerely held religious beliefs"
Destroying history is shameful, but interfering in the lives of other people and removing their choices to suit sincerely held religious beliefs is worse.
One point David - while the solution to Labour's problems is indeed obvious, I would dispute that it is simple. We saw last year just how hard it is to shift Corbyn and little has changed since then for all the muttering about his stance on Europe. Unless a plausible unity candidate who can appeal to the party at large emerges (and at present not a single member of the PLP fits that criteria) Corbyn is safe unless he resigns. He clearly has no intention of resigning. Which means that Labour is facing real danger of utter wipeout - as TSE is now saying, more 1931 than 1983.
1935 IMHO. There are 150 Labour seats that are unsinkable.
as a matter of interest , how many Tory seats are unsinkable?
See May 1 1997.
That said, Labour won 8 seats in Kent in 1997. They all now look solid for the Conservatives.
There are quite a few seats in Shire England that Labour will probably never win again.
Anyone know as a ballpark figure how many shire seats Blair won? Given that I find even many labour figures seem a little blue round here, it amazing to think how labour could chalkenge in such places.
Probably about 50-60 seats Labour would never win now, off the top of my head.
Can you imagine Labour winning Dorset South, Wellingborough, Thanet South, Great Yarmouth or Portsmouth North now?
Great Yarmouth is very winnable in a good year for Labour.
This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
It's easy to forget that Ed was the worst Labour leader since WW2, until Corbyn came along.
Just a thought before I go to lunch, and thereafter to the lawnmower; it might be interesting to see the figures for the Don’t Knows, before they are re-allocated.
This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
Laughable.
The Tories have damaged Labour beyond repair this parliament and CR is right to ask if it will "only" be as bad as before.
This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
It's easy to forget that Ed was the worst Labour leader since WW2, until Corbyn came along.
Yes, it's not a majority view, but I agree that he was worse than Foot (a fundamentally decent man placed in an impossible situation).
Poundland Carlotta? You're slipping if you missed the chance to slip in a dig about Nicola's plans for the currency.
I'm surprised you aren't busy drawing up posters to explain how Ruth Davidson is the new Disraeli.
I'd compare Davidson to Derby. Not electorally especially successful (although a case could be made that he is the only party leader to win five consecutive general elections) but generally respected and doing a reasonable job after an extinction level event. I see no sign of a Scottish Disraeli.
Is that 'winning an election' in the same sense that Hillary Clinton 'won'?
That sort of thing, yes. Stanley/Derby always led the largest single party (the 'Liberals' being a coalition of three, arguably four distinct groups) but everyone else worked together to put another politician in power be that Russell, Aberdeen or Palmerston. Even so, he was Prime Minister on three separate occasions, quite an impressive achievement he shares with Baldwin and Salisbury, just behind Gladstone's record of four.
"You do realise that was Spitting Image, not a real incident ?!"
Looking at those Spitting Image clips it is interesting how the programme used to portray the late Princess Diana. She was then a thick sloane and not at all the modern day saint that some like to pretend after untimely death.
"You do realise that was Spitting Image, not a real incident ?!"
Looking at those Spitting Image clips it is interesting how the programme used to portray the late Princess Diana. She was then a thick sloane and not at all the modern day saint that some like to pretend after untimely death.
I think we've said on here that it was simply stating the obvious - that if there is no deal it would weaken security cooperation, so we should strive to get a deal. The EU themselves say we can't sign a deal until everything is agreed (citizen rights, for example), so they themselves are tying it to the economic side of things. I fail to see how this is an "embarrassing climbdown".
Asked if he thought Ms May was engaged in “blackmail”, European Parliament negotiator Guy Verhofstadt said at the time: “I try to be a gentleman, so towards a lady I don’t even use or think about the word ‘blackmail’.”
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
So Spain's claim of sovereignty over Gibraltar is 'rancid and medieval'? These continentals never can quite get the hang of English understatement.
Mind you, it seems to be a quality that's gradually seeping from the English themselves.
The sooner that England is taken down a peg or two and finally realises that the days of the butcher's apron smothering the rest of the world are over, the better. All territories outside England currently under British sovereignty should become independent or pass to the jurisdiction of a more appropriate local state. The UN security council should be re-organised to have as its 5 permanent members the EU, USA, Russia, China and India. NATO should be disbanded and replaced by an EU armed force for the protection of Europe.
"You do realise that was Spitting Image, not a real incident ?!"
Looking at those Spitting Image clips it is interesting how the programme used to portray the late Princess Diana. She was then a thick sloane and not at all the modern day saint that some like to pretend after untimely death.
I remember Armando Ianucci's 'Armistice' programmes employed a posse of lookalikes who would go round 'caring'. I thought it very sad that they must have all received their P45s the day after she died.
This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
Laughable.
The Tories have damaged Labour beyond repair this parliament and CR is right to ask if it will "only" be as bad as before.
From my perspective, the damage looks to have been self-inflicted. Not sure that many people take a lot of notice of what goes on in parliament, but Mr Corbyn's supporters seems to be very vocal on social media labelling everyone to the right of Karl Marx as 'Tories'.
When people who aren't at all right-wing hear themselves classed as Tories, it does have a drip-drip effect of making genuine Conservatives seem not so threatening as you've always perceived them.
So it's quite possible that Mr Corbyn's supporters are busily de-toxifying the Conservative brand quite directly themselves, never mind that Labour under Mr Corbyn is not very palatable.
Good afternoon, everyone; and thanks, @david_herdson, for an interesting article.
This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
Laughable.
The Tories have damaged Labour beyond repair this parliament and CR is right to ask if it will "only" be as bad as before.
From my perspective, the damage looks to have been self-inflicted. Not sure that many people take a lot of notice of what goes on in parliament, but Mr Corbyn's supporters seems to be very vocal on social media labelling everyone to the right of Karl Marx as 'Tories'.
When people who aren't at all right-wing hear themselves classed as Tories, it does have a drip-drip effect of making genuine Conservatives seem not so threatening as you've always perceived them.
So it's quite possible that Mr Corbyn's supporters are busily de-toxifying the Conservative brand quite directly themselves, never mind that Labour under Mr Corbyn is not very palatable.
Good afternoon, everyone; and thanks, @david_herdson, for an interesting article.
And yet, the irony is that it is they that are keeping the tories in power. So, it should be quite clear who the 'red tories' really are.
On Topic Interesting article by Herdson but I have to argue with the last line. Labours problems go much deeper than Corbyn, they are split from top to bottom along 2 axes : Left-Right & Brexit & the 2 cut across each other. If you tried to build new, coherent Parties out of the Labour rubble you would probably need at least 5. That why theres no split. The Labour "Party" is over.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
Laughable.
The Tories have damaged Labour beyond repair this parliament and CR is right to ask if it will "only" be as bad as before.
From my perspective, the damage looks to have been self-inflicted. Not sure that many people take a lot of notice of what goes on in parliament, but Mr Corbyn's supporters seems to be very vocal on social media labelling everyone to the right of Karl Marx as 'Tories'.
When people who aren't at all right-wing hear themselves classed as Tories, it does have a drip-drip effect of making genuine Conservatives seem not so threatening as you've always perceived them.
So it's quite possible that Mr Corbyn's supporters are busily de-toxifying the Conservative brand quite directly themselves, never mind that Labour under Mr Corbyn is not very palatable.
Good afternoon, everyone; and thanks, @david_herdson, for an interesting article.
If Labour replaces Corbyn with a charismatic middle of the road figure (OK a big 'if') then they could be back in the game very quickly. Politics is extremely volatile and May's tories haven't had to make compromises yet.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
The London poll was not particularly bad for Labour and implied that since 2010 there has been a swing in its favour from both the Tories and LibDems.
I have no idea why they call you Justin Short Straws....
With respect , it is perfectly reasonable to point out in the context of this article that - according to the Yougov poll - Labour is performing better than it did in 2010.
Well yes, but since that was (a) their second worst result in the age of universal suffrage and (b) also six seven years ago (a divisive and fractious seven years, at that) it would be extraordinarily alarming for Labour if there had *not* been a swing to them since.
Forget 1931, we'd be looking at 1900.
Edited to remove my strange confusion over what year we are in. It's been a long term...
Which country is it, again, that has ensured that the Gibraltar-Spain border will be an external EU one?
Britgov and mophead are reminding me of nothing more than Scotgov and fishy. It's not EU27's fault that Britain is in a pickle over Gibraltar and that faced with a closed border the population might decide within 10 years that it wants shared sovereignty. It's not the "FEBs'" fault that Scotland's not independent and doesn't contain the British capital. FFS quit whingeing and GTFU.
This would imply about 60 Conservative gains from Labour.
Many would be seats that haven't voted Conservative for decades (eg Grimsby, Halifax, Hartlepool, NE Derbyshire, Stoke North and South). But, some ex-Conservative seats would remain Labour (eg Exeter, Crosby, Croydon North, Bristol West).
But, let's say Corbyn is thrown overboard next year, and replaced.
How much can a new Labour leader claw back in 2 years? All of it, so they're back to Milliband's position, or is the damage too great?
That's the question I'm trying to assess in betting on this.
I would expect a new leader to perform better than Milliband who was far too geeky and failed to connect .Circa 35% would be pretty likely.
Laughable.
The Tories have damaged Labour beyond repair this parliament and CR is right to ask if it will "only" be as bad as before.
From my perspective, the damage looks to have been self-inflicted. Not sure that many people take a lot of notice of what goes on in parliament, but Mr Corbyn's supporters seems to be very vocal on social media labelling everyone to the right of Karl Marx as 'Tories'.
When people who aren't at all right-wing hear themselves classed as Tories, it does have a drip-drip effect of making genuine Conservatives seem not so threatening as you've always perceived them.
So it's quite possible that Mr Corbyn's supporters are busily de-toxifying the Conservative brand quite directly themselves, never mind that Labour under Mr Corbyn is not very palatable.
Good afternoon, everyone; and thanks, @david_herdson, for an interesting article.
If Labour replaces Corbyn with a charismatic middle of the road figure (OK a big 'if') then they could be back in the game very quickly. Politics is extremely volatile and May's tories haven't had to make compromises yet.
I think that's true, but it is a very big 'if' - and in the meantime their foundations are being slowly eroded.
One other thing that's surprised me is how deep the Leave/Remain divide runs. That factor too is eroding Labour's foundations. If Labour aren't prepared to serve (some of) their core voters' interests in this, those people are likely to feel betrayed at a very deep level.
Comments
Questions for the Conservatives & Unionists in our ranks - would you rather keep hold of Scotland or Gibraltar?
Also worth noting that there are plenty more Brits in Spain than in Gibraltar, and it is the former group who are potentially at risk of deportation. Shouldn't they be prioritised?
https://twitter.com/itusedtobeworse/status/848101518469476352
South Africa turning into Zimbabwe
PS they hav eno lender of last resort so will be even more of a basket case and will be forbidden to use the pound as well so no currency.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Peace_and_Friendship_Treaty_of_Utrecht_between_Spain_and_Great_Britain#ARTICLE_X
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.
Though arguably that wouldn't apply in the event of a UDI.
A week ago we were discussing Macron's price which was 1.47 at the time. Most were in agreement that it represented good value and some said he should really be 1.25 -1.30. Today, although little has changed in the polls, as I write, he last traded at 1.67.
Francois Assenlieu has consistently polled at 0.5%, I don't know what sort of bizarre scenario gets him through to the second round in three weks time, but would be intrigued to hear it from the person who is holding his price on Betfair at 180 with a bet of over £200. I am sure everyone would agree that he is a lay at that price, but of course to lay that price you need to have a spare 35k or so in your bank that you are prepared to tie up for the next month or so.
Fillon CAN still win, if all the polls are totally wrong. I am not ruling that possibility out, but 5.9 is a crazy price. He was around 8 or 9 a couple of weeks ago and his polling since then has actually got worse and yet his price has continued to contract.
Bottom line is that the prices on Betfair are governed by the weight of money some people are prepared to put down, rather than a reflection of the chances of a particular outcome happening.
Gibraltar staying in the EU, but still being an UK overseas territory would seem a viable compromise?
While I don't expect force to be used, the Spanish could blockade Gibraltar and effectively force its handover. Even the mere threat of such a blockade might be sufficient to achieve this objective.
Despite the Lib Dems having advanced since the election, in contrast to UKIP and Labour, the LDs frequently return the smallest retention rate of their 2015GE voters, at around half (which of itself ought to be a terrifying stat, implying as it does that the true core LD vote is no higher than 4%).
However, while they've lost quite a few (including to Labour), they've also gained a lot. This is almost certainly Brexit-related given that while the proportion of their 2015 vote that backed Brexit was about 1 in 3, the proportion of their current vote that did so is about 1 in 6: a big enough difference given the relatively small growth in their share to imply both sizable Remain gains from other parties and also losses of Leave voters to them.
Brexit will go the same way, these clowns struggle to tie their shoelaces so when they come up against real negotiators they will get absolutely slaughtered.
There is a large naval dockyard in Gibraltar and whilst the Royal Navy may be run down compared to its past glory, it is still an effective force to escort shipping.
Enjoy the potting on.
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-resigns
Hmmm... like that makes it OK. Lots of people have "... sincerely held religious beliefs ..." that are simply not acceptable. People complain about extreme Islam blowing up historical artefacts, but surely it should be OK as they have "...sincerely held religious beliefs"
Destroying history is shameful, but interfering in the lives of other people and removing their choices to suit sincerely held religious beliefs is worse.
I seem to recall being taught, back in the 50’s, that in 1997 China would be entitled to have what were then called the New Territories back, and if they did go back Hong Kong Island would no longer be viable as a city.
Mrs T: I will have the roast beef
Waiter: What about the vegetables ma'am?
Mrs T: They'll have roast beef too!
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/01/bbc-set-to-announce-that-uk-is-to-withdraw-from-eurovision/
A spitting image sketch I believe.
OKC , yes the rapacious UK shysters could not make as much money out of it so they abandoned the people, only allowing their millionaire pals to come to UK. It was ever thus with these bloodsuckers, they are still the establishment and still sucking people dry.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/15/whats-morally-acceptable-it-depends-on-where-in-the-world-you-live/
When you go down to point 5, you'll even find there that only a small minority of Republicans see contraceptives as immoral. So right wingers who see birth control as immoral really are a tiny minority in the States. The more shocking stats are, that 46% of GOPers see premartial sex as immoral, and 54% see homosexuality as a sin.
Maybe a bit nearer the actual vote, some serious bettors with serious money will enter the market and take advantage of the anomalies that currently exist. If that happens, then prices will become more realistically aligned with chances of the candidates winning. At the moment, the market is being driven by Traders.
Conservatives on Twitter love him (and can't understand why anyone else wouldn't). He came across okay in his Senate Hearings (overall), but I must admit that some of his rulings are concerning.
What about premarital homosexual sex?
Although the UK might have to trade Gibraltar away to get the much prized and oft cited Spanish veto over the entry of iScotland into the EU.
I thought you were off potting begonias!
http://tinyurl.com/ltvd3lp
The NAO need to have a close look at these deals. We're going to end up with perfectly good trains rusting away doing nothing.
Bye for now!
working up to it slowly
A fine, well researched article Mr Herdson, many thanks. – I’ve come to the conclusion Labour’s problems are now far too well entrenched and will not disappear by merely replacing Corbyn. They’ll always have their bedrock of support of course, just fewer of them imo. Based on the recent figures both National and London, next May’s locals are going to be appalling, even more so for a party that has spent the last six years in opposition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JbKtphau2M
The Tories have damaged Labour beyond repair this parliament and CR is right to ask if it will "only" be as bad as before.
Looking at those Spitting Image clips it is interesting how the programme used to portray the late Princess Diana. She was then a thick sloane and not at all the modern day saint that some like to pretend after untimely death.
Asked if he thought Ms May was engaged in “blackmail”, European Parliament negotiator Guy Verhofstadt said at the time: “I try to be a gentleman, so towards a lady I don’t even use or think about the word ‘blackmail’.”
How charming...
When people who aren't at all right-wing hear themselves classed as Tories, it does have a drip-drip effect of making genuine Conservatives seem not so threatening as you've always perceived them.
So it's quite possible that Mr Corbyn's supporters are busily de-toxifying the Conservative brand quite directly themselves, never mind that Labour under Mr Corbyn is not very palatable.
Good afternoon, everyone; and thanks, @david_herdson, for an interesting article.
Interesting article by Herdson but I have to argue with the last line. Labours problems go much deeper than Corbyn, they are split from top to bottom along 2 axes : Left-Right & Brexit & the 2 cut across each other. If you tried to build new, coherent Parties out of the Labour rubble you would probably need at least 5. That why theres no split.
The Labour "Party" is over.
sixseven years ago (a divisive and fractious seven years, at that) it would be extraordinarily alarming for Labour if there had *not* been a swing to them since.Forget 1931, we'd be looking at 1900.
Edited to remove my strange confusion over what year we are in. It's been a long term...
Britgov and mophead are reminding me of nothing more than Scotgov and fishy. It's not EU27's fault that Britain is in a pickle over Gibraltar and that faced with a closed border the population might decide within 10 years that it wants shared sovereignty. It's not the "FEBs'" fault that Scotland's not independent and doesn't contain the British capital. FFS quit whingeing and GTFU.
One other thing that's surprised me is how deep the Leave/Remain divide runs. That factor too is eroding Labour's foundations. If Labour aren't prepared to serve (some of) their core voters' interests in this, those people are likely to feel betrayed at a very deep level.
It all mounts up.